Back to equality under the lawDOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights):Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said @AAGDhillon. “Our https://t.co/EjhLR6WhWe ...

Breaking moments ago, the conservative Supreme Court has just cleared the way for Texas to use its gerrymandered congressional map, which could help Republicans gain five more seats in next year's midterms. In a 6-3 decision, the court granted a stay on a lower court ruling that had previously blocked the map. In a scathing descent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "Today's order disserves the millions of Texans whom the district court found were signed to their new districts based on their race." >> Yeah, this i ...

Laura Baron Lopez here points out in her new reporting, the bigger issue here is that it's nearly impossible for normal Americans to sue the government. Laura, one of the things when we were talking about this yesterday that I brought up is like when you're watching videos of someone being bodys slammed by a federal law enforcement officer, people always comment, "You about to get paid." That's not actually the case. >> No, that isn't.And that's what I wanted to answer, which was you see all these videos of ...

Would you explain how a compromised DOJ affects all of our liberty. >> What we've seen in DOJ is really a transformation from an agency that was protecting Americans rights and and enforcing certain laws to an agency that's undermining those very same things. What that looked like from within was an agency where they were initially following the facts in the law.That's what I saw under the Biden administration. Um, if anything, if there was a bias, it was against doing anything that could be perceived as to ...

revolutionary women have fundamentally changed the world. 100 years ago, many thousands of young Irish women joined in radical organizations to fight for what the revolutionary Countress Marovich called the three great causes. the cause of women, the cause of labor, and the fight for Irish freedom. When our histories are written, sometimes those women make it into the margins, sometimes only into the footnotes. And Helina Maloney, one of those great women who fought for Irish freedom, had a response to that ...

City Government & Budget - The city aims to protect vulnerable residents from potential negative impacts stemming from the actions of powerful figures [1] - The city seeks to ensure revenue generation efforts also safeguard New Yorkers from budget cuts [1] - The city government is committed to restoring departments to their former capacity in advocating for dignity and civil rights [1] Law Department - The city's law department played a significant role in landmark civil rights cases [2] - The law department currently has 200 fewer lawyers than before [2] - The reduction in legal staff indicates a lack of investment in tools proven to protect New Yorkers [3] Political Stance - The administration will openly criticize President Trump's actions [3] - The administration remains open to dialogue with President Trump, prioritizing the city's interests [4] - The mayor's actions are intended to benefit the entire city [4]

As America faces this Trump administration, the crackdowns on the First Amendment, the questions over the use of troops, as promised, I want to play something that our colleague Rachel Matto, who's been working on these issues, said about what it boils down to, what we see in MAGA's motives. What we've got right now, what the movement is right now that Americans on the other side are up against is a movement that is deathly afraid of the fact that there are no longer there is no longer going to be a white m ...

Voting Rights Act Overview - The Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to end Jim Crow era policies and ensure states could not disenfranchise black voters [2] - The Act was reshaped and expanded to protect a broader range of Americans, including Spanish speakers, Native Americans, disabled people, and minority voters [3] - Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act outlaws election practices that deny or limit voting rights based on race [8] Supreme Court Decisions & Challenges - In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4B of the Voting Rights Act, weakening Section 5, which established preclearance for states with histories of discriminatory policies [5][6] - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana versus Cala, a case challenging a congressional map with two majority-black districts [9][10] - Conservative justices signaled willingness to strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, potentially legalizing gerrymandering by race [11] Implications of Dismantling the Voting Rights Act - Opponents of the Voting Rights Act, including Chief Justice John Roberts, have worked to dismantle it piece by piece [12][14] - Dismantling the Voting Rights Act could lead to over-representation of white voters and under-representation of black voters [23] - Without Section 2, it would be more difficult to challenge discriminatory election practices based on their outcome, requiring proof of intent [30][31] Representation & Gerrymandering - A group of white voters in Louisiana is challenging a congressional map that has created two majority black districts out of six, representing one-third of Louisiana's population [10][11] - Striking down Section 2 could allow Republicans to pick up an estimated 19 congressional seats through gerrymandering [11] - White people only make up 56% of the population in Louisiana, but are seeking more representation than they deserve [23]

power represented here today and I come to ask you to go all out to get every negro in this county register to vote. >> That was Dr. . Martin Luther King Jr.. in 1966 urging black citizens of King Street, South Carolina to exercise their newfound right to vote. A right secured just a year earlier when Lynden B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.Nearly 60 years later, the law that ensured that right is now under attack. Yesterday, the Supreme Court appeared poised to weaken a key provision in tha ...

Core Insights - Protests organized by former employees of Google and Amazon against the companies' collaboration with the Israeli military, specifically their $1.2 billion contract under "Project Nimbus" [3] Group 1: Protests and Legal Actions - Protests titled "No Tech for Apartheid" were held against Google and Amazon's cloud computing and AI services for Israel [3] - The protests led to the Anderson lawsuit and an open charge with the National Labor Relations Board [4] - A federal judge ruled that former Google employees could proceed with claims of unlawful retaliation for participating in the protests [7] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Google attempted to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under Title VII, arguing that the complaints were unreasonable given its operational interests [5] - The judge determined that more factual development was needed and denied the dismissal of Title VII claims [5] - Some state law claims were dismissed, particularly those under the San Francisco police code, while claims related to New York laws were not applicable to the plaintiffs [6]