Latest news with #ProtectDemocracy
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Trump Administration hired a staffer working with Stephen Miller to wage war with Harvard
Michael Bender, New York Times Correspondent and Amanda Carpenter, Writer and Editor for Protect Democracy joins Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House to discuss how the Trump Administration has escalated its feud with Harvard going so far to hire someone who was at one point a DOJ 'cooperating witness' working for the Harvard Law Review.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A battle looms over rule of law as some courts start to flex their muscles against Trump
The US supreme court and other federal courts have begun flexing their muscles to push back on Donald Trump's efforts to defy judicial orders, escalating a hugely consequential battle over the rule of law. The supreme court issued a significant order early Saturday morning blocking the federal government from removing people from the United States who had been detained in northern Texas. Separately, US district Judge James Boasberg has found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for defying his orders to halt deportations. In another case, the US district Judge Paula Xinis has forced the government to provide daily updates in its efforts to comply with court orders to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Ábrego García – the man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. It is a dynamic that underscores how a constitutional crisis between Trump and the courts is likely to be a push and pull between the government and judges that is simmering through the legal system and could very well break it. 'The president is testing how much the judiciary still meaningfully constrains him,' Ben Raderstorf, a policy associate at the watchdog group Protect Democracy wrote in a blog post titled 'there is no rubicon'. Whether the courts can force compliance with their orders is an essential question for American democracy, where a pillar of the rule of law is the willingness of litigants to accept court rulings, especially the ones they disagree with. 'The quality of judicial independence that federal judges have enjoyed throughout most of our history has depended much more on norms than it has on rules,' said Stephen Burbank, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania. 'Of course, a major concern from that perspective is that Trump pays no attention to norms.' Trump said on Tuesday he did not think due process was a requirement before deporting someone. 'Look, we are getting some very bad people, killers, murderers, drug dealers, really bad people, the mentally ill, the mentally insane, they emptied out insane asylums into our country, we're getting them out. And a judge can't say: 'No, you have to have a trial,'' he said. 'No, we are going to have a very dangerous country if we are not allowed to do what we are entitled to do.' In its Saturday ruling, the supreme court had temporarily blocked the administration from deporting people being held in a detention center in Anson, Texas, under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). At the beginning of April, the supreme court had allowed deportations under AEA to move forward as long as migrants received adequate notice they were being deported under the law. 'The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually' challenge their deportation prior to it occurring, the supreme court said. But in filings last week, lawyers for detainees challenging the Texas deportations told the US supreme court their clients were being presented with English-only notices informing them they were being deported under the AEA, but no information about how to challenge it. In an extraordinary move, the US supreme court issued a decision temporarily halting the deportations before a lower court, the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit, had even ruled on the matter. The court moved to intervene quickly even though a government lawyer had said in a hearing in a related case on Friday that there were no plans for planes to take off that day. 'In a world in which a majority of the justices were willing to take these kinds of representations at face value, there might've been no need to intervene overnight Friday evening; the justices could've taken at least some of Saturday to try to sort things out before handing down their decision,' Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown, wrote in his Substack newsletter One First. 'This may seem like a technical point, but it underscores how seriously the court, or at least a majority of it, took the urgency of the matter.' However significant, the US supreme court's ruling is only temporary and the government is likely to ask it to lift it and resume the deportations. The court's response is likely to set off the next round of its fight with Trump. Some conservative voices, including Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, and Trump ally Mike Davis, have already started attacking the justices on the court. 'If the Supreme Court is going to ignore the law and the Constitution, then the president is obligated to ignore the Supreme Court and put it in its place,' Sean Davis said in a post on X on Saturday. 'When we're done deporting illegals, it's time to start deporting rogue judges,' he wrote in another post. 'Let's hope our Supreme Court justices get their heads out of their asses. They wear robes, not capes,' Mike Davis, who runs the Article III project, a conservative group focused on the courts, wrote on X. Steve Deace, a prominent conservative talkshow host, also suggested Trump was entitled to ignore the courts. 'Essentially courts are claiming you can bypass due process to illegally invade America, but then must be granted due process to have your invasion repelled. That is not a country, but judicial insurrection to undo the last election. Trump should ignore it and do what he was empowered by the sovereign will of the people to do,' he wrote in a post on X. Outside of the supreme court, Judge Boasberg laid out a series of escalating actions he could take to punish the Trump officials. (An appellate court has paused the contempt process while the Trump administration appeals.) In the case before Xinis, the administration seems to be doing whatever it can to avoid complying with orders that it 'facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador'. On 10 April, Xinis ordered the government to take 'all available steps to facilitate the return of Ábrego García to the United States as soon as possible'. Deploying one of her judicial tools, she ordered the government to provide daily updates to her on what it was doing to comply with that order. When the government made it clear it was doing nothing to comply, she ordered government officials to respond to written questions from the plaintiffs and for key officials to sit for depositions. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said in a court filing on Tuesday that the government was essentially ignoring that order as well. The Trump administration appealed Xinis's 10 April order to the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit. A panel of judges on the circuit denied the administration's request to halt the lower court's rulings. And in a striking opinion, Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee once considered a top contender for the supreme court, warned of all the damage that could come if the executive branch continued to defy the judiciary. 'Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around,' Wilkinson wrote. 'The judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. 'The executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.'
The Guardian
23-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
A battle looms over rule of law as some courts start to flex their muscles against Trump
The US supreme court and other federal courts have begun flexing their muscles to push back on Donald Trump's efforts to defy judicial orders, escalating a hugely consequential battle over the rule of law. The US issued a significant order early Saturday morning blocking the federal government from removing people who had been detained in northern Texas from the United States. Separately, US district judge James Boasberg has found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for defying his orders to halt deportations. In another case, the US district judge Paula Xinis has forced the government to provide daily updates in its efforts to comply with court orders to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Ábrego García – the man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. It is a dynamic that underscores how a constitutional crisis between Trump and the courts is likely to be a push and pull between the government and judges that is simmering through the legal system and could very well break it. 'The president is testing how much the judiciary still meaningfully constrains him,' Ben Ratersdorf, a policy associate at the watchdog group 'Protect Democracy' wrote in a blog post titled 'there is no rubicon'. Whether the courts can force compliance with their orders is an essential question for American democracy, where a pillar of the rule of law is the willingness of litigants to accept court rulings, especially the ones they disagree with. 'The quality of judicial independence that federal judges have enjoyed throughout most of our history has depended much more on norms than it has on rules,' said Stephen Burbank, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania. 'Of course, a major concern from that perspective is that Trump pays no attention to norms.' In its Saturday ruling, the supreme court temporarily blocked the administration from deporting people being held in a detention center in Anson, Texas, under the Alien Enemies Act (Aea). At the beginning of April, the supreme court had allowed Aea deportations to move forward as long as migrants received adequate notice they were being deported under the law. 'The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually' challenge their deportation prior to it occurring, the supreme court said. But in filings last week, lawyers for detainees challenging the Texas deportations told the US supreme court their clients were being presented with English-only notices informing them they were being deported under the Aea, but no information about how to challenge it. In an extraordinary move, the US supreme court issued a decision temporarily halting the deportations before a lower court, the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit, had even ruled on the matter. The court moved to intervene quickly even though a government lawyer had said in a hearing in a related case on Friday that there were no plans for planes to take off that day. 'In a world in which a majority of the justices were willing to take these kinds of representations at face value, there might've been no need to intervene overnight Friday evening; the justices could've taken at least some of Saturday to try to sort things out before handing down their decision,' Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown, wrote in his Substack newsletter 'One First.' 'This may seem like a technical point, but it underscores how seriously the court, or at least a majority of it, took the urgency of the matter.' However significant, the US supreme court's ruling is only temporary and the government is likely to ask it to lift it and resume the deportations. The court's response is likely to set off the next round of its fight with Trump. Some conservative voices, including Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, and Trump ally Mike Davis, have already started attacking the justices on the court. 'If the Supreme Court is going to ignore the law and the Constitution, then the president is obligated to ignore the Supreme Court and put it in its place,' Sean Davis said in a post on X on Saturday. 'When we're done deporting illegals, it's time to start deporting rogue judges,' he wrote in another post. 'Let's hope our Supreme Court justices get their heads out of their asses. They wear robes, not capes,' Mike Davis, who runs the Article III project, a conservative group focused on the courts, wrote on X. Outside of the supreme court, Judge Boasberg laid out a series of escalating actions he could take to punish the Trump officials (an appellate court has paused the contempt process while the Trump administration appeals). In the case before Judge Xinis, the administration seems to be doing whatever it can not to comply with orders that it 'facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' On 10 April, Xinis ordered the government to take 'all available steps to facilitate the return of Ábrego García to the United States as soon as possible.' Deploying one of her judicial tools, she ordered the government to provide daily updates to her on what it was doing to comply with that order. When the government made it clear it was doing nothing to comply, she ordered government officials to respond to written questions from the plaintiffs and for key officials to sit for depositions. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said in a court filing on Tuesday that the government was essentially ignoring that order as well. The Trump administration appealed Judge Xinis's 10 April order to the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit. A panel of judges on the circuit denied the administration's request to halt the lower court's rulings. And in a striking opinion, Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee once considered a top contender for the supreme court, warned of all the damage that could come if the executive branch continued to defy the judiciary. 'Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around,' Wilkinson wrote. 'The judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. 'The executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gen Z Has a Complex Relationship with Democracy, Survey Reveals
A nationally representative poll designed to gauge Gen Z's attitude toward democracy contradicts a popularly held belief that the generation born roughly between 1997 and 2012 doesn't care about it at all. While a majority agree on democracy's importance, many feel unsure how to effectively participate in it or preserve it. For some, the frustration has taken a concerning turn: 11% said political violence is sometimes necessary to achieve progress. And while the poll's creators expected to find significant variance based on race, gender and location — rural versus urban, for example — other factors, including socioeconomic status and access to civics education, played a major role in shaping young peoples' beliefs. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter For example, those who received less support for their civic development 'are less committed to a democracy that they may not feel prepared to participate in or feel they are a part of,' the report notes. 'They're not completely disaffected,' said research specialist Deborah Apau of Gen Z. 'The problem is that while they do believe in democracy, they don't feel that democracy as they experience it today is delivering for them. It's that disconnection that's really causing the issue.' The poll was conducted between Nov. 14-26, 2024, just after a historically contentious presidential election in which the youth vote was heavily scrutinized. The results were released earlier this month by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University and Protect Democracy, a nonprofit 'dedicated to defeating the authoritarian threat, building more resilient democratic institutions, and protecting our freedom.' The polling firm Ipsos collected the data. The findings might help explain Donald Trump's popularity among young voters in his third run: nearly half under 30 supported the Republican nominee, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 voters. While he had massive appeal for young white men, he also fared well with young Latino men, who split their vote between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris. Related The CIRCLE and Protect Democracy poll, which measured Gen Z's beliefs and perspectives on democracy, civil rights and political violence, along with their support for bipartisan cooperation and feelings toward opposing political groups, revealed that young people crave bipartisanship and compromise. Nearly 4 out of 5 say leaders of opposing parties should work together and 65% believe people with deeply opposing political views can find common ground. Likewise, only 17% agree that those who hold political opinions different from their own are 'wrong.' Nearly three quarters of its 1,286 respondents said elected leaders should not be able to go above the law. The poll's findings are landing at a time when many see the country as on the verge of a constitutional crisis, with Trump pushing the bounds of executive power and at least one federal court judge finding grounds last week to hold his administration in contempt. In an effort to engage young people, the organizations recommend they be brought into the democratic process, that the nation invest in civic learning, and that those wishing for Gen Z to boost their participation acknowledge their diversity and create opportunities for collaboration and collective action that leverages their strengths. Related The poll notes that young people's lives were shaped by economic instability, history-making political shifts, a proliferation of school shootings, the rise of social media and COVID. A full 81% of respondents acknowledged the value and meaning of free and fair elections. The survey found, too, that 63% had a 'passive appreciation' of democracy, meaning they trust government institutions, have a high regard for democratic principles, and reject authoritarianism and political violence. But, the study's authors note, their satisfaction and trust may be leading to complacency as this group generally does not take political action outside of voting. Thirty-one percent had a 'dismissive detachment' from democracy: They didn't express through the survey that they value core democratic principles and processes. They have low confidence in the system as it is working now and demonstrate higher support for authoritarian governance compared to their peers in other categories. Pollsters note this group has 'the lowest levels of media literacy, suggesting that they are often consuming political information without the ability or willingness to confirm its source, truthfulness, or intent.' They also reported little confidence in their ability to be effective political actors. Seven percent of Gen Z participants had a 'hostile dissatisfaction' with democracy. While they value its core principles, they are 'highly displeased' with it as they are experiencing it today, authors note. Despite — or perhaps because of — their frustration, they are the most politically active within this age group and express the highest support for political violence. The report notes, too, they are highly polarized 'and their frustrations with the current system run so deep that they are more willing to consider extreme measures to achieve political goals.' They are by far the most likely to participate in other forms of civic action like volunteering or taking on leadership roles and are willing to fight for the democracy they want. The report notes they score highest of all in media literacy, 'which suggests they may be more informed about the state of democracy than some of their peers.' Related They are also more ideologically liberal than those in the other two groups and are more likely to be queer compared to the passive appreciation cohort. 'As knowledgeable actors with a respect for democratic values and a willingness to actively participate through both traditional and non-traditional forms of civic action, these youth who feel a hostile dissatisfaction with our democracy are also a powerful force for reshaping it,' the report observes. Sara Suzuki, senior researcher at CIRCLE, was surprised by the size of the first group defined by its 'passive appreciation.' While she's concerned about their relative inaction, she sees opportunity for them 'to do something about the problems they see instead of sort of letting it happen.' Apau, of Protect Democracy, said even the group that supports violence as a means of change still believes in democratic ideals — including its ability to function well. 'They feel they've exhausted their options in terms of participating in things like voting and protests and they're not able to secure the responses that they want,' she said. Apau said it's important to understand Gen Z and give them the tools they need, 'so they're resourced, they have the knowledge they need to move throughout the world later in life and in adulthood — and understand how systems work.'
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hundreds march at the Michigan Capitol against Trump policies, part of nationwide protests
Attendees of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz On the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, which kicked off the American Revolution, hundreds of Michiganders gathered outside the Michigan State Capitol Saturday to protest against the Trump administration and its actions, especially as they pertained to immigration. They also marched along the sidewalks surrounding the Capitol, joining protests taking place in cities across the country. The sound of church bells around downtown Lansing coincided with the start of the rally organized by Stand Against Extremism, or SAGE, and promoted on social media, highlighting their call for freedom, equality, and justice, and their solidarity with nationwide protests organized by grassroots protest group 50501. Protests were also held across Michigan, including in Coldwater, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Livonia, Port Huron, and Portage. As the first speakers took their positions at the entrance to the Capitol, hundreds more people approached the Capitol grounds with anti-Trump, anti-authoritarianism, and anti-Nazi signs and banners. 'This is the anniversary of the beginning of the American Revolution, and the democratic rights that were established during that revolution, and later confirmed and developed in the American Civil War, are now under attack,' said Tim Rivers, 65, a member of the socialist movement, during his speech. 'Hundreds have already been sent [to the El Salvodoran prison known as CECOT], and now Trump is threatening to take American citizens and deport them to El Salvador,' Rivers added. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX On April 17, Juan Carlos López-Gómez, 20, was released after being arrested in Florida by federal immigration agents, despite being a natural-born American citizen. However, Lopez-Gomez was not the only U.S citizen who had an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Ramiro Martinez, a Mexican immigrant and U.S. citizen, was surrounded and detained by ICE in Michigan earlier this month. Additionally, concerns about border patrol agents' actions under Trump's policies have been fueled by emails sent on April 11, around the country, by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to immigrants who entered the country using CBP One, a mobile app developed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with an American citizen in Michigan also receiving those messages. Around 12:30, the march began on W. Allegan Street and marched once around the Capitol, as protesters chanted against the current administration. 'The purpose of our march was basically to defend our democracy. We wanted people to come out and express their discomfort with what is going on a national scale,' said Daniel Pfau, 37, a volunteer with SAGE. 'I hope that people see this event is by the people, for the people. We didn't need a national organization in charge. We showed up, and we took care.' After the march, a series of speakers took the microphone to express their concerns to the audience. Among the speakers were community members, social activists, and elected officials who primarily spoke out against the federal government's targeting of immigrants across the country. 'They are trying to distract us. They want people divided. They want to bring out the worst impulses in many people's hearts,' said State Rep. Jasper Martus (D-Flushing) during his speech. 'We need to think about all those folks who are going to church tomorrow morning and saying they're okay with deporting people who are here illegally. I'm a believer, but that's not what I believe in.' During the speeches, support was given for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident the Trump administration erroneously deported to his native El Salvador, which was echoed and chanted by the audience in favor of his release and return to the US. Abrego Garcia was arrested March 12 as he drove his 5-year-old son home, and was informed by ICE agents that his status had changed, despite an order that determined it was more 'likely than not that he would be persecuted by gangs in El Salvador' if he were returned there, according to court documents. Although ICE accepted his deportation was due to an administrative error, and the Supreme Court of the United States later ordered his return, on April 14, U.S. President Trump and El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele announced in the Oval Office that they would not release Abrego Garcia. Toward the end of the demonstration, near the Capitol, on the side of North Capitol Avenue, a Trump supporter counter-protested, giving speeches and holding a sign that read 'God, put Trump in.' This situation generated tense moments among the protesters, who approached to confront and argue with the lone counter-protestor. By the end of the day, no acts of violence or physical confrontations had been reported. Attendee of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz Attendees of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz Attendees of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz Attendees of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz Attendees of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz Attendees of the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz State Representative Jasper Martus (D-Flushing) during his speech at the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz Tim Rivers during his speech at the Protect Democracy rally at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, on April 19, 2025. Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz
