

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Anjuli Verma, ACLU, (831) 471-9000 x11 or ACLU Media, (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
The
U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the
constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip
searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she
previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union
represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter,
Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials
six years ago.
"We are pleased that the Supreme
Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search
Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional,"
said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before
the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional
dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that
the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were
not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through
what Savana experienced."
Savana Redding, an eighth grade
honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was
pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal,
Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered
prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two
over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of
Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the
classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary
problems, had given her the pills.
After escorting Redding to his
office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her
possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide.
Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a
female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's
backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative
assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to
perform a strip search.
In the school nurse's office,
Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded
to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull
her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip
search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.
"The strip search was the most
humiliating experience I have ever had," said Redding in a sworn
affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they
could not see that I was about to cry."
The strip search was undertaken
based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing
punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's
accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence
suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or
that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
Furthermore, the classmate had not
claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the
classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No
attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the
strip search.
In response to today's ruling,
Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to
go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to
have helped make students feel safer in school."
The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding,
was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge
majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search
was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is
not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite
deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found
that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The
decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified
School district could be held liable.
"Neither the Constitution nor common
sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a
locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national
Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school
officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."
The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were
joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara,
Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm
Humphrey & Petersen.
In addition, a broad constellation
of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed
friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the
National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers
(NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and
Urban Justice Center, among others.
Today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html
The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160lgl20090325.html
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."
"We should attract the best and brightest in our country to become teachers and pay them the decent wages that they deserve."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday rejected First Lady Melania Trump's vision of a near-future in which artificial intelligence-powered humanoid robots do the work of human school teachers, arguing that society should instead do better by its human educators.
The wife of President Donald Trump entered Wednesday's gathering of the Global First Ladies Alliance accompanied by Figure 03, an AI-powered "general purpose humanoid robot" developed by the Sunnyvale, California-based company Figure.
“The future of AI is personified," Trump told attendees, who included Brigitte Macron of France, Sara Netanyahu of Israel, and Olena Zelenska of Ukraine. “It will be formed in the shape of humans. Very soon artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility.”
“Imagine a humanoid educator named Plato," she said. “Access to the classical studies is now instantaneous: literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history. Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home.”
Responding to Trump's remarks, Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday on social media: "Call me a radical, but NO."
"We should not be replacing teachers in America with robots," the senator added. "We should attract the best and brightest in our country to become teachers and pay them the decent wages that they deserve."
Trump and Macron also warned about the dangers technology poses to children in remarks that came the same week that a New Mexico jury ordered tech titan Meta to pay a $375 million penalty for endangering youth and jurors in a landmark social media addiction trial found that Meta and YouTube harmed a child user of their platforms.
The office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom—who is believed to be a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination—also slapped down the idea of robot teachers, as did ordinary social media users.
"They want to replace human beings. Where will we work? How do we make money?" asked one X account with tens of thousands of followers. "No one wants this. We did not ask for it. Fuck all of this shit."