Latest news with #FourteenthAmendments
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
3 American children deported with their mothers, lawyers say
(NewsNation) — The Trump administration has deported three children under the age of 10 — all American-born citizens — alongside their mothers who were in the United States illegally, according to lawyers and advocacy groups. The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigration Project and other groups described the cases as a 'shocking — although increasingly common — abuse of power.' However, the White House has defended the move and fought back against claims of denying the mothers and children their due process. One of the Honduran-born mothers was removed with two children, a 4- and 7-year-old, while another case involved a mother and her 2-year-old. The American children were detained while accompanying their mothers to appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to Associated Press reporting. Trump's first 100 days: Securing the US southern border Family attorneys have raised questions about whether proper deportation procedures were followed in these cases, particularly because of the speed of the removals. The 4- and 7-year-old siblings were deported to Honduras within a day of being detained with their mother, Gracie Willis of the National Immigration Project said. The younger of the pair has a rare form of cancer and may now be unable to access medicine or speak with their doctors, according to Willis. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., slammed the move on social media: 'This is unlawful, inhumane, and a direct attack on the basic due process rights guaranteed to all people, citizens and non-citizens alike, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.' 'The Trump administration is disappearing families in the dead of night, and if we don't stop them, it will only get worse,' Nadler's post continued. Border Patrol, Mexican government dismantle cartel lookout posts Willis said the mothers did not have a fair opportunity to decide whether they wanted the children to stay in the United States. 'We have no idea what ICE was telling them, and in this case, what has come to light is that ICE didn't give them another alternative,' Willis said in an interview, the AP reported. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the mothers wanted their children to be removed with them, telling NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, 'The children went with their mothers. Those children are U.S. citizens, they can come back into the United States if their father or someone here wants to ultimately assume them.' Ron Vitiello, senior adviser for Customs and Border Protection, echoed that sentiment on NewsNation's 'Morning in America' on Monday. 'These kids were not deported, and they happened to be U.S. citizens living in the United States. That parent elected to take those children with her on her deportation flight to Honduras … They were not deported,' Vitiello said. Illinois Gov. Pritzker acts against El Salvador over Kilmar Abrego Garcia A judge scheduled a hearing next month on the case of the 2-year-old to examine ICE's handling of the deportation. The Department of Homeland Security contends the mother wanted to bring her young child with her, but the girl's father says otherwise. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas League of Women Voters speaks on lawsuit regarding changes voter referendum process
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A lawsuit by the Arkansas League of Women Voters against Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester alleges six new laws violate the Arkansas and Federal Constitution. Kristin Foster with the League of Women Voters of Arkansas says the laws make the ballot initiative process more difficult. 'The people's power and voice in our ballot initiative process is so important to Arkansas that we cannot just let this lie,' Foster said. Arkansas League of Women Voters files federal suit, calls changes to voter referendum process 'Unconstitutional' The suit alleges the laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and a part of the state constitution. 'The restrictions they have placed go far beyond reasonable election security to the point of just preventing people from being involved in the process, from getting issues to the ballot at all,' Foster said. The laws were highly debated during this session. Some people testifying against the bills believe they would wipe out the ballot initiative process. When asked about that argument, Jester said in a statement, 'The laws in no way eliminate the process: instead, they keep fraud out and protect the voice of Arkansans. Under Arkansas's constitution, a signature on an initiative petition is your vote, and this office will always find voter fraud unacceptable.' They require signature canvassers to check ID, read the ballot title out loud, warn signatories about fraud, live in Arkansas, file an affidavit and not collect additional signatures after they have filed the collected signatures. 'We want it to be safe and secure just like the legislature does, but it's just making sure this process is done without unnecessary barriers to the ballot,' Jester said. Arkansas League of Women Voters resubmits ballot initiative reform proposal The Arkansas League of Women Voters has also submitted a referendum for voters to roll back the referendum process changes on the 2026 ballot. The organization is working on a third submission to the Arkansas Attorney General. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court won't hear appeal of University of Michigan gun ban
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom) The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in a long running case challenging the University of Michigan's ban on firearms on campus, denying the petition on Monday. In Joshua Wade v. University of Michigan, the Michigan Court of Appeals previously ruled that the University's ban was in line with other policies permitted by the Second Amendment which ban firearms in 'sensitive places' like schools. According to the University's brief to the Supreme Court, Wade is neither a student or faculty member, but a private citizen who 'spend[s] a lot of time outdoors and in downtown Ann Arbor' and 'believe[s] it is [his] constitutional right to carry a weapon on University property,' seeking a waiver to the University's policy. When his waiver was denied, he sued the university, alleging violations of the Second Amendment and state law. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In petitioning the Supreme Court, Wade's attorney questioned 'whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for 'extraordinary circumstances,' disputing the Court of Appeals' classification of all university property as a 'sensitive place'. 'The decision of the Court of Appeals, upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court's denial of appeal, has significant and troubling consequences. By broadly designating the entire university campus as a 'sensitive place,' the court effectively nullifies the Second Amendment for thousands of individuals who live, work, or study on or near university property,' Wade's attorney wrote. 'This sweeping prohibition also chills the exercise of the right to bear arms for those who might pass through campus, where the boundary between university property and public space is often indistinguishable.' The Supreme Court also denied an appeal in another Second Amendment case on Monday, where the State of Minnesota sought to challenge a ruling striking down a law restricting permits to carry a handgun in public to applicants 21 or older, which was upheld by a federal appeals court. While another federal appeals court struck down similar age restrictions in Pennsylvania, yet another court upheld the restrictions in Colorado. With similar age restriction cases pending in other jurisdictions, the attorneys for Minnesota argued the Court should either grant its petition, vacate the lower court's decision and remand the case, or review the lower court's decision to give direction to the lower courts set to hear these similar cases.
The Intercept
15-04-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
Pitt's Suspension of Pro-Palestine Student Group Violates First Amendment, Says ACLU Lawsuit
The University of Pittsburgh campus in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh on Nov. 26, 2020. Photo: Gene J. Puskar/AP The University of Pittsburgh violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it suspended the school's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine last month, according to a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday against the school. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the University of Pittsburgh violated the Constitution's prohibitions on restricting free speech when it placed the SJP chapter on an indefinite suspension last month, after the group organized a letter condemning what it said was the university's harassment of SJP. 'The First Amendment requires that public universities respect students' right to engage in vigorous debate about important issues of the day. Pitt's suspension of the club's status and other interference with peaceful advocacy is unconstitutional retaliation,' ACLU of Pennsylvania legal director Witold Walczak said in a press release. 'Pitt cannot constitutionally put its thumb on one side of the debate by harassing and chilling the pro-Palestinian students' side of that important discussion.' The lawsuit is one of a wave of similar actions taken by student protesters and their allies in response to university crackdowns on speech on Palestine. The University of Pittsburgh did not immediately respond to a request for comment. WAIT! BEFORE YOU GO on about your day, ask yourself: How likely is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn't done it? Consider what the world of media would look like without The Intercept. Who would hold party elites accountable to the values they proclaim to have? How many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if our reporters weren't on the beat? The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We don't have ads, so we depend on our members to help us hold the powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn't need to cost a lot: You can become a sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That's all it takes to support the journalism you rely on. Join The Conversation
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Attorney General Fumbles Key Question on Deporting Citizens
Attorney General Pam Bondi is ignoring the obvious illegality of President Donald Trump's outrageous request to exile U.S. citizens to foreign prisons. During an interview Monday night, Fox News host Jesse Watters asked the attorney general whether Trump's pitch to outsource the imprisonment of U.S. citizens was even legal. 'Now, the president was musing about sending some of the most horrible people in this country down to that megaprison, you know, people that push ladies into subways and hit old ladies with baseball bats to the head. Is that legal to do, is that something you're allowed to do?' Watters asked. 'Well, Jesse, these are Americans who he is saying who have committed the most heinous crimes in our country, and crime is going to decrease dramatically because he has given us the directive to make America safe again,' Bondi replied. 'These people need to be locked up as long as they can, as long as the law allows, we're not gonna let 'em go anywhere. And if we have to build more prisons in our country, we will do it!' Bondi's answer is lacking, well, an actual answer—probably because deporting U.S. citizens is not legal. Trump's plan to exile Americans who are incarcerated to foreign countries not only violates multiple federal codes on the keeping of U.S. prisoners, it would also potentially violate the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Bondi's canned answer came just hours after Trump said during a press conference with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele that he had specifically asked her to look into the legality of sending U.S. citizens to El Salvador to be imprisoned. Trump made no mention of building additional prisons in the U.S., but said that the U.S. would be willing to financially support the construction of more prisons abroad. Clearly, Bondi is waging a political battle as much as a legal one, despite her promises that she would not act merely as an operative for Trump. Bondi must know that committing a 'most heinous' crime does not actually disqualify citizens from their legal rights—but when faced with Trump's despotic plot, the attorney general declined to offer an answer in accordance with U.S. law.
