January, 14 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Immigrant Plaintiffs Claim Victory In Census Question
Plaintiffs to hold PRESS CALL TODAY at 1PM EST
New York, NY
Today, Judge Jesse Furman in the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit New York State et al. v the Department of Commerce, blocking the Trump administration's reckless attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The ruling stated that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross violated the Administrative Procedures Act in his proposal to add a citizenship question.
The suit was consolidated with New York Immigration Coalition v. the Department of Commerce, which argues that the Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census is a racially motivated form of discrimination.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the 2nd Circuit.
Steven Choi, Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition, issued the following statement:
"Today's decision is a victory for all New Yorkers and immigrants across the country, as Judge Furman rebuked the Trump administration's naked attempt to circumvent the law for its own gain. The Administrative Act cannot be used to rig the Census as part of a white supremacist agenda led by Kris Kobach and Steve Bannon. We expect the administration will appeal, but we're ready to fight this battle all the way up to the Supreme Court and win. Immigrants are what truly make America great and we're not going to lose a dime, or our voices to Washington D.C."
WHAT: Plaintiffs to Hold Press Call to Respond to Major Ruling Against Census Citizenship Question
WHEN: Tuesday, January 15th, 2018
WHERE: By phone: Call-in: 720-707-2699, Meeting ID: 514-246-4220
Zoom link: https://zoom.us/j/5142464220
WHO:
Plaintiffs: The New York Immigration Coalition, Make the Road New York,
Legal Team: the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union
The New York Immigration Coalition filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York in conjunction with the ACLU and four other immigrant rights groups against the administration's attempt to target immigrant communities, challenging the addition of the citizenship question by adding an intentional discrimination claim. The lawsuit argues that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census violates the Constitution and reverses seven decades of precedent without a factual basis.
Background
On April 3rd, the New York Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit- New York v. Dept of Commerce- in the Southern District of New York to stop the Commerce Department from demanding citizenship information on the 2020 Census. The lawsuit argues that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census violates the law and reverses seven decades of precedent without a factual basis.
Currently 19 states plus D.C., a number of cities and counties, and the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors have joined the New York Attorney General's lawsuit. On May 25, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Jesse Furman on July 3rd stated it was "unlikely he would dismiss the case in its entirety" and granted the AG's office request for additional discovery, resulting in the federal government recently releasing new documents.
On June 6th, the New York Immigration Coalition filed a related federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York in conjunction with the ACLU and four other immigrant rights groups. The suit challenges the Trump administration's plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, by adding an intentional discrimination claim.
On July 26th, Judge Furman ruled against the Trump administration's request to dismiss New York v. Department of Commerce, and will allow the lawsuit to move forward.
In discovery, the trial uncovered that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross consulted Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist and known white supremacist, and therefore revealed the Administration's racial bias behind adding the question. Ross previously claimed that the request to add the citizenship question spawned from the DOJ, but later backtracked that he and his staff made the initial request.
Additionally, compounding evidence in the concurring California case over the citizenship question found that Trump administration officials suggested they would lift protections that keep Census responses confidential, and share those responses with law enforcement and national security agencies.
On February 19th, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States is slated to address elements of the case to determine what evidence is considered outside and within the administrative record, and therefore admissible as evidence.
The New York Immigration Coalition, together with over ninety partners, has formed New York Counts 2020, a coalition to maximize participation in the census and therefore counter the expected impact of the citizenship question if added to the 2020 census. If included, a citizenship question will stoke unnecessary fear in immigrant communities and could result in a significant undercount, particularly already under-counted racial and ethnic minority groups. With immigrants constituting nearly 1 out of 4 New Yorkers, an undercount in the 2020 Census will have catastrophic consequences - costing all New Yorkers political power and billions of dollars in federal funding for key services.
The New York Immigration Coalition aims to achieve a fairer and more just society that values the contributions of immigrants and extends opportunity to all. The NYIC promotes immigrants' full civic participation, fosters their leadership, and provides a unified voice and a vehicle for collective action for New York's diverse immigrant communities.
LATEST NEWS
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolute Insanity': Right-Wing Activist Asks If Trump Will Suspend Habeas Corpus to Expel More Migrants
"Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution," said one policy expert.
Apr 28, 2025
With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.
On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.
"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."
O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.
His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.
The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.
"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."
Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.
Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.
O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.
One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.
The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Postreported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thanedar Introduces 7 Articles of Impeachment Against Trump to Halt 'Authoritarian Power Grab'
"Always interesting to see how primary challenges affect members' behavior, though usually it's a bit more subtle than this," one journalist said of the Michigan Democrat.
Apr 28, 2025
Faced with two primary challengers and growing public support for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a historic third time, Congressman Shri Thanedar on Monday filed seven articles of impeachment against the second-term Republican.
"Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as president and represents a clear and present danger to our nation's constitution and our democracy," Thanedar (D-Mich.) said in a statement. "His unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service. We cannot wait for more damage to be done. Congress must act."
Thanedar explained the seven articles of impeachment included in his resolution in a brief video, which he shared on social media.
As a statement from the congressman's office details, Trump's alleged constitutional violations are:
- Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Executive Power: Including denial of due process, unlawful deportations, defiance of court orders, and misuse of the Department of Justice.
- Usurpation of Appropriations Power: For dismantling congressionally established agencies and impounding federal funds.
- Abuse of Trade Powers and International Aggression: Including imposing economically damaging tariffs and threatening military invasion against sovereign nations.
- Violation of First Amendment Rights: Through retaliatory actions against critics, media, and attorneys exercising constitutionally protected speech.
- Creation of an Unlawful Office: By establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and unlawfully empowering Elon Musk to unilaterally violate the Constitution.
- Bribery and Corruption: Involving dismissing criminal cases, soliciting foreign emoluments, and extortionate settlements for personal and political gain.
- Tyrannical Overreach: Seeking to consolidate unchecked power, erode civil liberties, and defy constitutional limits on presidential authority.
Earlier this month, Thanedar called for Trump's impeachment over his administration's failure to comply with a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling about facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador to the United States.
"We must take action now," he said at the time. "Donald Trump and members of his administration are deporting people with limited evidence and no due process to horrific megaprisons in a foreign nation. As a member of Congress, I have a responsibility to uphold the checks and balances that safeguard the integrity of our democracy and prevent a slide into authoritarianism. This must be a red line. Otherwise, we risk Donald Trump continuing to defy the Constitution in his own interest, rather than the interest of the nation."
"Enough is enough," Thanedar declared. "We can not allow this obvious authoritarian power grab to continue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the Constitution and the American people and join the call for impeachment."
While Thanedar had expressed support for impeachment prior to Monday, his resolution came as a second primary challenger announced his candidacy for Michigan's 13th Congressional District. State Rep. Donavan McKinney (D-11) joined former state Sen. Adam Hollier (D-2), who has twice tried to oust the congressman and is trying to do so again next year.
McKinney is backed by the progressive group Justice Democrats, whose executive director Alexandra Rojas said in a statement earlier Monday that "Democratic voters in the face of unprecedented attacks on our livelihoods and liberties are fed up with a Democratic Party overrun by do-nothing career politicians who are totally unequipped to lead in this moment. Donavan represents the future the Democratic Party should be fighting: working-class people taking our power back from multimillionaires to deliver for everyday people."
After Thanedar announced the impeachment resolution, Business Insider senior politics reporter Bryan Metzger said on social media Monday that it is "always interesting to see how primary challenges affect members' behavior, though usually it's a bit more subtle than this."
Recent polling has found that a majority of voters disapprove of how Trump is handling his job and would support a historic third impeachment. In response to one survey, Free Speech for People's Alexandra Flores-Quilty—whose group is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign—declared Friday that "it's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."
Trump is the only president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives—though in both cases during his first term, he was acquitted by the Senate. Republicans now narrowly control both chambers of Congress.
While Republicans haven't yet signaled a willingness to stand against the president, U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) told attendees of an early April anti-Trump rally that "within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment."
Axiosnoted Monday that "Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) also privately floated impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over Signalgate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular