Justice Department drops lawsuit accusing Pennsylvania city of diluting Hispanic vote
U.S. District Judge Karoline Mehalchick in Scranton approved the dismissal of the case against Hazleton on Tuesday, a day after the Justice Department requested it.
It is the latest example of the department under President Donald Trump dropping or withdrawing from a voting rights case begun under former President Joe Biden, including a case in Georgia.
The department didn't explain in its court filing why it is withdrawing or issue a statement on the case Tuesday.
The department's initial lawsuit, filed in January, said the 'at-large' system of electing city council members, as opposed to electing them by district, was unfair to Hispanic voters and prevented them from getting elected to city council.
The Justice Department argued that the system violated the federal Voting Rights Act and had sought a court order requiring the city, the five-member City Council and Republican Mayor Jeff Cusat to come up with a new system.
City officials insisted the system was lawful and gave equal voting rights to all citizens. They pointed out that Hispanic residents serve on city boards and authorities, although none have been elected to city council.
In a statement Tuesday, Cusat took credit for the dismissal, saying the city's arguments in court 'exposed the fundamental weaknesses' in the department's accusations. The department had adopted the 'baseless' assumption that the city's non-Hispanic white voters vote as a bloc to defeat Hispanic candidates, Cusat wrote.
The city's voters can change the system through a referendum, he said.
Hazleton's 30,000 residents are about two-thirds Hispanic, according to U.S. Census figures. One-third is non-Hispanic white.
The lawsuit's claims echoed a separate lawsuit filed by two Hispanic parents against the at-large system of voting for members of the Hazleton Area School District board. The school district denied the allegation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Judge backs Trump admin's deportation push for 8 illegal migrants after another judge blocks it
Eight migrants were denied a request by a Massachusetts federal judge on Friday to have their deportation to South Sudan halted. Justice Department lawyers said the men were scheduled to be flown to South Sudan on Friday at 7:00 pm ET after two courts considered their emergency request on July 4, a day when courts would otherwise be closed, Reuters reported. The migrants, who are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan and Vietnam, filed new claims on Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Boston federal Judge Brian Murphy couldn't require the Department of Homeland Security to hold them. Also on Friday, federal Judge Randolph Moss in Washington paused the Trump administration's efforts to deport the eight migrants to South Sudan, the latest case testing the legality of the Trump administration's push to ship illegal immigrants to third countries. Moss had briefly halted the deportation after lawyers for the migrants filed the new claims in his court and sent the case to Boston, where Murphy denied the claim. The eight men argued their deportations to South Sudan would violate the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment, Reuters reported. They have been convicted of various crimes, with four of them convicted of murder, the Department of Homeland Security has said. They were detained for six weeks on a military base in Djibouti instead of being brought back to the United States. On Thursday, the migrants filed new claims after the Supreme Court said that a federal judge in Boston could no longer require the Department of Homeland Security to hold them, Reuters reported. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House. During Friday's hearing with Moss, a government lawyer argued that court orders halting agreed-upon deportations pose a serious problem for U.S. diplomatic relations and would make foreign countries less likely to accept transfers of migrants in the future. The case is the latest development over the legality of the Trump administration's campaign to deter immigration by shipping migrants to locations other than their countries of origin pursuant to deals with other countries, according to Reuters. "It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical well-being is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others," Moss said during the hearing.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump orders entry fee, DEI changes at national parks
Visiting America's national parks is about to get more expensive for international tourists, but that's not the only change ordered by President Donald Trump that will impact park visitors. A new executive order calls for charging non-U.S. residents higher fees for park entry and recreation passes, like the yearlong America the Beautiful pass, which grants access to public lands across federal agencies. "From the awe-inspiring Grand Canyon to the tranquility of the Great Smoky Mountains, America's national parks have provided generations of American families with unforgettable memories," Trump said in the order issued July 3. "It is the policy of my Administration to preserve these opportunities for American families in future generations by increasing entry fees for foreign tourists, improving affordability for United States residents, and expanding opportunities to enjoy America's splendid national treasures," he said. The order also calls for giving Americans "preferential treatment with respect to any remaining recreational access rules, including permitting or lottery rules." Any revenue generated by higher fees from foreign tourists will be funneled back into infrastructure improvements and other enhancements across federal recreation sites. Reservations required: Which national parks require them in 2025 Unrelated, the executive order also revokes a presidential memorandum signed by then-President Barack Obama in 2017 that promoted a range of diversity and inclusion efforts in the management of national parks and other public lands. It called for improving access for all Americans and "considering recommendations and proposals from diverse populations to protect at-risk historic, cultural, and natural sites." Diversity and inclusion were also priorities for parks during the Biden administration. Before leaving office in January, then National Park Service Director Chuck Sams told USA TODAY: "When I took my oath of office on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Secretary (Deb) Haaland said, on behalf of the president of the United States, myself and the American people, I'm charging you with these monuments, memorials and parks, but more importantly, we're charging you to find those stories that are less told or haven't been told yet, and to tell them fiercely. "So over the last three-plus years, working all across the park system, we've been able to tell stories to ensure that every American sees a reflection of themselves in the parks," he said. But the latest move comes after Trump on his first day back in office in January ordered an end to government diversity, equity, and inclusion programs established under Biden. USA TODAY has reached out the Interior Department and National Park Service for comment on the new executive order.
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
President Trump Signs 'Big Beautiful Bill' Into Law
At the White House on the Fourth of July, President Donald Trump held a 'Big Beautiful Bill' signing, complete with B-2 bombers. The most sweeping policy achievement of his second term so far includes tax cuts, eliminates taxes on tip and overtime, slashes Medicaid funding, food benefits, and clean energy incentives, and is expected to add $3 trillion to the national debt. Trump hailed it as "the greatest victory yet" in his remarks before the signing on Friday. "It's the most popular bill ever signed in the history of our country," he stated. Earlier in the day, Americans nationwide took to the streets to protest the signing at 'Free America' demonstrations. About 300 events are listed on the Women's March website. Participants are speaking out against what they see as an authoritarian president who works for the wealthiest citizens. The House passed the bill Thursday by a narrow margin, 218-214. All Democrats voted against it, and every Republican voted for it, except Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie and Pennsylvania Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick. New York Congressman Hakeem Jeffries tried to delay the vote by talking for eight hours and 45-minutes, breaking the House record for longest floor speech. The bill passed the Senate earlier in the week after Vice President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote. Even though public opinion of the "Big Beautiful Bill" is looking ugly so far, some experts say Trump comes out seeming stronger than ever. In an article published after the House vote, TIME summed up the significance of the bill's passage as 'a moment when President Donald Trump's hold on the Republican Party was tested — and he won.' Longtime Republican pollster Whit Ayres told TIME that Trump's control over the GOP 'is as close to total as any President has ever had over his own political party.' Whether the American public comes to see the 'Big Beautiful Bill' as 'beautiful' remains to be seen. A June 26 Quinnipiac poll found 29% of voters support the bill, 55% opposed it, and 16% did not have an opinion. What's clear is that Democrats will hold the bill against Trump during the 2026 midterm election campaign season.
