March, 15 2018, 12:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,press@lawyerscommittee.org
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Condemns Senate Vote To Weaken Important Banking Regulations
Senate strips core transparency requirements during Sunshine Week
WASHINGTON
Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, issued the following statement Thursday after the Senate voted late Wednesday to pass legislation to weaken critical banking reforms enacted following the 2008 financial crisis:
"By passing the Bank Lobbyist Act, the Senate has failed communities of color throughout the country who continue to experience pervasive lending discrimination. As the Senate commemorates Sunshine Week, a time to recognize the importance of transparency and openness, it is especially troubling that the chamber moved today to rollback important reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) to track mortgage lending and denials by race and ethnicity.
"Now more than ever, financial institutions including small banks and credit unions must be transparent about how they do business and to whom they are lending. We need more information, not less, to root out discriminatory mortgage lending practices that harm families of color and contribute to the growing racial wealth gap."
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Judge Blocks 'Unconstitutional and Dangerous' Trump Order Designed to Derail Mail-In Voting
"The court rightly recognized that the president and the executive branch lack both the legal authority and the capacity to compile a complete and accurate list of US citizens or eligible voters in every state."
Jun 25, 2026
On the heels of a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts siding with Democratic state attorneys general who challenged President Donald Trump's executive order requiring Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, another judge in the same district on Thursday blocked key portions of a second Trump order attacking US elections.
In the latest decision, District Judge Indira Talwani struck down Section 2, which orders the US Department of Homeland Security to create "confirmed citizen lists" of eligible voters, as well as Section 3, which directs the US Postal Service to create rules to limit the mailing of ballots to voters not included on its own lists.
"The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections. Broadly, the Constitution vests the president with 'executive power' and commands him to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" wrote Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "Sections 2 and 3... are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers."
The judge also struck down Section 5, which requires the US Deparment of Justicee and all other executive agencies "with relevant authority" to "take all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with federal law," plus mandates that states and localities "preserve, for a five-year-period, all records and materials—excluding ballots cast—evidencing participation in any federal election (e.g., ballot envelopes, regardless of carriers)." She found that this portion of the order "is merely precatory."
Several state attorneys general were involved in both of this week's cases, including New York Democrat Letitia James, who called Thursday's decision a "major victory" as well as a "critical step in defending the foundation of our democracy and protecting the sacred right to vote."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Thursday also cheered the back-to-back wins against the Republican president.
"Just yesterday, President Trump's first elections-related Executive Order was blocked. Now, his second elections-related executive Order has suffered the same fate, and rightfully so. As the federal judge wrote in today's decision, 'The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections.' Those powers are reserved to the states and Congress," Bonta said. "Democracy doesn't work on its own—it requires constant vigilance. And that's what my fellow attorneys general and I will continue to provide."
The AGs weren't alone in challenging Trump's order. The Association of Americans Resident Overseas, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, League of Women Voters, LWV of Massachusetts, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and US Vote Foundation also filed suit, represented by the national and Massachusetts arms of the ACLU as well as Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in that case said in a joint statement that as Thursday's decision "makes clear, President Trump's executive order from March 2026 attempting to seize control of elections is unconstitutional and dangerous."
"This ruling is a critical step in preserving free and fair elections," they said. "The court rightly recognized that the president and the executive branch lack both the legal authority and the capacity to compile a complete and accurate list of US citizens or eligible voters in every state. The ruling also rightly recognizes that the US Postal Service has no authority to limit the distribution of mail ballots."
"The court has yet to rule on our request to block the executive order's provisions on mail voting on behalf of a nonpartisan coalition of voting rights groups," they noted. "The same reasoning underpinning today's decision should hold in our case. President Trump's unlawful executive order violates the separation of powers, threatens the integrity of our elections, and must be enjoined from taking effect in the upcoming primary and midterm elections."
Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson signaled the administration will continue the fight, telling multiple media outlets that "President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of our elections. The president's executive order lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation."
Jackson also reiterated the administration's support for the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, saying that "President Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to secure our elections for generations to come."
Trump on Wednesday canceled his planned signing ceremony for the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act "until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
In response, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) summarized: "Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum. He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Urged to Reject Trump's $88 Billion Request for Iran War That ‘Everyone Hates’
"This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Jun 25, 2026
The Trump administration is facing pushback after it formally asked the US Congress to approve $88 billion in supplemental funding that will primarily be used to pay for President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.
In a letter sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said that most of the requested funding "will address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury (OEF), in addition to other critical needs such as responding to the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa and supporting hardworking American farmers."
Many congressional Democrats, however, were not eager to go along with the administration's $88 billion request.
"Trump and [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth are now asking for $88 BILLION more for their illegal war in Iran," wrote Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in a Thursday social media post. "Just as I predicted, they are pairing this money with other priorities to buy votes for this war. The American people shouldn't backfill this blunder. Not another dime!"
Van Hollen was joined in his opposition to further war funding by his colleague Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Senate Democrats' top appropriator, who said she would not "rubber-(stamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
Murray also highlighted the opportunity cost of the president's war.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare," the Washington Democrat said, "but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, similarly noted that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
Elected officials aren't the only ones signaling opposition to the Trump administration's request.
Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that Trump is asking Congress for more money even though he completely bypassed the legislature when launching the war in late February.
"About six weeks ago, the Pentagon put the cost of the Iran War at $29 billion," Ellis said. "Now they want more than twice that? Either the administration wasn’t being honest about the costs then, or they aren’t being honest about the costs now."
Ellis also pointed out that the US Department of Defense is still sitting on roughly $100 billion in unobligated funds it could tap to replenish the munitions used in the illegal war.
"The need to address certain munitions shortfalls resulting from the war is real, but the Pentagon already has plenty of funds to do so," he explained, "and any future investments beyond that should happen through the regular budget process, not through a partisan reconciliation bill or a slapdash supplemental."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said it appeared Trump was making this supplemental funding request because he knew Congress would not approve the unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense budget he proposed.
"Hegseth and Trump are circling back to their first deeply unpopular option for increasing the Pentagon budget—a supplemental funding bill for an illegal war on Iran that nobody asked for and everyone hates," said Weissman. "This effort, like the others, will fail."
Weissman warned members of Congress against supporting any additional funding requested by the administration, which he said Trump and Hegseth would likely take as approval for "launching more illegal and unconstitutional wars and military actions."
"And no so-called sweetener should make any difference whatsoever," he emphasized. "This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, urged Democrats to uniformly reject Trump's request.
"No Democratic lawmaker should bow to Trump’s demand that working Americans pay even more for his disastrous war on Iran," Williams said. "Funds to replenish stockpiles can come from elsewhere in the already bloated, record-high Pentagon budget—or tax the oil and arms investors who made a killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heartbreaking, Terrible Decision': Supreme Court Validates Trump Attack on TPS
"Hundreds of thousands of people who hold legal status... now face losing their ability to work and being torn from their families and homes."
Jun 25, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian residents from the US after stripping them of their Temporary Protected Status last year.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court's conservative majority ruled that the Department of Homeland Security was able to strip status from 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians—including many who'd lived in the US for years—after they'd been given protection because DHS deemed their home countries unsafe to return to.
"Hundreds of thousands of people who hold legal status, who registered with the government, passed background checks, and paid fees to do so, now face losing their ability to work and being torn from their families and homes," explained Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration and criminal justice reform advocacy group Fwd.US.
A federal judge temporarily delayed the administration’s TPS terminations in February, blocking what advocates feared would be a flood of immigration agents to areas with many TPS recipients. The judge said DHS had not followed the legally required steps to determine whether Haiti and Syria were safe enough for people with temporary status to return.
The State Department currently advises Americans not to visit either country for any reason, as Haiti is in the midst of a brutal gang war that has displaced more than 1.4 million people, and Syria has been in an ongoing state of unrest since the civil war began in 2011.
Echoing the lower court, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in her dissenting opinion that the only consultation within DHS on the conditions in these countries took place in a brief email exchange between a DHS aide and a State Department official, who said that there were no "foreign policy concerns" with terminating their status, but provided no evidence to declare that the two countries were safe.
The justice likewise noted that the stripping of status for Haitians was likely arbitrary and unconstitutional, based in part on "racial animus." She noted that President Donald Trump has made many statements about Haitians "so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print."
Kagan listed several of them, including Trump's nonsensical rant that Haitians were "eating the pets" of residents in Springfield, Ohio; his claim that Haitians living in the US “probably have AIDS"; and his description of Haiti as a "shithole country." She also noted his comments about immigrants more broadly, including that they are "poisoning the blood" of the nation.
"The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the president’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country," Kagan wrote.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito sidestepped the question of whether DHS has properly considered the conditions in Haiti and Syria, stating that the TPS statute allows "no judicial review of any determination... with respect to the... termination” of a designation. He said that meant the court could not review either the final decision to terminate status or any of the individual decisions leading up to it.
He did acknowledge the question of racial animus and admitted that things Trump has said "would have scandalized the public just a short time ago." But, he said that “none of the cited statements" from Trump were "overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.”
The Trump administration has declined to renew TPS for all 13 countries for which it has come up for renewal during his second term. Alito said that since the administration has declined to renew TPS for every country, not just Haiti, the evidence was "insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people.”
Thursday's ruling was yet another validation of Trump's efforts to end TPS by the Supreme Court, which last year ruled that he could similarly strip status from around 350,000 Venezuelan nationals.
But advocates have pointed out that the administration's case this time was substantially weaker.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it was "very important for people to understand that the Trump administration did not win a decision today saying that they had lawfully ended TPS."
"Instead," he said, "what the Supreme Court held was that even if the Trump administration had openly ignored the law in making TPS decisions, courts cannot stop them."
Nicolette Glazer, a California-based immigration attorney, said the court had basically determined that "a DHS secretary can end TPS at whim and neither statutory nor constitutional theory applies to curb administrative xenophobia."
"Make no mistake about what this is," said Amina Barhumi, the executive director of the Muslim Civic Coalition. "Temporary Protected Status exists because it is not safe to send people back to war and disaster. This decision does not change those dangers—it simply turns its back on the people fleeing them."
Schulte said it was a "heartbreaking, terrible decision that defies common sense." He added that "the administration simply broke the law in the way it terminated TPS." Now, he said, the lives of "hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here for decades... are in chaos."
While the Trump administration has often portrayed immigrants and refugees as parasites, Schulte argued that the "economic damage" of the decision would be felt far beyond the families facing deportation.
"Haitian TPS holders contribute nearly $6 billion to the US economy each year, and 200,000 of them work in industries already facing labor shortages, including healthcare, agriculture, and manufacturing," he said. "An estimated 25,000 US citizen children of Haitian TPS holders will be pushed into poverty when their parents lose work authorization. Employers will lose trained, dedicated workers they cannot easily replace. The real-life impact of this ruling is profound, cruel, and heartbreaking."
Some members of Congress pledged to take action to defend TPS recipients in light of the decision.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) called on Congress to pass the American Dream and Promise Act, which would create pathways to permanent legal status for TPS holders, as well as holders of the similar Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), and those who were brought to the US unauthorized as children and received protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
"TPS holders followed the rules. They registered with the government, passed background checks, renewed their status, worked legally, paid taxes, and raised their families here," Garcia said. "Their reward should not be a deportation notice."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who spoke outside the court on Thursday, said the ruling showed that "the far-right MAGA majority on the court cannot stand." He said, "We need to win back the House and the Senate and expand the court."
"This is not over," Markey added. "It is our responsibility to protect TPS holders and provide this vulnerable group with a pathway to permanent citizenship. I will not stop fighting."
Even Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), a strong supporter of Trump, said that while he "never disputed the ability" of Trump to end TPS, he "strongly disagree[d] with ending Haitian TPS at this time," saying that "the situation on the ground in Haiti is a humanitarian and political disaster and continues to warrant an extension."
Lawler noted that "roughly 1/3" of Haitian TPS holders "work in our healthcare system" and said "shutting off TPS will create a crisis" in hospitals, nursing homes, and for people with disabilities.
"I’m asking the administration to allow for an orderly process by which Haitian TPS holders can maintain their work authorization while their immigration cases are adjudicated over the next six months," he said, adding that the Senate should consider his legislation with Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY) to temporarily extend TPS protections.
He said the administration needed to "allow for a stable government to be established with a free and fair election, creating the conditions for a safe return for Haitians."
Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-NJ), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee, said the TPS ruling, and another ruling on Thursday allowing the administration to turn back asylum seekers at legal points of entry, "should alarm every American."
"The 14th Amendment promises due process and equal protection under the law. Those rights do not disappear because a president decides an entire community has become politically convenient to target," she said. "When the government can deny one group a hearing or strip away protections they have relied on for years, it is not just immigrants who lose. It sends a dangerous message that constitutional rights can be discarded whenever those in power find it politically useful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular