Latest news with #MexicanAmericanLegalDefenseandEducationalFund
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal trial opens to determine whether Texas discriminated in redrawn redistricting maps
Do Texas' district maps discriminate against some Black and Latino voters? That's what advocates will allege in court Wednesday, while the state will argue that those communities can elect the candidates they want. Some advocates will also argue in a set of cases four years in the making that the state intentionally discriminated — while the state will combat that claim. A panel of three U.S. district judges in El Paso will hear the cases over the next month that allege the state violated federal law in its redistricting process — the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional and state district maps after every U.S. Census to ensure that all districts have approximately the same number of people. The plaintiffs include the League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Texas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. They plan to argue that in 2021, the Republican-majority Legislature deliberately drew its congressional, state House and senate districts in a way that split up voters of color and diluted their political power. The case has been delayed while the parties fought over what information legislative members are required to disclose. Plaintiffs point to data around the racial makeup of the state and those of the districts in their arguments: though whites and Latinos made up nearly the same share of the population in Texas in 2020, the state drew 23 white-majority districts out of 38 total congressional districts, while Latino voters made up majorities in only seven. The remaining eight districts had no majority group. According to the 2020 Census, Texas added 4 million residents in the prior decade and gained two congressional districts. Of the population growth, 95% was among communities of color, with more than half of the growth among the Latino community. 'The inflated number of majority-white districts does not reflect the Census data and does not allow for fair representation,' Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, an advocacy group supporting the plaintiffs in the congressional case, said at a news conference this week. 'It is clear that Texas' congressional map denies Latino voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.'' If a court finds that to be true, it wouldn't be the first time: in every decade since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, Texas has been found by a federal court to have violated federal law by illegally discriminating against voters of color. The law prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, color or those who belong to a language minority group. After the 2010 redistricting cycle, for example – in a battle with similar arguments — federal judges ruled that Texas lawmakers intentionally discriminated against Hispanic and Black voters by unnecessarily crowding them into certain districts. The allegations that the state violated the Voting Rights Act don't require the plaintiffs to prove the state intended to discriminate — only that the effect of the maps does so. Some of the plaintiffs are bringing additional claims that the state violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally discriminating against them, which does require proving the state acted in bad faith. Various groups have sued the state since 2021, even before the maps were ratified. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division ordered those groups to consolidate their cases into the one that begins Wednesday. The groups allege the state could have drawn a Latino-majority district in the state senate and congressional districts that encompass Dallas-Fort Worth and Harris counties, but failed to do so. In the House maps, plaintiffs allege the Legislature failed to create Latino-majority districts where there was opportunity to do so in those counties, as well in Central and West Texas, and Bexar, Denton/Wise and Brazoria counties. The NAACP also alleges the state intentionally discriminated against Black voters in all three maps. The state plans to defend the maps on the basis that partisan interests, not race, were the primary factor in drawing the maps. 'The Texas Legislature drew the maps blind to race,' the state's pre-trial brief says. 'The redistricting lawmakers did not mince words: they intended to design maps that advanced partisan interests and other traditional redistricting principles.' The Republican-led Legislature drew the maps, while the advocates who brought the lawsuits are arguing on behalf of Black and Latino voters who historically have aligned with the Democratic party. The state's brief says the legislative record will show both Republican and Democratic lawmakers acknowledged the Legislature's 'partisan motivations for drawing districts' — although in pre-trial proceedings leading up to Wednesday, the Legislature's chief map drawer, Houston Republican Sen. Joan Huffman, declined to share some of the reasoning behind the maps, citing 'legislative privilege,' a protection afforded by the state constitution. The state also plans to argue that population growth was uneven, and that in some areas, such as El Paso County, declining population led to the reduction in the number of House districts where there was a Latino majority. The governor's office and attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comments on the case. Though the Legislature passed the bills creating the maps in 2021, lawmakers that session were unable to ratify the maps due to a Democratic walkout over a separate bill related to election processes. The next Legislature in 2023 then ratified the maps. In the meantime, two primary and two general elections have taken place under those maps. That includes the primary election in 2022, after the Court sided with the state on allowing the map for Senate District 10 to be used. Plaintiffs tried to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but they dismissed the appeal because it was filed too late. For Jenkins, with the National Redistricting Foundation, the impacts of a map that potentially violates the law means less of a voice for some Texans. 'The long-term effects of depriving a community of a seat at the table can be seen in disparities in multiple aspects of life, such as higher poverty and unemployment rates, lower incomes and being underrepresented in public office,' she said at the briefing. 'This case isn't just about the congressional map, it's about representation and living up to the fundamental ideal that should guide our democracy, that every individual has the right to exercise self determination at the ballot box.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Axios
10-04-2025
- Business
- Axios
DACA recipient says credit union rejected loan over immigration status
A metro Atlanta DACA recipient is suing a credit union, alleging the financial institution denied her car loan application based on her resident status in the United States. Why it matters: People who fall under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, often referred to as "Dreamers," came to the U.S. as undocumented immigrants when they were children and are authorized to live, work and drive here. Driving the news: The lawsuit, filed April 3 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, accuses the Credit Union of Georgia of following "a policy of denying full access to financial products to applicants who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents." The latest: The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Cherokee County resident by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Atlanta-based law firm Eshman Begnaud, LLC. The complaint contends the credit union's policy violates a federal civil rights law that bars discrimination based on race, ethnicity or color when making or enforcing contracts. Zoom in: The plaintiff, Carmen Belem Pimentel Alcocer, is a DACA recipient and has been in the U.S. since 1999 when she arrived from Mexico at the age of nine, Andrea Senteno, regional counsel for MALDEF, told Axios. Pimentel, who has a social security number and is authorized to work in the country, submitted a car loan application to the credit union in May 2024. A representative with the credit union asked Pimentel if she had a green card, the suit alleged. She said she didn't but said she was a DACA recipient. The representative told Pimentel that the credit union changed its policies in January 2024 to only approve loans to people who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, according to the lawsuit. What they're saying: Senteno said her organization has filed 22 similar cases across the country since 2017. "We really do continue to see these instances where individuals are being denied ... on just the sole factor that they're not a U.S. citizen and they're not a green card holder," she said. The other side: The federal court docket doesn't show an attorney or law firm that's representing the Credit Union of Georgia. A message was left with the credit union's president and CEO, but the call was not returned. The big picture: There are about 3.6 million Dreamers who live in the U.S., but a fraction of them have sought legal protection, according to the National Immigration Forum. previously reported. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that while the administration could end DACA, the method it used was illegal.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Yahoo
Immigrant couple to get $80K in damages from former landlords who threatened to call ICE
The national Latino legal and civil rights organization representing an immigrant couple who sued their former landlords in Chicago for threatening to call ICE on them said this week the tenants will be awarded more than $80,000 in damages, after a judge found the landlords violated an Illinois state law. According to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, better known as Maldef, this is the first case to reach a judgment under the Illinois Immigrant Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The law bans landlords from discriminating against or harassing a tenant based on their actual or perceived immigration status. It prohibits landlords from reporting or threatening to report a tenant to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for intimidation or retaliation purposes, and also bars landlords from evicting tenants solely because of their immigration status. 'Such unscrupulous conduct is appropriately unlawful under Illinois state law,' Thomas A. Saenz, Maldef president and general counsel, said in a statement Monday. On Feb. 19, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Catherine A. Schneider ordered landlords Marco Antonio Contreras and Denise Contreras to pay damages, attorneys' fees and costs for violating the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act to former tenants Maria Maltos Escutia and Gabriel Valdez Garcia. Maltos Escutia and Valdez Garcia, a couple who lived together, sued the Contreras under the Illinois Immigrant Tenant Protection Act in 2022. According to the complaint, "the Defendants wrongfully threatened to report Plaintiffs to ICE with the intent to harass, intimidate, and induce them to pay rent and surrender possession of the premises." Marco Antonio Contreras could not immediately be reached for comment and Denise Contreras could not be reached at a phone number listed for her. In a Monday statement posted by Maldef, Maltos Escutia and Valdez Garcia said, 'We decided not to stay silent because our landlords threatened us with calling immigration, and we do not believe that anyone has a right to threaten us.' 'No one should feel or act superior to others. We are all equals and deserve respect," the statement reads. "Just because someone is your landlord does not mean that they get to do whatever they want to you." Illinois is one of three states in the U.S. that have laws protecting immigrant tenants' rights. California was the first state to pass an immigrant tenant law in 2017 and Colorado followed in 2021. Saenz said the judge's decision in Illinois 'provides a measure of justice to a family facing a landlord willing to threaten to call federal immigration authorities in the belief that it would scare tenants." It also comes at a time when cities seen as safe havens for immigrants have been facing intense scrutiny as President Donald Trump ramps up his administration's efforts to detain and deport immigrants across the nation. Susana Sandoval Vargas, Maldef's midwest regional counsel and the attorney representing Maltos Escutia and Valdez Garcia, called the judgment "an important victory for all tenants in Illinois, who, like our clients, just want a safe place to call home.' 'This decision shows that those who choose to disregard these protections will face serious consequences," Sandoval Vargas said in a statement. 'Everyone has rights under the rule of law regardless of their actual or perceived immigration status." This article was originally published on
NBC News
06-03-2025
- NBC News
Immigrant couple to get $80,000 in damages from former landlords who threatened to call ICE
The national Latino legal and civil rights organization representing an immigrant couple who sued their former landlords in Chicago for threatening to call ICE on them said this week the tenants will be awarded more than $80,000 in damages, after a judge found the landlords violated an Illinois state law. According to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, better known as Maldef, this is the first case to reach a judgment under the Illinois Immigrant Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The law bans landlords from discriminating against or harassing a tenant based on their actual or perceived immigration status. It prohibits landlords from reporting or threatening to report a tenant to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for intimidation or retaliation purposes, and also bars landlords from evicting tenants solely because of their immigration status. 'Such unscrupulous conduct is appropriately unlawful under Illinois state law,' Thomas A. Saenz, Maldef president and general counsel, said in a statement Monday. On Feb. 19, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Catherine A. Schneider ordered landlords Marco Antonio Contreras and Denise Contreras to pay damages, attorneys' fees and costs for violating the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act to former tenants Maria Maltos Escutia and Gabriel Valdez Garcia. Maltos Escutia and Valdez Garcia, a couple who lived together, sued the Contreras under the Illinois Immigrant Tenant Protection Act in 2022. According to the complaint, "the Defendants wrongfully threatened to report Plaintiffs to ICE with the intent to harass, intimidate, and induce them to pay rent and surrender possession of the premises." Marco Antonio Contreras could not immediately be reached for comment and Denise Contreras could not be reached at a phone number listed for her. In a Monday statement posted by Maldef, Maltos Escutia and Valdez Garcia said, 'We decided not to stay silent because our landlords threatened us with calling immigration, and we do not believe that anyone has a right to threaten us.' 'No one should feel or act superior to others. We are all equals and deserve respect," the statement reads. "Just because someone is your landlord does not mean that they get to do whatever they want to you." An 'important victory' for tenants Illinois is one of three states in the U.S. that have laws protecting immigrant tenants' rights. California was the first state to pass an immigrant tenant law in 2017 and Colorado followed in 2021. Saenz said the judge's decision in Illinois 'provides a measure of justice to a family facing a landlord willing to threaten to call federal immigration authorities in the belief that it would scare tenants." It also comes at a time when cities seen as safe havens for immigrants have been facing intense scrutiny as President Donald Trump ramps up his administration's efforts to detain and deport immigrants across the nation. Susana Sandoval Vargas, Maldef's midwest regional counsel and the attorney representing Maltos Escutia and Valdez Garcia, called the judgment "an important victory for all tenants in Illinois, who, like our clients, just want a safe place to call home.' 'This decision shows that those who choose to disregard these protections will face serious consequences," Sandoval Vargas said in a statement. 'Everyone has rights under the rule of law regardless of their actual or perceived immigration status."
Chicago Tribune
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Chicago landlord ordered to pay $80,000 for threatening to call ICE on tenant, a first under 2019 state law
A judge ordered a Chicago landlord last month to pay $80,000 to former tenants after the landlord threatened to call ICE on them during a verbal dispute in June 2020, according to court documents. The case is the first to reach a judgment under the state's 2019 Immigrant Tenant Protection Act, according to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed the case on behalf of the tenants. 'Everyone has rights under the rule of law regardless of their actual or perceived immigration status. In Illinois, landlords are prohibited from wielding the threat of immigration enforcement as a weapon against their tenants,' said Susana Sandoval Vargas, MALDEF's Midwest regional counsel. 'This decision shows that those who choose to disregard these protections will face serious consequences. This is an important victory for all tenants in Illinois, who, like our clients, just want a safe place to call home.' On Feb. 19, Cook County Circuit Judge Catherine A. Schneider ordered former landlord Marco Antonio Contreras and his wife, Denise Contreras, to pay more than $80,000 in damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs for violating the state law, according to the lawsuit. The judge also awarded a smaller sum in compensation for Contreras denying the tenants access to their belongings. Neither the Contrerases nor their attorney could be reached for comment. The former tenants also declined an interview but released a statement through their attorney. 'We decided not to stay silent because our landlords threatened us with calling immigration, and we do not believe that anyone has a right to threaten us,' the couple said in the statement. 'No one should feel or act superior to others. We are all equals and deserve respect. Just because someone is your landlord does not mean that they get to do whatever they want to you.' Sandoval Vargas declined to comment on the tenants' immigration status. When Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act into law in 2019, Illinois became the second state to prohibit landlords from evicting tenants solely because they're living in the U.S. illegally. The law also barred landlords from reporting or threatening to report tenants' immigration status to intimidate or retaliate against them. California was the first state to pass an immigrant tenant law in 2017. In 2021, a Colorado Tenant Protection Act went into effect. While the Illinois Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination broadly based on citizenship status, the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act provided extra protection, said Eric Sirota, a law professor and director of the Tenant Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern University. He said housing providers will hopefully take this week's judgment as a 'shot across the bow.' 'This is the law of Illinois, and people are hurt really badly when their housing status (is) jeopardized or made unstable,' he said. 'Courts are recognizing how harmful that is.' Another case filed in September 2021 has not yet reached judgment, according to Sandoval Vargas. In that case, a Cicero couple is accused of reporting one of their tenants to immigration officials after the tenant requested a repair in his apartment, according to the lawsuit. State Rep. Theresa Mah, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said Tuesday it's a 'nice feeling' to know that the law is working and that the couple found it useful in their case. Mah added that due to the current political environment — where she said 'immigrants are being mistreated and disparaged' — the legislation is 'more relevant than ever.' 'I don't feel that anybody should be put in a vulnerable position because of whatever immigration status they occupy,' Mah said. 'I'm glad that the law is … helping ensure that people have rights and that they're able to use the law to protect those rights.' 'I hope that the news about this judgment will send a message to people that tenants can't be mistreated in this way,' she added. According to the lawsuit, Marco and Denise Contreras invited the couple to rent the basement from their single-family home in the Ashburn neighborhood in August 2017. In a verbal contract, they agreed to $600 rent, which included utilities, due on the first of each month. Around February 2020, the landlords asked the couple to sign a contract describing the terms of the rental agreement. They told the couple a written contract was necessary so they could show proof of income for a loan to buy a second house, according to the lawsuit. The couple signed the contract, which changed the rent due date to the 29th of each month, and paid a $600 deposit, the lawsuit said. The contract also required the couple to pay their own utilities. They were not provided a copy of the contract, the lawsuit said. Two months later, Marco and Denise Contreras — who had already moved out of the home — informed their tenants that their rent would be raised to $800 a month, a sum the couple could not afford, according to the lawsuit. The landlords agreed to let the tenants continue to pay $600 per month from April through June 2020, according to the lawsuit. In June of that year, the landlords told the couple they were selling the home and they would have to move out of the apartment by August 2020. They did not provide written notification, the lawsuit said. Later in June, the landlords entered the basement apartment and told the couple the July rent was due on June 29 and demanded they pay. When the couple offered to pay a prorated amount since they were planning to move out, Marco Contreras threatened to report the couple to federal immigration officials, in violation of Illinois state law, the lawsuit said. Though the couple moved out of the apartment on July 31, 2020, it wasn't until 2022 when they reached MALDEF and their attorneys. MALDEF filed the lawsuit on behalf of a tenant family. 'This decision provides a measure of justice to a family facing a landlord willing to threaten to call federal immigration authorities in the belief that it would scare tenants,' said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF's president and general counsel. 'Such unscrupulous conduct is appropriately unlawful under Illinois state law.' Sandoval Vargas said MALDEF has not noticed any recent uptake on calls about landlords harassing tenants. However, she suspects that most people are not aware of the new law. 'The most important thing is that everyone has protection under the law — the Immigrant Tenant Protection law protects everybody whether they're being threatened on their actual or perceived immigration status,' Sandoval Vargas said. 'People should be aware of those protections so that if they find themselves in that situation, they know that there's something that they can do.'
