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
May, 26 2011, 04:53pm EDT
Contact:
Josh Bell, ACLU, (212) 549-2508 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 400-7822; delatorre@nilc.org
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 418-5499; ameetze@acluaz.org
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Employment Law in Narrow Ruling
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court today upheld a 2007 Arizona law on employer sanctions and employment verification, finding that the Arizona law was expressly authorized by a provision of federal law. The decision does not apply to or address other state or local immigration laws, such as Arizona law SB 1070.
The Arizona law addressed in today's decision imposes licensing penalties on businesses that have knowingly employed workers who are not lawfully authorized to work in the U.S. but only if the federal government confirms the lack of employment authorization. It also requires Arizona employers to participate in the federal E-Verify program. The law was challenged by a broad coalition of civil rights and business groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, MALDEF, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
The following quotes can be attributed as stated:
Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:
"Today's decision is a narrow one that only upholds Arizona's specific law on employment verification. The decision has nothing to do with SB 1070 or any other state or local immigration laws. We are disappointed with today's decision and believe it does not reflect what Congress intended."
Linton Joaquin, NILC's general counsel:
"We're deeply disappointed that the Court has allowed this law, which has proven to have serious economic ramifications for Arizona's workers and employers, to remain in effect. However, the ruling does not grant states the right to enforce immigration law - the issue at the heart of current legal challenges to SB 1070, Arizona's racial profiling law. State legislators considering this decision a free pass to enact and implement legislation targeting immigrants are gravely mistaken."
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs Valle del Sol, Chicanos por la Causa and Somos America include Omar Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag and Jennifer Chang Newell of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Daniel Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; Jonathan Weissglass and Stephen Berzon of Altshuler Berzon LLP; Valenzuela Dixon of MALDEF; and Joaquin and Karen C. Tumlin of NILC.
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
Trump-GOP Tax Bill a Gift to 'Predatory Landlords' That Will Worsen Already Dire Housing Crisis
"Housing programs are among the important public services being targeted for significant cuts to fund tax giveaways for billionaires and their wealthy donors," warned one group.
May 15, 2025
House Republicans' proposed budget reconciliation package will make mortgages expensive and harder to obtain, a progressive tax policy group warned Thursday, while over 30 advocacy groups sounded the alarm over the Trump administration's gutting of federal agencies and programs, moves that are exacerbating the U.S. housing crisis.
Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) said that the proposed permanent extension of expiring portions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law by President Donald Trump during his first term would grant massive tax breaks to big corporations and the ultrawealthy, "wasting trillions of dollars that could help solve our country's affordable housing crisis."
"The deficit-financed tax cuts would also increase interest rates, making housing less affordable," ATF added. "To the extent the tax cuts are not added to the deficit, housing programs are among the important public services being targeted for significant cuts to fund tax giveaways for billionaires and their wealthy donors."
"They are paving the way for more predatory landlords to jack up rent."
ATF's assertion is supported by a report published in February by the Economic Policy Institute finding that "large, deficit-financed tax cuts would put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates, slowing growth and causing pain to households," including by making borrowing for a home more expensive.
ATF noted that extending the TCJA's weakened low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) could result in 235,000 fewer affordable housing units over 10 years.
"Trump's tax scam reduced the financial incentive for corporations—the largest LIHTC investors—to make equity investments in the tax credits by slashing the corporate tax rate to 21%, and adopting a stingier measure of inflation," the group said.
"One of the most regressive provisions in the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law is the so-called 'opportunity zone' tax break," ATF contended. "While proponents claimed it would encourage investment in low-income neighborhoods, it has instead been ruthlessly exploited by wealthy real estate investors."
"In fact, this program has failed to deliver the promised economic opportunity to underserved communities, instead turning many of these neighborhoods into what can more accurately be described as exploitation zones," the group added.
The Lever's Luke Goldstein and Katya Schwenk reported Tuesday that the reconciliation package's proposed restrictions on state governments passing new regulations on artificial intelligence technology "could kill crackdowns on real estate management company RealPage for raising rents and contributing to the country's housing crisis."
RealPage is accused of price gouging renters via AI-powered surveillance pricing and automated insurance denials and management systems.
"Not only are House Republicans giving their billionaire donors and large corporations a massive tax handout, they are giving RealPage and bad actors like them a free pass to rip off working families," Lindsay Owens, executive director of the economic justice group Groundwork Collaborative, said Wednesday.
"They are paving the way for more predatory landlords to jack up rent, more apps to drive down gig worker wages, and more retailers to hike prices on consumers," Owens added. "The GOP tax bill tells you everything you need to know about the Republican Party's priorities and how unserious they are about lowering costs for working families."
More than a dozen states have joined a class action lawsuit accusing RealPage of using AI to artificially inflate housing prices across the nation.
Also on Thursday, more than 30 housing, consumer, and civil rights groups warned that the Trump administration's deep cuts to federal agencies and programs—spearheaded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—"are worsening the nation's housing crisis."
"Our families, neighbors, and communities deserve better than these untenable and unconscionable proposals."
"The Trump administration promised to address the high cost of housing, but so far has proposed policies that will increase the cost of rent, shred the nation's housing safety net, and push more people into homelessness," National Low Income Housing Coalition interim president and CEO Renee Willis said in a statement.
"At a time when more people than ever are struggling to afford the cost of rent and a record number of people are experiencing homelessness, rolling back fair housing protections and cutting funding for rental assistance, homelessness services, and affordable housing development—and gutting the workforce responsible for administering these programs—will only create more hardship," Willis added. "Our families, neighbors, and communities deserve better than these untenable and unconscionable proposals."
In a wider critique of Trump's policy proposals, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Thursday on social media: "Wages are stagnant. Housing costs are soaring."
"Many young people will never be able to afford their own homes, but Trump wants to increase the bloated military budget by $150 billion," Sanders added. "WRONG. That money should go toward building the affordable housing that we desperately need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Supreme Court Hears Birthright Citizenship Case, Trump Ripped for Attack on Core Constitutional Right
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," one campaigner warned.
May 15, 2025
As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.
"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."
Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."
"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."
According toPolitico:
Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.
Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.
The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.
As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."
If the President is arguing to strip federal judges of the power to stop him from flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment citizenship rights of Americans - literally rendering some children stateless persons - that context is germane to argument about the legitimate use of the federal court’s power.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@sifill.bsky.social) May 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.
"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.
"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."
Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Probe Demanded Into Trump's 'Crony Capitalism' in Favor of Musk
Democratic senators said diplomatic discussions with numerous foreign governments about Elon Musk's satellite service appear to be "a textbook case of corruption."
May 15, 2025
Amid the news that billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk secured a new deal with Saudia Arabia for his satellite internet service just as U.S. President Donald Trump was visiting the Middle Eastern country, Democratic senators are intensifying their demand for an investigation into how Musk has directly benefited from the president's policies and actions since taking office.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wrote to top Trump administration officials demanding a probe into what they called "a textbook case of corruption."
Musk, a "special government employee" who has led Trump's efforts to slash public spending via the Department of Government Efficiency, said at an investment forum in Riyadh Tuesday that Starlink, the satellite service owned by his aerospace company, SpaceX, had gotten approval to operate in Saudi Arabia.
The service has struggled to gain traction in international markets, relying on permits from foreign governments—but its trajectory has changed since Trump took office.
"Starlink has seen a rush of new countries permitting the company to enter their markets," wrote the senators. "Soon after President Trump announced tariffs, Lesotho 'awarded Musk's firm the nation's first-ever satellite internet service license,' and 'is far from the only country that has decided to assist Musk's firm while trying to fend off U.S. tariffs.'"
India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh have also agreed to work with Musk's company in recent weeks as Trump was threatening to impose tariffs.
On Thursday, ProPublicadetailed some of the discussions the administration has had with foreign governments in recent weeks, about trade as well as foreign aid, with an apparent goal: "Get business for Elon Musk."
In Gambia, where Musk had tried for months to secure approval for Starlink, U.S. Ambassador Sharon Cromer—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—met with the country's top communications official, Lamin Jabbi, in February.
"We ask that the DOJ and the White House investigate whether any officials have pursued a quid pro quo exchange of Starlink access for tariff favors in violation of federal ethics law."
"The administration had already begun freezing foreign aid projects, and early in the meeting, Cromer... said something that rattled Gambian officials in the room," reported ProPublica. "She listed the ways that the U.S. was supporting the country, according to two people present and contemporaneous notes, noting that key initiatives—like one that funds a $25 million project to improve the electrical system—were currently under review."
Hassan Jallow, a top deputy to Jabbi, told ProPublica that the clear implication in Cromer's comments "was that they were connected."
Similar discussions have taken place between U.S. officials and the government of Cameroon—where leaders were told they could prove their "commitment to Trump's agenda by letting Starlink expand its presence there" and warned of the potential "impact of U.S. aid cuts and deportations."
In Lesotho, Starlink finalized a deal with officials after Trump imposed 50% tariffs on the landlocked country.
Kenneth Fairfax, who served as U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, told ProPublica the conversations pushing countries to approve deals with Musk "could lead to the impression that the U.S. is engaging in a form of crony capitalism."
The Saudi deal announced Tuesday was finalized just as Trump secured a $600 billion investment deal with the country and agreed to sell the government a $142 billion arms package.
As Common Dreamsreported last week, internal government messages have shown how U.S. embassies and the State Department have mentioned Starlink by name in numerous communications with foreign governments about satellite companies.
"Secretary of State Marco Rubio has increasingly instructed officials to push for regulatory approvals for Musk's satellite firm at a moment when the White House is calling for wide-ranging talks on trade," The Washington Post reported.
Warren, Warner, and Shaheen wrote that the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice (DOJ) "is responsible for investigating
potentially criminal conflicts of interest like this," and called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to initiate a probe.
"The White House's Designated Agency Ethics Official can similarly investigate potential ethics violations by White House officials," they wrote. "We ask that the DOJ and the White House investigate whether any officials have pursued a quid pro quo exchange of Starlink access for tariff favors in violation of federal ethics law."
The lawmakers also called on the State Department inspector general to investigate whether department officials "may be subverting the public's interests in favor of Mr. Musk's personal financial interests as they negotiate new tariff agreements—and whether they have been directed by Mr. Musk or President Trump to do so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular