

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.

Kristian Bailey, Palestine Legal,(312) 547-0766, kbailey@palestinelegal.org
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Today, civil rights groups asked the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State, to hear an appeal of a ruling that allows Fordham University to censor student speech. The petition comes in a lawsuit brought by Fordham students prohibited by the university from forming a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) school club because of the group's "political goals" and because of claims it would be "polarizing."
"I am beyond disappointed with the court's shameful decision," said Veer Shetty, a senior at Fordham and vice president of Fordham Students for Justice in Palestine. "We have been fighting for five years now just to have a space where we can discuss and advocate for Palestinian rights on campus-- it's awful that Fordham continues to censor us. We are on the right side of history, and I'm confident that in the end justice will prevail."
Advocates emphasize that Fordham's censorship of SJP is particularly egregious at a time when the university claims it is reckoning with institutional racism, including its historical failures on racial justice, and prioritizing values of anti-racism, diversity, and inclusion.
The students seek to appeal a December 2020 decision that reversed, with minimal analysis, a thorough ruling by the trial court in August 2019 holding that Fordham's refusal to recognize SJP was irrational and inconsistent with its own policies, which protect free expression. Following the lower court decision, which ordered Fordham to recognize the club, Fordham SJP has been in operation - without incident - for the last two semesters.
Today's petition argues that the lower court's decision improperly ignored the ongoing harm the ban created, and that the decision to ban SJP was irrational because it was contrary to Fordham's policies and the facts at hand.
In the fall of 2015, Fordham University students applied to start a Students for Justice in Palestine club on campus. Over the next year, administrators required the students to attend multiple meetings, questioned students about their political views, and demanded amendments to SJP's constitution. Finally, in November 2016, Fordham's undergraduate student government approved SJP as a student club--only to have Fordham Dean of Students Keith Eldredge take the unprecedented step of vetoing the student government's approval.
Though all of the students who originally sought to form the SJP club have since graduated, current Fordham students are continuing the fight. If permitted to stand, the appellate division's reversal of the trial court's ruling would allow Fordham to once again prohibit the club on the explicit basis of SJP's "political goals" and the possibility it would lead to "polarization."
"We believe in the students' right to organize for Palestinian rights and will support them every step of the way," said Radhika Sainath, senior staff attorney at Palestine Legal. "The Court of Appeals must stop this blatant censorship in its tracks."
The movement for Palestinian rights has continued to grow, at Fordham and around the country, despite Fordham's official censorship of SJP, and despite coordinated nationwide attacks on people organizing for Palestinian rights.
"The Fordham students' brave fight for Palestinian justice deserved a more respectful hearing than it was given by the Appellate Division. Let's hope that the Court of Appeals recognizes the moral and legal significance of this case," said Center for Constitutional Rights cooperating counsel Alan Levine.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, Palestine Legal, and attorney Alan Levine sued Fordham on behalf of four students in April 2017, winning the case in August 2019 when a New York court annulled Fordham's decision, mandating that the university recognize SJP as an official club.
Fordham appealed the ruling in January 2020, and the appellate division dismissed the case in December. Six amicus briefs in support of the students were filed in the appeal, by Defending Rights & Dissent, Fordham professors, Catholic scholars, Jewish Studies scholars, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education/Pen America Center/ and the National Coalition Against Censorship.
For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page and Palestine Legal's case page.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464In a primetime address, President Donald Trump reiterated his threat to destroy Iranian energy infrastructure and provided no timeline for an end to his illegal war.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered an incoherent primetime address in which he threatened to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" while also claiming negotiations to end the conflict were ongoing, remarks that provided no clear indication of when or how the illegal war of choice would end.
Trump's speech marked his first major address on the war since the US, in partnership with Israel, started bombing Iran more than a month ago, without congressional approval and in violation of international law. A day after declaring that Iran "doesn’t have to make a deal" to end the war, Trump said during his Wednesday speech, "If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously"—a grave war crime.
In the face of polls showing the Iran War is deeply unpopular with the American public, Trump sought to justify continuing the assault by comparing its duration to that of the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. At the president's direction, thousands of troops are currently heading to the Middle East to join the tens of thousands already there, fueling fears of a ground invasion and a devastating quagmire.
After baselessly claiming Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, Trump insisted Wednesday night that the country's leadership was "rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles" that could soon "reach the American homeland"—an assertion contradicted by US intelligence.
The president also waved away concerns about rising gas prices, which have already cost American drivers billions of dollars collectively. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical route through which roughly 25% of global seaborne oil trade passes each year, will "just open up naturally" once the conflict is over, Trump asserted, adding that "the gas prices will rapidly come back down."
Collin Rees, US campaign manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement that "Trump's rambling lies can't conceal how his reckless, illegal war of aggression is sending energy prices for working families through the roof."
"Trump claims this conflict is different from past wars for oil, but it's playing out with exactly the same deadly patterns," said Rees. "War and volatility push prices higher and fossil fuel companies cash in on windfall profits, while every day people face rising costs for gas, food, and basic necessities. Instead of investing in what people actually need—like childcare, healthcare, and resilient communities—Trump is doubling down on senseless military escalation that serves the interest of his billionaire allies and fossil fuel CEOs."
"More and more people are seeing through this charade," Rees added. "This war isn't about energy security or safety, it's about protecting a system where fossil fuel profits come before people’s lives and livelihoods. The way to escape this cycle of death is to end this war and advance a swift and just transition to renewable energy sources that can break our dependence on volatile, unreliable fossil fuels."
"The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing."
Democratic members of Congress viewed Trump's speech as further confirmation that the president never had a clear objective for the unlawful war—which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and displaced millions—and has no serious exit plan, just a vow to bomb Iran "extremely hard over the next two to three weeks."
"Anyone watching that speech has no idea whether Trump is escalating or deescalating the war with Iran," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "But to be fair, neither does he."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media that Trump "campaigned for the presidency on avoiding foreign wars and lowering costs 'on day one.'"
"His promises are now in tatters," wrote Warren. "The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing. The president should end this war today."
The lone Iranian American in Congress, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), condemned Trump's threat to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages, where they belong."
"He’s talking about a country of 90 million people," said Ansari. "Vile, horrifying, evil."
The agreement funds most Department of Homeland Security operations—but punts on funding for President Donald Trump's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown.
House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday announced a deal to advance a plan to fund the US Department of Homeland Security, which would end a partial DHS shutdown but deliberately punt the most contentious issue—funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement—for a future reconciliation fight.
Under the plan—which was rejected last week by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) as a "crap sandwich"—most DHS operations will be funded via regular spending bill while Republicans will attempt to fund President Donald Trump’s deadly ICE crackdown via a two-step legislative process meant to thwart any potential Democrat filibuster.
“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the president's directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process," Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a joint statement.
REMINDER: The Senate unanimously passed BIPARTISAN legislation to fund all of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol. Speaker Johnson called that deal “a joke,” killed it, and sent Congress home for two weeks. And now he’s apparently saying he wants that deal after all?
— Rep. Mike Levin (@levin.house.gov) April 1, 2026 at 1:59 PM
The deal would immediately restore pay for workers including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. However, it excludes ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which have been the subject of a tense partisan standoff over Trump's anti-immigrant blitz.
The plan contains no restrictions on ICE, which Democrats sought in the wake of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as a record surge in immigrant deaths in the agency's custody.
“For the last 47 days, Donald Trump and Republicans have subjected the nation to chaos at airports, jeopardized our national security, and kept the government closed to allow ICE to continue to brutalize the American people without consequence,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in response to the agreement.
“Through it all, House Democrats continue to stand up for the American people and aggressively push back against far-right extremism,” he added. “Mike Johnson and House Republicans have come to realize that we will never bend the knee.”
The DHS shutdown was the longest in history, according to The New York Times.
Opponents of more funding for ICE—which is flush with $75 billion in fresh allocations under last year's budget reconciliation package—weighed in on the deal.
"Today’s announcement signals a clear recognition of what the public knows and believes: No additional funds are needed, given the shocking and stark realities and horrors already coming from an out-of-control immigration enforcement apparatus with $150 billion left to spend," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement, referring to the total amount of ICE and CBP funding under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“All members of Congress should vote to pass the bill immediately to fund DHS without sending any more money to ICE and CBP and bring this self-created crisis and chaos to an end," Schulte continued.
"Moving forward with a party-line, reconciliation process that would send hundreds of billions of dollars more to ICE and CBP—on top of the $150 billion they already have—and seemingly pay for it with cuts to healthcare would be a terrible policy outcome," he added, "and one that would be met with massive, overwhelmingly public opposition.”
"This is a direct threat to patient care across California," said the chief of staff at the union sponsoring the ballot measure.
The labor union leading the fight for California's billionaire tax on Wednesday pointed to recent reporting about hospital layoffs to make the case for the ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on state billionaires' wealth to fund healthcare.
The Orange County Register reported last week that "the more than 400 hospitals statewide have already laid off more than 3,400 healthcare workers as of mid-March, with as many as 1,600 coming from Santa Barbara to Orange County and the Inland Empire area, according to a tally of layoffs provided by the state's Employment Development Department and data collected by Paul Young, senior vice president of public policy and reimbursement with the California Hospital Association of Southern California."
As the newspaper detailed, hospital executives "are hinting of a second wave of layoffs," citing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or HR 1, that congressional Republicans passed and President Donald Trump signed last summer. The law will cut about $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, which is expected to significantly impact the state's Medi-Cal program that covers more than 15 million lower-income residents.
The Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California, Berkeley "estimates the Medi-Cal cuts could lead to a loss of 72,000 to 145,000 healthcare jobs throughout California, representing 3% to 5% of the state's 2.65 million healthcare positions," the Register noted. "These job losses include positions in hospitals, clinics, and home care."
The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the lead sponsor of the ballot measure that Californians are set to vote on in November, highlighted the reporting in a Wednesday statement. SEIU-UHW chief of staff Suzanne Jimenez declared that "this is a direct threat to patient care across California."
"When hospitals lose funding, they lose staff," Jimenez said. "And when they lose staff, patients face longer wait times, fewer services, and reduced access to lifesaving care. Without urgent action, communities across California will lose access to the care they depend on."
In the union's statement, Mayra Castañeda shared concerns about losing her job as an ultrasound technologist at a hospital in Lynwood, California. She said: "Every day I come to work thinking about my patients, making sure they get the care they need, that they feel safe, that they're not alone. Now, I'm also thinking about whether I'll still have a job next month."
"We're already stretched thin, and the idea that more staff could be cut is terrifying," Castañeda continued. "It doesn't just impact us as staff. It impacts every patient who walks through our doors. You can't keep taking resources out of healthcare and expect people not to suffer."
Opinion: Unlike billionaires, we don’t need mansions or yachts. We're just asking for health care that our families can rely on.www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...
[image or embed]
— Billionaire Tax Now (@billionairetaxnow.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 3:40 PM
Experts estimate that, if passed, the billionaire tax ballot measure would raise about $100 billion from 2027-31 from California's 200 richest residents. Recent polling suggests the proposal is on its way to success.
It's drawn support from national progressive figures such as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who last month partnered with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to introduce the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. The bill would impose a 5% annual wealth tax and direct the revenue toward reversing GOP healthcare cuts from HR 1, expanding Medicare, building affordable houses, helping families pay for childcare, boosting teacher salaries, and sending direct payments to members of households making $150,000 or less.
Unlike the California ballot measure, that federal "tax the rich" bill and another introduced last month by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have no clear path to passage in the Republican-controlled Congress. However, hospital layoffs as a result of HR 1—which featured more tax giveaways for wealthy Americans—aren't limited to California.
According to a Public Citizen report released Tuesday, 446 hospitals across the United States could close or reduce services due to HR 1's cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The publication notes that these "hospitals collectively have 68,986 beds and served approximately 6.6 million patients in 2024. They employ approximately 275,458 direct patient care workers (this does not include nonmedical workers, such as administrative staff)."
Public Citizen researcher and report author Eileen O'Grady stressed that "Trump's cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close."
"Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress," O'Grady argued, "and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces."