Latest news with #FugitiveSlaveActof1850
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's case for sending troops to help ICE involves precedent from Fugitive Slave Act
Despite a stinging rebuke from a federal judge Thursday, military forces deployed in Los Angeles will remain under presidential control through the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns. On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit. "A lot rides on what happens this weekend," said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday. Read more: Los Angeles braces for weekend of 'No Kings' protests The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to "rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California's troops and deployed them against protesters. "His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," Breyer wrote. While ICE "was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have," it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military's help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added. "The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," the judge wrote. The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer's ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A. The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction. The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states' rights. The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace. Read more: Fears of ICE raids upend life in L.A. County, from schools to Home Depot parking lots But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson's move than it does with President Millard Fillmore's actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north. Trump's arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the "take care" clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military's repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War. "Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act," the professor said. Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called "unitary executive theory," a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch. "It's not a coincidence that we're seeing immigration be the flash point," said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. "Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority." Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it's clear Trump and his advisers have a "vision of how ICE can be emboldened." "He's putting that on steroids," Chen said. "He's folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing." Some experts point out that Judge Breyer's order is limited only to California, which means that until it's fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere. "The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "President Trump's memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it's appropriate … wherever protests are occurring," Goitein said. "He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force." Experts said Breyer's ruling set a high bar for what may be considered "rebellion" under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A. "It's hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government," Goitein said. The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn't budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work. Read more: L.A. law enforcement leaders walk tightrope amid immigration crackdown "The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens," the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. "Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect." Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system. "It's a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn't matter," Chen said. "I don't know that [Trump] particularly cares that he's doing something illegal." Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's case for sending troops to help ICE involves precedent from Fugitive Slave Act
Despite a stinging rebuke from a federal judge Thursday, military forces deployed in Los Angeles will remain under presidential control through the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns. On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit. 'A lot rides on what happens this weekend,' said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide 'No Kings' protests planned for Saturday. The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California's troops and deployed them against protesters. 'His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,' Breyer wrote. While ICE 'was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,' it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military's help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added. 'The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous,' the judge wrote. The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer's ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A. The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction. The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states' rights. The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace. But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson's move than it does with President Millard Fillmore's actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north. Trump's arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the 'take care' clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military's repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War. 'Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,' the professor said. Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called 'unitary executive theory,' a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch. 'It's not a coincidence that we're seeing immigration be the flash point,' said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. 'Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority.' Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it's clear Trump and his advisers have a 'vision of how ICE can be emboldened.' 'He's putting that on steroids,' Chen said. 'He's folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing.' Some experts point out that Judge Breyer's order is limited only to California, which means that until it's fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere. 'The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. 'President Trump's memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it's appropriate … wherever protests are occurring,' Goitein said. 'He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force.' Experts said Breyer's ruling set a high bar for what may be considered 'rebellion' under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A. 'It's hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government,' Goitein said. The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn't budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work. 'The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens,' the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. 'Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect.' Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system. 'It's a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn't matter,' Chen said. 'I don't know that [Trump] particularly cares that he's doing something illegal.' Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why Protests Should Be Promises
African Americans boarding a newly integrated bus through the once-forbidden front door, following Supreme Court ruling ending successful 381 day boycott of segragated buses, Dec. 5 1956, Montgomery, AL. Credit - Don Cravens—Getty Images In a 1857 speech celebrating the 25th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in Britain's Caribbean colonies, Frederick Douglass made one of his most famous statements: 'Power concedes nothing without a demand.' The force of the point was not lost on the largely Black crowd that had gathered in upstate New York to hear Douglass' speech—they had yet to win their struggle against slavery in the United States. In fact, Douglass was writing in the wake of significant setbacks for the abolitionist cause, including the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which denied people freed of slavery basic rights of trial by jury or habeas corpus while allowing them to be hunted across state lines. Douglass, however, was reminding his audience not to confuse 'outward and hollow seemings of humility and repentance' with the real target of social change: By concerted, protracted struggle, in whatever forms were necessary. Today's protesters and advocates against police brutality and structural racism are the inheritors of this same moral force. As in Douglass' day, activists are hoping to make major structural changes: to substantially reform or even totally abolish institutions like prisons and police. And as in Douglass' day, they face an uphill battle against entrenched political and financial interests. For them to succeed, they need to heed Douglass' warning: That for protests to succeed, they must be backed by movements with the ability to promise to withhold—labor, debt payments, rent payments, or consumer support—and to follow through if demands aren't met. Protests by such movements consequently morph into real, tangible promises: demonstrations of an ability to escalate, backed by strategic leverage. References to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his iconic 1963 'I Have a Dream' speech are ubiquitous in American politics, as are the images and moral legacy of the peaceful marches for justice associated with his approach to politics. We who protested in the summer of 2020 after the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Tony McDade lived up to this aspect of the legacy, drawing vast multitudes of people to demand an end to injustices. By one estimate, 15 to 26 million people participated in the protests that raged that summer. And, just as in Selma in 1965, demonstrators were confronted with violence: indiscriminate use of pepper spray, tear gas, and life-altering rubber bullets to stand up against police brutality under the banner of slogans like 'defund the police' and 'Black lives matter.' The protests weren't for nothing: 20 cities cut police funds in some form in at least a temporary fashion; protestors in Seattle were able to win tens of millions toward a grassroots effort to let the public decide directly what and how to spend its money on public safety. But despite mobilizing an unprecedented number of Americans to the cause, and a brief interlude filled with the symbolism of task forces on racism and shoring up of diversity commitments from corporations, the political landscape that has developed in the years since is antithetical to the chants and signs of the 2020 protest movement. Local police were not defunded; besides the 20 holdouts, police budgets generally increased the very next year after the protests, and the recent pivot of President Donald Trump's administration to a project of mass deportation has begun to draw local law enforcement into the '100 mile border zone' in which federal immigration enforcement agents are allowed to execute its full powers—a zone that encompasses fully two thirds of the American population. The Trump administration has also engaged in a full-scale assault on laws and executive orders that were key victories in the Civil Rights era struggle against segregation and discrimination. What's missing from the formula this time was a promise to withhold—a tactic that also proved successful, but perhaps less commonly heralded, in the civil rights movement::: For instance, the 'I Have A Dream' speech was made at a march for Jobs and Freedom—pairing a fight for fairness and inclusion with a fight over wealth and economic opportunity. Accordingly, the March for Jobs and Freedom was initiated by labor organizer and union founder A. Philip Randolph and organized by unionists in the Negro American Labor Council. In fact, the march itself was modeled off a plan Randolph and his co-workers had made back in 1941, the credible threat of which forced then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to concede the important anti-discrimination executive order to desegregate the war industry to avoid Randolph's promised strike (executive orders which Trump repealed in his very first days of his second term). For the 1963 version of the march, the Negro American Labor Council brought together an important group of organizational allies pairing King (representing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference) with support from organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League, and the United Auto Workers. What was key to the success of that march was also what the '63 march shared in common with the planned march in 1941: The credible threat of disrupting business as usual that the organizations behind it represented. Such mobilizations might start with marches, but could advance elsewhere—for instance, King's SCLC had itself been born out of the proven success of the Montgomery bus boycott, and the inclusion of the Negro American Labor Union alongside major unions like the UAW meant the possibility of major strike actions if the demands were not met, including the possibility of a 'general strike' across all workers, like the UAW has called for today. They were 'demonstrations' in the fullest sense of the word—proof of how many people these organizations could mobilize, and how militantly they could be mobilized. They were promises about the kind of escalation the powers that could be expected if demands were not met, not just performances of dissatisfaction. The 2020 protests involved a lot of commitment by brave citizens, but largely did not have this kind of organizational base––the kind that could potentially impose the costs of a concerted strike or boycott. This helps to explain why the protests got the 'the low-hanging fruit of symbolic transformation', as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor wrote a year after the George Floyd protests, in response rather than loftier goals like, say, defunding the police. Those of us disappointed about the outcomes of the 2020 matches are not alone. As Vincent Bevins chronicles in his 2024 book If We Burn, many protest movements across the world in recent years have faced similar drawbacks, for similar reasons: decentralized, social media-based approaches were effective in harnessing attention and organizing street demonstrations. But they couldn't steer the response of the system in the protests' intended direction because there was no organizational support. All we got was black squares on Instagram. The very commitments that allowed the movements to garner attention and spectacle proved stumbling blocks once the cameras stopped rolling and only tanks and bullets remained. None of this means that we've run out of time to course correct. There are encouraging signs even amid the worsening political landscape: While the protests may not have swayed policymakers, history suggests that the initial conservative backlash of the public was followed eventually by a progressive shift in voting behavior. This evidence suggests that, as with the civil rights movement, the long run may favor the movement—at least those people and organizations that survive long enough to reap the benefits of a more favorable audience. The organizations that survive may be able to direct political conversation and set the agenda for course correction in the aftermath of continued overreach from the present administration. Above all, they can apply an approach to politics more like the one that succeeded in the civil rights movement or in Douglass' vision of abolition—protests that withhold and promise, rather than merely perform. This may prove indispensable in the years to come. Táíwò is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Climate and Community Institute. He is the author of the critically acclaimed books Elite Capture and Reconsidering Reparations. This project was supported by funding from the Center for Policing Equity. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
National Park Service restores Harriet Tubman feature on webpage after criticism over removal
A National Park Service webpage about the Underground Railroad has been restored to its original state months after it was changed to remove abolitionist leader Harriet Tubman from the top of the page. The "What is the Underground Railroad?" page featured a photo of and quote from Tubman as leading elements on the page, followed by text explaining the historical significance of the Underground Railroad in African American history. The page was altered to remove Tubman in early February, per data from the Wayback Machine, replacing the image with a collage of Postal Service Underground Railroad commemorative stamps highlighting "Black/White Cooperation." The change also removed Tubman's quote and altered the text to market the Underground Railroad as a bridge for "the divides of race, religion, sectional differences, and nationality" rather than "resistance to enslavement through escape and flight." Mentions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were also deleted before the restoration, along with historical cards of enslaved peoples fighting to reach freedom and a mural of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, the first Black regiment made up of those raised in the North. All of these elements have since been added back in their original states. "The removal of Harriet Tubman's image and quote from the National Park Service's 'Underground Railroad' webpage is concerning," civil rights attorney Ben Crump posted on X while Tubman was still scrubbed from the page. "Tubman's legacy and the resistance of enslaved people must never be diminished. We must stand in the truth of our history!" Bernice King, the daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., argued the removal was "an attack on truth, an attempt to erase history that would help us improve society today, a refusal to be uncomfortable and engaged in changing harmful policies and practices." MORE: Daughter of 1st Black Marine says it's 'unbelievable' to see 'my dad caught up in DEI' "Changes to the Underground Railroad page on the National Park Service's website were made without approval from NPS leadership nor Department leadership. The webpage was immediately restored to its original content," the NPS said in a statement to ABC News. A Washington Post investigation published on Friday pointed out these changes and others from the NPS. Its analysis of thousands of NPS webpages found several changes in language to rebrand racially charged moments in American history or remove references to slavery entirely. A page on Benjamin Franklin's views on slavery was taken down, and some mentions of prominent figures such as Thomas Stone owning enslaved people were omitted. This comes amid a larger push against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from the Trump administration and an effort to purge DEI from government webpages. MORE: DOD says it 'mistakenly removed' Jackie Robinson, other content from website amid DEI purge Last month, the Department of Defense said it "mistakenly removed" Jackie Robinson's Army service as well as other content, including a page that honored the 60th anniversary of U.S. troops, in its effort to remove DEI from its sites. Actress Viola Davis, who is set to play Tubman in an untitled HBO biopic, took to Instagram on Monday to share comment on the situation, saying the edits were "downplaying Harriet Tubman and slavery." "Really?!! Harriet Tubman?!!" she wrote in the caption. "Elevating this icon of American History is being diminished?!!! Erased?! us STRENGTH!!!!" National Park Service restores Harriet Tubman feature on webpage after criticism over removal originally appeared on
CNN
08-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
After a backlash, National Park Service restores old Underground Railroad webpage that prominently features Harriet Tubman
The National Park Service on Monday returned an image of and quote from Harriet Tubman to a webpage about the Underground Railroad, following backlash after her presence on the page was dramatically reduced. The agency said the reduced mention of Tubman had been made without approval by top leadership. Until mid-February, the top of the NPS' 'What is the Underground Railroad?' page featured a large photo of Tubman, the railroad's most famous 'conductor,' records from the Wayback Machine show. Next to it was a quote from Tubman about her experience coordinating the clandestine network for slaves seeking freedom. But sometime in February it was changed, swapping the large image of Tubman for small commemorative stamps of a number of abolitionists – among them Tubman – a screen grab from the webpage on March 19 captured by the Wayback Machine shows. Tubman's quote was removed and the text amended significantly in the updated version. The Washington Post first reported on the change Sunday, which prompted backlash from historians and educators. Asked about the restoration of Tubman's image and quote to the page, an NPS spokesperson told CNN, 'Changes to the Underground Railroad page on the National Park Service's website were made without approval from NPS leadership nor Department leadership. The webpage was immediately restored to its original content.' The edited version – without Tubman's quote or image – had been live since at least February 21, the Wayback Machine shows. The edited webpage featured revised text that did not mention slavery until the third paragraph and cut a reference to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 entirely. The edited article had swapped a description of enslaved peoples' efforts to free themselves with two paragraphs that emphasized the 'American ideals of liberty and freedom.' The recent reduction of Tubman's presence on the webpage, coming after several other prominent changes to government websites as the administration enacts a sweeping anti-DEI agenda, incurred criticism from some who said the change minimized Tubman's crucial contributions to the Underground Railroad. The abolitionist is credited with helping free scores of enslaved people during the Civil War period. One historian, Fergus Bordewich, had called the edits 'both offensive and absurd' in an interview with CNN. Before the page was reverted Monday afternoon, an NPS spokesperson defended the changes, telling CNN 'the idea that a couple web edits somehow invalidate the National Park Service's commitment to telling complex and challenging historical narratives is completely false and belies the extensive websites, social media posts, and programs we offer about Harriet Tubman specifically and Black History as a whole.' The spokesperson highlighted the two national historical parks named for Tubman. 'The National Park Service recognizes Harriet Tubman as the Underground Railroad's best known conductor and we celebrate her as a deeply spiritual woman who lived her ideals and dedicated her life to freedom,' the NPS said. There is a separate National Park Service page dedicated to Tubman, who was born into slavery in Maryland before fleeing to Philadelphia. She returned to Maryland over a dozen times to help free other slaves, guiding them through the 'Underground Railroad,' a secret network of routes and safe houses. The park service webpage on Tubman does not seem to have been changed since January 28, 2025.
