February, 04 2011, 01:05pm EDT

Tunisia: Prison Visit Ends 20-Year Ban
Government Should Ease Overcrowding, Let Families Visit Death Row Inmates
WASHINGTON
Tunisia's interim government should ease overcrowding and reverse a
policy imposed more than 15 years ago to deny inmates facing the death
penalty any contact with their families, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch made the requests to the new justice minister, Lazhar
Karoui Chebbi, after visiting two Tunisian prisons. The visits ended a
20-year ban on access to Tunisian prisons by human rights organizations.
On February 2, 2011, the two-member Human Rights Watch delegation
visited Bourj er-Roumi, a large prison complex near the city of Bizerte
where there was an inmate mutiny as the previous government fell. The
delegation visited Mornaguia Prison, Tunisia's biggest facility, on
February 1. The researchers interviewed prisoners in private, including
two facing the death penalty who had been deprived of all contact with
their family, one for three years and the other for 10.
The events that occurred at Bourj er-Roumi will be the subject of a separate communique.
"By granting us access, Tunisia's transitional government has
taken a step toward transparency in its prison operations that we hope
will continue and extend to local organizations," said Eric Goldstein,
deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The
transitional government also needs to break with the inhumane treatment
of prisoners practiced by the ousted government."
As an immediate step, Human Rights Watch said, the transitional
government should allow Tunisia's 140 death-row prisoners to receive
family visits like other prisoners. The transitional government should
also allow prisoners confined to severely overcrowded cells more time
outside them each day, Human Rights Watch said.
A Justice Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that prior to
President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's ouster, Tunisia, a country of 10.5
million inhabitants, had 31,000 prisoners. It was the highest per capita
prison population of any country in the Middle East and North Africa
except Israel, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies.
One of the first promises made on behalf of the transitional
government by Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi was an imminent amnesty
for all political prisoners. However, a draft law approved by the
cabinet has yet to become law. In the meantime, the judiciary has
granted conditional release or pre-trial provisional release to about
half of Tunisia's more than 500 political prisoners.
Access to Tunisia's Prisons
The Tunisian Human Rights League was the last independent human
rights organization to visit a Tunisian prison, in 1991. But the
government ended the group's visits shortly after it began.
Ben Ali's government promised
on April 19, 2005, to give Human Rights Watch prompt access to prisons.
Five-and-a-half years later, negotiations on the terms of the visits had gone nowhere.
The government set what Human Rights Watch considered unreasonable
conditions for the visits and failed to respond to counter-proposals.
Tunisia has allowed regular visits since 2005 by the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a humanitarian
organization that - in contrast to organizations like Human Rights Watch
- does not make its findings public but instead presents reports to the
ministries in charge. The ICRC visits Tunisia's prisons, which are
administered by the Justice Ministry, as well as the official
pre-arraignment detention centers (garde a vue) administered by the Interior Ministry.
Prison Visits for Death Row Inmates
A Justice Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that Tunisia has
about 140 prisoners facing the death penalty, half of them in Mornaguia
Prison, 14 kilometers west of Tunis. The previous government retained
the death penalty in law, but has practiced a de facto moratorium on
executions since 1994, meaning some inmates have been on death row for
more than 15 years.
The prison administration decided in the mid-1990s to deny death row
inmates any contact with family members. All other prisoners have been
allowed brief weekly visits from family members and may also correspond
with them. This policy also deprives death row prisoners of the
home-cooked meals and fruit that families are allowed to deliver to
other prisoners regularly. Prison staff privately expressed frustration
about this policy to Human Rights Watch, saying it complicates their job
of managing a uniquely challenging group of inmates.
This policy apparently has no basis in any publicly issued directive,
Human Rights Watch said. It violates Tunisia's Law 2001-52, of May 14,
2001, Governing Prisons, which gives all prisoners without distinction
the right to visits by their relatives "according to the laws in effect"
and to exchange correspondence with them "via the administration"
(article 18 (2) and (3)).
Tunisia's government should move to abolish the death penalty as a
punishment that is inherently cruel and inhuman. Such a measure, if
passed, should also immediately result in the commutation of the
sentences of those condemned to die.
"Tunisia should abolish the death penalty first and foremost, but in
any event, it should immediately give prisoners on death row the same
rights to family visits and correspondence as other prisoners" Goldstein
said.
Prison Conditions
The Human Rights Watch visits to Mornaguia and Bourj er-Roumi prisons
each lasted seven hours, enough time for only initial impressions, Human
Rights Watch said. To make a thorough evaluation and accurately
prioritize the needs and problems of the prison population would require
repeat visits to men's, women's, and juvenile detention centers by a
delegation with medical expertise, and further interviews with staff,
prisoners, their families, and former prisoners.
In Mornaguia, however, the delegation observed severe overcrowding in
the larger cells and inadequate opportunities for physical activity.
Most of the prisoners are held in poorly ventilated group cells of
about 50 square meters, each with about 40 prisoners. The high-ceilinged
rooms have rows of barely separated double-and triple-decker beds
against the side walls and a passageway less than two meters wide down
the middle, leading to toilets set apart from the main room by a wall
but no door. There is no room for tables or chairs.
Confined in rooms with far less than 1.5 square meters per person,
prisoners have no space for exercise. The majority neither work nor
receive vocational training and are only allowed to leave their cells
twice a day for periods of 45 to 60 minutes and for weekly showers and
weekly family visits. They eat in the cells, sitting on their beds and
storing food on the floor or on a ledge above the beds. The outdoor
courtyard Human Rights Watch visited where prisoners go when they are
allowed out of their cells was cramped, damp, draped with prisoner
laundry, and too small to permit exercise.
The cramped conditions appear to constitute inhumane and degrading treatment, Human Rights Watch said.
Interviews with former prisoners and some in these prisons who have
served time in other prisons in Tunisia confirm that these crowded
conditions in large group cells are the norm for most inmates in prisons
around the country. They also said that the crowding and overall
conditions were harsher in the 1990s than today.
International human rights instruments provide no single norm for the
amount of living space that prisoners should have. One standard,
recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, is a
minimum space per prisoner of four square meters. In any event, for
prisoners confined to cramped quarters, having more time outside the
cell makes the crowding easier to endure.
Each inmate had his own bed in the rooms visited by Human Rights
Watch. However, inmates said that there have been periods when some
inmates lacked their own beds and slept on the floor.
The reduction of the prison population since Ben Ali's departure
should ease overcrowding. Other policy options that could also ease
overcrowding include implementation of the amnesty for political
prisoners, encouraging judges to hand out alternative sentences where
appropriate and to consider the capacity of the prison system to absorb
new prisoners when issuing sentences, paroling prisoners before the
completion of their term, and the construction of additional cells.
These options, however, require a public debate and in some cases
sizable budgetary allocations, Human Rights Watch said.
A comparatively easy and low-cost measure to alleviate overcrowding
in the short-term would be to allow prisoners additional daily time
outside their cells, Human Rights Watch said. The measure would require
additional staff time and the necessary logistical arrangements, but
would constitute a meaningful interim step until the government is able
to ensure that prisoners have adequate living space.
Political Prisoners
The Justice Ministry said that at the time the transitional government
took office, slightly more than 500 prisoners were being held for
politically motivated offenses. The number was close to the estimate
given by the International Association for Solidarity with Political
Prisoners, an independent Tunisian human rights organization.
About 150 remain incarcerated, 87 serving sentences under the
anti-terrorism law and another 56 awaiting trial, according to a Justice
Ministry official. A few additional prisoners are serving politically
motivated sentences not under the anti-terrorism law but under the
ordinary penal code or military law.
During the events surrounding the president's ouster, 11,029
prisoners escaped, of whom 2,425 had voluntarily surrendered as of
February 3, a Justice Ministry official said. Since then, the judiciary
has used its prerogative under the law to release conditionally 3,240
criminal prisoners, some of them first-time offenders who had served
half their sentences and others who are recidivists and who were
eligible for release after having served two-thirds of their sentences.
A Justice Ministry official said that 128 prisoners convicted under
Tunisia's 2003 anti-terrorism law were among those who escaped and that
they have been urged to return to custody. Another 177 serving sentences
under the anti-terrorism law were among those released conditionally
and another 100 facing trial under that law were freed provisionally.
The escapes and releases have cut Tunisia's prison population by more
than one-third in three weeks. This has reduced overcrowding, but less
than might be expected because the severe damage inflicted during the
recent events on some prisons, including Bourj er-Roumi, Monastir, and
Kasserine, has reduced the number of available beds and led to massive
transfers to other prisons.
The Anti-Terrorism Law
Nearly all of those still in detention for politically motivated
offenses were convicted under the anti-terrorism law. Among this
population, almost none were convicted in connection with specific
terrorist acts or possession of weapons or explosives. Instead, they
were charged with such offenses as "membership in a terrorist
organization," planning to join jihadists in Iraq or Somalia, recruiting
others for that purpose, or of having knowledge of crimes and failing
to notify the police.
Only two prisoners from the banned Islamist Nahdha party
remain in prison: Ali Farhat, 52, and Ali Abdallah Saleh Harrabi, 53,
both from the southern city of Douz. Like the majority of Nahdha members
imprisoned in the past, they were convicted of nonviolent offenses such
as membership in, or collecting funds for, an "unrecognized"
association, and attending "unauthorized" meetings. Human Rights Watch
met both men at Mornaguia, where they are serving sentences of about six
months.
Allegations of Torture, Unfair Trials
Those imprisoned under the anti-terrorism law, practically
without exception, gave more emphasis in their interviews this week to
the conditions they endured while in garde a vue detention at
the Ministry of Interior in Tunis than to their post-conviction
conditions in prison. They said that while they were held incommunicado
in the Interior Ministry, officers in street clothes beat or otherwise
tortured them into confessing and/or signing a statement that they were
prevented from reading.
At their trials they repudiated their statements, they said. Those
who said they had raised the allegations of torture got no response from
the court, which ended up convicting them. In most cases, these
detainees said that Judge Mehrez Hammami had presided over their trial.
Hammami, who gained a reputation for his record in convicting people
charged with politically motivated offenses, has reportedly been
transferred since Ben Ali's departure from the courtroom to a research
post in the Justice Ministry.
The allegations of torture and unfair trials raise questions about
the disposition of current prisoners who are not released under any
eventual amnesty law and who claim they were convicted on the basis of
confessions extracted through torture, or who otherwise claim to have
been the victims of patently unfair trials, Human Rights Watch said.
Given the routine practice of torture and of the multiple violations
of the rights of defendants to a fair trial under the prior government,
the transitional government should ensure there are effective appeal
mechanisms for prisoners who believe they were unfairly excluded from
the amnesty, Human Rights Watch said.
The Prison Visits
The Mornaguia administration imposed no obstacles to Human
Rights Watch interviews with three prisoners whose names it had
submitted in advance and four others it had selected on the spot. They
included four sentenced for politically motivated offenses and three for
ordinary criminal offenses. The prisoners chose the interview locations
and were told they could decline.
Bourj er-Roumi is one of several prisons where there was severe
violence in the days surrounding the ouster of Ben Ali, costing the
lives of 2 guards and 72 prisoners, including 48 in a fire in Monastir
Prison, according to the Ministry of Justice. At Bourj er-Roumi, on
January 14, prisoners broke down the doors of their cells and set fire
to them. The facility's administration says that guards shot dead ten
prisoners before order was restored three days later. Another died of a
heart attack and a twelfth died at the hands of other prisoners.
Human Rights Watch will publish a separate communique about the events at Bourj er-Roumi prison.
Given the recent violence, the atmosphere was far tenser at Bourj
er-Roumi. The Human Rights Watch visitors were accompanied to the
cellblocks by armed soldiers and large numbers of officials. The prison
was just beginning to repair the damage, so it was not possible to
assess normal conditions there, even preliminarily. Four prisoners at
Bourj er-Roumi agreed to speak individually to Human Rights Watch in a
private office and appeared to speak candidly. Three others declined to
be interviewed.
Imed Dridi, Mornaguia's director, said the prison was built in 2006
to accommodate 4,600 prisoners. It held 5,200 prisoners at the end of
2010 and now holds about 4,900, all adult men. The population includes
both pre-trial and convicted prisoners.
Hilmi ech-Cherif, Bourj er-Roumi director, said the prison, built
during the French colonial era, now has 1,429 prisoners, about half the
population it had before the mutiny. The other prisoners were either
released or transferred to other prisons; 12 died in the mutiny, as
noted above.
Human Rights Watch thanked the prisoners and administration of
Mornaguia and Bourj er-Roumi prisons for their willingness to receive
and speak to the delegation.
"Tunisia's transitional government has taken a critical step toward
transparency in opening prisons to outside observers who can share their
findings publicly," Goldstein said. "It should now resolve to improve
the treatment of prisoners, which was one of the darkest aspects of the
human rights picture under President Ben Ali."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


