

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.
Shin Inouye, 202.869.0398, inouye@civilrights.org, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights;
Jessica Brady, 202.662.8317, jbrady@lawyerscommittee.org, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law;
James Santel, 202.216.5567, jsantel@naacpldf.org, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;
Gabriela Melendez, 202.715.0826, gmelendez@aclu.org, ACLU;
Tony Newman, 646.335.5384, Tnewman@drugpolicy.org, Drug Policy Alliance;
Hayley Burgess, 202.384.1279, Burgess@nilc.org, National Immigration Law Center
Ahead of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein's testimony before congressional appropriations subcommittees on Tuesday, several national civil rights and justice system reform leaders spoke out about the implications of a Department of Justice budget that shifts priorities from civil rights enforcement toward a renewed War on Drugs and incarceration. The groups called on members of Congress to push Rosenstein to explain his department's budget priorities and commit to robust civil rights enforcement.
Ahead of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein's testimony before congressional appropriations subcommittees on Tuesday, several national civil rights and justice system reform leaders spoke out about the implications of a Department of Justice budget that shifts priorities from civil rights enforcement toward a renewed War on Drugs and incarceration. The groups called on members of Congress to push Rosenstein to explain his department's budget priorities and commit to robust civil rights enforcement.
"Over and over again, Attorney General Sessions has taken steps to undo critical civil rights progress. The administration's budget request raises more alarm that this Department of Justice will shirk its duty to ensure equal justice under the law for all," said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "The Attorney General's move to return to criminal justice policies that have been discredited by people across the political spectrum will only further harm low-income communities and communities of color. Congress must demand that Rosenstein explain how Sessions' Department of Justice will prioritize its responsibility to protect the civil rights of all and ensure fairness in the administration of justice."
"At his confirmation hearing in January, Attorney General Sessions said he would follow the law even if it went against his own political beliefs. Yet four months into office, he has done nothing to instill confidence among the civil rights communities who were concerned about his nomination," said Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "The American people deserve to know whether taxpayer dollars and Justice Department resources will be used for the problematic Pence-Kobach commission. We urge lawmakers to press Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein tomorrow for clear answers about the priorities of the Department under Attorney General Sessions."
"Even in an administration that poses a unique threat to civil rights, Jeff Sessions' Department of Justice stands out for its hostility to the equal treatment of groups historically excluded from the American promise of liberty and justice for all," said Janai Nelson, Associate Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). "Whether it is retreating from policing reform, reversing its position on Texas's restrictive voter ID law, or directing prosecutors to revive discredited policies that will only deepen racial disparities in our justice system, the Department of Justice under Jeff Sessions has utterly failed to live up to the ideal for which it is named. It is incumbent on the Attorney General to demonstrate to the American people and their representatives how the Justice Department's proposed budget represents anything other than a doubling down on this administration's assault on civil rights in the United States. But by abruptly canceling his hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, he has shirked that responsibility."
Jesselyn McCurdy, deputy director of the ACLU's legislative office, said, "Under Attorney General Sessions, the Department of Justice is implementing policies that will further divide the police and the communities they serve. Among them, the administration's reversal of the decision to stop the use of private prisons gives us great cause for alarm. The relationship between Sessions and the private prison industry has been well documented. It comes as no surprise that Sessions and the administration are advocating for private prisons while at the same time increasing penalties and ramping up detentions."
"We hope that the Committee will ask the Department of Justice some pointed questions about the Attorney General's intentions on escalating the war on drugs. The Sessions budget is a strong indication that he wants to take the country back to the failed polices of the1980s and members of Congress must hold him accountable for this," said Michael Collins, Deputy Director, Drug Policy Alliance.
"The Trump budget proposal is the latest manifestation of this administration's unabashed and deeply troubling hostility toward immigrants and other communities of color. It is a clear attempt to further this administration's misguided continued efforts to criminalize immigrants and finance mass incarceration. By increasing enforcement funding while simultaneously undermining civil rights protections, we face incredibly harmful policies that prioritize criminalization over basic human rights, putting already marginalized communities at even greater risk," said Kamal Essaheb, Director of Policy & Advocacy, National Immigration Law Center
Note: Earlier today, the leaders held a press briefing call on this issue. The audio of that call is available here.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States. The Leadership Conference works toward an America as good as its ideals. For more information on The Leadership Conference and its 200-plus member organizations, visit www.civilrights.org.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers' Committee), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. Formed over 50 years ago, we continue our quest of "Moving America Toward Justice." The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and community development; economic justice; voting; education and criminal justice. For more information about the Lawyers' Committee, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.
Founded in 1940, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is the nation's first civil and human rights law organization and has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957--although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF's Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund or LDF. For more information about LDF, visit www.naacpldf.org.
The American Civil Liberties Union is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, legal and advocacy organization devoted to protecting the rights of everyone in America. For more information about the ACLU, visit www.aclu.org.
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) is the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. For more information about DPA, visit www.drugpolicy.org.
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is one of the leading organizations in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low-income immigrants. Headquartered in Los Angeles with an office in Washington, DC, NILC uses a variety of strategies, including policy analysis, litigation, education and advocacy, to ensure that low-income immigrant families in the U.S. can live freely, work safely, and thrive peacefu
One social media user wrote that the hedge fund executive Bill Ackman "went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours."
After his resounding election victory on Tuesday night, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's most prominent billionaire antagonist immediately pivoted to kiss the ring of the man he has spent the last more than half-year portraying as an existential threat to the city and the country.
Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman poured over $1.75 million into the mayor's race with a laser focus on stopping Mamdani, whom he often ambushed with several-thousand-word screeds on his X account, which boasts nearly 2 million followers. He accused Mamdani—a staunch critic of Israel—of "amplifying hate" against Jewish New Yorkers, while suggesting that his followers (which happened to include many Jewish New Yorkers) were "terror supporters."
Meanwhile, the billionaire suggested that the democratic socialist Mamdani's "affordability" centered agenda, which includes increasing taxes on corporations and the city's wealthiest residents to fund universal childcare, free buses, and a rent freeze for stabilized units, would make the city "much more dangerous and economically unviable," in part by causing an exodus of billionaires like himself.
In turn, Mamdani often invoked Ackman's name on the campaign trail, using him as the poster boy for the cossetted New York elite that was almost uniformly arrayed against his candidacy. In one exchange, Mamdani joked that Ackman was "spending more money against me than I would even tax him."
After Mamdani's convincing victory Tuesday night, fueled in large part by his dominant performance among the city's working-class voters, Ackman surprisingly did not respond with "the longest tweet in the history of tweets" to lament the result as some predicted. Instead, he came to the mayor-elect hat in hand.
"Congrats on the win," he told Mamdani on X. "Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do."
Many were quick to point out Ackman's near-immediate 180-degree turn from prophecizing doom to offering his help to the incoming mayor.
"This guy went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours," noted one social media user.
But Mamdani graciously accepted the billionaire's congratulations when asked about them on Wednesday's "Good Morning America."
"I appreciated his words,” Mamdani said. "I think what I find is that there is a needed commitment from leaders of the city to speak and work with anyone who is committed to lowering the cost of living in the city—and that’s something that I will fulfill."
As Bloomberg and Forbes noted, Ackman was just one of many on Wall Street and from the broader finance world who came to kiss the ring.
Ralph Schlosstein, a co-founder of the investment fund BlackRock, Inc., pledged to work with Mamdani despite their different politics: "I do care deeply about the city, and I’m not going anywhere, whoever the mayor is. I’m going to do whatever I can to help him be successful," he said.
Another former BlackRock executive, Mark Kronfeld, said: "Is it a dystopian, post-apocalyptic environment because Mamdani has won? No."
Crypto billionaire Mike Novogratz even credited Mamdani with "tapping into a message that’s real: that we’ve got a tale of two cities in the Dickensian sense," and asked if the incoming mayor could "address the affordability issue in creative ways without driving business out."
But while Mamdani has left the door open to business, he has made it clear that he will not allow them to commandeer his work at City Hall.
After his victory, he called on his base of largely small-dollar donors to resume their financial support for him in order to fund "a transition that can meet the moment of preparing for January 1.”
He announced that this historic all-female transition team will include at least one renowned titan of economic populism, the trust-busting former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, as well as other progressive city administrators with backgrounds in expanding the social safety net and public housing.
"I’m excited for the fact that it will be funded by the very people who brought us to this point," Mamdani said, "the working people who have been lost behind by the politics of the city."
One critic warned a Trump win “will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way.”
As the US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing arguments on the sweeping powers claimed by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on foreign goods, many critics warned that the court would create a "presidency without limits" if it ruled in his favor.
In April, Trump unveiled unprecedented tariffs on nearly every nation in the world using powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law passed in 1977 that allows the president to regulate international commerce during major emergencies such as wars.
Many Trump critics believe that using this law as the legal foundation of a global tariff regime is a gross abuse of the law's original intent, and are urging the Supreme Court to shut it down.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, warned that granting the president this level of authority over the taxation of imported goods would "open the door to broader abuses of power" by emboldening Trump to usurp even more authority from the US Congress.
“We’re already dangerously close to a presidency without limits," he said. "It’s time for the right-wing majority on the court to stand up for our Constitution and serve as a check on Trump’s power, starting with this case."
Josh Orton, president of progressive legal advocacy organization Demand Justice, also said that the tariff case before the Supreme Court "is about far more than an economic debate or a trade-law dispute," given its implications for the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.
"Trump is demanding that the court hand him raw power over the economy," said Orton. "If Trump wins here, he won’t just raise costs on American families. He will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way—letting any president unilaterally rewrite trade law, punish certain industries, harm consumers, or leverage international allies for personal gain."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, argued that the Supreme Court wouldn't even need to hear the case on the Trump tariffs if Congress reasserted its authority given under the US Constitution to levy taxes.
“As the Supreme Court hears a case with implications for whether Americans can afford groceries, school supplies, and more, people will remember that Republicans in Congress could end these disastrous tariffs today and should have done so a long time ago," she said. “These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working Americans, and Republicans in Congress have voted time and again to keep them in place... Republicans in Congress must act immediately to repeal Trump’s tariffs and finally put working people first."
During Wednesday's hearing on the tariffs case, conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about allowing the president to usurp congressional powers in perpetuity by issuing emergency declarations that Congress must then vote to revoke before it can resume its duties outlined in Article I of the US Constitution.
"So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president," Gorsuch remarked. "It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
Sauer tried to counter this by pointing to former President Joe Biden agreeing in 2023 to sign bipartisan legislation ending the national health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gorsuch, however, countered that this only occurred with the president's consent, and that it would otherwise take a supermajority to end a declared emergency if the president elected to veto the congressional resolution.
Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. pic.twitter.com/secLyWMX7H
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2025
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also grilled Sauer on concerns about separation of powers, and she noted that the Constitution explicitly delegates taxation powers to Congress.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax," she said. "You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
Justice Sotomayor asks about tariffs being a kind of tax on Americans and compares President Trump's emergency tariff Executive Orders to President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy and a hypothetical climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/nD0MYgVjv3
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 5, 2025
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing this week, Trump posted a frantic message on his Truth Social platform warning justices that his power to unilaterally impose tariffs was a matter of "life or death" for the United States.
""With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, financial and national security," he claimed. "Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday that "Trump’s tariffs are sending small businesses to an early grave."
"Trade authority begins and ends with Congress," the senator added. "I’ll keep battling to rein in Trump’s tariff madness and protect small businesses, farmers, and families."
"Colorado sent a clear message tonight: No child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach," said the state Democratic Party.
Colorado voters on Tuesday handily approved a pair of ballot measures to fully fund free meals for all K-12 public school students, give raises or stipends to scholastic cafeteria workers, and enact grants for schools to buy fresh foods from local farmers.
According to unofficial results published Wednesday morning by the Colorado Secretary of State's office, Proposition LL overwhelmingly passed 64.66% to 35.34%. The proposal allows the state to keep and spend $12.4 million in tax revenue, including interest, already collected under Proposition FF to fund the Healthy School Meals for All Program, a 2022 voter-approved initiative to provide free breakfast and lunch to students and provide food purchasing grants to public schools.
Proposition MM—which raises taxes on households with annual incomes over $300,000 to fund the meals program—was approved 58.07% to 41.93%. The measure is meant to fill funding gaps in Proposition FF and was spurred by US President Donald Trump's signing of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which inflicted the largest-ever cuts in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), largely to pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations.
“We're relieved that Colorado kids will continue to have access to free meals at school,” Anya Rose, director pf public policy at the advocacy group Hunger Free Colorado, told Colorado Public Radio (CPR) after the measures' passage. “I think that hunger is top of mind for a lot of people right now, and it's really visible for people. And we know that this is an incredibly popular program that is more important, now than ever, since there are so many people struggling to make ends meet and resources have fallen through for a lot.”
Colorado sent a clear message tonight: no child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach.While Republicans in Washington play politics with our families, our food and our health care, Colorado is stepping up, keeping Healthy School Meals for All alive for 600,000 kids.
[image or embed]
— Colorado Democrats 🇺🇸 (@coloradodems.org) November 4, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Joe Kabourek, who managed the Keep Kids Fed campaign, said in a statement: "Thank you to every voter, volunteer, community partner, and endorsing organization who turned out to pass Propositions LL and MM, ensuring every child in Colorado can continue to get a healthy meal at school."
Nine US states have now enacted laws providing free meals to all public school students regardless of family income: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. Cities including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC have enacted similar programs.
Betsy Hayes of Denver recalled the cruelty her children faced from other students for needing free school meals.
“It was very embarrassing for them and stigmatizing to them, and I really would like other kids not to have to go through that,” she told CPR.