Podcasts about Civil Rights Act

Congress established the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its primary purpose is to prevent and address unfair treatment in the workplace, ensuring that employers don't discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, religion, or age in hiring, firing, or promotions.   Essentially, the EEOC attempts to create a level playing field in the job market by investigating complaints and enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Yet today's EEOC, led by acting chair Andrea Lucas, is rapidly changing, especially as it enforces—or rather fails to enforce—protections for LGBTQ+ employees. Pride in Exile, a volunteer organization, was created to seek actionable ways we can resist the weaponization of the EEOC as it threatens the hard-earned rights and protections of LGBTQ+ employees.   In this exclusive interview, I am honored to host two absolute titans in the fight for LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion: Chai Feldblum, a renowned legal scholar, activist, and former Commissioner at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under President Barack Obama, and Judge Karen Ortiz, an administrative law judge at the EEOC's New York District's Office who has bravely challenged the current EEOC's leadership over policies affecting LGBTQ+ cases.   Together, we explore:   Our Guests' Career Journeys. The guests' journeys to EEOC leadership and the significant advancements in LGBTQ+ workplace protections made over the past two decades.   Threats to LGBTQ+ Workplace Protections. An in-depth look at current threats to LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion and concrete strategies to counter them, including the vital role of the all-volunteer organization, Pride in Exile.   Vision for a Belonging Society. A forward-looking discussion on envisioning and building a future of work where belonging is truly inclusive for all, especially the most vulnerable within our LGBTQ+ communities.   Our conversation is designed to support people like you—visionary leaders and those on their way to joining us. Want to gain the skills necessary to apply this learning to your work?   Join the Belonging Movement today! After you join, you'll receive exclusive access to complimentary workshops, group coaching sessions, and 1:1 somatic coaching offers designed to help you lead with your values and build groups that center team safety, trust, and belonging.   Don't just imagine belonging – build it. Join the Belonging Movement here: https://www.rhodesperry.com/subscribe.   Support Pride in Exile by becoming a member: https://www.prideinexile.org/

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect former employees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an employer's alleged act of discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.Title 1 of the A-D-A makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a “qualified individual” based on disability regarding compensation and other employment matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The present-tense verbs—“holds,” “desires,” and “can perform”—signal that the law protects individuals able to perform a job they currently hold or seek when discrimination occurs, not retirees who neither hold nor desire employment. The statute's definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes job restructuring and modifying facilities for employees, reinforces this interpretation by referencing accommodations that make sense only for current employees or job applicants, not retirees.The A-D-A's structure further supports this reading through its examples of discrimination in Section 12112(b), such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” which clearly aim to protect job holders and seekers rather than retirees. Additionally, comparing Title 1 with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reveals that while Title VII protects “employees” without temporal qualification, the A-D-A's use of “qualified individual” linked to present-tense verbs indicates protection for current job holders or seekers only. The Court's precedent in Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation anticipated that someone may fall outside the A-D-A's protections if she can no longer perform the job.Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressing concern about litigants changing their arguments after the Court grants certiorari.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that Title 1's prohibition on disability discrimination should not cease when an employee retires.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor in parts, arguing that the majority misreads Title 1 by viewing it through “the distorted lens of pure textualism,” incorrectly using the qualified individual definition as a temporal limit it was never designed to be, and thereby rendering meaningless the A-D-A's protections for disabled workers' retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

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.

Now more than ever, Christians in the workplace are facing mounting challenges. Whether it's pressure to compromise values, fear of expressing faith, or outright hostility from employers or peers—being a follower of Christ in today's marketplace takes courage and conviction. In this powerful episode, we dive deep into what it means to stand strong in your faith without losing your grace, dignity, or voice. Featured Guest: Noah Nash Counsel, Corporate Engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom Noah Nash brings a wealth of experience in advocating for the rights of Christians in corporate environments. As part of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), one of the nation's leading legal organizations defending religious liberty, Noah works closely with corporations, business leaders, and executives navigating complex religious freedom issues. Key Topics Covered The Erosion of Authenticity in the Workplace Many employees feel afraid to speak about their beliefs in the workplace. Noah explains how to be bold in your faith at work while being respectful of your colleagues and employer, even when the environment discourages you from living out your faith at work Understanding Your Legal Rights Learn what protections you do have under federal law. Discover how ADF equips employers with tools and strategies to defend their freedom of belief. Learn how public companies must respect employee speech and free exercise of religion. Charlene Carter v. Southwest Airlines: A Case Study Charlene, a Southwest flight attendant, was fired after expressing her pro-life views to her union president. A jury awarded her $800,000, recognizing the violation of her religious liberty. The employee was discriminated against for her religious activities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The jury verdict against Southwest on this claim was upheld on appeal. Noah unpacks the legal implications and what this means for Christian employees moving forward. Encouragement for the Christian Employee As a believer, you're called to be salt and light—even in challenging workplaces. This episode offers encouragement, clarity, and action steps for navigating professional life without compromising your faith. “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:10 Listen to the Full Episode (Insert Link) About Alliance Defending Freedom ADF is a legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and marriage and family. Through corporate engagement and litigation, ADF equips Christians across the country to live out their faith without fear. If your organization is facing religious liberty concerns or if you're navigating a difficult workplace dynamic, we encourage you to listen to this episode and share it with others who need hope and help. Concerned about your organization's as-is HR programs? The benefits of having a trusted partner guide you and your team to excellence are invaluable. Contact us today. You and your employees will be glad you did. Rise with us by implementing our high-performance remote human-resource programs to help find great people! E-mail us here. Mark A. Griffin is president and founder of IHN HR. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.

The walls of academia have always seemed distant and distinct from the corridors of political power. But even the ivory tower isn't safe during periods of dramatic societal change. Amy and Mike invited educator Dominique Padurano to explore how political changes are shaping higher education. What are five things you will learn in this episode? What have been some events that have catalyzed change in higher education during the past two years?   What could be the biggest changes to US colleges and universities in the coming months? What impact have these developments had on international students? What are some academic considerations that families need to think about when building college lists now? What are some social and cultural items families might want to consider when building college lists now? MEET OUR GUEST Dominique Padurano has been helping students achieve their academic dreams for 27 years.  After teaching history and Social Studies full-time at several elite New York high schools, she founded Crimson Coaching in 2014 to work one-on-one with students prepping for standardized tests like the SAT and ACT; striving to master academic content and skills in high school; and applying to college and scholarships. “Dr. P.,” as her students call her, does 98% of Crimson Coaching's tutoring and coaching herself. She's also an adjunct professor of Historical Studies at Empire State University, part of the State University of New York. Currently, Dominique's at work on a how-to book tentatively titled, Writing College Essays That Work. Dominique appeared on the podcast in episode 373 to discuss Small Group Classes Vs 1-1 Tutoring for SAT & ACT Prep and in episode 513 to discuss Diversity And The College Essay. Find Dominique at Facebook, LinkedIn, and info@crimsoncoaching.com. LINKS Fulbright scholarship board resigns amid 'unlawful' federal funding rollback As Crises Grip Colleges, More Students Than Ever Are Set to Enroll Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in Light of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (PDF) Find Your Representative Contacting U.S. Senators Liam Knox | Inside Higher Ed Navigating School and College Selection in Tumultuous Political Times RELATED EPISODES THE DEMOGRAPHIC CLIFF IS HERE  STOP MAKING $EN$E: THE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROBLEM TOP TIPS TO PASS YOUR STUDY VISA INTERVIEW ABOUT THIS PODCAST Tests and the Rest is THE college admissions industry podcast. Explore all of our episodes on the show page. ABOUT YOUR HOSTS Mike Bergin is the president of Chariot Learning and founder of TestBright, Roots2Words, and College Eagle. Amy Seeley is the president of Seeley Test Pros and LEAP. If you're interested in working with Mike and/or Amy for test preparation, training, or consulting, get in touch through our contact page.

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.

On today's Labor Radio Podcast Daily: From the Apple Box podcast, how the City of Burnaby backed up big promises with real action on Indigenous relations, proving that when leadership says “yes,” change becomes possible. Plus, in labor history, President Johnson signs Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, banning discrimination on the job. @iatse891 @wpfwdc @AFLCIO #1u #UnionStrong #LaborRadioPod Proud founding member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network

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!

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.

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

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