Civil Rights Enforcement - The Justice Department showed a lack of interest in enforcing civil rights laws, with approximately 70% of colleagues feeling this way [1] - The administration allegedly weaponized civil rights laws against the people they were designed to protect [1] - The department is accused of using Title Six to act on reverse discrimination cases with thin evidence [1] - The department is accused of engaging in pressure campaigns without thorough investigation [1] Investigation of Minneapolis Police Department - An investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department after George Floyd's murder revealed systemic violations in use of force and first amendment rights [1] - The new administration rescinded the investigative findings related to the Minneapolis Police Department and a troubling pattern of excessive force in Memphis [1] Integrity and Non-Partisanship - The administration prioritized loyalty over the oath to the Constitution [9][10] - The administration sought pathways to achieve desired outcomes regardless of legality [10]

The administration today formally accused Harvard of violating civil rights laws by not doing enough to fight anti-semitism. We know that the president has tal talked to us before about um Harvard potentially having a deal with administration in the coming days. Do you have an updated timeline for that.How's the negotiations going. And is more pressure needed for Harvard to take fighting anti-semitism seriously. Well, there was um quite a direct letter that was sent to Harvard this morning as you know.um th ...

Welcome back to Velio on MSNBC. I'm Charles Coleman Jr. . filling in for Ally today.Now, since returning to office, Donald Trump has dismantled decades old agencies and initiatives which were initially designed to protect black Americans and other marginalized communities. He has justified these actions by claiming he's rooting out racial discrimination disguised as diversity, equity, and inclusion. But as Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist Nicole Hannah Jones points out in a new york a new essay for the New ...

Healthcare Access & Funding - The ruling impacts Planned Parenthood clinics in South Carolina, potentially curtailing women's access to healthcare [1] - Many states, including South Carolina, already ban the use of funds for reproductive healthcare, specifically abortion services [2] - The core issue is limiting access to general healthcare services like cancer screenings and prenatal care by excluding Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds [3] - This decision could pave the way for other states to expand restrictions on healthcare access [4] - The Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even for non-abortion services, based on the argument that funds are fungible and could potentially be used for services the state doesn't want to pay for [6][7] Potential Impact - Between 30% to 60% of women in the Medicaid population receive some form of healthcare from clinics like Planned Parenthood, so this ruling could create significant access issues [5] - The argument was made that even a small portion (e g, one penny per dollar) of Medicaid funds could indirectly support abortion-related activities [7]

Joining me now, MSNBC legal analyst and former US attorney Joyce Vance and MSNBC political analyst and Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist Eugene Robinson. Joyce, I'll start with you. The ruling on Trump's use of the National Guard in California, where do you think it goes from here and what does it tell us about writing precedent in real time? Right. So, it's an amazing opinion written by Justice Brier. I know people were disappointed early on when he took two days to set a hearing rather than immediately iss ...