Suriname: Sixth Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Suriname
Published July 31, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday 31 July 2024
Singapore: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Singapore
Singapore: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Singapore
Published July 31, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 31, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Monday 29 July 2024
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Request of an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Request of an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Published July 29, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Burkina Faso: 2024 Article IV Consultation and First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso: 2024 Article IV Consultation and First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Burkina Faso
Published July 29, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Republic of Croatia: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Republic of Croatia: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 29, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday 24 July 2024
Republic of Equatorial Guinea: Staff-Monitored Program-Press Release; and Staff Report
Republic of Equatorial Guinea: Staff-Monitored Program-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 24, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 24, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Niger: Fourth and Fifth Reviews under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, Modification of Performance Criteria, and Extension and Rephasing of Arrangement, and First Review under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility Arrangement, and Request for Extension and Rephasing of the Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Niger
Niger: Fourth and Fifth Reviews under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, Modification of Performance Criteria, and Extension and Rephasing of Arrangement, and First Review under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility Arrangement, and Request for Extension and Rephasing of the Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Niger
Published July 24, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 24, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday 23 July 2024
Republic of Lithuania: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Republic of Lithuania: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 24, 2024 at 08:30AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 24, 2024 at 08:30AM
Read more at imf.org
Italy: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Italy
Italy: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Italy
Published July 23, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 23, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Monday 22 July 2024
St. Vincent and the Grenadines: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
St. Vincent and the Grenadines: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Published July 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Republic of Mozambique: Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
Republic of Mozambique: Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
Published July 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Cameroon: Sixth Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility and the Extended Fund Facility Arrangements, First Review under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility Arrangement, and Requests for Waivers of Applicability of Performance Criteria, Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, and Modification of Performance Criteria and a Reform Measure
Cameroon: Sixth Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility and the Extended Fund Facility Arrangements, First Review under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility Arrangement, and Requests for Waivers of Applicability of Performance Criteria, Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, and Modification of Performance Criteria and a Reform Measure
Published July 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 22, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday 19 July 2024
Panama: Financial Sector Assessment Program - Technical Note on Macroprudential Framework and Policies
Panama: Financial Sector Assessment Program - Technical Note on Macroprudential Framework and Policies
Published July 19, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 19, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Trump Promises to Militarize Police, Reincarcerate Thousands, and Expand Death Penalty
Trump Promises to Militarize Police, Reincarcerate Thousands, and Expand Death Penalty
Published July 19, 2024 at 09:10PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/aefXhYU
Donald Trump has long identified himself as the candidate of “law and order” but, during the Trump administration, “law and order” translated to a severe approach to criminal punishment and policing that failed to make us safer.
Today, his proposed policies for a second term promise to double down on these ineffective tough on crime tactics. If reelected, a second administration threatens to accelerate mass incarceration and roll back decades of progress by encouraging aggressive policing practices, enacting draconian sentencing regimes, and expanding the use of the death penalty.
At the ACLU, we won’t let our country go backward. If Trump returns to office, we’re prepared to meet these unconstitutional policies with the same fierce response as we did during the last Trump administration. Learn more about our roadmap in our breakdown.
Trump on the Criminal Legal System
The Facts: According to Trump’s campaign, “there is no higher priority than quickly restoring law and order and public safety in America.” But, just as it was during President Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign against the war on drugs, “law and order” under a second Trump administration is a “shorthand message promising repression of the Black community.”
Specifically, Trump’s law enforcement policies call for further protections for abusive police, including condoning the use of force against protesters, which he once described as a “beautiful thing to watch.” This rhetoric risks encouraging state actors to take a similarly brutal approach. Beyond rhetoric, however, Trump is also likely to immediately rescind President Joe Biden’s 2022 executive order on policing. Doing so would eviscerate one of the most substantial federal actions on police reform since George Floyd’s murder and roll back important changes to use of force standards, including restrictions on chokeholds and carotid restraints. These expected policies will have an outsized impact on marginalized communities, especially the Black community, which is far more likely to experience police abuse. We also know that a second Trump administration intends to deputize local law enforcement to aid an unprecedented mass deportation effort that would decimate communities.
Additionally, Trump has promised that, if reelected, his administration will accelerate mass incarceration efforts by directing federal prosecutors to seek the most serious charges and maximum sentences, pressuring local prosecutors to take a similarly draconian approach, and re-incarcerating thousands of people on home confinement. His administration will also expand the use of the death penalty – despite Americans’ increasing opposition to capital punishment – by broadening the category of crimes punishable by death, sentencing more people to die, and killing every person on federal death row.
While Trump will have a singular impact on the federal system, ultimately, state and local governments control most of the substantive parts of state criminal legal systems, including policing, prosecution, sentencing, and conditions in prisons and jails. Today, there are over 1.6 million people in state and local jails and prisons, compared to just over 200,000 in federal jails and prisons. But even without direct control of state systems, Trump will play an important role in setting the tone for state policies and many of his plans will have a ripple effect across the country.
Why It Matters: The Trump administration has already shown its capacity for brutal criminal legal system policies. In its final year, for example, the Trump Administration executed 13 people, more than half of whom were people of color. Trump executed more people than any administration in 120 years. Trump’s embrace of capital punishment is longstanding. In the 1980s, as a private citizen, he paid $85,000 from his own funds to publish a page-wide advertisement calling for the execution of five Black and Latine boys wrongfully accused as the “Central Park Five.”
But the impact of a second Trump administration doesn’t limit itself to any single area of the criminal legal system. He has proposed punitive policies that promise to dehumanize individuals at every point in the carceral system – from traffic stops to confinement conditions to sentencing. This tough on crime approach is also ineffective. Creating safe and healthy communities requires investing in programs that address the root causes of crime and disorder, like after-school programs, alternatives to policing, violence intervention teams, substance abuse treatment, employment pipelines, and affordable housing.
How We Got Here: During Trump’s time in office, he threatened to bring the National Guard into major cities to quell violence, and risk dangerously escalating tensions and exposing peaceful protestors to excessive or deadly force. He also encouraged the militarization of the police by rescinding President Barack Obama’s executive order limiting the distribution of military-grade weapons to state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies.
Trump and his administration were so committed to ineffective tough on crime policies that they even, at times, reversed their own progress on criminal legal system reform. In 2018, the ACLU worked with the Trump administration to secure the bipartisan First Step Act that then-President Trump signed into law. The First Step Act was significant legislation intended to improve federal prison conditions, reform overly harsh federal sentencing provisions, and provide increased programing and re-entry transition services to people incarcerated in federal prisons. Despite the promise of the Act, many of its key reforms were later undermined by the Trump administration.
Trump’s time in office also underscored the need to continue to hold his administration accountable for its unlawful actions. From 2017-2021, the ACLU filed more than 430 legal actions against the administration, including lawsuits aimed at defending the right to protest against police brutality, protecting the health and humanity of incarcerated people during the Covid-19 pandemic, and stopping mass surveillance by law enforcement.
Our Roadmap: If Trump returns to office, he can expect that he will be met with the same fierce response the ACLU brought during his last administration.
Specifically, we will use the courts to halt the Trump administration’s attempt to carry out one of, if not the largest, carceral events in our nation’s history: the senseless return to prison of nearly 3,000 individuals released on federal home confinement during the pandemic. Additionally, we will use litigation to challenge any efforts to return to unconstitutional methods of execution, and expose the racism and cruelty inherent in the death penalty, as we continue to seek its total abolition.
The ACLU will also advocate for Congress to constrain the funneling of military equipment to local police, fight for legislation to end sentencing disparities, and, under any administration, continue to push for the full implementation of the First Step Act. Importantly, we’ll use our expertise and resources to advise and assist members of Congress on how to prevent a future Trump administration from manipulating our legal system.
Lastly, since much of the American criminal legal system takes place at the state and local level, our state-level work will be more critical than ever with Trump in office. The ACLU and our affiliates will continue efforts to reduce opportunities for violent encounters with police, including by advocating for state use-of-force standards and the deprioritization of non-safety related traffic stops.
What Our Experts Say: “Trump has told us what he wants to do with a second term: fuel mass incarceration, encourage law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional policing practices, and expand the death penalty. We know from this country’s history that these extreme and immoral policies harm communities and infringe upon our rights and humanity. The ACLU is prepared to meet the Trump administration with the same fierce response as we did during his last term in office should he be reelected.” – Yasmin Cader, director of the ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality
What You Can Do Today: Congress can take action immediately to reduce disparities in our criminal legal system — starting by ending extreme sentencing. Send a message urging them to act today.
Published July 19, 2024 at 09:10PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/aefXhYU
ACLU: Trump Promises to Militarize Police, Reincarcerate Thousands, and Expand Death Penalty
Trump Promises to Militarize Police, Reincarcerate Thousands, and Expand Death Penalty
Published July 19, 2024 at 04:40PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/isJmw2a
Donald Trump has long identified himself as the candidate of “law and order” but, during the Trump administration, “law and order” translated to a severe approach to criminal punishment and policing that failed to make us safer.
Today, his proposed policies for a second term promise to double down on these ineffective tough on crime tactics. If reelected, a second administration threatens to accelerate mass incarceration and roll back decades of progress by encouraging aggressive policing practices, enacting draconian sentencing regimes, and expanding the use of the death penalty.
At the ACLU, we won’t let our country go backward. If Trump returns to office, we’re prepared to meet these unconstitutional policies with the same fierce response as we did during the last Trump administration. Learn more about our roadmap in our breakdown.
Trump on the Criminal Legal System
The Facts: According to Trump’s campaign, “there is no higher priority than quickly restoring law and order and public safety in America.” But, just as it was during President Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign against the war on drugs, “law and order” under a second Trump administration is a “shorthand message promising repression of the Black community.”
Specifically, Trump’s law enforcement policies call for further protections for abusive police, including condoning the use of force against protesters, which he once described as a “beautiful thing to watch.” This rhetoric risks encouraging state actors to take a similarly brutal approach. Beyond rhetoric, however, Trump is also likely to immediately rescind President Joe Biden’s 2022 executive order on policing. Doing so would eviscerate one of the most substantial federal actions on police reform since George Floyd’s murder and roll back important changes to use of force standards, including restrictions on chokeholds and carotid restraints. These expected policies will have an outsized impact on marginalized communities, especially the Black community, which is far more likely to experience police abuse. We also know that a second Trump administration intends to deputize local law enforcement to aid an unprecedented mass deportation effort that would decimate communities.
Additionally, Trump has promised that, if reelected, his administration will accelerate mass incarceration efforts by directing federal prosecutors to seek the most serious charges and maximum sentences, pressuring local prosecutors to take a similarly draconian approach, and re-incarcerating thousands of people on home confinement. His administration will also expand the use of the death penalty – despite Americans’ increasing opposition to capital punishment – by broadening the category of crimes punishable by death, sentencing more people to die, and killing every person on federal death row.
While Trump will have a singular impact on the federal system, ultimately, state and local governments control most of the substantive parts of state criminal legal systems, including policing, prosecution, sentencing, and conditions in prisons and jails. Today, there are over 1.6 million people in state and local jails and prisons, compared to just over 200,000 in federal jails and prisons. But even without direct control of state systems, Trump will play an important role in setting the tone for state policies and many of his plans will have a ripple effect across the country.
Why It Matters: The Trump administration has already shown its capacity for brutal criminal legal system policies. In its final year, for example, the Trump Administration executed 13 people, more than half of whom were people of color. Trump executed more people than any administration in 120 years. Trump’s embrace of capital punishment is longstanding. In the 1980s, as a private citizen, he paid $85,000 from his own funds to publish a page-wide advertisement calling for the execution of five Black and Latine boys wrongfully accused as the “Central Park Five.”
But the impact of a second Trump administration doesn’t limit itself to any single area of the criminal legal system. He has proposed punitive policies that promise to dehumanize individuals at every point in the carceral system – from traffic stops to confinement conditions to sentencing. This tough on crime approach is also ineffective. Creating safe and healthy communities requires investing in programs that address the root causes of crime and disorder, like after-school programs, alternatives to policing, violence intervention teams, substance abuse treatment, employment pipelines, and affordable housing.
How We Got Here: During Trump’s time in office, he threatened to bring the National Guard into major cities to quell violence, and risk dangerously escalating tensions and exposing peaceful protestors to excessive or deadly force. He also encouraged the militarization of the police by rescinding President Barack Obama’s executive order limiting the distribution of military-grade weapons to state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies.
Trump and his administration were so committed to ineffective tough on crime policies that they even, at times, reversed their own progress on criminal legal system reform. In 2018, the ACLU worked with the Trump administration to secure the bipartisan First Step Act that then-President Trump signed into law. The First Step Act was significant legislation intended to improve federal prison conditions, reform overly harsh federal sentencing provisions, and provide increased programing and re-entry transition services to people incarcerated in federal prisons. Despite the promise of the Act, many of its key reforms were later undermined by the Trump administration.
Trump’s time in office also underscored the need to continue to hold his administration accountable for its unlawful actions. From 2017-2021, the ACLU filed more than 430 legal actions against the administration, including lawsuits aimed at defending the right to protest against police brutality, protecting the health and humanity of incarcerated people during the Covid-19 pandemic, and stopping mass surveillance by law enforcement.
Our Roadmap: If Trump returns to office, he can expect that he will be met with the same fierce response the ACLU brought during his last administration.
Specifically, we will use the courts to halt the Trump administration’s attempt to carry out one of, if not the largest, carceral events in our nation’s history: the senseless return to prison of nearly 3,000 individuals released on federal home confinement during the pandemic. Additionally, we will use litigation to challenge any efforts to return to unconstitutional methods of execution, and expose the racism and cruelty inherent in the death penalty, as we continue to seek its total abolition.
The ACLU will also advocate for Congress to constrain the funneling of military equipment to local police, fight for legislation to end sentencing disparities, and, under any administration, continue to push for the full implementation of the First Step Act. Importantly, we’ll use our expertise and resources to advise and assist members of Congress on how to prevent a future Trump administration from manipulating our legal system.
Lastly, since much of the American criminal legal system takes place at the state and local level, our state-level work will be more critical than ever with Trump in office. The ACLU and our affiliates will continue efforts to reduce opportunities for violent encounters with police, including by advocating for state use-of-force standards and the deprioritization of non-safety related traffic stops.
What Our Experts Say: “Trump has told us what he wants to do with a second term: fuel mass incarceration, encourage law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional policing practices, and expand the death penalty. We know from this country’s history that these extreme and immoral policies harm communities and infringe upon our rights and humanity. The ACLU is prepared to meet the Trump administration with the same fierce response as we did during his last term in office should he be reelected.” – Yasmin Cader, director of the ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality
What You Can Do Today: Congress can take action immediately to reduce disparities in our criminal legal system — starting by ending extreme sentencing. Send a message urging them to act today.
Published July 19, 2024 at 04:40PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/isJmw2a
Thursday 18 July 2024
Papua New Guinea: Second Reviews Under Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Request for Modification of Quantitative Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea: Second Reviews Under Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Request for Modification of Quantitative Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Papua New Guinea
Published July 18, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 18, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
United States: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the United States
United States: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the United States
Published July 18, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 18, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday 16 July 2024
Canada: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Canada: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 16, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 16, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Monday 15 July 2024
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Selected Issues
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Selected Issues
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Angola: 2024 First Post-Financing Assessment-Press Release; and Staff Report
Angola: 2024 First Post-Financing Assessment-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Côte d'Ivoire: Second Reviews Under Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and Under the Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Request for Modification of Quantitative Performance Criteria, and the First Review Under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility Arrangement-Press Release; and Staff Report
Côte d'Ivoire: Second Reviews Under Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and Under the Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Request for Modification of Quantitative Performance Criteria, and the First Review Under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility Arrangement-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Nepal: Fourth Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Nepal
Nepal: Fourth Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Nepal
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Iceland: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Iceland: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Saturday 13 July 2024
ACLU: Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Blank Check to Break the Law
Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Blank Check to Break the Law
Published July 3, 2024 at 06:06PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8BaTQIA
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office not only gives Donald Trump a free pass for his past crimes, but sets a dangerous precedent for all future presidents.
Before Trump, no one had even argued that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal liability after they leave office. Indeed, every president – including Trump himself – assumed the opposite. In his impeachment trial Trump’s lawyers argued against impeachment by conceding that an acquittal would not be the end of potential accountability, because he could be criminally prosecuted after he left office. That concession was in line with all prior presidents’ acceptance that the United States is a place where all citizens, including the president, are equal under the law.
No more. In Trump v. United States, the court’s Republican-appointed justices — including the three Trump appointees — announced a brand new constitutional immunity from criminal liability for presidents’ “official acts,” or anything a president may do using the powers of the office. The court’s decision ensures that future presidents — including Trump himself should he win reelection in November — will know that they can escape criminal accountability for blatantly criminal acts, no matter how corrupt. Even acts that strike at the heart of our democracy, like resisting the peaceful transition of power, could not be prosecuted.
The court tried to cast its opinion as restrained, emphasizing that it rejected former President Trump’s most extreme claim: that presidents can only be prosecuted for crimes for which they had already been impeached. But as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in a powerful dissent, there is nothing measured about the opinion or its consequences. The court grants absolute immunity against criminal prosecution for any of a president’s “core” executive acts, which the court went on to define as including any use of the Justice Department—an ostensibly and traditionally independent agency–for criminal investigation. And it grants “presumptive” immunity for any acts within the “outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” While the latter immunity is in theory rebuttable, the court set such a high standard for rebutting it that it may be effectively absolute as well.
The court did hold that a president can be prosecuted for unofficial, purely private acts, a proposition even Trump did not dispute. But the court’s conception of official acts is strikingly broad. Worse, the court also held that official acts cannot even be used as evidence to support a crime committed in the president’s personal capacity, making it even more difficult for prosecutors to indict a president even for purely private criminal acts. The court purports to leave much of the work of hashing out the details in Trump’s case to lower courts. But the standards it announced will make holding any president criminally accountable extraordinarily difficult.
The immediate consequence of the decision is that it sends the current federal prosecution of former President Trump for interfering in the 2020 election into disarray. True, that prosecution is not yet dead. Formally, the Supreme Court only conclusively disqualified one set of allegations — those involving Trump’s communications to the Department of Justice — from the indictment. But as a practical matter, the fact-laden inquiry in which the district court must now engage, and any appeals thereto, will take many months if not years to resolve — all before any trial can commence. In addition, President Trump has already moved to wipe out his criminal conviction in New York State.
As Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent in the notorious Korematsu case upholding the federal government’s internment of Japanese Americans, the court’s opinion sits like a loaded weapon for future presidents, who can now avoid criminal liability for all manner of criminal ends so long as they do so through arguably “official” authorities.
As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
If former President Trump manages to win November’s election, it does not take much imagination to see just what kinds of retribution, or worse, the court has now greenlighted him to pursue against his political enemies.
But it’s important to remember that while this decision removes the possibility of criminal accountability, other forms of accountability remain. As long as this misguided decision remains the law, we must fight presidential abuses of power in other ways. In particular, we must resist encroachments on our rights and liberties, criminal or otherwise, before they happen — through civil lawsuits, the ballot box, and in the halls of power across the country. During the Trump administration, we filed more than 400 legal actions to defend constitutional rights and liberties from his administration’s unprecedented assaults — and often succeeded in halting illegal acts.
If he is elected again, we will be ready to do the same. Already our teams have drafted our response to the civil liberties and civil rights abuses outlined in Trump’s transition project, and we promise to challenge any acts – official or not – that violate the Constitution.
The threat of criminal prosecution is an important incentive to keep presidents from breaking the law. It’s largely gone now thanks to the Supreme Court. But it is only one form of accountability and constraint — one that, we should remember, had never been resorted to in the past. As they always have done, the courts can still enjoin illegal presidential behavior. Congress has important powers of oversight, the purse, and lawmaking that can check even a rogue president. And perhaps most important, by voting like our rights depend on it, we can all help ensure that future presidents will leave the court’s loaded gun in its holster.
“By voting like our rights depend on it, we can all help ensure that future presidents will leave the court’s loaded gun in its holster.”
Published July 3, 2024 at 06:06PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8BaTQIA
ACLU: Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Blank Check to Break the Law
Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Blank Check to Break the Law
Published July 3, 2024 at 10:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/S7FwWyh
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office not only gives Donald Trump a free pass for his past crimes, but sets a dangerous precedent for all future presidents.
Before Trump, no one had even argued that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal liability after they leave office. Indeed, every president – including Trump himself – assumed the opposite. In his impeachment trial Trump’s lawyers argued against impeachment by conceding that an acquittal would not be the end of potential accountability, because he could be criminally prosecuted after he left office. That concession was in line with all prior presidents’ acceptance that the United States is a place where all citizens, including the president, are equal under the law.
No more. In Trump v. United States, the court’s Republican-appointed justices — including the three Trump appointees — announced a brand new constitutional immunity from criminal liability for presidents’ “official acts,” or anything a president may do using the powers of the office. The court’s decision ensures that future presidents — including Trump himself should he win reelection in November — will know that they can escape criminal accountability for blatantly criminal acts, no matter how corrupt. Even acts that strike at the heart of our democracy, like resisting the peaceful transition of power, could not be prosecuted.
The court tried to cast its opinion as restrained, emphasizing that it rejected former President Trump’s most extreme claim: that presidents can only be prosecuted for crimes for which they had already been impeached. But as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in a powerful dissent, there is nothing measured about the opinion or its consequences. The court grants absolute immunity against criminal prosecution for any of a president’s “core” executive acts, which the court went on to define as including any use of the Justice Department—an ostensibly and traditionally independent agency–for criminal investigation. And it grants “presumptive” immunity for any acts within the “outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” While the latter immunity is in theory rebuttable, the court set such a high standard for rebutting it that it may be effectively absolute as well.
The court did hold that a president can be prosecuted for unofficial, purely private acts, a proposition even Trump did not dispute. But the court’s conception of official acts is strikingly broad. Worse, the court also held that official acts cannot even be used as evidence to support a crime committed in the president’s personal capacity, making it even more difficult for prosecutors to indict a president even for purely private criminal acts. The court purports to leave much of the work of hashing out the details in Trump’s case to lower courts. But the standards it announced will make holding any president criminally accountable extraordinarily difficult.
The immediate consequence of the decision is that it sends the current federal prosecution of former President Trump for interfering in the 2020 election into disarray. True, that prosecution is not yet dead. Formally, the Supreme Court only conclusively disqualified one set of allegations — those involving Trump’s communications to the Department of Justice — from the indictment. But as a practical matter, the fact-laden inquiry in which the district court must now engage, and any appeals thereto, will take many months if not years to resolve — all before any trial can commence. In addition, President Trump has already moved to wipe out his criminal conviction in New York State.
As Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent in the notorious Korematsu case upholding the federal government’s internment of Japanese Americans, the court’s opinion sits like a loaded weapon for future presidents, who can now avoid criminal liability for all manner of criminal ends so long as they do so through arguably “official” authorities.
As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
If former President Trump manages to win November’s election, it does not take much imagination to see just what kinds of retribution, or worse, the court has now greenlighted him to pursue against his political enemies.
But it’s important to remember that while this decision removes the possibility of criminal accountability, other forms of accountability remain. As long as this misguided decision remains the law, we must fight presidential abuses of power in other ways. In particular, we must resist encroachments on our rights and liberties, criminal or otherwise, before they happen — through civil lawsuits, the ballot box, and in the halls of power across the country. During the Trump administration, we filed more than 400 legal actions to defend constitutional rights and liberties from his administration’s unprecedented assaults — and often succeeded in halting illegal acts.
If he is elected again, we will be ready to do the same. Already our teams have drafted our response to the civil liberties and civil rights abuses outlined in Trump’s transition project, and we promise to challenge any acts – official or not – that violate the Constitution.
The threat of criminal prosecution is an important incentive to keep presidents from breaking the law. It’s largely gone now thanks to the Supreme Court. But it is only one form of accountability and constraint — one that, we should remember, had never been resorted to in the past. As they always have done, the courts can still enjoin illegal presidential behavior. Congress has important powers of oversight, the purse, and lawmaking that can check even a rogue president. And perhaps most important, by voting like our rights depend on it, we can all help ensure that future presidents will leave the court’s loaded gun in its holster.
“By voting like our rights depend on it, we can all help ensure that future presidents will leave the court’s loaded gun in its holster.”
Published July 3, 2024 at 10:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/S7FwWyh
Friday 12 July 2024
ACLU: Pop Quiz: How Much Do You know About America’s History Of Rejecting Kings?
Pop Quiz: How Much Do You know About America’s History Of Rejecting Kings?
Published July 13, 2024 at 01:14AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/mUD3z2x
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States means that any president can now use their official powers to commit crimes under the assumption they are now presumptively immune. A future president could turn the armed forces against their opponents, turn government agencies against their critics, or reenact some of America’s worst mistakes.
No president ever – from the founding of the country to now – has ever had this sort of power and protection. Until now. How much do you know about the history of rejecting Kings?
Take our quick quiz below and see if you can get a perfect score.
Click to see QuizPublished July 13, 2024 at 01:14AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/mUD3z2x
Thursday 11 July 2024
Ghana: Second Review under the Extended Credit Facility, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ghana
Ghana: Second Review under the Extended Credit Facility, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ghana
Published July 11, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 11, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Brazil: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Brazil
Brazil: 2024 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Brazil
Published July 11, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 11, 2024 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: How Trump's Proposed Radical Expansion of Executive Power Will Impact Our Freedoms
How Trump's Proposed Radical Expansion of Executive Power Will Impact Our Freedoms
Published July 11, 2024 at 02:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/48HNEn1
Donald Trump’s four years in office were marked by gross abuses of executive power, including efforts to trample protest and dissent — key freedoms at the heart of our participatory democracy.
He deployed federal agents and surveillance to silence Black Lives Matter protesters or anyone he deemed to oppose his policies, threatened to use his power as president to punish his political enemies, and attacked journalists who criticized him. If elected to a second term, we expect the Trump administration to double down on attempts to further limit our First Amendment rights and use the power of the federal government to attack political rivals, stifle dissent, and undermine checks and balances on presidential power.
For more than 100 years, the ACLU has defended our most fundamental rights and freedoms — including our right to express ourselves free from government interference. We won’t stop now. If Trump is reelected, we’re prepared to use the courts, Congress, state and local power, and our organizing muscle to challenge unlawful attempts to surveil Americans, suppress speech, and undermine democracy. Learn more in our breakdown:
Trump on Surveillance, Protest, & Free Speech
The Facts: In 2020, the Trump administration threatened to use force to quell protests, and actually did deploy federal agents and National Guard troops who arrested and used excessive force against protestors and journalists. If Trump secures a second term, this abuse of power is likely to recur and even escalate. Trump has already indicated that his administration would consider invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military to America’s cities — potentially targeting those with large BIPOC and immigrant communities — to suppress the right to protest. Trump has also indicated that his administration would attack online free expression by forcing media companies and online platforms to carry conservatives’ preferred speech.
As president, with federal law enforcement agencies under his control, Trump could carry out attacks on advocacy organizations and individuals he opposes. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Trump has praised violent crackdowns on campus protests, aligning with his previous attacks on academic freedom. In particular, he has threatened to deport student protestors who are not U.S. citizens, merging his attacks on free speech with his attacks on immigration. We also expect Trump to use his authority to further target media members and the freedom of the press to suppress negative stories about him or his administration.
Furthermore, Project 2025 has made clear that a second Trump administration intends to dismantle the already insufficient guardrails that prevent the president from abusing the executive branch’s power. The Supreme Court already removed one such guardrail in Trump v. United States, ruling that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” including using the Justice Department for his personal and political bidding. Trump can use a politicized Justice Department and the vast array of federal agencies to attack voters, protestors, journalists, abortion care providers and patients, his political opponents and any others he perceives as “enemies.” Even now, Trump allies in Congress are trying to use their investigative tools to chill free speech, including targeting civil society organizations and activists engaged in protected advocacy, such as opposing the war in Gaza or supporting LGBTQ rights.
The dangers of the federal government targeting its opponents and vulnerable populations are multiplied by mass surveillance mechanisms that the ACLU has long fought to constrain. A second Trump administration could leverage surveillance programs such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes the collection of communications between U.S. persons and people outside the United States, and which Congress has dangerously expanded to allow the government to search Americans’ private communications and information without a warrant and without notice.
Why It Matters: By punishing political enemies and stifling protest and dissent, a second Trump administration would break many of the checks and balances on the executive branch, and undermine the foundations of a functioning democracy. A second Trump administration will also pose a threat to our historic American tradition of robust, open political competition marked by spirited dissent and the foundational notion that the people have the final say.
How We Got Here: Early in his presidency, Trump sent National Guard troops to stop Black Lives Matter protesters in Washington, D.C., threatened to deploy the military more broadly to quell protests in other U.S. cities, and sent federal law enforcement agents around the country to break up protests by force, including arresting protestors and journalists.
Trump has also already shown how he will target his perceived enemies, whether they be political rivals, media members, or everyday citizens. He’s promised prosecution or violence towards President Biden and Biden administration officials, poll workers, former military generals, former officials in his own administration who fell out of favor, protesters, journalists, migrant or immigrant communities, and many others.
Additionally, when it comes to surveilling Americans, there is already a history of law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ abuse of surveillance programs that give the government the right to collect private information from American citizens. It is all too easy to foresee a second Trump administration using these overbroad and dangerous spying powers to surveil and discriminate against political opponents and people and communities already in its crosshairs. Protesters, communities of color, immigrants, and people seeking abortions or gender-affirming care all face even greater risks to their privacy and rights.
Our Roadmap: The ACLU will always rise to defend protesters, journalists, and others who are subjected to abusive criminal prosecutions or other punitive actions from the government. To combat a second Trump administration’s intention to trample historical checks and balances, and the apparent willingness of many within and outside of government to help, we will work with allies to urge the American people to exercise their First Amendment rights — like the right to protest — so that Trump’s excesses are met with the direct power of the people. And, if a second Trump administration does misuse executive authority, the ACLU will go to court to stop efforts to breach Americans’ privacy, discriminate based on race or ethnicity, or retaliate against dissenters or seek to silence them.
Should a Trump administration again deploy the military and federal agents to quell peaceful protests and interfere with journalists reporting on protests, the ACLU and its affiliates network will be on the ground fighting to protect our rights. As we did during Trump’s first presidency, we will bring lawsuits on behalf of protesters and the media addressing any speech or due process-related violations as outlined in the First and Fourth Amendments.
Importantly, we will urge state and local leaders who value civil liberties to lead efforts to resist abuses of federal executive power and limit the reach of the federal government’s power within their jurisdictions. For instance, states can limit — or eliminate — cooperation agreements between state and local law enforcement and federal law enforcement to minimize the grounds federal authorities can intervene in protests. They can also prevent voluntary data sharing that could be used for federal surveillance purposes or to support politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
The ACLU also works with a bipartisan coalition of civil libertarians on Capitol Hill who recognize the danger of overly broad executive power. To protect our free press, we’re already working to urge Congress to enact the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act (PRESS Act), which would prevent the federal government from compelling journalists to reveal their sources and work product. We’re also calling on our elected leaders to install stronger guardrails against political influence over the Justice Department. Lastly, we’re pushing policymakers to limit government surveillance and protect Americans’ private communications from unlawful collection by passing the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.
What Our Experts Say: “Donald Trump has made no secret of his disregard for the rule of law and his intent to corrupt the immense powers of the federal government to target his opponents and break the institutions that could pose checks and balances to presidential power. In a second term, unleashed and feeling invulnerable from legal and political repercussions, he would pose an unprecedented challenge to our constitutional values. But the ACLU is ready.” — Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs
“The ACLU has always worked to stop the executive branch from abusing its power at the expense of individual freedom and vulnerable minorities. The Trump presidency, with its false declarations of national emergencies in service of discrimination and total disregard for the rule of law, demonstrated what we’ve always known – that relying on unwritten norms for presidential behavior is grossly insufficient. — Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU
What You Can Do Today: The ACLU has long advocated for robust legislation that safeguards against all kinds of government overreach, including the unlawful warrantless surveillance of our private communications. Show your support by calling your representative to support the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act now.
Published July 11, 2024 at 02:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/48HNEn1
ACLU: How Trump's Proposed Radical Expansion of Executive Power Will Impact Our Freedoms
How Trump's Proposed Radical Expansion of Executive Power Will Impact Our Freedoms
Published July 11, 2024 at 10:00AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4CT7URX
Donald Trump’s four years in office were marked by gross abuses of executive power, including efforts to trample protest and dissent — key freedoms at the heart of our participatory democracy.
He deployed federal agents and surveillance to silence Black Lives Matter protesters or anyone he deemed to oppose his policies, threatened to use his power as president to punish his political enemies, and attacked journalists who criticized him. If elected to a second term, we expect the Trump administration to double down on attempts to further limit our First Amendment rights and use the power of the federal government to attack political rivals, stifle dissent, and undermine checks and balances on presidential power.
For more than 100 years, the ACLU has defended our most fundamental rights and freedoms — including our right to express ourselves free from government interference. We won’t stop now. If Trump is reelected, we’re prepared to use the courts, Congress, state and local power, and our organizing muscle to challenge unlawful attempts to surveil Americans, suppress speech, and undermine democracy. Learn more in our breakdown:
Trump on Surveillance, Protest, & Free Speech
The Facts: In 2020, the Trump administration threatened to use force to quell protests, and actually did deploy federal agents and National Guard troops who arrested and used excessive force against protestors and journalists. If Trump secures a second term, this abuse of power is likely to recur and even escalate. Trump has already indicated that his administration would consider invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military to America’s cities — potentially targeting those with large BIPOC and immigrant communities — to suppress the right to protest. Trump has also indicated that his administration would attack online free expression by forcing media companies and online platforms to carry conservatives’ preferred speech.
As president, with federal law enforcement agencies under his control, Trump could carry out attacks on advocacy organizations and individuals he opposes. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Trump has praised violent crackdowns on campus protests, aligning with his previous attacks on academic freedom. In particular, he has threatened to deport student protestors who are not U.S. citizens, merging his attacks on free speech with his attacks on immigration. We also expect Trump to use his authority to further target media members and the freedom of the press to suppress negative stories about him or his administration.
Furthermore, Project 2025 has made clear that a second Trump administration intends to dismantle the already insufficient guardrails that prevent the president from abusing the executive branch’s power. The Supreme Court already removed one such guardrail in Trump v. United States, ruling that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” including using the Justice Department for his personal and political bidding. Trump can use a politicized Justice Department and the vast array of federal agencies to attack voters, protestors, journalists, abortion care providers and patients, his political opponents and any others he perceives as “enemies.” Even now, Trump allies in Congress are trying to use their investigative tools to chill free speech, including targeting civil society organizations and activists engaged in protected advocacy, such as opposing the war in Gaza or supporting LGBTQ rights.
The dangers of the federal government targeting its opponents and vulnerable populations are multiplied by mass surveillance mechanisms that the ACLU has long fought to constrain. A second Trump administration could leverage surveillance programs such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes the collection of communications between U.S. persons and people outside the United States, and which Congress has dangerously expanded to allow the government to search Americans’ private communications and information without a warrant and without notice.
Why It Matters: By punishing political enemies and stifling protest and dissent, a second Trump administration would break many of the checks and balances on the executive branch, and undermine the foundations of a functioning democracy. A second Trump administration will also pose a threat to our historic American tradition of robust, open political competition marked by spirited dissent and the foundational notion that the people have the final say.
How We Got Here: Early in his presidency, Trump sent National Guard troops to stop Black Lives Matter protesters in Washington, D.C., threatened to deploy the military more broadly to quell protests in other U.S. cities, and sent federal law enforcement agents around the country to break up protests by force, including arresting protestors and journalists.
Trump has also already shown how he will target his perceived enemies, whether they be political rivals, media members, or everyday citizens. He’s promised prosecution or violence towards President Biden and Biden administration officials, poll workers, former military generals, former officials in his own administration who fell out of favor, protesters, journalists, migrant or immigrant communities, and many others.
Additionally, when it comes to surveilling Americans, there is already a history of law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ abuse of surveillance programs that give the government the right to collect private information from American citizens. It is all too easy to foresee a second Trump administration using these overbroad and dangerous spying powers to surveil and discriminate against political opponents and people and communities already in its crosshairs. Protesters, communities of color, immigrants, and people seeking abortions or gender-affirming care all face even greater risks to their privacy and rights.
Our Roadmap: The ACLU will always rise to defend protesters, journalists, and others who are subjected to abusive criminal prosecutions or other punitive actions from the government. To combat a second Trump administration’s intention to trample historical checks and balances, and the apparent willingness of many within and outside of government to help, we will work with allies to urge the American people to exercise their First Amendment rights — like the right to protest — so that Trump’s excesses are met with the direct power of the people. And, if a second Trump administration does misuse executive authority, the ACLU will go to court to stop efforts to breach Americans’ privacy, discriminate based on race or ethnicity, or retaliate against dissenters or seek to silence them.
Should a Trump administration again deploy the military and federal agents to quell peaceful protests and interfere with journalists reporting on protests, the ACLU and its affiliates network will be on the ground fighting to protect our rights. As we did during Trump’s first presidency, we will bring lawsuits on behalf of protesters and the media addressing any speech or due process-related violations as outlined in the First and Fourth Amendments.
Importantly, we will urge state and local leaders who value civil liberties to lead efforts to resist abuses of federal executive power and limit the reach of the federal government’s power within their jurisdictions. For instance, states can limit — or eliminate — cooperation agreements between state and local law enforcement and federal law enforcement to minimize the grounds federal authorities can intervene in protests. They can also prevent voluntary data sharing that could be used for federal surveillance purposes or to support politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
The ACLU also works with a bipartisan coalition of civil libertarians on Capitol Hill who recognize the danger of overly broad executive power. To protect our free press, we’re already working to urge Congress to enact the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act (PRESS Act), which would prevent the federal government from compelling journalists to reveal their sources and work product. We’re also calling on our elected leaders to install stronger guardrails against political influence over the Justice Department. Lastly, we’re pushing policymakers to limit government surveillance and protect Americans’ private communications from unlawful collection by passing the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.
What Our Experts Say: “Donald Trump has made no secret of his disregard for the rule of law and his intent to corrupt the immense powers of the federal government to target his opponents and break the institutions that could pose checks and balances to presidential power. In a second term, unleashed and feeling invulnerable from legal and political repercussions, he would pose an unprecedented challenge to our constitutional values. But the ACLU is ready.” — Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs
“The ACLU has always worked to stop the executive branch from abusing its power at the expense of individual freedom and vulnerable minorities. The Trump presidency, with its false declarations of national emergencies in service of discrimination and total disregard for the rule of law, demonstrated what we’ve always known – that relying on unwritten norms for presidential behavior is grossly insufficient. — Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU
What You Can Do Today: The ACLU has long advocated for robust legislation that safeguards against all kinds of government overreach, including the unlawful warrantless surveillance of our private communications. Show your support by calling your representative to support the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act now.
Published July 11, 2024 at 10:00AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4CT7URX
Wednesday 10 July 2024
ACLU: Supreme Court Term Ends with Win for Trump, First Amendment Rights
Supreme Court Term Ends with Win for Trump, First Amendment Rights
Published July 10, 2024 at 09:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fB0YgZ7
The Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term will be remembered for one case above all: Trump v. United States, in which the court granted former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal liability for attempts to use his office to obstruct the peaceful transition of power after he lost the 2020 election.
At the ACLU, we submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the justices to affirm that no person – including presidents – are above the law. And yet, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices abandoned the Constitution and its original meaning, voting instead to manufacture an immunity that effectively turns presidents into kings.
This is a court ready to create brand new constitutional protection for former President Trump, while turning away the claims of the powerless.
The justices’ ostensible justification for providing such immunity is baseless. They surmised that without knowing that they can commit crimes with impunity, presidents will be deterred from energetically doing their job. Yet, until this decision, every president faced the risk of prosecution if they committed crimes and there is no evidence that American presidents have been shy about exercising their authority. The court’s decision underscores the absolute necessity for organizations like ours to pursue constitutional checks on presidents while in office—and for voters to vote like their rights depend on it to hold presidents accountable.
While the presidential immunity case has rightfully dominated the public’s attention, the Supreme Court’s most recent term also involved many other important decisions. It issued important decisions protecting First Amendment rights, turned back a challenge to medication abortion, and addressed Second Amendment rights in a challenge to a law banning possession of guns by persons subject to domestic violence protective orders. The court also dealt several blows to our rights, denying constitutional protections for homeless people punished for sleeping in public, for Black voters subject to discrimination in South Carolina, and for an American citizen whose noncitizen husband was denied a visa without explanation.
A review of the term’s civil rights and civil liberties decisions offers a mixed picture, but make no mistake: This is a court ready to create brand new constitutional protection for former President Trump, while turning away the claims of the powerless.
In a pair of much-watched cases involving reproductive health, the court preserved access to abortion without addressing the merits of the disputes. In one case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, doctors who opposed abortion sued to challenge FDA rules that eased access to medication abortion, the most common form of abortion. The lower courts ruled against the FDA, but the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the challenge, ruling that the doctors lacked “standing” to challenge the FDA rules because they were not personally harmed by these rules. While this is a win for medication-abortion access, the fight is far from over. Politicians have vowed to continue efforts to restrict access to abortion nationwide.
The second abortion case, Moyle v. United States, asked whether a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients experiencing an emergency required those hospitals to provide abortions where that is the necessary treatment — even if state law forbids abortions under those circumstances. The case originated in Idaho, where state law prohibits abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother. After a federal district court properly ruled that the federal law overrides the state ban in emergency situations, the Supreme Court intervened prematurely and paused the lower court’s ruling until it could weigh in. But after hearing arguments, the court ultimately dismissed the case, thereby resurrecting the lower court ruling protecting access to abortion in emergencies. For now, the case will continue in the lower courts.
This term the court focused on civil liberties involving the First Amendment. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the ACLU represented the NRA in a case arguing that New York’s top financial regulator had violated the NRA’s First Amendment when she targeted it for its political views and sought to compel banks and insurance companies to blacklist the group. The court ruled unanimously in our favor. While the ACLU often disagrees with what the NRA advocates, we defended their rights before the Supreme Court because of the First Amendment principle at stake. Had we lost this case, governors in red states would have been free to employ similar tactics against immigrants’ rights groups, gay rights groups, or the ACLU itself. The case establishes that, while government officials are free to express their views, they may not use their official authority to coerce others to punish a group for its political ideas.
The court also issued important decisions protecting free speech online. While the Internet is far from new, decades after its advent the nation is still grappling with how to approach our speech rights online. In two cases challenging Texas and Florida laws that regulated the terms by which large social media platforms moderate the content they display, the court declared, as the ACLU argued in a friend-of-the-court brief, that social media platforms, like newspapers and bookstores, have a First Amendment right to choose how to curate the content they display, sell, or publish. In another pair of online speech cases, the court ruled that where government officials speak in their official government capacity on their personal online profiles, citizens blocked from those profiles can sue to challenge their exclusion.
The term’s only voting rights case saw the six Republican-appointed justices band together to overturn a unanimous lower court decision finding that South Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. In this case, in which the ACLU was counsel, along with the Legal Defense Fund and Arnold & Porter, the court sided with Republican legislators, disregarded its own precedent, and made racial gerrymandering challenges much more difficult going forward.
After a lengthy trial, a three-judge court unanimously found that South Carolina had impermissibly used race to draw the lines between two adjoining districts, to the detriment of Black voters. The mapmakers had moved more than 100,00 more voters than necessary to equalize populations across the districts. They had disproportionately relocated heavily Black neighborhoods, and the mapmakers had programmed their computers to display the racial impact of every line drawing choice. In the end, they ensured that the Black voting population did not rise above 17 percent, a ratio they considered crucial to cement a Republican advantage. The trial court found that the South Carolina legislature used race for partisan purposes when drawing their map, which the Supreme Court has long ruled is unconstitutional discrimination. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, however, the court ruled that politics and race are both potential explanations for a legislature’s redistricting, and that reviewing courts must assume “good faith” even where trial courts have found that the legislators relied on race.
In an important immigration case, the court ruled that U.S. citizens have no constitutional right to object to the denial of a visa to their noncitizen spouses—even if the denial means they will be unable to live together in this country. In Dept of State v. Munoz, Luis Asencio-Cordero, a long-time partner of a U.S. citizen, sought to become a permanent resident through marriage. Under our byzantine immigration law, he had to leave the country and obtain a visa to re-enter as an immigrant. When he did so, a State Department consular officer denied his visa without any factual explanation. His partner, Sandra Muñoz, sued, saying that in light of the burden on her marriage, she had a right to know the basis for the denial so that they could respond.
This was not an unreasonable or unprecedented claim. The court had previously held, that where the denial of a visa infringes on U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights, the government’s visa denial must at least be based on a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. Muñoz argued that a citizen’s right to live with her spouse in her home country ought to be grounds for protection. But in another 6-3 ruling, the court ruled that she had no right whatsoever.
By the same 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” does not bar punishing homeless people for sleeping in public, even when they have nowhere else to go. In Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that punishing someone without a home for sleeping outside was “cruel and unusual” because it punished them for the status of being homeless. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for his conservative colleagues, rejected that claim and concluded that the Grants Pass law punishes the conduct of sleeping in public, not the status of being homeless. But to be homeless is to have nowhere to sleep. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”
Even as this term ends, the court has already agreed to hear two important cases next term in which the ACLU is counsel. The first, United States v. Skrmetti, is a constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Tennessee is one of many states that have in recent years intruded upon the medical autonomy of parents, children, and their doctors by banning gender-affirming care, expressly because it is designed to depart from, rather than conform to, the individual’s sex assigned at birth. The ACLU has challenged these laws, arguing that they violate equal protection by discriminating on the basis of sex and gender identity. They also intrude on the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children. In the second case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court has agreed to hear whether the First Amendment bars Texas from requiring adults to submit digital identification to obtain access to websites containing constitutionally protected sexual speech.
Today’s Supreme Court is a challenging forum. That’s why the ACLU has launched our State Supreme Court Initiative to advance and protect civil rights and civil liberties under state constitutions, which can be more protective than the U.S. Constitution. But as this term illustrates, we can still win important victories in the federal courts — including the Supreme Court. One thing should remain clear: the ACLU will never stop fighting, in every forum available, for your rights and liberties, and for a more just America.
Published July 10, 2024 at 09:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fB0YgZ7
ACLU: Supreme Court Term Ends with Win for Trump, First Amendment Rights
Supreme Court Term Ends with Win for Trump, First Amendment Rights
Published July 11, 2024 at 02:24AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kcTtSma
The Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term will be remembered for one case above all: Trump v. United States, in which the court granted former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal liability for attempts to use his office to obstruct the peaceful transition of power after he lost the 2020 election.
At the ACLU, we submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the justices to affirm that no person – including presidents – are above the law. And yet, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices abandoned the Constitution and its original meaning, voting instead to manufacture an immunity that effectively turns presidents into kings.
This is a court ready to create brand new constitutional protection for former President Trump, while turning away the claims of the powerless.
The justices’ ostensible justification for providing such immunity is baseless. They surmised that without knowing that they can commit crimes with impunity, presidents will be deterred from energetically doing their job. Yet, until this decision, every president faced the risk of prosecution if they committed crimes and there is no evidence that American presidents have been shy about exercising their authority. The court’s decision underscores the absolute necessity for organizations like ours to pursue constitutional checks on presidents while in office—and for voters to vote like their rights depend on it to hold presidents accountable.
While the presidential immunity case has rightfully dominated the public’s attention, the Supreme Court’s most recent term also involved many other important decisions. It issued important decisions protecting First Amendment rights, turned back a challenge to medication abortion, and addressed Second Amendment rights in a challenge to a law banning possession of guns by persons subject to domestic violence protective orders. The court also dealt several blows to our rights, denying constitutional protections for homeless people punished for sleeping in public, for Black voters subject to discrimination in South Carolina, and for an American citizen whose noncitizen husband was denied a visa without explanation.
A review of the term’s civil rights and civil liberties decisions offers a mixed picture, but make no mistake: This is a court ready to create brand new constitutional protection for former President Trump, while turning away the claims of the powerless.
In a pair of much-watched cases involving reproductive health, the court preserved access to abortion without addressing the merits of the disputes. In one case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, doctors who opposed abortion sued to challenge FDA rules that eased access to medication abortion, the most common form of abortion. The lower courts ruled against the FDA, but the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the challenge, ruling that the doctors lacked “standing” to challenge the FDA rules because they were not personally harmed by these rules. While this is a win for medication-abortion access, the fight is far from over. Politicians have vowed to continue efforts to restrict access to abortion nationwide.
The second abortion case, Moyle v. United States, asked whether a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients experiencing an emergency required those hospitals to provide abortions where that is the necessary treatment — even if state law forbids abortions under those circumstances. The case originated in Idaho, where state law prohibits abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother. After a federal district court properly ruled that the federal law overrides the state ban in emergency situations, the Supreme Court intervened prematurely and paused the lower court’s ruling until it could weigh in. But after hearing arguments, the court ultimately dismissed the case, thereby resurrecting the lower court ruling protecting access to abortion in emergencies. For now, the case will continue in the lower courts.
This term the court focused on civil liberties involving the First Amendment. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the ACLU represented the NRA in a case arguing that New York’s top financial regulator had violated the NRA’s First Amendment when she targeted it for its political views and sought to compel banks and insurance companies to blacklist the group. The court ruled unanimously in our favor. While the ACLU often disagrees with what the NRA advocates, we defended their rights before the Supreme Court because of the First Amendment principle at stake. Had we lost this case, governors in red states would have been free to employ similar tactics against immigrants’ rights groups, gay rights groups, or the ACLU itself. The case establishes that, while government officials are free to express their views, they may not use their official authority to coerce others to punish a group for its political ideas.
The court also issued important decisions protecting free speech online. While the Internet is far from new, decades after its advent the nation is still grappling with how to approach our speech rights online. In two cases challenging Texas and Florida laws that regulated the terms by which large social media platforms moderate the content they display, the court declared, as the ACLU argued in a friend-of-the-court brief, that social media platforms, like newspapers and bookstores, have a First Amendment right to choose how to curate the content they display, sell, or publish. In another pair of online speech cases, the court ruled that where government officials speak in their official government capacity on their personal online profiles, citizens blocked from those profiles can sue to challenge their exclusion.
The term’s only voting rights case saw the six Republican-appointed justices band together to overturn a unanimous lower court decision finding that South Carolina had engaged in racial gerrymandering. In this case, in which the ACLU was counsel, along with the Legal Defense Fund and Arnold & Porter, the court sided with Republican legislators, disregarded its own precedent, and made racial gerrymandering challenges much more difficult going forward.
After a lengthy trial, a three-judge court unanimously found that South Carolina had impermissibly used race to draw the lines between two adjoining districts, to the detriment of Black voters. The mapmakers had moved more than 100,00 more voters than necessary to equalize populations across the districts. They had disproportionately relocated heavily Black neighborhoods, and the mapmakers had programmed their computers to display the racial impact of every line drawing choice. In the end, they ensured that the Black voting population did not rise above 17 percent, a ratio they considered crucial to cement a Republican advantage. The trial court found that the South Carolina legislature used race for partisan purposes when drawing their map, which the Supreme Court has long ruled is unconstitutional discrimination. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, however, the court ruled that politics and race are both potential explanations for a legislature’s redistricting, and that reviewing courts must assume “good faith” even where trial courts have found that the legislators relied on race.
In an important immigration case, the court ruled that U.S. citizens have no constitutional right to object to the denial of a visa to their noncitizen spouses—even if the denial means they will be unable to live together in this country. In Dept of State v. Munoz, Luis Asencio-Cordero, a long-time partner of a U.S. citizen, sought to become a permanent resident through marriage. Under our byzantine immigration law, he had to leave the country and obtain a visa to re-enter as an immigrant. When he did so, a State Department consular officer denied his visa without any factual explanation. His partner, Sandra Muñoz, sued, saying that in light of the burden on her marriage, she had a right to know the basis for the denial so that they could respond.
This was not an unreasonable or unprecedented claim. The court had previously held, that where the denial of a visa infringes on U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights, the government’s visa denial must at least be based on a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. Muñoz argued that a citizen’s right to live with her spouse in her home country ought to be grounds for protection. But in another 6-3 ruling, the court ruled that she had no right whatsoever.
By the same 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” does not bar punishing homeless people for sleeping in public, even when they have nowhere else to go. In Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that punishing someone without a home for sleeping outside was “cruel and unusual” because it punished them for the status of being homeless. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for his conservative colleagues, rejected that claim and concluded that the Grants Pass law punishes the conduct of sleeping in public, not the status of being homeless. But to be homeless is to have nowhere to sleep. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”
Even as this term ends, the court has already agreed to hear two important cases next term in which the ACLU is counsel. The first, United States v. Skrmetti, is a constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Tennessee is one of many states that have in recent years intruded upon the medical autonomy of parents, children, and their doctors by banning gender-affirming care, expressly because it is designed to depart from, rather than conform to, the individual’s sex assigned at birth. The ACLU has challenged these laws, arguing that they violate equal protection by discriminating on the basis of sex and gender identity. They also intrude on the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children. In the second case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court has agreed to hear whether the First Amendment bars Texas from requiring adults to submit digital identification to obtain access to websites containing constitutionally protected sexual speech.
Today’s Supreme Court is a challenging forum. That’s why the ACLU has launched our State Supreme Court Initiative to advance and protect civil rights and civil liberties under state constitutions, which can be more protective than the U.S. Constitution. But as this term illustrates, we can still win important victories in the federal courts — including the Supreme Court. One thing should remain clear: the ACLU will never stop fighting, in every forum available, for your rights and liberties, and for a more just America.
Published July 11, 2024 at 02:24AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kcTtSma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)