

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.

Vesna Jaksic, ACLU national (347) 514-3984 or (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Victoria Middleton, ACLU of South Carolina, (843) 720-1424; vmiddleton@aclusouthcarolina.org
A federal court today blocked key provisions of South Carolina's anti-immigrant law and recognized that harms could take place if police officers check people's immigration status, inviting additional challenges of civil rights abuses.
The decision affirms a December 2011 ruling that blocked key sections of the law, including those that aimed to turn unlawful presence into a state crime, and to turn everyday activities such as giving a ride or renting an apartment to an undocumented immigrant into a crime.
While the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in Charleston allowed for implementation of a "show me your papers" provision, it invites future challenges involving lengthy detentions and other civil rights issues.
The district court issued this latest decision in order to ensure that its prior ruling was in line with the guidance provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June in a case regarding Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB 1070.
Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said, "Today's decision follows a string of rulings in South Carolina and other states that have dealt a blow to state anti-immigrant laws by blocking most parts from going into effect. The court reaffirmed that it would be unconstitutional for state and local officers to detain individuals on the basis of their status alone and left open the door to future challenges involving civil rights abuses under this law. We will continue to closely monitor the law's enforcement in order to ensure a person's basic rights are protected."
Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center said, "The district court rightly recognized that South Carolina cannot disregard the federal government and the Constitution by turning everyday activities, and mere existence in the state, into a crime. Unfortunately, the court failed to recognize that the provision forcing police to demand "papers" of those they suspect are in the country without authorization will cause real harm to South Carolinians of all colors. Our fight against this pernicious provision will continue.
Mary Bauer, legal director of the SPLC, said, "Today's ruling sends a message that South Carolinians will not be criminalized for being good neighbors and that targeting people based solely on their race will not be tolerated," said Mary Bauer, legal director for the SPLC. "We are pleased that the court blocked some of the most harmful provisions of the state's anti-immigrant law. We will remain vigilant during this critical time when the 'papers please' provision is implemented and we are prepared to do whatever it takes ensure no hateful or unconstitutional law is allowed to stand."
MALDEF National Senior Counsel, Victor Viramontes, said: "The District Court blocked much of South Carolina's anti-immigrant law, but allowed local law enforcement to racially profile Latinos based on 'looking undocumented', which is destructive to the community and bad law enforcement. The Court should not have endorsed any piece of this anti-immigrant statue. MALDEF will closely watch any attempts by local law enforcement to enforce South Carolina's law, while we continue our legal challenge to this discriminatory law."
In addition to the ACLU, the ACLU of South Carolina, NILC, SPLC and MALDEF, the coalition includes the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, LatinoJustice PRLDF, Lloyd Law Firm, and Rosen, Rosen & Hagood. Members of the coalition have also filed lawsuits against state anti-immigrant laws in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Utah and Indiana. Courts have blocked major portions of these laws. In Alabama and Georgia, the U.S. Court for the Appeals for the 11th Circuit also recently blocked the transporting and harboring provisions.
For a copy of the decision: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/lowcountry-immigration-coalition-et-al-v...
For more information on the South Carolina case: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/lowcountry-immigration-coalition-et-al-v...
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) 549-2666"The new American oligarchy is here," said the CEO of Oxfam America. "Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries."
New research published Monday shows that the 10 richest people in the United States have seen their collective fortune grow by nearly $700 billion since President Donald Trump secured a second term in the White House and rushed to deliver more wealth to the top in the form of tax cuts.
The billionaire wealth surge that has accompanied Trump's return to power is part of a decades-long, policy-driven trend of upward redistribution that has enriched the very few and devastated the working class, Oxfam America details in Unequal: The Rise of a New American Oligarchy and the Agenda We Need.
Between 1989 and 2022, the report shows, the least rich US household in the top 1% gained 987 times more wealth than the richest household in the bottom 20%.
As of last year, more than 40% of the US population was considered poor or low-income, Oxfam observed. In 2025, the share of total US assets owned by the wealthiest 0.1% reached its highest level on record: 12.6%.
The Trump administration—in partnership with Republicans in Congress—has added rocket fuel to the nation's out-of-control inequality, moving "with staggering speed and scale to carry out a relentless attack on working-class families" while using "the power of the office to enrich the wealthy and well-connected," Oxfam's new report states.
"The data confirms what people across our nation already know instinctively: The new American oligarchy is here," said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America. "Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries."
"Now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress risk turbocharging that inequality as they wage a relentless attack on working people and bargain with livelihoods during the government shutdown," Maxman added. "But what they're doing isn't new. It's doubling down on decades of regressive policy choices. What's different is how much undemocratic power they've now amassed."
"Today, we are seeing the dark extremes of choosing inequality for 50 years."
Oxfam released its report as the Trump administration continued to illegally withhold federal nutrition assistance from tens of millions of low-income US households just months after enacting a budget law that's expected to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to ultra-rich Americans and large corporations.
Given the severity of US inequality and ongoing Trump-GOP efforts to make it worse, Oxfam stressed that a bold agenda "that focuses on rebalancing power" will be necessary to reverse course.
Such an agenda would include—but not be limited to—a wealth tax on multimillionaires and billionaires, a higher corporate tax rate, a permanently expanded child tax credit, strong antitrust policy that breaks up corporate monopolies, a federal job guarantee, universal childcare, and a substantially higher minimum wage.
"Today, we are seeing the dark extremes of choosing inequality for 50 years," Elizabeth Wilkins, president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, wrote in her foreword to the report. "The policy priorities in this report—rebalancing power, unrigging the tax code, reimagining the social safety net, and supporting workers' rights—are all essential to creating that more inclusive and cohesive society. Together, they speak to our deepest needs as human beings: to live with security and agency, to live free from exploitation."
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."