Latest news with #LegalDefenseFund
NBC News
01-08-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that has been pending for months by ordering new briefing on a legal question that could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. The court issued an order asking the lawyers to address whether, in seeking to comply with the 1965 law that protects minority voting rights, Louisiana violated the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments enacted after the Civil War to ensure Black people were treated equally under the law. If the court rules that the state did violate the Constitution, it would mean states cannot cite the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act if they use race as a consideration during the map-drawing process, as they currently can. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law. wrote on his Election Law Blog that the order "appears to put the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act into question." That provision bars voting practices or rules that discriminate against minority groups. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is often receptive to arguments that the Constitution is 'colorblind,' meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination. In 2013, the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Alabama and further weakened it in a 2021 case from Arizona. The justices heard arguments in the Louisiana case on more technical, less contentious questions in March and was originally expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Even then, the constitutional issue loomed large. The new order did not indicate whether the court will hear another round of arguments before it issues a ruling in the case. The Louisiana map in question, which is currently in effect, includes two majority Black districts for the first time in years. The complicated case arose from litigation over an earlier map drawn by the state legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black. Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, won a legal challenge, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority Black districts. But after the new map was drawn, a group of self-identified 'non-African American' voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs filed another lawsuit, saying the latest map violated the 14th Amendment. As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act in a congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama. But conservatives raised questions about whether key elements of the law should ultimately be struck down.
The Guardian
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Consent decrees force schools to desegregate. The Trump administration is striking them down
In late April, the Department of Justice announced that it was ending a decades-long consent decree in Plaquemines parish, Louisiana, in a school district that has been under a desegregation order since the Johnson administration in the 1960s. The Plaquemines parish desegregation order, one of more than 130 such orders nationwide, was in place to ensure that the school district, which initially refused to integrate, followed the law. Many consent decrees of the era are still in existence because school districts are not in compliance with the law. Some experts, including former justice department employees, say the change in direction for the department could be worrying. These orders 'provide students with really important protections against discrimination', said Shaheena Simons, who was the chief of the educational opportunities section of the civil rights division at the justice department for nearly a decade. 'They require school districts to continue to actively work to eliminate all the remaining vestiges of the state-mandated segregation system. That means that students have protections in terms of what schools they're assigned to, in terms of the facilities and equipment in the schools that they attend. They have protection from discrimination in terms of barriers to accessing advanced programs, gifted programs. And it means that a court is there to protect them and to enforce their rights when they're violated and to ensure that school districts are continuing to actively desegregate.' The justice department ended the Plaquemines parish desegregation order in an unusual process, one that some fear will be replicated elsewhere. The case was dismissed through a 'joint stipulated dismissal'. Previously, courts have followed a specific process for ending similar cases, one in which school districts prove that they are complying with the court orders. That did not happen this time. Instead, the Louisiana state attorney general's office worked with the justice department in reaching the dismissal. 'I'm not aware of anyone, any case, that has [ended] that way before,' said Deuel Ross, the deputy director of litigation of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF); the LDF was not specifically involved with the Plaquemines parish case. 'The government as a plaintiff who represents the American people, the people of that parish, has an obligation to make sure that the district has done everything that it's supposed to have done to comply with the federal court order in the case before it gets released, and the court itself has its own independent obligation to confirm that there's no vestiges of discrimination left in the school district that are traceable to either present or past discrimination.' Despite the district not proving that it is compliant with the order, the justice department has celebrated the end of the consent decree. 'No longer will the Plaquemines Parish School Board have to devote precious local resources over an integration issue that ended two generations ago,' Harmeet K Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the justice department's civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the decision. 'This is a prime example of neglect by past administrations, and we're now getting America refocused on our bright future.' But focusing on the age of the case implies that it was obsolete, according to Simons, who is now the senior adviser of programs and strategist at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 'The administration is trying to paint these cases as ancient history and no longer relevant.' In 1966, the Johnson administration sued school districts across the country, particularly in the south, that refused to comply with desegregation demands. At the time, Plaquemines parish was led by Leander Perez, a staunch segregationist and white supremacist. Perez had played a large role in trying to keep nearby New Orleans from desegregating, and once that effort failed, he invited 1,000 white students from the Ninth Ward to enroll in Plaquemines parish schools. By 1960, nearly 600 had accepted the offer. Perez was excommunicated by Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel for ignoring his warning to stop trying to prevent schools run by the archdiocese of New Orleans from integrating. Perez attempted to close the public schools in Plaquemines parish, and instead open all-white private academies, or, segregation academies, which became a feature of the post-integration south. An estimated 300 segregation academies, which, as private schools, are not governed by the same rules and regulations as public schools, are still in operation and majority white. Students and teachers working in school districts today might be decades removed from the people who led the push for desegregation in their districts, but they still benefit from the protections that were long ago put in place. Without court oversight, school districts that were already begrudgingly complying might have no incentive to continue to do so. According to the Century Foundation, as of 2020, 185 districts and charters consider race and/or socioeconomic status in their student assignment or admissions policies, while 722 districts and charters are subject to a legal desegregation order or voluntary agreement. The justice department currently has about 135 desegregation cases on its docket, the majority of which are in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. Sign up to The Long Wave Nesrine Malik and Jason Okundaye deliver your weekly dose of Black life and culture from around the world after newsletter promotion 'Separate but equal doesn't work,' said Johnathan Smith, former deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division at the justice department. 'The reality is that students of color do better when they are in integrated classrooms … We know that the amount of resources that are devoted to schools are greater when there are a higher number of white students. So to have students attend majority-minority school districts means that they're going to be shut out, whether that's from AP classes, whether that's from extracurricular activities. All the activities that make it possible for students to fully achieve occur when you have more integrated classrooms.' 'Public education isn't just about education for the sake of education,' he added. 'It's about preparing people to be citizens of our democracy and to be fully engaged in our democratic institutions. When you have students that are being shut out from quality public education, the impact is not just on those communities. It's on our democracy writ large.' Smith, the current chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law, said that the decision 'signals utter contempt for communities of color by the administration, and a lack of awareness of the history of segregation that has plagued our nation's schools'. 'Even though we are 71 years after the Brown v Board [of Education] decision, schools of this country remain more segregated today than they were back in 1954,' he said. 'The fact that the administration is kind of wholeheartedly ending these types of consent decrees is troubling, particularly when they're not doing the research and investigation to determine whether or not these decrees really should be ended at this point.' Smith said that the decision in the Plaquemines parish case may be a 'slippery slope' in which other school districts begin reaching out to the Trump administration. 'The impact they can have across the country and particularly across the south is pretty huge,' he said. 'I worry that we're going to see more and more of these decrees falling and more and more of these districts remaining segregated without any real opportunity to address that.'
Fox News
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
ACLU sues Trump over birthright order as Supreme Court clears path for it to take effect
Hours after the Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a major victory Friday by ruling lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in limited instances, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a sweeping new class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court. It takes aim at President Donald Trump's January executive order that redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth. While the justices' 6-3 ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, Friday's lawsuit accuses the administration of violating the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mothers are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus and Democracy Defenders Fund. It seeks to represent a proposed class of children born under the terms of the executive order and their parents. It is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The same group filed a separate suit in January 2025 in the same court on behalf of advocacy organizations with members expecting children who would be denied citizenship under the order. That case led to a ruling protecting members of those groups and is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 1. Friday's SCOTUS ruling states that lower courts can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it's absolutely necessary to give full relief to the people suing. The decision does not say whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means the order could take effect in parts of the country while legal challenges continue. The court gave lower courts 30 days to review their existing rulings. "The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, suggested plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative. "Nevertheless, the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification," Sotomayor wrote. "For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise to act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review." The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship "America's most fundamental promise" and claims the executive order threatens to create "a permanent, multigenerational subclass" of children denied legal recognition. "The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in the case. "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history," added Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. "No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship." The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." It also references the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens. The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is expecting her fourth child and fears the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S. The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-244, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. "Trump's executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights," said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire in January. "Today's historic decision delivers a decisive rejection of the weaponized lawfare President Trump has endured from leftist activist judges who attempted to deny the president his constitutional authority," White House spokesperson Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital. "President Trump will continue to implement his America First agenda, and the Trump Administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and Make America Safe Again."
Black America Web
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Black America Web
Juneteenth Is Black Joy: 7 Black Women On What Liberation Looks Like Now
Source: Courtesy of Featured / Courtesy of Featured As the nation pauses to honor Juneteenth—the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Galveston, Texas were finally informed of their freedom, two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation—Black Americans continue to infuse the day with meaning, reflection, and joy. It's more than a commemoration. It's a celebration of culture, a resistance against erasure, and a radical assertion of freedom in all its forms. We spoke with several Black changemakers, creatives, and community leaders to hear how they celebrate Juneteenth, what freedom means to them, and how they intentionally make space for joy—especially in times that threaten it most. Source: Courtesy of Featured / Courtesy of Blair Imani Activist and educator Blair Imani (she/her) celebrates Juneteenth by 'centering community and focusing on education.' For her, the holiday is a chance to uplift Black Americans and affirm that 'our history is U.S. history.' Similarly, Ozy Aloziem (she/her), a DEI strategist and poet, immerses herself in 'Black people, Black music, Black stories, Black food, Black joy, Black art, and Black everything' during the holiday. 'I try to find ways to honor and hold space for history and the hard-earned freedom I'm privileged to access,' she shares. For Whitney Roberts, the day is centered around family traditions. 'We explain, in an age-appropriate way, what the holiday is and why it matters,' she says. Then, the family turns to cooking together, pulling recipes from Watermelon and Red Birds by Nicole Taylor. 'Juneteenth for us is really about family, about connection, and about love.' Source: Courtesy of Featured / Courtesy of Whitney Roberts Zayna Allen (she/her) reflects on her evolving relationship with the holiday. 'I only started celebrating within the past five years,' she says, explaining that Juneteenth wasn't something she learned about until adulthood. Now, she prioritizes being around her community. 'On Juneteenth, we're unapologetically Blackity Black—and I love seeing that from us.' Gabrielle, co-founder of Vibes In The Park , marks the occasion through community-based celebrations like festivals, food, art, and educational events. 'We support Black-owned businesses and creators—centering Black culture in all its beauty and brilliance.' While the holiday commemorates a historic moment of freedom, today's Black leaders acknowledge that the concept of liberation remains complex and contested. 'Freedom is under constant threat,' says Blair Imani, referencing attacks on trans rights, reproductive justice, immigrant communities, and voting rights. 'While we are in a different position than our ancestors were in 1865, freedom must still be fought for diligently.' She uplifts the work of the Legal Defense Fund and others who continue to defend civil rights in the face of modern-day oppression. Source: Courtesy of Featured / Courtesy of Ozy Aloziem For Ozy, freedom means 'being able to access and live into possibility,' unbound by fear. Whitney sees it as 'being your full self without fear,' living in a way so free it liberates others just by example. And for Gabrielle, it's about 'existing fully and unapologetically—mentally, spiritually, and physically.' Zayna envisions freedom as the ability to step outside without fear, to be wholly oneself without restraint. It's a dream, she admits, but one worth holding onto and pushing toward. In a world that often attempts to rob Black people of peace and rest, joy is a revolutionary act. 'Joy and the fight against oppression are not mutually exclusive,' says Blair. 'In fact, joy is necessary to fight against our dehumanization.' Whether it's a comedy show, time with loved ones, or new music, she sees joy as a way to stay grounded in the vision of a better world. Whitney agrees that joy must be intentional. 'It could be a dance party with my 4-year-old, Kiki-ing with my friends, journaling, or neighborhood walks,' she says. 'Whatever it is, it must be an intentional choice. If joy can't be found, sometimes it must be made.' Source: Courtesy of Featured / Courtesy of Zayna Allen Ozy speaks passionately about her transformation from melancholy to what she calls 'the queen of wow.' She finds joy in everything from silly Instagram reels and jump-roping to poetry and yellow sunflowers. 'Joy, quite literally, is at my fingertips,' she laughs, referring to her sunflower-covered phone case and bright yellow nails. For Zayna, protecting joy is an act of resistance. 'It's tough,' she admits. 'But I don't allow external factors to jeopardize my connection to joy, no matter how hard it is to find it some days.' Gabrielle echoes this sentiment, saying she makes space for joy by 'protecting my peace, surrounding myself with people who pour into me, and doing things that feel good to my mind, body, and spirit.' Juneteenth is not just a day off or a moment of historical reflection. It's a living, breathing call to action. It invites us to remember what our ancestors fought for and to recommit ourselves to a vision of freedom that includes joy, justice, and full self-expression. As these voices remind us, liberation isn't a moment—it's a lifelong journey. And on that journey, joy is not optional. It's essential. SEE ALSO Juneteenth Is Black Joy: 7 Black Women On What Liberation Looks Like Now was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Some fear excessive use of force will rise as the DOJ drops oversight of police departments
The killing of George Floyd five years ago by a Minneapolis police officer ignited what many reform advocates hoped would be a national effort to end, or at least curb, excessive use of force. But the Trump administration's decision this week to dismiss lawsuits and drop accountability agreements with several police departments could undo some of that momentum, proponents of federal oversight say. 'Having a blueprint for reform is one thing, but ensuring objective oversight is a whole other thing,' said Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor who has overseen use-of-force cases. The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it would drop proposed consent decrees with Minneapolis and Louisville, Kentucky, and end investigations into police departments in Phoenix; Trenton, New Jersey; Memphis, Tennessee; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City; and the Louisiana State Police. The Minneapolis consent decree, a court-enforced improvement plan that follows a civil rights abuse investigation, was reached after the 2020 death of Floyd. Floyd was unarmed when police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes while he was handcuffed on the ground. The Louisville agreement was reached after the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor, who was shot by police officers while sitting unarmed in her Kentucky home. Both killings sparked coast-to-coast protests that consumed the final months of Trump's first administration and ushered in a wave of investigations under U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in the Biden administration. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement Wednesday that the consent decrees were 'overbroad,' 'factually unjustified' and based on 'an anti-police agenda.' But abandoning these agreements could have a chilling effect on efforts that are already underway in Baltimore, Cleveland and Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer killed Michael Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, in 2014. That agreement required more training for police officers, policy changes to decrease the use of force and a more robust system for citizens to make complaints against officers. It also required that the mostly white police department do more to recruit people of color. 'It is important to not overstate what consent decrees do,' said Jin Hee Lee with the Legal Defense Fund, referring to the power of federal courts to enforce orders. 'They are very important and oftentimes necessary to force police departments to change their policies, to change their practices,' she added. 'But consent decrees were never the end all, be all.' The Chicago Police Department, for example, entered into a consent decree in 2019 that is being managed by the state attorney general. As a result, the federal government's announcement does not impact the reform efforts currently underway there. Consent decrees have a long history dating back to President Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill and are implemented after investigations into civil rights violations or unconstitutional practices. These investigations focus not on isolated instances but on policing cultures and policies that lead to the violations. In responding to the Trump administration's announcement, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told reporters his city will 'comply with every sentence, of every paragraph, of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year.' Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg said his city is adopting a police reform agreement that will include many of the goals from its federal consent decree, like hiring an independent monitor to oversee the department's progress. On the flip side, supporters of local control argue that communities are better equipped to manage their own law enforcement agencies. Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, who refused to comply with Garland's consent decree following a blistering 2024 report, said she would continue to pursue local reforms that serve her constituents' best interests. She has argued that it would be irresponsible to sign a contract without first evaluating it and has questioned the Justice Department's ability to improve local police forces. According to the 126-page report, which included data from 2016 through 2024, the Phoenix Police Department routinely committed 'very significant and severe violations of federal law and the Constitution' and lacked accountability, supervision and training. Among the biggest concerns highlighted by the DOJ were racial discrimination during police encounters and reckless use of force. The Justice Department issued 36 recommendations, including improved use-of-force training and new policies for encounters with vulnerable populations. But Gallego and several council members opposed the agreement, calling the accusations unsubstantiated and others asking for a full review before adopting it. The city has since adopted a series of reforms aimed at addressing the DOJ's findings. It implemented a new use-of-force policy, developed new emergency training materials and assembled a civilian review board. 'We will continue to look for every opportunity to make sure we're serving our residents in the best way possible,' Gallego said in a statement. 'I said many times that we would adopt reforms and see them through, regardless of the DOJ investigation, and I meant it.' Consent decrees have had mixed results. In Los Angeles, which exited its 12-year agreement in 2013, the police department continues to face excessive-use allegations and lawsuits. Most recently, several students from the University of California, Los Angeles, sued the LAPD, alleging assault, battery and other violations by officers during campus protests last year. The students said in the lawsuit that they were shot by rubber bullets and subjected to unnecessary force at a pro-Palestinian encampment. A spokesperson for the union representing police officers has called the allegations baseless and inflammatory. In Baltimore, where the police department entered into a consent decree following the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray, who died after suffering a spinal cord injury while in police custody, reform efforts remain ongoing. The force is now in the 'assessment' phase of its agreement, according to a city dashboard. In December, the DOJ applauded its progress, prompting a partial termination of the agreement. This article was originally published on
