Civil rights activists protest Act 3 near New Orleans City Hall
Organizers say the rally was aimed to inform and educate Louisiana residents about the harms of the proposed Act 3 legislation and encourage them to vote against it.
OPDA's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative and Special Victims Unit secure guilty verdicts
The proposed constitutional amendment would lead to more juveniles being tried as adults in Louisiana. In 2024, Louisiana's 'Raise the Age' law was reversed, meaning 17-year-olds arrested for any crime will be tried as an adult.
Organizers say Act 3 would lift limitations for lawmakers and allow minors as young as 14 to be charged as an adult for 'any crime,' instead of creating pathways to rehabilitate for the youth.
'If we want to add more penalties to our Constitution, for which young people can be charged for and tried for in adult courts, we're not giving them a greater start in life, but we are further penalizing them for simply going through life, trying to understand life, but not teaching them the steps, not providing them the resources for that as well,' said Christopher Johnson, executive director of the Mobilizing Millennials Organization.McNeese hires Southeastern's Ayla Guzzardo to be women's basketball head coach
Civil rights activists protest Act 3 near New Orleans City Hall
Kyle Larson eyes a triple-header sweep, after win at Homestead
Best Performance Cars for 2025
WATCH: Man caught on camera stealing packages with a child
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bell: Gondek shovels the spin — Calgary's notorious city hall secrecy remains
How much do the Calgary city hall paper-shufflers actually make? Mayor Jyoti Gondek says nothing of substance. No surprise. Almost nobody at Calgary city hall wants to talk about it. Getting the facts for Calgarians from these folks downtown is far tougher than pulling teeth. You'd think these folks were running a spy agency. What is second nature, so obviously the right thing to do, a no-brainer with governments right across the country, is something almost nobody at Calgary city hall wants to talk about. They nibble around the edges but when they are pressed on the issue they won't take a real bite. Instead, life is so closed in the city hall cocoon, their operations so notoriously secretive, the city hall politicians will actually chinwag next week about how much we should know about what their boss paper-shuffler David Duckworth pockets carrying out orders in the Big Blue Playpen. It is pitiful. Why isn't somebody going on the city council floor and pushing for what's called a Sunshine List? The Alberta government has a Sunshine List. If you're on the Alberta government payroll and make more than $133,813 this year, then your regular salary, any other cash benefits above that wage and the employer's contributions to your pension and other benefits will be shown on the list along with your name and job title. If you get the boot and score severance on the way out that payout is also known. By the way, do we even know what Calgary top cop Mark Neufeld got in severance going out the exit door? Ask city hall about it and they pass the buck to the Calgary Police Commission where city council members sit. Taxpayers learn squat even if it's your money. City hall just hopes you tire of the constant struggle to get to the truth and throw up your hands and give up. It is time to ask Mayor Gondek. The buck has to stop somewhere. Gondek talks about how city hall could do a better job of being more open. Alas, most of what she says is a word salad involving insider talk of city hall procedures that would give you instant brain freeze while taking a shot at Sonya Sharp, a councillor running for the mayor's job. You're no wiser than when you started. MEMO TO THE GONDEK BRAINTRUST. Friendly advice. The mayor is not following the plan on how to politically rehabilitate herself. You know, the Gondek image makeover I recently wrote about with the $107,324 price tag paid by you, dear reader. A question to Mayor Gondek from this newshound. I'm trying to help the mayor see the light. Why not just bring in a Sunshine List like most other governments and then we will know how much the city hall movers and shakers make? It is taxpayer money. It is a doubly important question since, this week, one of the city hall high-and-mighties actually seems to suggest Calgary city hall doesn't have enough employees. Say what?! That's hard to believe because when one of the city hall somebodies makes a presentation to city council they often come in with a big enough entourage you'd think they must be a member of the Royal Family. So the slow pitch question to Gondek. How about finanicial info on the city hall brass? A swing and a miss. 'We do have tools that provide that.' They do not. 'Are they easily accessible? Obviously not, because people are asking: Where can we find these things?' People are asking because … THERE IS NO CITY HALL SUNSHINE LIST. A follow-up question. Gondek rushes off. The city of Calgary has a list of job titles and the pay range for each job. It's like a massive Help Wanted catalogue. It means nothing. So the secrecy goes on. Ten years ago, yes, ten long years ago, city hall paper shufflers misled Calgarians. They said provincial privacy laws prevented a Sunshine List showing the pay and perks of city hall bigshots. Did they take us for fools? Jeff Fielding, then the big boss at the city, cleared the air and said council could have voted Yes to a real Sunshine List, like almost everywhere else, including where he previously worked in Ontario. Council should press the issue and stop letting city brass lead them around by the nose. Again, Dan McLean seems to be one of the few members of city council willing to speak. If others are, you know where to find me. 'Everyone would like to see a Sunshine List, except administration. Why don't they want to see one? What are they hiding? I want to know exactly how much Joe Schmo is making and what he does,' says McLean. 'I don't care if you're getting paid a lot of money if you're earning it, but enquiring minds want to know.' rbell@
Politico
5 hours ago
- Politico
Appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional
'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country. 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,' Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the U.S.
New York Times
5 hours ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Blocks Trump's Attempt to Restrict Birthright Citizenship
A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship violated the Constitution, affirming a district court judge's nationwide injunction and bringing the issue one step closer to a full constitutional review by the Supreme Court. In a 48-page opinion, two of the three judges on the panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Trump's executive order 'contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' They rejected the Justice Department's argument that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' meant that the longstanding constitutional guarantee to birthright citizenship could be redefined to exclude babies born to undocumented immigrants, as well as babies born to mothers who are in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, university students or temporary workers, if the father is a noncitizen. The ruling appears to be the first time that an appellate court has ruled on birthright citizenship after a Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of injunctions sent lawyers scrambling to recast their claims in light of its new standard. The executive order was signed by Mr. Trump on his first day in office. Individuals, states and organizations brought lawsuits, leading to a number of nationwide injunctions that blocked its implementation on constitutional grounds. The Trump administration then appealed one of those cases on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court, but asked it to rule only on the legality of far-reaching injunctions, and not the underlying question of whether the executive order itself passed constitutional muster. In the original case before Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, four states argued that Mr. Trump's executive order would force them to put in place new systems to determine who is eligible for state benefits, and reduce the payments they receive from the federal government. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
