May, 11 2020, 12:00am EDT

More Than 50 National Organizations From Progressive, Anti-war, and Faith Communities Urge Presumptive Democratic Nominee Joe Biden and President Trump to Adopt a More Principled Foreign Policy
Today, more than 50 national organizations representing millions of Americans sent a letter to President Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, to adopt a more principled foreign policy, one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism.
WASHINGTON
Today, more than 50 national organizations representing millions of Americans sent a letter to President Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, to adopt a more principled foreign policy, one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism.
The letter, organized by Demand Progress, states "U.S. foreign policy has been overly focused on confrontation with perceived adversaries and the global projection of U.S. military power. We believe that there is room to act aggressively to reform our foreign policy, with the support of the majority of the people of this country across the ideological spectrum."
"The American people are demanding a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy," said Yasmine Taeb, Senior Policy Counsel at Demand Progress. "We are tired of endless wars and a destructive agenda of rampant militarization. A failed post-9/11 agenda has resulted in global instability, countless lives lost, and widespread violations of human rights. By committing to prioritize serious diplomatic engagement and respecting congressional war powers, our leaders can end the forever wars and deliver an agenda more aligned with our values."
"The United States is in dire need of a fundamental reorientation of its foreign policy, away from the goal of dominating the globe militarily, which has mired America in endless wars, and towards a national security strategy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint," said Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "The COVID pandemic has made it abundantly clear that our excessive focus on foreign military threats - real and imagined - have left us naked and vulnerable for the real challenges of this century - pandemics and climate chaos."
"It's time to turn the page on the disastrous war and regime change policies that have only led to destabilization and suffering abroad. Our policymakers must come to terms with the irreversible trend of public opinion away from interventionism," said Erik Sperling, Executive Director of Just Foreign Policy. "Americans -- and particularly millennials -- aren't falling for fear mongering or calls for nation-building abroad at a time when the challenges facing our nation and world need peaceful and cooperative solutions."
"The coronavirus has changed everything, and our foreign policy priorities must change to reflect the fundamentally new world that we are living in. We can no longer afford to militarize our approach to foreign policy problems - and we have seen first hand how these misguided national security spending priorities have left us ill-equipped to deal with the crisis we now face," explained Dan Kalik, Senior Political Advisor at MoveOn. "A different world is possible. In the past few months, bipartisan coalitions in Congress took steps to reclaiming war-making powers and put a check on unauthorized military endeavors - disrupting the pattern of endless wars. The overwhelming majority of Americans want a new way forward, and this is a moment where Democrats should be leading. We urge Joe Biden to lead - and champion this new approach that our country desperately needs."
"This timely letter reflects the will of most Americans who demand peaceful resolutions to disputes abroad and greater resources devoted to pressing issues at home," said Sina Toossi, Senior Research Analyst at National Iranian American Council Action. "The next administration would be wise to adopt these principles for an enlightened foreign policy that would restore U.S. leadership and foster vitally needed global cooperation to address the challenges of our time."
"The need for America's foreign policy to lead with progressive values has never been more urgent. Across the world, authoritarian leaders are using the coronavirus pandemic as cover to push forward their corrupt agendas which put vulnerable people at risk," said Emily Mayer, Political Director at IfNotNow. "Part of any common sense Middle East foreign policy must include ensuring that our money is funding American values of freedom and human rights -- and our approach to the Israeli government, especially as it inches closer to formal annexation, should be no different. We are proud to be part of this unprecedented coalition demanding meaningful action by our leaders."
The letter, and the full list of signers, can be accessed here, and is also included below.
###
May 11, 2020
Dear Vice President Biden,
We write to you as a broad coalition of organizations representing millions of Americans who care about a principled foreign policy, one that prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism over militarism.
As the Coronavirus pandemic reveals, our country and many others are woefully unprepared for the crisis that we now face. Without extraordinarily bold leadership, this is likely to be the beginning of a period of profound instability for the entire planet, given the intensifying climate crisis that is also now underway.
We believe that there is room to act aggressively to reform our foreign policy, with the support of the majority of the people of this country across the ideological spectrum. Just as the domestic policy debate has shifted significantly in recent years, the current global context demands that we act boldly to redefine the role of the U.S. in the world.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy has been overly focused on confrontation with perceived adversaries and the global projection of U.S. military power. Doing so has militarized our response to global challenges, distorted our national security spending priorities, toxified our political discourse, and left us woefully ill-prepared to confront the growing transnational threats to human security we face today that do not have military solutions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. currently has more than 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories. The cost of the U.S. federal government's post-9/11 wars is more than $6.4 trillion. The American people are looking for a leader who will turn the page on 9/11 policies that have resulted in an endless cycle of war, countless lives lost, increased global instability, large-scale refugee flows of the displaced, and the violation of Americans' civil liberties and human rights.
It is time to end our endless wars and adopt a new approach to international relations, one in which the U.S. abides by international law, encourages others to do the same, and utilizes our military solely for the defense of the people of our country.
We hope that in the months ahead you will engage with the American people and groups like ours in a broad discussion on what a more just and progressive U.S. foreign policy should look like.
In the meantime, we call on you to show your support for the following key measures that we, and many advocates around the country, have been fighting for:
Repealing the 2001 AUMF and respecting congressional war powers
Absent a direct and imminent threat to the United States, the President needs to consult Congress and receive authorization for use of military force, as required by the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has been expanded to apply to situations and groups never envisioned by Congress. This has resulted in the United States waging endless war in 80 countries, including lethal strikes in 7 countries and direct combat in 14 countries. We ask that you consult with, and receive required authorization from, Congress prior to engaging the U.S. military abroad and commit to supporting a repeal of the 2001 AUMF and ending all uses of U.S. military force that have not been authorized by Congress in previous Administrations, including putting an end to unconstitutional participation in the Saudi-led war on Yemen. We also urge you to commit to ending any military action upon a majority vote in Congress under the War Powers Act of 1973, as well as commit to signing war powers reform legislation that would appropriately strengthen Congress' role in authorizing and overseeing the use of force.
Reducing the Pentagon budget
We call on you to commit to ending wasteful military spending and reducing Pentagon spending by at least $200 billion annually. The U.S. military budget is well over $700 billion a year currently -- with private contractors reaping much of the benefit -- and even higher when accounting for nuclear weapons spending at the Department of Energy. The unnecessary nuclear modernization plan is expected to cost $1.7 trillion over the next 30 years. Meanwhile funding has shrunk for the U.S. Department of State and critical social safety nets at home. We call on you to reduce the outsized influence of private contractors at the Pentagon, end the production of new nuclear weapons, cancel 'space force', and to prioritize the federal budget towards meeting the basic needs of Americans at home.
Engaging with Iran
The majority of Americans support finding diplomatic solutions to disputes with Iran. We call on you to end the ongoing failed "maximum pressure" campaign, and return to the "Iran Deal" (JCPOA) in exchange for Iran returning to full compliance with the accord, and seek to build on the deal with further negotiations. After returning to the deal, we encourage you to pursue follow-on negotiations with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other regional actors aimed at resolving conflicts across the region.
Engaging with North Korea
The strategic patience approach to North Korea's nuclear weapons program has failed. While recent diplomacy with North Korea has failed to meet its stated goal of denuclearization, the diplomatic progress should be built upon and pushed further to prioritize both peace and the denuclearization on the Korean peninsula. We urge you to reject pursuing a maximalist approach to the security challenge posed by North Korea and instead focus on confidence-building measures that can move towards normalizing relations, concluding a peace treaty to end the conflict, and eventually freezing and rolling back North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
Supporting a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The U.S. should work to build a future in which all Palestinians and Israelis live under full equality by upholding a foreign policy that centers human rights and dignity for all people. We call on you to use a combination of pressure and incentives, including leveraging the annual $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel, to get all parties to come to an agreement that upholds U.N. Security Council Resolutions and international law, including non-exhaustively: ending Israel's military occupation; disbanding Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; ending the Israeli military blockade of Gaza; and ending all attacks on civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian.
Opposing regime-change interventions and broad-based sanctions
The military and political campaigns aimed at regime change have borne disaster in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere in the past two decades. Meanwhile, broad-based sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela have served to impoverish the population at large while not having positive political outcomes - and at times empowering ruling elites. The U.S. should stop seeking to transform other countries through destructive policies and instead work through the United Nations Security Council and other multilateral fora to build global consensus and international legal backing for peaceful, diplomatic solutions to internal and international conflicts.
Rejecting discriminatory immigration policies and supporting refugees
We call on you to repeal the Muslim, African, refugee, and asylum bans, restore access to asylum, and support a robust refugee resettlement program. This includes a commitment to admit at least 125,000 refugees in your first year in office, increasing refugee admissions every year, and investing in infrastructure needed to rebuild our refugee resettlement program and restore U.S. leadership on refugee protection given that we are now facing the worst global displacement crisis in history. As we urge other countries to admit and protect refugees, the U.S. must also ensure all asylum seekers have a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a judge and utilize community-based alternatives to immigration detention.
Closing Guantanamo
The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center has been a stain on our nation's conscience and the most effective recruitment tool used by violent extremists. We call on you to commit to using any and all options within existing authority to seek lawful disposition for the remaining individuals at the detention center and close Guantanamo once and for all. The long-defunct CIA detention and interrogation program, and at minimum the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, needs to be declassified, promulgated internally to reaffirm torture's illegality, and made publicly available.
Ending support for governments that violate human rights
We urge you to prioritize human rights in our foreign policy, with a particular focus on countries with which the U.S. has both leverage and a moral responsibility due to our provision of military or economic aid. Allies of the U.S. should adhere to international law and fundamental human rights norms. The U.S. should stop providing security aid and arms to authoritarian or repressive governments that systematically violate human rights. The U.S. should similarly reassess and downgrade relationships with other governments engaging in widespread systematic repression.
Prioritizing diplomacy and avoid militarizing our relations with other powers such as Russia and China
As Russia and China become increasingly assertive on the world stage, it is critical that you promote diplomatic engagement and avoid further militarization of our relationship with these major powers. Overhyping the threat these countries pose to the United States intensifies fear, racism, and hate domestically. Militarization of our disputes with these nations exacerbate tensions that put the world at risk, while leading to arms races that siphon funds needed for each nation's domestic priorities. As President Reagan said, military conflicts that lead to nuclear war "cannot be won and must never be fought." We urge you to rejoin--and go beyond--nuclear arms reduction agreements that were abandoned. We also urge you to address threats of cyberwarfare and espionage by following the model of the 2015 agreement with China that resulted in an estimated 90 percent drop in Chinese-backed cyber theft of American trade secrets. Instead of reinforcing military confrontation with these rising global powers, we urge you to prioritize investment in the industries of the future to ensure that we remain a global leader in innovation in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Sincerely,
Action Corps
American Friends Service Committee
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain
Asian American Advocacy Fund
Beyond the Bomb
Cameroon American Council
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Center for International Policy
CODEPINK
Common Defense
Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces
Demand Progress
Equality Labs
The Feminist Foreign Policy Project
Franciscan Action Network
Freedom Forward
The Gravel Institute
Greenpeace US
Historians for Peace and Democracy
IfNotNow
Indivisible
Institute for Policy Studies, National Priorities Project
Institute for Policy Studies, New Internationalism Project
International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)
Islamophobia Studies Center
Jetpac
Jewish Voice for Peace Action
Just Foreign Policy
MoveOn
MPower Change
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
National Iranian American Council Action
National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
Other98
Our Revolution
Pax Christi USA
Peace Action
People's Policy Project
Progress America
Progressive Democrats of America
Project Blueprint
The Quincy Institute
Rethinking Foreign Policy
RootsAction.org
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
Win Without War
Women's Action for New Directions (WAND)
Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation
Yemeni Alliance Committee
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


