Podcasts about Civil Rights Act

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

As Republicans in Congress look to gut Medicaid with President Donald Trump's supposed “Big Beautiful Bill,” the Supreme Court ended its session ruling on United States vs. Skirmetti that Tennessee could bar gender-affirming care for minors. The ruling itself centered on whether or not such a ban would violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In a 6–3 decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting, the court decided the Tennessee law did not violate the clause. To learn more about what gender affirming care does, and what providers working on the ground think of efforts to ban it, we spoke to Dr. Alex Dworak. He's the associate medical director of family medicine at One World Community Health Centers and specializes in LGBTQ medicine.Then in headlines: Republicans in the Senate are literally racing to pass President Trump's “Big Beautiful Bill” by the Fourth of July, the Trump administration's spat with Harvard continues as it accuses the university of being in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and Trump goes to “Alligator Alcatraz,” Florida's new migrant detention center.Show Notes:Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

The show opens with a brief mention of the Idaho shooter story from over the weekend and my worries of how this could be emulated by known enemies of our nation that were allowed entry during the Biden regime. Then we spend a good amount of time discussing how the Democrat party no longer shies away from being openly socialist. I've said that's what they really are for many years now, but until recently, they have always denied it. We look at how both NYC and LA are both openly competing for which city will fall the fastest. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) outright lied on Meet the Press when he said the only reason the border is now secure is due to the Trump administration breaking the law. The same propaganda wing of the Democrat party wanted to argue about the Congo-Rwanda peace deal. CNN decided to give an anti-ICE app a 90 second infomercial by putting a spotlight on the app meant to identify and disrupt ICE raids. On the anti-Semitic side, Candace Owens was on the Piers Morgan Show and put out the challenge of trying to identify what “Zionists” have ever done for America. So, I give just a handful of examples off the top of my head. Fellow independent journalist Erin Molan simply played a Monty Python scene from Life of Brian. A Tesla arsonist is being prosecuted by charges that could mean 30 years in prison. The DOJ is going after Harvard for violations against Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. And, as we close, Scott Bessent, Treasure Secretary, says the Big Beautiful Bill is just a step in the right direction and there is a lot more to do in getting our debt under control. Perhaps part of those next steps includes word that the Trump administration is already looking for a replacement for Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

UPMC is ending gender-affirming care for young people, and a lot of staffers and city officials aren't happy about it. We explain how providers and City Council members are pushing back against the health care giant. Plus, we're sharing tips for staying cool and not overtaxing our power grid as the weather heats up and highlight some Pittsburgh wins and losses from the past week — including local love in a new Netflix hit and (potentially?) good news for raising our state minimum wage. Do you know where trans youth can access safe medical care? Call or text the I WILL AID AND ABET TRANS HEALTH CARE HOTLINE at 412-212-8893. Want to learn more about UPMC staffers' calls to reinstate gender-affirming care? Find their open letter to UPMC here and their rally supply wishlist here. Think you've experienced discrimination? The Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations has been around since before the Civil Rights Act, and their investigations yield enforceable results. Submit an inquiry on the PghCHR portal, call their office at 412-255-2600, or email human.relations@pittsburghpa.gov Notes and references from today's show: Sign up for sewer overflow advisories [ALCOSAN] How to stay safe in extreme heat [National Weather Service] What is Code Red? [Allegheny County] Pittsburgh cooling centers [City of Pittsburgh] Check or report a power outage [Duquesne Light] Lifeguard staffing shortage prompts planned, unplanned closures of Derry Community Pool [TribLive] Therapists, doctors urge UPMC to ‘fight back,' reinstate gender-affirming care for trans youth [WESA] Proposed Pittsburgh bills aim to shield LGBTQ+ residents, reduce penalties for sex workers [TribLive] Pittsburgh City Council to consider new protections for the LGBTQ community [WESA] Shortage of new teachers is hurting Pa. kids' academic prospects, report says [SpotlightPA] Minimum wage would be $15 in big counties, $12 in smaller ones under novel bill passed by Pa. House [SpotlightPA] 14 arrested during ICE operation at Tepache Mexican Restaurant in Allegheny County [WTAE] Learn more about the sponsors of this June 27th episode: Heinz History Center Bike PGH VisAbility Become a member of City Cast Pittsburgh at membership.citycast.fm. Want more Pittsburgh news? Sign up for our daily morning Hey Pittsburgh newsletter. We're also on Instagram @CityCastPgh! Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The concept of white privilege in America has evolved, taking on new meanings in different social and political contexts. Historically, white privilege referred to systemic advantages granted to white individuals, such as access to citizenship, voting rights, and housing opportunities before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In more recent discussions, white privilege has been framed as both an unconscious and systemic advantage. Peggy McIntosh's 1988 essay, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, helped popularize the idea that white privilege manifests in everyday conveniences, such as seeing one's race widely represented in media or not being racially profiled. However, some scholars argue that this interpretation overshadows the deeper systemic roots of white privilege, which are tied to historical inequities and conscious acts of exclusionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/racism-white-privilege-in-america--4473713/support.

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Monique and Kevin dive into the life and philosophy of Booker T. Washington, exploring his seminal work, Up from Slavery. They discuss how his story of resilience, education, and self-reliance contrasts with modern narratives about race and history. Kevin also shares his controversial perspective on why he thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, arguing it violates constitutional freedoms of association, creating bureaucratic overreach and unintended consequences. From Washington's vision of black empowerment to the complexities of Jim Crow, integration, and DEI, this episode challenges mainstream views and invites honest dialogue. Time Stamps: 0:00 Intro 2:58 Booker T. Washington's Up from Slavery 38:01 The Case Against the Civil Rights Act 1:04:33 Final Thoughts & Call to Action

It's Emancipation Thursday. On today's show we watch archival news footage covering the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discuss the deterioration of that landmark legislation. Meanwhile, the Iran war drums beat louder. Trump does a 180 on his supposed “anti-war” position as the same old Military Industrial Complex arguments used for Iraq are recycled. We chat with Michael Carroll from the Wilderness Foundation about the proposed massive sell of public lands in the SENR Bill. For info on how to contact your Senator regarding this check out https://www.wilderness.org/ ICE arrests a Spanish language journalist in Atlanta for “being in the road”. In the Fun Half, Matt Binder and Brandon Sutton  join us as we watch Tucker Carlson, doing his best William F. Buckley impression as he sasses the sleazy, feline Ted Cruz over American policy on Israel Continuing with the creeps, Charlie Kirk hosts a Young Women's Leadership Summit where he chats with a 14 year old girl about going to college to find a husband. All that and more. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: COZY EARTH: Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to cozyearth.com and use code MAJORITYREPORT for up to 40% off Cozy Earth's best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, apparel, and more. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/  

On 18 June 1964, black and white protesters jumped into a ‘whites only' swimming pool at a motel in St Augustine, in Florida.Photos of the Monson Motor Lodge manager, James Brock, pouring cleaning acid into the pool to get them out, made global headlines.The following day, the Civil Rights Act - a landmark bill to end discrimination which had been stalling in the Senate – was finally passed.Using archive interviews with two of the swimming activists, JT Johnson and Mimi Jones, Vicky Farncombe looks back at this crucial moment in the civil rights movement.This programme includes outdated and offensive language.Eye-witness accounts brought to life by archive. Witness History is for those fascinated by the past. We take you to the events that have shaped our world through the eyes of the people who were there. For nine minutes every day, we take you back in time and all over the world, to examine wars, coups, scientific discoveries, cultural moments and much more. Recent episodes explore everything from football in Brazil, the history of the ‘Indian Titanic' and the invention of air fryers, to Public Enemy's Fight The Power, subway art and the political crisis in Georgia. We look at the lives of some of the most famous leaders, artists, scientists and personalities in history, including: visionary architect Antoni Gaudi and the design of the Sagrada Familia; Michael Jordan and his bespoke Nike trainers; Princess Diana at the Taj Mahal; and Görel Hanser, manager of legendary Swedish pop band Abba on the influence they've had on the music industry. You can learn all about fascinating and surprising stories, such as the time an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the President of the United States in protest of America's occupation of Iraq; the creation of the Hollywood commercial that changed advertising forever; and the ascent of the first Aboriginal MP.(Photo: Monson Motor Lodge manager, James Brock, pouring cleaning acid into the pool. Credit: Getty Images)

On April 23, President Trump signed E.O. 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring that “disparate-impact liability is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.” In this episode, experts explore the origins, evolution, and controversy surrounding disparate impact law—from Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to landmark Supreme Court decisions like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio (1989), to the legislative response in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. What is disparate impact liability? How has it shaped outcomes in employment, housing, and equal access to opportunity? Is it a justifiable basis for legal liability without evidence of disparate treatment? Join us for a conversation on one of the most debated legal doctrines in American civil rights history and its role in shaping the future of equality and meritocracy.Featuring:Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan InstituteGail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law[Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal OpportunityAdditional Reading:Morenoff, Dan. "Disparate-Impact Liability: Unfounded, Unconstitutional, & Not Long For This World." Fedsoc.org. June 6, 2025. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/disparate-impact-liability-unfounded-unconstitutional-not-long-for-this-world

The Community Relations Service was created by the Civil Rights Act to smooth out race relations during desegregation, but like every government agency, it quickly took on a life of its own. The shadowy organization has an incredible level of secrecy and pushes woke agendas, including the normalization of trans kids and the planting of mosques in all Christian towns. Worst of all, the CRS is known to compel grieving families who are the victims of minority crime to deliver prepared statements downplaying the violence of their attackers. Academic Agent joins me to discuss.  Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robin Biro claims the Kamala Harris rallies were packed with a lot of "razzle dazzle". Meanwhile Trump focuses on the security of this nation, a consequence of an exhaustive pace, most around him cannot match. Robin & I agree that it's not beneficial to be hiring based on race. We agree that hiring based on talent, performance and capability is key. DOJ now looking into the Mayor's actions. Did Johnson violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act?Chicago Mayor Johnson Hiring Based on Race ~ Not CapabilitiesGene Valentino on Newsmax's NewslineORIGINAL MEDIA SOURCE(S):Originally Recorded on May 20, 2025America Beyond the Noise: Season 5, Episode 588Image courtesy of: Newsmax➡️ Join the Conversation: https://GeneValentino.com➡️ WMXI Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRadio981➡️ More WMXI Interviews: https://genevalentino.com/wmxi-interviews/➡️ More GrassRoots TruthCast Episodes: https://genevalentino.com/grassroots-truthcast-with-gene-valentino/➡️ More Broadcasts with Gene as the Guest: https://genevalentino.com/america-beyond-the-noise/ ➡️ More About Gene Valentino: https://genevalentino.com/about-gene-valentino/

It is widely known that schools have instituted equity-focused policies, teacher training, and curriculum. Critics wonder whether this focus on equity is illegal and unconstitutional.Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.Featuring:Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man, respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that, because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.” Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.The landmark Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services fundamentally reshapes our understanding of workplace discrimination protections. Through a rare unanimous ruling, the Court has powerfully affirmed that every individual—regardless of majority or minority status—stands equal under employment law.What makes this case particularly significant is how it dismantles misconceptions about "reverse discrimination." As we explore in this episode, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act never distinguished between majority and minority groups—it protects individuals. When Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman, found herself denied promotion and subsequently demoted while LGBTQ+ candidates were favored, she challenged this discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite losing at lower court levels, her persistence ultimately vindicated a principle too often misunderstood: discrimination against anyone based on protected characteristics is illegal, full stop.The Court's decision, delivered through Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the additional burden that some courts had placed on majority plaintiffs to prove "background circumstances" suggesting their employer discriminates against majority groups. This ruling has profound implications for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American workplaces. While the Court didn't explicitly address DEI, the message is clear—policies that favor certain groups at the expense of others cross legal boundaries. For employees who believe they face discrimination despite belonging to a majority group, this decision provides significant legal backing.Have you experienced workplace discrimination but hesitated to speak up because you belong to a majority group? Understanding your rights is the first step toward workplace equality. Subscribe to the Employee Survival Guide for more insights that empower you to navigate complex workplace dynamics and protect your rights regardless of your background. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group need to demonstrate “background circumstances suggesting that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.The Supreme Court held that In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation without imposing a heightened evidentiary standard for plaintiffs from majority groups. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, which had required Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to demonstrate "background circumstances" suggesting that her employer discriminated against the majority group. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that Title VII's protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of group membership. The ruling allows Ames's discrimination claim to proceed in lower courts.This decision clarifies that plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII need not meet additional burdens based on their majority status, thereby potentially broadening the scope for future employment discrimination claims.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Thursday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Trump's Call with XI Trump’s recent call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Buck breaks down the administration’s efforts to renegotiate trade terms, particularly around rare earth materials, and praises Trump’s strategic clarity and leadership—drawing a sharp contrast with the previous Biden administration’s perceived indecisiveness and lack of coherent China policy. Buck also explores the evolving dynamic between President Trump and Elon Musk, noting some recent friction but expressing hope that their shared goals will keep the relationship productive. He uses this moment to underscore the importance of unity among influential figures who support American innovation and economic strength. CBP Senior Advisor, Ron Vitiello Immigration and border security. Ron Vitiello, Senior Advisor to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vitello details the dramatic improvements at the southern border under Trump’s leadership, including a 90%+ drop in illegal crossings, increased prosecutions, and the deployment of 10,000 troops. He credits this success to strong leadership, clear policy enforcement, and international cooperation with Mexico and Canada. Vitiello also updates listeners on the status of the border wall, revealing that over 100 miles have been constructed using remaining funds from Trump’s first term, with plans for 700 additional miles underway. He emphasizes how the administration’s use of tariffs has pressured neighboring countries to step up their border enforcement, contributing to a significant reduction in fentanyl trafficking and cartel activity. Buck passionately defends ICE and Border Patrol agents, pushing back against political attacks and media narratives that undermine their work. He highlights the dangerous conditions these agents face and the critical role they play in protecting American communities from cartel violence and illegal immigration. Identity Politics Obsession Buck critiques a controversial ruling by a Biden-appointed federal judge in Colorado, who blocked the deportation of the family of a convicted terrorist. He warns of the dangers of judicial overreach and the erosion of executive authority, especially when lower court judges act as de facto policymakers. A major segment of the hour focuses on the unraveling credibility of former Biden administration allies. Buck calls out CNN’s Jake Tapper for attempting to rebrand himself after years of defending the Biden presidency, accusing him of opportunism. He also dissects the political pivot of former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who recently announced her departure from the Democratic Party. Buck argues that her appointment was driven by DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) priorities rather than qualifications, and he critiques the media’s double standards in covering her tenure. A landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirms the illegality of reverse discrimination. Buck explains how the unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, confirms that all Americans—regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation—are equally protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He frames this as a major blow to DEI policies and a win for merit-based hiring. Bad Blood between Musk and Trump? Buck addresses a growing rift between President Trump and Elon Musk. He analyzes their recent public spat over government spending and policy disagreements, while emphasizing Trump’s history of reconciliation and strategic alliances. Buck suggests that despite current tensions, the relationship may recover, as both figures remain central to the MAGA movement. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John discusses Elon Musk who took to his social media cesspool to complain about the Big Beautiful Budget the Trump administration is trying to ram through Congress. Musk was joined by other Republicans, most of whom actually voted FOR the bill, in denouncing its cost to the federal deficit. Then, Professor Corey Brettschneider is back to talk about Trump's controversial attack on the Harvard Law Review—twisting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to target student editors—and his shocking showdown with his one-time allies in the Federalist Society. Plus, the Supreme Court might soon allow religious opt-outs from school lessons about LGBTQ+ rights and could even greenlight religious charter schools, eroding the wall between church and state. Then lastly, John welcomes the gal who founded the blog Hullabaloo - Heather Digby Parton to chat about Republican infighting and more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The year 1963 was a landmark one for the civil rights movement – and it's the subject of Peniel Joseph's new book Freedom Season. In the book, the University of Texas at Austin professor argues the events of 1963 ushered in what would become a 50-year consensus on racial justice, including the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and transformations to public institutions. In today's episode, Joseph joins Here & Now's Scott Tong for a conversation about the varied voices of the civil rights era – who didn't always agree – including James Baldwin, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King Jr., and John F. Kennedy.To listen to Book of the Day sponsor-free and support NPR's book coverage, sign up for Book of the Day+ at plus.npr.org/bookofthedayLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the “big beautiful bill” would add over $2 trillion to the national debt. Elon Musk is also escalating his criticism. However, the White House disputes those claims, insisting the agenda will cut spending and reduce the deficit.President Trump spoke by phone today with Russian President Vladimir Putin, following a series of high-profile Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory. Trump described the call as “a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace.” He added that Putin “very strongly” indicated he would respond to the recent attacks on Russian airfields.Meanwhile, the Trump administration is taking action against Columbia University, alleging the school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by showing “deliberate indifference toward the harassment of Jewish students.” As a result, the administration says Columbia no longer meets the standards required by its accrediting body.

Attentive listeners will notice that this episode is about a book but isn't an author interview. That's because it's the first in a new occasional series of episodes that will be dedicated to books by conservative writers that we think are important — whether because a book articulates the right's approach to an issue or problem in an especially revealing way, influenced or galvanized the conservative movement when it was published, or, with the benefit of hindsight, has proven to be prescient about where the right, and perhaps the country, were heading. Many of these books will be from decades past, but our first selection is more recent: Christopher Caldwell's 2020 broadside against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what it wrought, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. Caldwell argues that the apparatus created by civil rights legislation and the federal courts in the 1960s amounted to a new, second constitution that displaced the one Americans had lived under since the founding, one that jettisoned traditional liberties like freedom of association and replaced democratic self-government with rule by bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges. Who has access to these new levers of power? Not the working class whites who are neither a favored racial or ethnic minority — a person of color — nor a member of the progressive elites who preside over the new regime. Much of The Age of Entitlement is dedicated to tracing the effects of civil rights legislation when it comes to the causes that arose in its wake: feminism, immigrant rights, gay marriage, and more. But the book is equally a brutal examination of the legacy of the Baby Boom generation (and, by extension, Ronald Reagan, whose presidency they powered), that most "entitled" of generations, whom Caldwell deplores for wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Boomers, in Caldwell's telling, refused to straightforwardly reject the second constitution and its distributional demands, while also insisting petulantly, again and again, on having their taxes cut. We explore these topics and more, and end with a discussion of where Caldwell leaves the reader — and where we're at now, in light of the challenge he poses to both conservatives and the left.Sources:Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties (2020)— Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West (2009)Helen Andrews, "The Law That Ate the Constitution," Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2020Timothy Crimmins, "America Since the Sixties: A History without Heroes," American Affairs, Summer 2020Perry Anderson, "Portents of Eurabia," The National, Aug 27, 2009. ...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

This Day in Legal History:  House of Representatives Passes 19th AmendmentOn this day in legal history, May 21, 1919, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. The amendment stated simply: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After decades of organizing, lobbying, and protest by suffragists—including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul—this marked a major legislative victory in the long fight for women's suffrage.The amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878 but languished for over 40 years before gaining sufficient political traction. The context of World War I played a pivotal role; as women took on new roles in the workforce and public life during the war, their contributions made it politically difficult to deny them voting rights. President Woodrow Wilson, initially lukewarm on the issue, eventually lent his support, which helped sway key votes.Following the House vote on May 21, 1919, the amendment proceeded to the Senate, where it was passed on June 4, 1919. Ratification by the states took just over a year, with Tennessee becoming the decisive 36th state to ratify on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was officially certified on August 26, 1920.This moment was a turning point in constitutional law regarding civil rights and voting equality, setting the stage for later expansions through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and ongoing debates over voter access and gender equality.Twelve U.S. states, led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Illinois, and Oregon, are challenging President Donald Trump's recently imposed "Liberation Day" tariffs in federal court. The states argue that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on imports from countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits. They claim the law doesn't authorize tariffs and that a trade deficit does not qualify as a national emergency.The case will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan, which also recently heard a similar lawsuit from small businesses. Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs were harming consumers and small businesses, estimating an extra $3,800 per year in costs for the average family. The Justice Department contends that the states' claims are speculative and that only Congress can challenge a president's national emergency declaration under IEEPA.Trump's tariff program began in February with country-specific measures and escalated to a 10% blanket tariff in April, before being partially rolled back. His administration defends the tariffs as necessary for countering unfair trade practices and reviving U.S. manufacturing. Multiple lawsuits—including ones from California, advocacy groups, businesses, and Native American tribes—are challenging the tariff regime.US states mount court challenge to Trump's tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department is investigating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, now a leading Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, over Republican allegations that he misled Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic while in office. The inquiry reportedly stems from a referral by a GOP-led House subcommittee, which cited Cuomo's closed-door testimony before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.Cuomo's campaign says it was not notified of the probe and denounced the investigation as politically motivated "lawfare" driven by Trump allies. Critics argue the Justice Department is being used to target political opponents, while Trump and his supporters maintain that prior cases against him were politically biased. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 following a state attorney general report accusing him of sexual misconduct—which he denies—is the presumed frontrunner in the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary.He is set to face incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent after facing and being cleared of federal charges. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed or commented on the Cuomo probe, and his spokesperson insists the former governor testified truthfully and transparently.US Justice Department investigating former New York governor Cuomo, sources say | ReutersA federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit by the U.S. Treasury Department that aimed to cancel a labor contract with IRS workers in Covington. Judge Danny Reeves ruled that the Treasury lacked legal standing to bring the suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 73. This marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration's broader attempt to weaken federal employee union rights through an executive order.The administration had filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Texas following Trump's directive that claimed two-thirds of federal employees could be excluded from labor protections under national security grounds. In response, the NTEU filed its own legal challenge in Washington, D.C., where Judge Paul Friedman temporarily blocked the order's implementation. However, a federal appeals court later paused that injunction while the Trump administration appeals.This decision in Kentucky slows momentum for the administration's effort to restrict collective bargaining for federal workers, though related cases continue to play out in other jurisdictions. The NTEU was represented by both in-house and private attorneys, while the Justice Department defended the administration's position.Judge Tosses Treasury's Suit to Cancel Federal Worker Contract This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Attorney Rich Lenkov, Capital Member, Downey & Lenkov, and co-host of “Legal Face-Off” on wgnradio.com, joins John Williams to talk about the Justice Department investigating Mayor Brandon Johnson for alleged racially-motivated hiring. Rich tells John if he believes Johnson’s hiring of some employees is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Attorney Rich Lenkov, Capital Member, Downey & Lenkov, and co-host of “Legal Face-Off” on wgnradio.com, joins John Williams to talk about the Justice Department investigating Mayor Brandon Johnson for alleged racially-motivated hiring. Rich tells John if he believes Johnson’s hiring of some employees is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Attorney Rich Lenkov, Capital Member, Downey & Lenkov, and co-host of “Legal Face-Off” on wgnradio.com, joins John Williams to talk about the Justice Department investigating Mayor Brandon Johnson for alleged racially-motivated hiring. Rich tells John if he believes Johnson’s hiring of some employees is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:President Joe Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis should be seen as a reminder of the importance of continued medical research investment: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/trending/article/texas-lawmakers-joe-biden-20333919.phpHB 49, in the rush to completion at the end of the 89th Legislature, would protect oil companies from legal liability for damage caused by the use of produced water, which they wish to sell to farmers and dump in rivers: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/19/texas-legislature-produced-water-legal-protections-oil-gas/?_bhlid=dd62e22f81d6a0713ef8d55fe4b382ab41846318...See our podcast on produced water and why it's not a good option to shore up dwindling water supply in Texas: https://progresstexas.org/podcast/happy-hour-146-dark-water-how-texas-railroad-commission-threatens-our-futureTo clarify on Friday's Daily Dispatch: while the "anti-squatter" bill HB 32 did die with the House deadline's arrival on Friday, its identical companion bill SB 38 is still in play - thus the rights of Texas renters are still in jeopardy: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BoDTqhf11/School financing, the Texas Lottery, Dan Patrick's hemp ban and Greg Abbott's bail reform are all still on the table as Sine Die approaches in two weeks: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2025/05/19/5-things-to-watch-as-texas-legislative-session-nears-end/ICE detention of suspected undocumented immigrants in El Paso has prompted a scathing report from Amnesty International: https://elpasomatters.org/2025/05/14/el-paso-ice-detention-center-human-rights-violations-amnesty-international/Notorious right-wing crusading federal judge Matthew Kascmaryk has ruled that LGBTQ+ people are not protected from workplace harassment by the Civil Rights Act: https://truthout.org/articles/federal-judge-strikes-down-lgbtq-protections-against-workplace-discrimination/Attorney General Ken Paxton has been hit with two lawsuits from five Texas district attorneys over new rules he wishes to use to pry into their prosecutorial records: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/16/texas-attorney-general-district-attorneys-lawsuits/In a harbinger of things to come in Texas, Oklahoma schools see a new wave of conservative disinformation incorporated into lesson plans, including the study of "discrepancies" in the 2020 election: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/17/oklahoma-high-schools-election-conspiracy-theoriesWe look forward to celebrating our 15th anniversary this summer! Join us for a celebratory gathering in Dallas on Monday June 9: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://act.progresstexas.org/a/2025anniversary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The merch to match your progressive values awaits at our web store! Goodies at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.We're loving the troll-free environment at BlueSky! Follow us there at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bsky.app/profile/progresstexas.bsky.social⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Thanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

https://youtu.be/RclwB5luKek Podcast audio: Ayn Rand denounced racism as “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” She also rejected as collectivist many of the measures being advocated to combat this evil, including what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the sixtieth anniversary of that law, Dr. Greg Salmieri revisited the themes of Rand's classic article “Racism,” relating them to present-day America. Topics include the definitions of “race” and “racism,” how the rejection of free will incline intellectuals toward racism, how superficially opposed racist doctrines on the political left and right embolden one another, in what respects racism can be “institutional” or “systemic,” how statist policies (including provisions of the Civil Rights Act) perpetuate existing racial inequities, and why it is only by embracing capitalism that we can put racism and its legacies behind us. Recorded live on June 18 in Anaheim, CA as part of OCON 2024.

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

​On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Manzaro Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several associates, including Eric Mejias, Brendan Paul, Emilio Estefan, and Adria English. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in a criminal enterprise involving human trafficking, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, and obstruction of justice. Joseph claims he was drugged, transported across state lines, and subjected to sexual violence orchestrated by Combs, with assistance from the other named individuals. The lawsuit invokes federal statutes such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Civil Rights Act, as well as Florida's human trafficking laws.The complaint details each defendant's alleged role: Mejias is accused of drugging and threatening Joseph; Paul of coordinating transportation; Estefan of facilitating and approving the transport; and English of aiding in Joseph's targeting and concealment. Joseph also references unidentified individuals ("DOE Johns") who may have contributed to the alleged crimes. He seeks damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the defendants' actions violated multiple federal and state laws. The case brings renewed scrutiny to Combs, who has faced previous legal challenges, and raises questions about the involvement of high-profile individuals in alleged criminal activities.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.686843.1.0.pdf

This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism—a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee (AJC), the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration are Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC, and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. ___ Resources: Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes: Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman Related Episodes: Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview:  Manya Brachear Pashman   This week, groups representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism -- a major breakthrough in the effort to end anti-Jewish hatred and create campuses where Jewish students feel safe. In collaboration with American Jewish Committee, the groups urged the Trump administration to continue making the eradication of antisemitism a priority, but without endangering the research grants, academic freedom and institutional autonomy of America's colleges and universities. Here to discuss this collaboration  is Sara Coodin, Director of Academic Affairs for AJC and Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Ted, Sara, welcome to People of the Pod. Ted Mitchell   Thanks, Manya, good to be here.  Manya Brachear Pashman   So Ted, if you could please give our listeners an overview of who signed on to this. Who are the six organizations, and do they encompass all of the higher ed institutions in the country? Ted Mitchell   We represent everybody. And so it's everybody, from the Community College Association to the land grant universities, to AAU, the big research universities, the state colleges and universities, and then ACE is an umbrella organization for everybody. So we've got built in suspenders, and we've got every institution in America on the side of eliminating antisemitism. Manya Brachear Pashman   And then, I guess, the next question is, why? I mean, why was it necessary for American Council on Education and these other associations to join this effort? Ted Mitchell   Well, a couple, a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we have partnered. AJC and Ace have partnered for a number of years to identify and try to address issues of antisemitism. So feel like we've been in partnership for some time on these issues. And unfortunately, the need has continued to grow. I think that last spring was a real wake up call to a lot of our institutions, that they might have been comfortable believing that there was no antisemitism on their campus, but boy, they got up. They got a notice in the mail. So I think that we have, as a group, all six of us, we have worked with our institutions since last spring to create opportunities for institutions to do better. And so we had long conversations over the spring and summer about changes in disciplinary policy, everything from masks to how to make sure that every group that was seeking to have a voice make a protest was operating under the same rules, make sure that everybody understood those rules. And frankly, I think we've made we've made great progress over the course of the summer. There are still things that we can do better. There are always things we can do better. But I think the call for this letter was the conflation by the Trump administration of antisemitism and efforts to eradicate antisemitism with all of the other activities that go on on a university campus that are not really related to antisemitism. And case in point is the administration's willingness to hold research funds hostage to institutional changes and behaviors that have never been stipulated. So we're in this interesting spot where we want to do better. We're working on doing better, and the administration is saying, well, just do more. We can't tell you when you'll get there. Not only is that sort of fruitless, we also think it's illegal. Manya Brachear Pashman   So Sara, I know AJC published an action plan for university administrators last year, and that not only includes concrete steps to address antiSemitic incidents when they happen immediately, but also ways to cultivate a healthier culture. Does AJC expect the member schools of these six associations to draw from that action plan? Sara Coodin   so we hope so. You know, we don't, we don't have the power to mandate that any university in particular, much less a range of universities representing all of higher ed the entire spectrum adopt our specific action plan, but our action plan is really, I think, quite thoughtful, and covers a lot of territory. So we're thinking about all of the citizens of campus. We're thinking about administrators. We're thinking too about how administrators can create frameworks so that students can get the education that they're meant to receive on site, and for which they, you know, attend university in the first place, we're thinking too about the role of faculty, and specifically at this crucial moment, because so much attention has been paid to the experience of students and to what happens when you create clear expectations and convey. Them to students through codes of conduct and other kinds of regulatory initiatives. We're thinking very seriously about what it would mean for administrators to convey those expectations to their faculty as well, and we think that there are lanes through which they can do this that have been under scrutinized and underutilized, and usually that falls into the bucket of professionalization.  What do you do with faculty who are showing up fresh out of grad school on your campus? How do you as an institutional leader or a provost, convey the expectations that you have about the rights and responsibilities of being a teacher, a research supervisor, someone who might be supervising student activities and clubs like the student newspaper. How do you convey your institutional expectations and your expectations of these folks who are in positions of leadership for a generation or more? So it's it's an area that we think is really ripe for conversation and for folks to be convening in meaningful discussions about what the next steps consist of Ted Mitchell   Anya, if I can, if I can interject, I really applaud the framework. I think is a great place for us to start. And I know that one of the things that was important and beginning to get support from my members and other people's members was the convening that we that we held a while ago in Washington that drew 85 college presidents together, and that was a solutions focused meeting. And I think it really suggests to me that there is quite an opening for us to work together on creating a framework that could be adopted either formally or informally by many institutions. As you say, none of us can mandate what's going to happen. That's also true for the government, frankly. But I think the more and the sooner we can build a common common consensus around this, the better. And to your point about faculty responsibilities. We hear a lot about academic freedom. We hear a lot about faculty rights. We often forget that there is a responsibility for faculty to be the adults in the room and to expand the dialog and raise the level of discussion, and we need, we need to promote that. You Manya Brachear Pashman   know, I'm curious, are there any examples of institutions that have made a change have drawn from that action plan, and it created positive results. Sara, Sara Coodin   so I think we're seeing the effects of time, place and manner restrictions, and we first saw those being articulated through the task force at Columbia. And we know Columbia is not, not exactly an ideal institution right now for for a lot of different reasons, but that's not to disparage the efforts of the folks who sat on that antisemitism Task Force who came up with very specific and extremely thoughtful recommendations for their school. And I pride myself on having worked with a team that took those ideas and made sure that other schools were aware of them, so that they weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. And I think that's often the function that we've served, and particularly in the last year, because schools can and do operate in silos, whether they're geographical silos or silos within their own particular brand of school, big research institutions, Ivy League institutions, sometimes they're in conversation, but it can be very useful to serve, for us to serve as a convening function. We're not also not reinventing the wheel necessarily, but we're working in partnership to try to bring a solutions focused kind of perspective to this, because we think there are solutions in view? Obviously, leadership plays a key role in any institutional context. Are people emboldened enough to actually feel like they can convey those solutions to their communities and stand by them? And that's something that we have seen happen. I wish it were pervasive. I wish it were happening in every case. It's not, but there are certainly institutions that have taken the lead on this, whether quietly or very loudly, and I think it's important to bring our solutions to the attention of other institutions as well. Dan, I'm curious, can Manya Brachear Pashman   you shed light on the conversations that have unfolded since October 7, 2023 I mean, as students were setting up encampments and staging sit ins. Was there hand wringing, or was it considered, well, at least at first, typical college activism part of university life, Ted Mitchell   I think it started off as I certainly would never say ho hum. It started off with a sense that there has been a horrific event in the world. And of course, our campuses are going to be places where students need to respond to that and reflect on it. So I think in the early days, there was a sense that this was a right thing for campuses to be engaged in. I think the surprise came in the following weeks. 90s when the pro Palestinian, anti Israel and antiSemitic counter protests began to happen and and that was something that we really didn't expect, certainly not in the volume and intensity that took place. And I think I've said this from from the beginning, I think that we were taken by surprise and on our back foot, and so I can't, I don't know a college president who would say, stand up and say we did everything right after October 7. And you could see this in, you know, presidents making a statement on a Tuesday that they had to either retract or revise on a Thursday, and then by Monday, everything was up in the air. Again, I think that there was a lack of a sense of what the framework is looking for. There's a there was a lack of a sense of, here's where we stand as an institution. Here's what's permissible, here's what's not permissible, and we're going to be even handed in the way we deal with students who are protesting and expressing expressing their beliefs. We need them to be able to express their beliefs, but under no circumstances can those expressions be violent. Under no circumstances can they discriminate against other groups or prevent other groups from access to the education that they came for. Manya Brachear Pashman   Is some of what you're saying informed by 2020, hindsight, or is it informed by education? In other words, have you? Have you yourself and have have college presidents learned as as this year has progressed, Ted Mitchell   Well, this goes to Sara's really good point. I think that there have been two kinds of learning that have taken place. One is sort of informal communication back and forth between Presidents who sort of recognize themselves in other circumstances. And I think that that's been very powerful. We for a while, in the spring, had informal Friday discussion discussions where any president who wanted to come and talk would come and talk, and they were avidly taking notes and trying to learn from each other in real time. I think the second kind of learning was after students went home, and there really was a broad agreement that institutions needed to tackle their policies. We ran into presidents in the spring who had not read their student conduct policies, and from from there to people who had very elaborate Student Conduct policies but weren't actually following them very well, or had a lot of exceptions, or, you know, just crazy stuff.  So summer was an incredible time of calculated learning, where people were sharing drafts of things. Sara was deeply involved in, in making sure that institutions were learning from each other, and that Sara and her colleagues were pulling these together in the framework, in the framework that we have, you know it's still happening. I talk often with with presidents, and they're still exchanging notes and tactics about things that are going on, going on this fall, but they're doing so from a position of much more stability, Manya Brachear Pashman   Having taken that breath over the summer and prepared. Ted Mitchell   Having taken that breath, having sort of been through the fire, having taken that breath and having really regrouped. And one of the things that has been most essential in that regrouping is to make sure that all parties on campus understand what the rules and regulations are. From faculty to staff to Student Affairs personnel, to make sure that when a campus takes an action that it's understood to be the appropriate response to whatever the event might have been. Sara Coodin   And just to add to that point, about how, many institutions were caught flat footed. And I won't attest to whether I experienced this first personally, but thinking back to the history, the days of, you know when, when protests were either about apartheid in South Africa or it, it seemed like there was a very clear position and a clear kind of moral line there when it came to protests. So that's one example where it seems like there was a right side to be on.  And I think that that is much, obviously we look at the protests from last year as being far more out of line with with any sense of a moral right, they were in some cases host to horrific antisemitism and directly responsible for making Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. So the other example of protest, which is before my time, were the Vietnam protests on college campuses. Were really directed against the government. And last year and two years ago, we saw protests where one group of student was effectively protesting against another student group, another student population. And that is something that university administrators haven't seen before. If they were caught flat footed, it's because this was a novel set of circumstances and a really challenging one, because if you have students being activists about a geopolitical event, the focus is somewhere out there, not a population that has to live and learn on your campus. And so we're seeing the kind of directed impact of those protests on a particular group of students that feel like they no longer have a home on campus or on particular campuses, and that is a uniquely challenging set of circumstances.  Of course, we would have loved it if everyone had a playbook that worked, that could have really caught this stuff from the get go and had a very clear plan for how to deal with it, but that simply wasn't the case. And I think there are good reasons to understand why that was the case. Those codes of conduct hadn't been updated, in some cases, in 70 years.  Ted Mitchell   Your insight is really powerful, that this was one group of students against another group of students, and that's very different. But taking it back, not historically, but just sociologically, one of the things that we also learned is that this generation of students comes to our campuses with almost zero muscle and no muscle memory of how to deal with difference. And so this generation of students is growing up in the most segregated neighborhoods since the Civil Rights Act. They're growing up in the most segregated schools since Brown. And they are parts of these social media ecosystems that are self consciously siloing. And so they come to our campuses and they confront an issue that is as divisive as this one was last spring, and they really don't know how to deal with it. So that's the other learning that we've taken. Is that we need to get very serious about civic education, about how to have conversations between left and right, Jewish students and non-Jewish students, Muslim students and others, and white and black. And we need to get better at that, which, again, comes into the where's the faculty in this? And if they're not a part of that kind of engagement, especially if they take sides, then we've really lost a lot of our power to create a kind of contentious but productive democratic citizenship.  Sara Coodin   What we have been privy to, and in the conversations that we've had with, I think leading university presidents and chancellors who really have have done the right thing, I think in the last year, they're, they're affirming a lot of what you're saying, Ted, about this inability to engage in in civil discourse. And in some ways, it's an admissions problem. It's admitting students who are, you know, they're writing to an audience that is looking for world-changing activism. And when you do that, you're going to get a lot of really inflamed activists on your campus.  I think the faculty piece is more complicated. I think that speaks to a couple of generations' worth of lack of framing, of what academic freedom even is, and a kind of entry into the conversation through all kinds of back channels, that the most powerful thing you can be as a teacher is a world changer. And that means gravitating towards the extremes. It doesn't mean cultivating civil discourse, because that's boring. Why would you want to do that? That's, that's not the way to make a splash. It's disappointing to see that kind of ethos take hold. But I think there are ways in which it can be more actively discouraged. Whether it's through admissions, through looking to hire on the basis of different criteria when you're looking for faculty. And it's also a K-12 problem, and we affirm that, and that's something our Center for Educational Advocacy looks at very seriously in the work that we do in the K-12 space.  How do we work with instructors and heads of school in that space to better prepare students who arrive on a college campus, knowing how to engage in civil discourse, knowing how to disagree in a way that doesn't have to result in everyone holding hands at the end and singing Kumbaya. But it shouldn't produce the culture that we saw last year. It shouldn't. It's incredibly damaging. And I think we've seen how ineffective that model is and how turbulent it is.  Ted Mitchell   It's interesting that you raise the admissions question, because I think that, Manya, to your question about what have people done? A lot of this gets really granular, like, what essay questions do you ask? And a lot of them are, what have you done to advance something you believe in?  And I was talking with a president who came in right before the springtime, who changed the essay question to be a question about bridging. Tell the committee of a time when you helped, you know, bridge an issue, a group, whatever. And I think that the attention on antisemitism in particular is really that is driving us to think about those micro-elements of our processes that actually foster, in some ways, this kind of segregation and combat that we saw in such grotesque detail last spring. Sara Coodin   Yeah, it's interesting. I know you work with faith-based colleges as well, and that notion of service, which is not part of the infrastructure for most schools, seems like a productive part of, maybe, a future conversation about a different model for being in the world.  Ted Mitchell   I think that that's right, and I love all of our members, but the faith based institution, because this has always been front and center for so many of them, who will you be in the world as a question to ask every single student, who are you in the world, to ask every faculty member that those are natural questions in many of our many of our faith based institutions. And I really admire them. Admire them for it.  Manya Brachear Pashman   And of course, that's the purpose of going to a college or university, is to figure that out, right? Who you are going to be in this world.  I want to ask both of you, what is the next step? Will there be an effort to reverse some of the measures that have been taken by the federal government to get universities to comply, or is this more about proactive measures? Sara Coodin   I mean, I can say, for our part, we have no leverage over the federal government. We're not in a position to tell them to do anything. We can appeal to them to be more measured, as we have, and we've appealed to them to be part of a larger conversation about what's going on right now and we make those efforts routinely. I think the path forward is for universities to really think carefully about who their partners are in this work.  And that's, I think part of the effect of this statement is that we are, we, AJC, are there to work towards constructive solutions, and that has always been our basic mission in terms of our advocacy, but we now have it in a very public form. And we're not there to simply hold accountable. I mean, we all hold one another accountable perpetually. We are actually there to do the work and to engage in constructive solution seeking. And I think we're at a moment now where we've seen enough, we've kind of seen enough of this film, that we can come up with some better solutions going forward. It's not catching us kind of flat footed in the same way, because we've had some time to reflect.  And I think that's where the future of this leads to. It leads to constructive solutions. It leads to coming up with really effective strategies to migrate knowledge and approaches, and tailor them to the specifics of campuses that you know are very unique, are very distinctive, and are broad in this country. As you know, Ted, this is a country with so many types of educational institutions, so many. Ted Mitchell   So the statement is important from a number of different perspectives. One is that it's great that we have come together to ask the federal government to separate the important issue of antisemitism from the other interventions that the federal government is attempting. But the other really important thing that we want the letter to signal is our helping institutions develop the right way to combat antisemitism and, more importantly, prevent it, and through its work on antisemitism, really develop this kind of more inclusive civic culture on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman   You know, AJC does a state of antisemitism in America report every year, and the most recent report found that roughly a third of current American Jewish college students or graduates had experienced antisemitism personally at least once in the past year, and about little over 20% reported being excluded from a group because they were Jewish. And I'm curious if university administrators pay attention to these kinds of statistics, or maybe, did they pay attention before October 7, and are they paying attention? Now, Ted Mitchell   I think, with some embarrassment, I'll say that before October 7, antisemitism was a back burner issue, and in many cases, was seen as yesterday's problem or even a historical problem. History has that nasty way of never quite going away. And you know, we see it again here. You know I remember. Was it three years ago that we co hosted a symposium in New York on antisemitism on campus, and it was it was striking. It was well attended, and people really heard a lot. But the the most striking thing that we all heard was testimony from Jewish students, not only about the frequency of antiSemitic activity, but their exclusion from what we used to be able to call dei initiatives, and that somehow whatever was happening to Jewish students wasn't the same thing. And I went away heart's sake about that. And I think that we, you know, we let two years pass without doing much about it. And we were we were called, we were called to account for that. So I think that now that, now that antisemitism has the attention of colleges and universities, we can't squander it. But instead, we really need to move forward and say, what is it that institutions need? Can I take one more second so about about data and statistics? What's When? When I when I read that report? The first thing that I noted was that those numbers are almost precisely the same numbers that women on American colleges have experienced assault, sexual assault, 30% of women on college campuses have felt that they were assaulted in one way or another verbal and 20% feel like they were physically endangered. And so it's not a good thing, but it speaks to the scope of the problem. And in our little world, there really was a lot of attention placed on safety and security for female students, prevention sexual assault prevention, identification of the places where sexual assault was more prevalent, fraternities, alcohol as a as a fixture of that and I hope that we're going to have the same data driven conversations about antisemitism that we did about women's women's safety issues on our on our campuses. Manya Brachear Pashman   That is such an interesting observation.  Sara Coodin   Just to latch on to that point, about data and about how, how. I mean, we too, were surprised by some of the returns this year. We knew it had been a tough year, but we didn't exactly know what students were going to report. We asked specific questions about specific aspects of their experience. But I think you know, one of the things that stands out about the data, for me is, is the framing that we had for students when we asked about their experiences, we asked about their subjective experience, something that's occasionally used to discount our data. Hey, you're asking about people's feelings, but actually, we want to know about the experience, the subjective experience. This is a key component of what the college experience actually amounts to for students going through it.  And of course, we want a solid record of the number of incidents that students are exposed to, whether it's violence or, you know, whether it's coming through the form of words. There's a range of different options, but I think when you look at things like numbers of Jews on college campuses, you get a particular story about the presence of a fractionally tiny minority at elite institutions. Particularly, the numbers are fairly good, although they've dropped in the last number of years. But I think that that doesn't tell the full story. And I think you need that subjective aspect to find out how Jewish students are feeling in those roles in those institutions. And I kind of want to use this just as an opportunity to double down on the importance of that, the feeling that student have about their experience in college, which is an experience they've worked terribly hard to arrive at, and that they tend to take extraordinarily seriously once they've arrived it is It is unthinkable to allow that experience to continue to be shaped by antisemitism. It's flatly unacceptable. Manya Brachear Pashman   Well, Sara Ted, thank you so much to you both for elaborating and explaining what this means, and I wish you both luck in carrying out the mission. Ted Mitchell   Thank you so much. Sara Coodin Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman  If you missed last week's special episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman and Lisa Marlowe, director of the Holocaust Awareness Museum and Education Center outside Philadelphia – a conversation that was recorded live at the Weizmann National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. Be sure to listen.  

Luke and Typo talk about over reactions online, deportations, and pulling back the Civil Rights Act.

When James Baldwin went on the Dick Cavett Show in 1969, he was asked a very loaded question: why aren't Black people more optimistic? Jim Crow laws had been outlawed, Black people were becoming mayors and successful businesspeople… so why was he still talking about race?Obviously racism didn't “end” with the Civil War, or the Civil Rights Act, or Obama's election. In fact, Donald Trump has spurred a resurgence — there's been a nearly 50% increase in white supremacy groups just in the past few years. And yet he's waging a war on Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs, Critical Race Theory, and the very notion that racism still exists.But racism – and anti-Blackness in particular – is still a powerful force. It's built into the very structure of the country. It shows up in politics, medicine, sports, education, and even eBay.In this week's episode of Okay But Why, we explore the history of anti-Blackness in America, how it manifests to this day, and what we can do about it. If you want to learn more, there are so many books, films, and podcasts out there! Check out Code Switch, The 1619 Project, Stamped From The Beginning, The Black Friend, White Tears/Brown Scars, Hood Feminism, or the upcoming The Race Track: How The Myth of Equal Opportunity Defeats Racial Justice.For a transcript of this episode, please email comms@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Twitter: @TheSWPpod and @RedWineBlueUSA Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSA Facebook: @RedWineBlueUSA YouTube: @RedWineBlueUSA

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Kate and Leah recap oral arguments in two big cases the Supreme Court heard this week. The first is about LGBTQ+ inclusive reading materials in public schools, and the second is about the Affordable Care Act's mechanism for ensuring preventative care. There are also developments in the Alien Enemies Act litigation, and a devastating, if predictable, executive order targeting the Civil Rights Act. Plus, Emily Amick, of Emily In Your Phone, joins to discuss the rise of the creepy conservative push to get women to have more babies. Hosts' Favorite Things:Leah:SCOTUS conservatives seem eager to increase parents' religious rights in public schools by Chris GeidnerHow Sam Alito Inadvertently Revealed His Own Homophobia From the Bench by Mark Joseph SternDeportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial by Ahilan ArulananthamREVEALED: Elon and Trump's Plans to Mint More Mothers by Emily AmickThese Summer Storms by Sarah MacLeanKate:The Trump Victim I Can't Stop Thinking About by Michelle GoldbergWe Visited Rumeysa Ozturk in Detention. What We Saw Was a Warning to Us All by Sen. Edward J. Markey, Rep. Jim McGovern, and Rep. Ayanna PressleyEmily: Now comes the ‘womanosphere': the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican by Anna SilmanEveryone is Lying to You by Jo PiazzaThe Testaments by Margaret AtwoodThe Witch Elm by Tana French Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

As Donald Trump continues to launch unprecedented and innovative attacks on immigrants, civic institutions, and the rule of law, the Democratic response has been—in the eyes of many observers—tepid and inadequate. One answer to the sense of desperation came from Senator Cory Booker, who, on March 31st, launched a marathon speech on the Senate floor, calling on Americans to resist authoritarianism. Booker beat the record previously held by Senator Strom Thurmond's twenty-four-hour-long filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, in 1957, and he spoke in detail about Americans who are in desperate straits because of federal job cuts and budget slashing. “We knew . . . if I could last twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes, that we could potentially command some attention from the public,” Booker tells David Remnick. “That's the key here . . . to deal with the poverty of empathy we have in our nation right now.” Yet Booker bridles as Remnick asks about Democratic strategy to resist the Administration's attacks. Instead, he emphasized the need for “Republicans of good conscience” to step up. “Playing this as a partisan game cheapens the larger cause of the country,” he argues. “This is the time that America needs moral leadership, and not political leadership.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

As Donald Trump continues to launch unprecedented and innovative attacks on immigrants, civic institutions, and the rule of law, the Democratic response has been—in the eyes of many observers—tepid and inadequate. One answer to the sense of desperation came from Senator Cory Booker, who, on March 31st, launched a marathon speech on the Senate floor, calling on Americans to resist authoritarianism. Booker beat the record previously held by Senator Strom Thurmond's twenty-four-hour-long filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, in 1957, and he spoke in detail about Americans who are in desperate straits because of federal job cuts and budget slashing. “We knew . . . if I could last twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes, that we could potentially command some attention from the public,” Booker tells David Remnick. “That's the key here . . . to deal with the poverty of empathy we have in our nation right now.” Yet Booker bridles as Remnick asks about Democratic strategy to resist the Administration's attacks. Instead, he emphasized the need for “Republicans of good conscience” to step up. “Playing this as a partisan game cheapens the larger cause of the country,” he argues. “This is the time that America needs moral leadership, and not political leadership.”

When you think of a successful protest movement, most Americans probably think of the American Civil Rights movement, and the March on Washington in 1963.Martin Luther King, Jr. standing behind a podium on the steps of the Lincoln memorial delivered his most famous speech and a line that would come to define the goals of the Civil Rights Movement. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act just nine months after the March. A year after that Johnson signed the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.The quest for equality continues. In the decades since that bright summer day in August 1963, many other Americans have tried to use the model of protest to achieve their political goals. But do protests work?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 800-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Brad discusses the current trends in Christian nationalism with Kiera Butler of Mother Jones. They talk about Andrew Isker and C.Jay Engel's plans to build a Christian nationalist society in Tennessee, funded by venture capitalists. Isker's antisemitic and anti-Civil Rights Act views are highlighted as they explore the similarities between these Christian enclaves and tech-driven network cities. The discussion includes the impact of recent tragic events at Florida State University and the socio-political implications of such movements. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163 Check out BetterHelp and use my code SWA for a great deal: www.betterhelp.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Preview: Author Michael Vorenberg, "Lincoln's Peace," introduces the moderate Republican voice in Congress, Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, who attempted and failed to find accommodation in the Civil Rights Act, 1866, for the increasingly  belligerent and rash President Andrew Johnson. More later in the new week." APRIL 15, 1865,  ANDREW JOHNSON INAUGURATED POTUS