SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 02 2010, 12:33pm EDT
Contact:
Robyn Shepherd, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
ACLU To Appear Before Supreme Court On Wednesday To Challenge Discriminatory Arizona School Tuition Program
State-Certified Tuition Disbursement Organizations Discriminate Based On Religion
WASHINGTON
The
American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona will be before
the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 3 to challenge an Arizona
school tuition program that awards most of the state-funded, private
school scholarships on an unconstitutional religiously discriminatory
basis.
Under the challenged program, Arizona
scholarships are awarded by School Tuition Organizations (STOs). These
organizations are certified and closely supervised by the state and
financed exclusively by state income-tax revenues. The scholarships are
funded through state income-tax credits that are given for payments that
taxpayers make to the STOs. More than half of the scholarships are
awarded by STOs that discriminate based on religious criteria and
require students to attend religious schools in order to receive
scholarships.
More information about the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/arizona-christian-school-tuition-organization-v-winn
WHAT:
Oral arguments in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn,
a Supreme Court case that challenges whether Arizona's use of tax
credits funneled through state-certified and state-supervised
organizations to award student scholarships based on religious criteria
and for use in religious schools violates the Establishment Clause.
Attorneys will be available for comment following arguments.
WHO:
Paul Bender, a law professor at
Arizona State University's law school and former U.S. Deputy Solicitor
General, will be arguing the case on behalf of the ACLU of Arizona.
Other attorneys on the case who will be in attendance are Steven R.
Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU; Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU
Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and Dan Pochoda, Legal
Director of the ACLU of Arizona.
WHEN:
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
10:00 a.m. EDT
WHERE:
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C.
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) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
New Text Makes Clear 'House Republicans Are Proposing More Tax Cuts for the Wealthy'
"Despite their rhetoric," Republicans are "failing to deliver for millions of working-class families," said one tax expert.
May 10, 2025
Since Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday evening released tax-related legislative language and announced a markup for President Donald Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," economic justice advocates have sounded the alarm.
House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) scheduled a Tuesday afternoon hearing, shared 28 pages of legislative proposals for the reconciliation package, and positively framed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed in 2017. The tax reform push comes just months away from parts of that law—which critics call the "GOP tax scam"—expiring.
"So far this costly bill appears to double down on trickle down, with huge tax cuts that will further enrich the rich and not much for the rest of us," said Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in a Saturday statement. "What's more, many of the modest improvements for lower- and middle-income families are proposed to be temporary, whereas the benefits for the wealthiest are proposed to be permanent."
Hanauer's group specifically noted that "the 2017 changes to personal income tax rates and brackets would be made permanent," as would the deduction that individuals receive from "pass-through" businesses, which would also increase from 20% to 22%. Republicans also want to hike the estate tax exemption from $13.99 million per spouse to $15 million and have it continue to rise with inflation.
"The very generous version of a tax break for offshore profits (the GILTI deduction) would be made permanent, effectively taxing the foreign profits of American corporations half as much (at most) as their domestic profits are taxed," the think tank highlighted.
ITEP also flagged that "the 2017 change to the standard deduction would be made permanent, and a temporary four-year boost would bump it up to $16,000 for individuals, $24,000 for taxpayers filing as head of household, and $32,000 for married couples."
"The child tax credit would temporarily increase to $2,500 per child from $2,000 per child for four years, but 4.5 million citizen kids would lose access to the... CTC due to a requirement that both their parents have Social Security numbers," the group warned.
Chuck Marr, vice president of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, similarly said in a series of Friday social media posts that the emerging "bill appears highly skewed to the wealthy, [with] several regressive expansions of 2017 tax cuts and full of costly timing gimmicks, while, despite their rhetoric, failing to deliver for millions of working-class families."
Like ITEP, Marr blasted House Republicans for their "glaring failure" on the CTC as well as for continuing to push the pass-through deduction and estate tax exemption, the latter of which he called "the most skewed provision of the 2017 law."
"On Tuesday, House Republicans in one committee will be taking away people's health insurance and in another taking away food assistance, while in a third they will be permanently increasing the amount the wealthiest heirs in the country can inherit tax-free," he said, stressing that the GOP aims to pay for its tax giveaways to the rich by gutting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"It also looks like House Republicans are repeating a brazen pattern from 2017: Make the provisions for rich people permanent (recall the 2017 massive corporate rate cut) while making the broader provisions temporary—backwards priorities," Marr declared.
"So tonight we've learned—despite all the Trump bluster—House Republicans are proposing more tax cuts for the wealthy, increasing its already bloated costs, while harshly failing to deliver for millions of families he promised to help," he concluded.
Smith's legislative text notably does not include letting the top tax rate revert from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income greater than $5 million for married couples and $2.5 million—an idea that Trump floated this week but, as NBC Newsput it, "is running into a buzz saw of opposition in the Republican Party."
Trump said on his Truth Social Platform early Friday: "The problem with even a 'TINY' tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!!!"
While Trump's comments this week have generated headlines about the president proposing "to raise income taxes on wealthy Americans," ITEP's Steve Wamhoff and Carl Davis argued in a blog post that "nobody should be deceived: The wealthiest taxpayers got enormous tax breaks from Trump's 2017 law and are getting additional large tax breaks in what Trump and Republicans are proposing now."
"We need legislation that requires rich people to pay more taxes, not less," they added. "The Republican legislation will do the opposite, regardless of whether or not Congress includes this latest suggestion from Donald Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Explosions Reported After India and Pakistan Agree to Cease-Fire
Each side accused the other of violating the agreement.
May 10, 2025
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
India and Pakistan accused each other of violating a cease-fire that had been announced Saturday by officials from both countries and U.S. President Donald Trump amid global fears of escalating tit-for-tat strikes between the nuclear-armed neighbors in the wake of last month's Pahalgam massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
"Within hours, blasts were reported from the main cities of Indian Kashmir, the center of four days of fighting," Reutersreported, citing authorities, residents, and witnesses. "Blasts were heard in Srinagar and Jammu, and projectiles and flashes were seen in the night sky over Jammu, similar to the events of the previous evening."
Drop Site News noted that Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri accused Pakistan of "repeated violations" of the deal.
However, Pakistan's information minister, Ataullah Tarar, toldGeo News, that "violation of cease-fire agreement from our side is out of question."
The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs later released a statement saying that it "remains committed to faithful implementation" of the deal, accusing India of committing violations, and stressing that troops on the ground "should also exercise restraint."
Earlier Saturday, the Indian minister, Misri, had confirmed the cease-fire agreement, saying that "it was agreed that both sides would stop all firing and military action on land and in the air and sea."
Indian officials have not publicly credited the United States for the deal, while Pakistani leaders have. Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar "specifically acknowledged the role played by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the process," according toGeo News.
Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister, said on social media that "we thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region."
The U.S. president had said on his Truth Social platform: "After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASE-FIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Sources from India and Pakistan's governments toldReuters that the Indus Waters Treaty was not part of the deal. India withdrew from the decades-old water-sharing pact after militants attacked Hindu tourists and killed 26 people in Kashmir last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Halts Trump and Musk's Illegal Overhaul of US Government
The second Trump administration "has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," the coalition behind the lawsuit said, welcoming the temporary restraining order.
May 10, 2025
A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked what at coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits argued was "the unconstitutional dismantling of the federal government by the president of the United States on a scale unprecedented in this country’s history and in clear excess of his authority."
Since returning to office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump—aided by his so-callled Department of Government Efficiency and its de facto leader, billionaire Elon Musk—has worked to quickly overhaul the bureaucracy, even though "the president does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action," as the coalition's complaint notes.
District Judge Susan Illston agreed with the groups and governments, which include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Alliance for Retired Americans, Main Street Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, the city and county of San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and more.
"The president has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," wrote Illston in a 42-page decision. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the president from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office."
"Indeed, the court holds the president likely must request congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime," said the judge, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton.
Illston added that "a temporary restraining order is, by definition, temporary. The court will not consider defendants' request for a stay of execution of the temporary restraining order, as doing so would render the exercise pointless. The court must promptly proceed to consideration of a preliminary injunction."
Welcoming the development in a late Friday statement, the plaintiff coalition said that "the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation."
"Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government—laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that," the coalition added. "We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds."
The "largest and most significant challenge to Trump's authority to remake the government without congressional approval," as the coalition called it, was filed April 28 by the organizations' legal team: Democracy Forward, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Protect Democracy, Public Rights Project, and State Democracy Defenders Fund.
Illston's decision came just hours after an emergency hearing, during which coalition attorney Danielle Leonard "said the Trump administration's vision was to fundamentally degrade the services that Congress funds agencies to carry out, raising a profound separation of powers conflict," according toThe New York Times.
As the newspaper detailed:
"There's a presumption of regularity that used to exist with respect to the government's actions that I think they need to re-earn," she said.
Ms. Leonard said the Trump administration has never been able to point to any specific authority through which the president could seize that power from Congress. And she said that the government has consistently offered competing and contradictory explanations of why Mr. Trump can authorize the massive restructuring without Congress.
"It's an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail," she said.
Signaling a desire to keep moving through the process swiftly, Illston gave the plaintiff coalition until next Wednesday to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, and the federal defendants—Trump along with various federal agencies and their leaders—until the following Monday to respond, with a limit of 25 pages for both.
Even if the coalition's lawsuit ultimately succeeds, Republicans have a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress, meaning Trump could potentially work with lawmakers to pursue a similar gutting of the federal government before the midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular