Latest news with #BlackDemocrat
New Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
US Supreme Court to rule on birthright citizenship, voting rights before current term concludes
WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court is meeting Friday to decide the final six cases of its term, including President Donald Trump's bid to enforce his executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on Oct. 6. The birthright citizenship order has been blocked nationwide by three lower courts. The Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the US. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. Decisions also are expected in several other important cases. The court seemed likely during arguments in April to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools. Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The justices also are weighing a three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana that is making its second trip to the Supreme Court. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are considering whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Free speech rights are at the center of a case over a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography. Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
Hamilton Spectator
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Supreme Court meets Friday to decide 6 remaining cases, including birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is meeting Friday to decide the final six cases of its term, including President Donald Trump's bid to enforce his executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on Oct. 6. The birthright citizenship order has been blocked nationwide by three lower courts. The Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. Decisions also are expected in several other important cases. The court seemed likely during arguments in April to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools. Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The justices also are weighing a three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana that is making its second trip to the Supreme Court. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are considering whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . Free speech rights are at the center of a case over a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography. Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Boston Globe
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court meets Friday to decide 6 remaining cases, including birthright citizenship
The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. Advertisement These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Decisions also are expected in several other important cases. The court seemed likely during arguments in April to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools. Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. Advertisement The justices also are weighing a three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana that is making its second trip to the Supreme Court. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are considering whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Free speech rights are at the center of a case over a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography. Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. Advertisement
Toronto Star
20-06-2025
- Toronto Star
Man with Taser and rope charged in attempted kidnapping of mayor, Memphis police say
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — A man has been charged with an attempted kidnapping of the mayor of Memphis after he went to the mayor's house in a gated community and was later arrested with a Taser, gloves, rope and duct tape in his vehicle, according to police. Memphis police on Wednesday announced that Trenton Abston, 25, is facing charges of attempted kidnapping, stalking and aggravated criminal trespass. Mayor Paul Young, a Black Democrat, was at home with his wife and children when Abston knocked on the door Sunday night, according to an arrest affidavit. Young said could see from his doorbell camera that the man was wearing gloves and had a lumpy bulge in his hoodie pocket.
15-05-2025
- Politics
Alabama lawmakers approve additional legal protections for police officers
MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Alabama lawmakers on Wednesday approved enhanced legal protections for police officers, changes that Republicans said show support for law enforcement but Democrats called 'a green light to kill Black folks.' The Alabama Legislature gave final approval to the legislation that sets legal standards for the use of force and provides for an immunity hearing. The bill states that an officer 'shall be justified' in the use of physical force as long as it is not constitutionally excessive force or 'recklessly' outside of the officer's discretionary authority. Republicans, who called the legislation the 'Back The Blue' bill said it is needed to provide a clear legal framework and show support for law enforcement officers faced with making split-second decisions. 'We ask them to take care of us, keep us safe in our homes as we sleep at night. This bill will give them the assurances that we back them and back the blue,' Sen. Lance Bell, a former deputy sheriff, said. Bell said officers who act improperly can still be prosecuted. The approval came after an emotional debate in which Black lawmakers read the names of Black people who have been killed by police and described their own encounters with law enforcement. 'HB 202 is a license to kill Black people. That's what it is,' Sen. Rodger Smitherman, a Black Democrat from Birmingham, said. Smitherman said departments have very good officers, but they also have officers who are 'racist against Black people' or will make impulsive decisions because they are scared. Sen. Merika Coleman, a Black Democrat from Pleasant Grove, said she fears the bill will protect 'bad apples' in police departments. She described her worries that someone might see her honors student son as a threat someday because of his tall frame and twisted locs. 'If this bill passes and there are young Black males, females, brown and other folks killed, you will have blood on your hands because of this piece of legislation,' Coleman said. Bell urged opponents to 'walk a mile in a law enforcement officer's shoes and find out what they have to deal with.' Smitherman responded, 'Walk a mile in the person's shoes when the person is dead.' The Alabama Senate approved the bill on a 25-6 late-night vote in the final hour of the legislative session. The House of Representatives accepted Senate changes. The bill now goes to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey who said she will sign it into law. 'There is NO question Alabama backs the blue!' Ivey stated on social media after the bill's passage. Under existing state law, police and civilians alike are currently entitled to a 'stand your ground' hearing in criminal cases where a judge can determine whether the defendant acted in self defense. The legislation will allow an immunity hearing where a judge will decide if a case can proceed based on whether the officer acted recklessly outside the scope of law enforcement duties. It would add similar protections in state civil lawsuits. It would also require law enforcement departments to collect data that tracks use of force complaints. The executive director of the Alabama Sheriff's Association, Hoss Mack, testified in favor of the bill in April. 'This is of equal benefit to law enforcement and the public. Let me reiterate what this bill does not do. It does not give blanket immunity to law enforcement,' said Mack, who added that he had personally arrested officers that worked for him for misconduct throughout his 39-year career in law enforcement. Leroy Maxwell, a civil rights attorney based in Birmingham, said he is afraid the bill would embolden misconduct. 'Legislation like this paves the way toward a police state, where law enforcement operates above the law and without fear of consequence,' Maxwell said. Civil rights attorney Harry Daniels opposed the law but doubted the overall impact on civil rights cases which could still be filed in federal court and will not be affected by the legislation. 'It is a lion with no teeth. It appears to be big and bad but it has no teeth and no claws,' Daniels said.
