Latest news with #WilliamTong
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court stokes fear of state patchwork in birthright citizenship
(Bloomberg) — A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. '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.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. '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.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hartford taking safety precautions ahead of ‘No Kings Day' protests
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Nationwide protests are expected across the country Saturday as part of 'No Kings Day,' opposing the president's policies. At the state capitol in Hartford the barricades are out, but they're not up. This scene is playing out all across Connecticut. Law enforcement agencies in Connecticut preparing for 'No Kings' protests Saturday With dozens of rallies and celebrations, including Juneteenth, and protests planned for around the state, Gov. Ned Lamont (D) and Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam (D) are asking people to please keep it safe. Police are setting up the barricades on the capitol ground as the Hartford Symphony Orchestra plays in the background. The musicians are rehearsing for Saturday's concert in Bushnell Park and the celebrations around Juneteenth. Meanwhile, just steps up the hill, Capitol Police anticipate as many as 6,000 protesters rallying against the president's policies. Starting at 7 a.m. Saturday, no vehicles will be allowed on the capitol grounds. Connecticut State Police, and Capitol Police will have a lot of extra security on hand as Gov. Lamont and Attorney General William Tong (D) spoke about earlier this week. 'You should continue to exercise your right to speak and protest, lawfully and peacefully,' said AG Tong. 'Right now I think our state police and municipal police working together will keep us safe as they always have,' said Gov. and New Haven will also be ready, but not in the way. 'We have our officers on standby and we will let the protesters do their thing, as long as their thing isn't doing damage or being violent or burning anything,' New Haven Police Chief Karl Jacobson said. This week there have been protests from Meriden to New Haven regarding detainments by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They were loud and emotional, but peaceful so far. Protesters are upset at President Trump ramping up ICE raids and calling in the National Guard and Marines to California. 'We would bring more in if we needed it, because we have to make sure there's going to be law and order,' President Trump said. As the protests play out in the streets, the government is also asking people on work visas to go back to their country. The capitol grounds will be shut down by 7 a.m. to all vehicular traffic. Law enforcement officials anticipate more than two dozen protests across the state Saturday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBC
13-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
Bankrupt 23andMe is trying to sell Canadians' genetic information. Here's what you can do
If you've ever sent a spit sample to 23andMe, your genetic information is officially up for sale. The California-based company, which allowed customers to learn about their ancestry by submitting saliva samples in the mail, filed for bankruptcy in March. As part of that process, it's auctioning off the DNA profiles of more than 15 million people — including an estimated 700,000 Canadians. A new lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. seeks to halt that sale. But if it fails, privacy advocates say Canadians have every reason to be worried that their most personal, unique and unchangeable identifying information could be sold without their consent. "It's literally assets to the company," said Aileen Editha, a PhD candidate at Queens University who studies the property rights of human genetic materials. "If my data was in there ... I personally would be concerned." 27 U.S. states file bipartisan lawsuit 23andMe has repeatedly said that any company that buys its data will be have to adhere to the law, as well as any privacy agreements customers agreed to when they signed up. William Tong, the attorney general of Connecticut, doesn't find that reassuring. He, along with representatives from 26 other U.S. states and the District of Columbia, are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed Monday in bankruptcy court seeking to block the sale of personal genetic data by 23andMe without customer consent. "We're fighting tooth-and-nail to protect consumers," Tong told As It Happens host Nil Kӧksal. "Entrepreneurs, particularly in the tech industry and the health-care industry and the biotech industry, need to understand that they have to take care of the personal information that they get from consumers." In an emailed statement to CBC, 23andMe said the lawsuit is "without merit." "The sale is permitted under 23andMe privacy policies and applicable law. We required any bidder to adopt our policies and comply with applicable law as a condition to participating in our sales process," 23andMe said. The company's interim CEO, Joe Selsavage, echoed that sentiment during a U.S. congressional hearing on Tuesday, telling lawmakers he's "very confident that the sale of the company will not result in the company being sold or the data ending up in the hands of a bad actor." Canadian class action put on hold. But you can still file a claim Right now, the two main contenders for 23andMe's trove of genetic data are biotech firm Regeneron Pharmaceutical, and 23andMe's own co-founder, Anne Wojcicki, who stepped down as CEO when the company filed for bankruptcy. The company had previously selected a $256 million US bid from Regeneron as the lead offer, but later told a U.S. bankruptcy judge that it wants to re-open bidding on its assets after receiving a $305 million US offer from Wojcicki. Her bid doesn't sit well with Tong, who noted she presided over the company in 2023, when a massive privacy breach at the company saw hackers access the private consumer information of nearly seven million customers. "You've got a bidder who represents the original founder who messed things up in the first place, and did not do enough to protect the people whose information was given to 23andMe," Tong said. WATCH | Experts urge customers to delete 23andMe data: 23andMe customers urged to delete personal data 3 months ago Duration 1:44 Roughly 15 million customers who used the genetic testing company 23andMe are being urged to take steps to delete their personal data and protect their privacy. Cybersecurity experts say that DNA data could be sold as part of a restructuring or sale after the company filed for bankruptcy protection. That data breach prompted law firm KND Complex Litigation to launch a class-action lawsuit against 23andMe on behalf of affected Canadians. But the lawsuit came to halt when 23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, says KND attorney Sage Nematollahi. As it stands, Nematollahi says, any Canadian wishing to pursue a claim against the company must file it as an individual through Missouri's bankruptcy court. Nematollahi says his law firm is fighting in the B.C. courts to continue acting as the representative of all Canadian 23andMe customers in U.S. courts. "It is really impractical for every Canadian customer to go on some website for the U.S. insolvency proceeding, which is replete with legalese and that sort of stuff, and try to pursue their own individual claims," he said. Delete, delete, delete So what recourse do Canadian customers have, aside from navigating U.S. bankruptcy courts and waiting for American lawsuits to play out? Editha of Queens University says Canada has several laws that protect genetic data, but she's not sure they are robust enough to meet the needs of a complex case like this one. "The tricky part is when it concerns a multinational company, because so many laws and so many different actors and interests come into play," she said. "The only way really to get around it is for people to withdraw their data and request 23andMe delete their information from the database." It's advice that Tong, as well as several other privacy experts, have echoed to CBC. Some customers have already consented to have their information used for research purposes when they signed up for 23andMe, Editha said. That means their information may have already been sold to third parties, like pharmaceutical companies. "There's sort of no turning back at that point," she said. "But what my request can do is actually stop them from including my information in this sale going forward." Editha says companies often rely on the fact that many people lack the time, capacity or legal literacy to fully understand what rights they're signing away when they sign up for a service. "They really advertise like the, 'Oh, look at all this fun stuff that we can provide you with your DNA if you send it to us.' But then ... the fine print of it isn't really being disclosed in an appropriately visible manner," she said. "That's what really needs to happen, is making sure that people have the power to make decisions and to make decisions based on informed consent."
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Algorithmic Outrage Meets Constitutional Law
Lawmakers aren't wrong to worry about kids and social media — they're just dead wrong about how to fix it. The latest example is Connecticut, which is poised to enact a law allegedly aimed at protecting minors on social media, joining a growing trend among other states — like Ohio, Arkansas and Utah — pushing for sweeping online regulations. However, if passed, the law risks landing in federal court over constitutional concerns. On May 14, the Connecticut House passed H.B. 6857 — a bill that would make it illegal for social media platforms to display algorithmic content to minors unless they first verify the user's age and obtain 'verifiable parental consent.' In other words, any app using personalized feeds — like infinite scroll, suggested videos, or targeted posts — would be forced to screen every user or risk violating state law. The bill also defaults minors to one-hour daily limits, blocks notifications after 9 p.m., and restricts interactions so that only approved contacts can view or respond to their content. Platforms must allow parents to override these limits. It passed the House 121–26 and now awaits action in the Senate. Supporters, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, say it's necessary to fight youth 'addiction' to platforms like TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat. AG Tong even likened the proposal to past fights against Big Tobacco and the opioid epidemic — suggesting that endless scrolling is the next fentanyl. But setting aside the melodrama, there's a glaring problem with this policy and it's called the Constitution. However, federal courts are already swatting down similar laws. In April, a U.S. district judge in Ohio blocked the state's Social Media Parental Notification Act, ruling that it infringed both parental rights and minors' First Amendment freedoms. The decision came just weeks after another federal judge in Arkansas permanently struck down that state's Social Media Safety Act — which required age verification and parental consent — on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored and lacked a compelling government interest. The ruling was simple, '[T]here is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving [its] goal.' Utah also tried a similar approach. In 2023, the state passed a pair of laws requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, and impose time-based restrictions on access. But after tech industry group NetChoice filed suit, a federal judge blocked the laws, finding they likely violated the First Amendment. Despite a legislative rewrite in 2024, Utah's revised laws were again put on hold. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in September that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and imposed content-based restrictions on speech — a constitutional red flag. The message from the courts is clear, and that is states can't violate civil liberties in the name of protecting children, no matter how well-intentioned the law may be. That should matter to legislators. But in Connecticut — as in many states — the urge to 'do something' often overrides constitutional caution. Ironically, this legislation is being pushed in a state that already passed a sweeping data privacy law just last year. That law, which is still in effect, bans targeted ads to minors, prohibits the sale of their data without consent, limits geolocation tracking, and even requires platforms to exercise 'reasonable care' to shield young users from harm. Now lawmakers want to layer another set of vague, legally risky mandates. If passed, the Connecticut bill would apply to any platform with users in the state — meaning national companies could face costly compliance requirements or lawsuits under the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, just for showing kids a recommended post. There is also the question of resources. Connecticut's own attorney general has publicly said his office is under-resourced. So, who exactly is going to monitor compliance, enforce reporting requirements, and litigate inevitable First Amendment challenges? Apparently, the same office admitting it's already stretched thin. There are better tools for families — ones that don't require deputizing the government as everyone's digital babysitter. App-store level parental controls already exist. Devices can be set to limit access, and many platforms offer family management features. Empowering parents doesn't require disempowering everyone else. Bills like this aren't about safety. They're about signaling. Lawmakers want to appear 'tough on tech' — even if it means trampling constitutional rights and bogging down courts in litigation that will almost certainly end in defeat. For now, the bill sits on the Connecticut Senate calendar, waiting for a vote. If passed, it won't just regulate platforms. It will test the boundaries of what the government can dictate in the name of protecting children. Let's hope the courts keep doing what the legislature refuses to: draw a aren't wrong to worry about kids and social media — they're just dead wrong about how to fix it. The latest example is Connecticut, which is poised to enact a law allegedly aimed at protecting minors on social media, joining a growing trend among other states — like Ohio, Arkansas and Utah — pushing for sweeping online regulations. However, if passed, the law risks landing in federal court over constitutional concerns. On May 14, the Connecticut House passed H.B. 6857 — a bill that would make it illegal for social media platforms to display algorithmic content to minors unless they first verify the user's age and obtain 'verifiable parental consent.' In other words, any app using personalized feeds — like infinite scroll, suggested videos, or targeted posts — would be forced to screen every user or risk violating state law. The bill also defaults minors to one-hour daily limits, blocks notifications after 9 p.m., and restricts interactions so that only approved contacts can view or respond to their content. Platforms must allow parents to override these limits. It passed the House 121–26 and now awaits action in the Senate. Supporters, including Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, say it's necessary to fight youth 'addiction' to platforms like TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat. AG Tong even likened the proposal to past fights against Big Tobacco and the opioid epidemic — suggesting that endless scrolling is the next fentanyl. But setting aside the melodrama, there's a glaring problem with this policy and it's called the Constitution. However, federal courts are already swatting down similar laws. In April, a U.S. district judge in Ohio blocked the state's Social Media Parental Notification Act, ruling that it infringed both parental rights and minors' First Amendment freedoms. The decision came just weeks after another federal judge in Arkansas permanently struck down that state's Social Media Safety Act — which required age verification and parental consent — on the grounds that it was not narrowly tailored and lacked a compelling government interest. The ruling was simple, '[T]here is no evidence that the Act will be effective in achieving [its] goal.' Utah also tried a similar approach. In 2023, the state passed a pair of laws requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages, obtain parental consent for minors, and impose time-based restrictions on access. But after tech industry group NetChoice filed suit, a federal judge blocked the laws, finding they likely violated the First Amendment. Despite a legislative rewrite in 2024, Utah's revised laws were again put on hold. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in September that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and imposed content-based restrictions on speech — a constitutional red flag. The message from the courts is clear, and that is states can't violate civil liberties in the name of protecting children, no matter how well-intentioned the law may be. That should matter to legislators. But in Connecticut — as in many states — the urge to 'do something' often overrides constitutional caution. Ironically, this legislation is being pushed in a state that already passed a sweeping data privacy law just last year. That law, which is still in effect, bans targeted ads to minors, prohibits the sale of their data without consent, limits geolocation tracking, and even requires platforms to exercise 'reasonable care' to shield young users from harm. Now lawmakers want to layer another set of vague, legally risky mandates. If passed, the Connecticut bill would apply to any platform with users in the state — meaning national companies could face costly compliance requirements or lawsuits under the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, just for showing kids a recommended post. There is also the question of resources. Connecticut's own attorney general has publicly said his office is under-resourced. So, who exactly is going to monitor compliance, enforce reporting requirements, and litigate inevitable First Amendment challenges? Apparently, the same office admitting it's already stretched thin. There are better tools for families — ones that don't require deputizing the government as everyone's digital babysitter. App-store level parental controls already exist. Devices can be set to limit access, and many platforms offer family management features. Empowering parents doesn't require disempowering everyone else. Bills like this aren't about safety. They're about signaling. Lawmakers want to appear 'tough on tech' — even if it means trampling constitutional rights and bogging down courts in litigation that will almost certainly end in defeat. For now, the bill sits on the Connecticut Senate calendar, waiting for a vote. If passed, it won't just regulate platforms. It will test the boundaries of what the government can dictate in the name of protecting children. Let's hope the courts keep doing what the legislature refuses to: draw a line. Meghan Portfolio is the Manager of Research and Analysis at Yankee Institute.
