February, 29 2024, 11:25am EDT
Federal Court Blocks Extreme Texas Legislation That Would Overstep Federal Immigration Law
AUSTIN, Texas
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas today granted a motion for preliminary injunction to block Texas Senate Bill 4 (88-4), which would permit local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. The legislation is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country.
A lawsuit from civil rights groups argues that the S.B. 4 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal law, as Texas judges would be required to order a person’s deportation regardless of whether a person is eligible to seek asylum or other humanitarian protections under federal law. Advocates have warned that the law will separate families and directly lead to racial profiling, subjecting thousands of Black and Brown Texans to the state prison system, which is rife with civil rights abuses.
The lawsuit was filed in December 2023 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) on behalf of El Paso County, American Gateways, and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. It was subsequently consolidated with a lawsuit by the Department of Justice.
The court’s decision will temporarily block the law from going into effect as the case is litigated. Without an injunction, the law would have gone into effect on March 5, 2024. This ruling is likely to be appealed by the state.
The following reactions are from:
Anand Balakrishnan (he/him), senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said:
“The federal court’s decision confirms over a century of Supreme Court precedent, affirming that immigration enforcement is squarely within the federal government’s authority. S.B. 4 is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to bypass federal law. We applaud the court’s decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether.”
Edna Yang (she/her), co-executive director of American Gateways, said:
“This decision is a victory for all our communities as it stops a harmful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory state policy from taking effect and impacting the lives of millions of Texans. Local officials should not be federal immigration agents, and our state should not be creating its own laws that deny people their right to seek protection here in the U.S. While we are thankful for this court decision, we know that too many people fleeing persecution are being denied their legal rights to make their case and seek political asylum. The only way to fix our broken immigration system is through federal congressional action, not individual state action.”
Jennifer Babaie (she/her), Director of Advocacy and Legal Services with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, said:
“With today’s decision, the court sent a clear message to Texas: SB 4 is unconstitutional and criminalizing Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant communities will not be tolerated. This crucial decision allows us to continue to focus our efforts on building a safe, legal, humane immigration system not contingent on abuses like racial profiling and harassment. We must continue to be vigilant against Texas’ politics of fear and hatred. But today, immigrants and Texans of color get to pursue living lives of hope, opportunity, and family. It’s a win worth celebrating.”
David Donatti (he/him), senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said:
“The court’s decision to block this anti-immigrant law from taking effect is an important win for Texas values, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Our current immigration system needs repair because it forces millions of Americans into the shadows and shuts the door on people in need of safety. S.B. 4 would only make things worse. Cruelty to migrants is not a policy solution.”
Aron Thorn (he/him), senior attorney, Beyond Borders Program at TCRP, said:
“We celebrate today’s win, blocking this extreme law from going into effect before it has the opportunity to harm Texas communities. This is a major step in showing the State of Texas and Governor Abbott that they do not have the power to enforce unconstitutional, state-run immigration policies. While this is only the first step in abolishing the law, people across the state can breathe a sigh of relief knowing they will not be needlessly arrested or deported by Texas under S.B. 4.”
Iliana Holguin (she/her), El Paso County Commissioner Precinct 3, said:
“El Paso County applauds the court’s clear confirmation today that immigration policies rest solely under Federal jurisdiction, and the state of Texas’ interference with the U.S. Constitution will not be tolerated. A piecemeal approach from individual states on federal matters such as immigration enforcement would put an undue burden on local taxpayers, while opening the door to potential civil rights violations for border residents and immigrants alike.”
The order granting a preliminary injunction is available here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/las-americas-v-mccraw-order-granting-preliminary-injunction
Access “Know Your Rights” under S.B. 4 materials in English here: https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-under-texas-deportation-scheme-sb4
Access “Know Your Rights” under S.B. 4 materials in Spanish here: https://www.aclutx.org/es/know-your-rights/conozca-sus-derechos-segun-el-plan-de-deportacion-sb4-de-texas
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Indiana House Unveils New Map Rigged for GOP After Months of Trump Threats
Democratic State Sen. Fady Qaddoura, who immediately filed legislation to ban mid-decade redistricting, called the new map an illegal "racial gerrymander."
Dec 01, 2025
After months of escalating attacks against Indiana's Republican lawmakers by President Donald Trump, the state House GOP has revealed a new map for the 2026 midterms designed to hand every US House seat in the state to Republicans.
Republicans won 58% of the vote across Indiana's US House elections in 2024, granting them an already overrepresentative seven of the state's nine congressional seats. The new map, published Monday, would eliminate the remaining two seats in the state held by Democrats.
As Bolts magazine editor and founder Daniel Nichanian explained on social media, under the new map, "Indianapolis would be cracked into GOP seats, and Gary would be drowned in red." In other words, the new map would transparently dilute the power of Indiana's two largest concentrations of nonwhite voters.
The redrawing of Indiana's map comes amid a wider push spearheaded by Trump for Republican states to pursue unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering in hopes of clinging to a governing trifecta against what is expected to be a wave year for Democrats in 2026.
A similar effort has been undertaken in Texas to potentially add five more seats to the GOP ranks, which is currently under appeal at the US Supreme Court. Trump has likewise pressured Republican lawmakers in Missouri, Utah, and North Carolina to draw maps that would net the GOP even more seats. This power grab has been met with redistricting efforts by some blue states, most notably California, which passed a new map last month, likely adding five more seats to the Democratic column.
Indiana's new map could be put to a vote in the state House as soon as December 8, where it would then be kicked up to the Senate. That is where Trump has run into some resistance, and he hasn't taken it well.
In mid-November, a group of 19 Republican state senators joined a united Democratic caucus to vote down the new map—one of the no votes, state Sen. Kyle Walker (R-33), said he'd "spent the past several months listening closely to [his] constituents on mid-decade redistricting" and found "93% opposed."
After the map was voted down, Trump lit into some of the holdouts in a rant on Truth Social. He said he was "disappointed" in the senators who voted against the map, adding that "any Republican that votes against this important redistricting, potentially having an impact on America itself, should be PRIMARIED," before calling to "get them out of office ASAP" if they failed.
Trump identified two specific lawmakers—Senate Pro Tem Rod Bray (R-37) and Sen. Greg Goode (R-38)—as the "RINO Senators" most responsible for the vote failing.
Within hours of the post, Goode was targeted by a "swatting" attack, in which an anonymous person placed a fraudulent emergency report in hopes of provoking a SWAT team or other large law enforcement response at the target's residence.
Four other Republicans, all of whom had voiced opposition to the map, were also swatted. Another received a bomb threat at his business. And on Monday, another opponent of the map, Sen. Jean Leising (R-42), said she'd received a pipe bomb threat over the weekend, which she blamed on "DC political pundits” in favor of redistricting.
As NBC News reported Monday, at least 10 Indiana Republican lawmakers have received violent threats since Trump's rant—most of whom have been opponents of redistricting.
Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) also received threats after catching heat in Trump's rant. But he joined Trump's attacks on the Republican caucus, specifically Bray, who he said "was forced to partner with DEMOCRATS to block an effort by the growing number of America First Senators who wanted to have a vote on passing fair maps.”
Fearful of the wrath of Trump and Braun, Indiana's House reconvened last week. And after saying that the Senate would not reconvene in December, Bray said it would do so on December 8 to "make a final decision… on any redistricting proposal sent from the House.”
Within an hour of Monday's announcement of the GOP map, Democrats, led by state Sen. Fady Qaddoura (D-30), said they planned to introduce legislation to ban mid-decade gerrymandering.
"Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around," said Qaddoura, who added that the map was "racially gerrymandered."
If the map does pass the Senate, this may present an obstacle. Texas' map is under review by the US Supreme Court after a GOP-majority lower court ruled that the legislature had redrawn districts "based on their racial makeup,” which is illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
But its passage in the state Senate is far from certain. Despite continued pressure from the White House, Politico reports that Bray remains opposed. Meanwhile, Walker has accused the White House of violating the Hatch Act when it invited him to meet with Trump to discuss redistricting.
Trump also lost another ally this weekend in Sen. Mike Bohacek (R-8), who announced that he'd be voting no on redistricting after Trump referred to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as "retarded" in an unhinged Thanksgiving Day social media rant.
"I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter," Bohacek said, noting that his daughter has Down syndrome. "This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references, and his choices of words have consequences. I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority."
The GOP map remains largely unpopular among Hoosiers. The most recent survey, conducted by the Virginia-based firm Bellwether Research, found that among its sample of 800 voters, "51% didn’t want redistricting now—with 45% 'strongly' opposed. About 39% supported the prospect, but just 23% 'strongly' backed it," as Indiana Public Media reported.
As the map was introduced on Monday, hundreds of Hoosiers gathered inside the State Capitol to voice their disapproval.
"At a time when Hoosiers are facing high costs for childcare, groceries, utilities, housing, and health care, the last thing needed is politicians manipulating maps instead of solving real issues," Qaddoura said. "Hoosiers deserve fair elections, stable districts, and a government that reflects them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Are Being Held to Ransom': Trump-Starmer Deal Would Force NHS to Pay More for Medicines
One British lawmaker condemned the agreement as "a Trump shakedown of the NHS."
Dec 01, 2025
The government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced swift backlash on Monday after the Trump administration announced a deal under which the United Kingdom's prized National Health Service would pay higher prices for new medicines in exchange for tariff exemptions.
The agreement in principle, outlined in a statement by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, was seen by UK lawmakers and advocacy groups as a gross capitulation to US President Donald Trump and the pharmaceutical industry that would harm the NHS and British patients for years to come.
"Giving in to Big Pharma’s demands to hike the price of medicines spells disaster for our NHS, and for the lives of ordinary people," said Global Justice Now, a UK-based group. "We are being held to ransom. Our government must stand up to Big Pharma and for our NHS by reversing course."
Under the three-year deal, the NHS would boost the net price it pays for new pharmaceutical drugs, many of which emerge from the US, by 25%—a change that's expected to cost British taxpayers roughly £3 billion. In return, Trump has agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceuticals.
Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, denounced the new agreement as "a Trump shakedown of the NHS." As evidence, she pointed to US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s celebration of the bilateral deal.
"It cannot go ahead," said Morgan. "RFK Jr. has put it in black and white: Trump demanded these pay rises to put Americans first, and our government rolled over. Patients stuck on crammed hospital corridors, or unable to get an ambulance, won’t forget it."
"The British people didn’t vote for this," Morgan added. "The government must put this agreement to a vote in parliament.”
Andrew Hill, a visiting health economics researcher at the University of Liverpool, similarly criticized the deal.
“The UK hasn’t benefited from this at all, but we’re having to pay all this extra money," said Hill. "More money spent on drugs means less money spent on ambulances, doctors, nurses, simple health interventions."
In addition to facing the threat of Trump tariffs, the UK government was under pressure from the powerful pharmaceutical industry to jack up NHS drug spending. The Guardian reported in September that "big pharmaceutical companies have ditched or paused nearly £2 billion in planned UK investments so far this year" as the firms "accused the government of not spending enough on new medicines."
Survey data released just ahead of Monday's deal announcement shows that 64% of the British public is opposed to the NHS paying higher prices for medicines.
"This is a betrayal of NHS patients," said Diarmaid McDonald, executive director of the advocacy group Just Treatment. "Big Pharma have got what they want. Donald Trump has got what he wants. In the face of their coordinated threats, the government has folded and thousands of patients will pay for this with their lives, as precious funds get stripped from other parts of the health service to line the pockets of rich pharmaceutical execs."
"MPs need to urgently hold the government to account," McDonald added, "and demand they publish the evidence showing the impact of this catastrophic move.”
"This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients."
Asked at a Monday press briefing if the deal would actually benefit US patients and consumers, as the Trump administration has claimed, or if the alleged revenue generated by the agreement would just be "sucked up" by the drug companies, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not have an immediate answer.
"I'm going to be honest with you, Ed," Leavitt told the reporter: "I'll get you an answer to that question after the briefing."
Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines director, argued in a statement that the agreement wouldn't help Americans or Britons.
" Drug prices are far too high everywhere, including in the UK, backed by patent monopolies and contributing to rationing and preventable suffering," said Maybarduk. "This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients while distracting from the serious action needed at home to hold Pharma accountable and make medicine affordable and available for all.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Truly Barbaric': Number of People Killed or Maimed by Landmines Hits Five-Year High
"Even when fighting stops, these hidden killers remain active for decades, continuing to destroy lives long after the combat has stopped," said one campaigner.
Dec 01, 2025
The 27th annual Landmine Monitor report revealed on Monday that antipersonnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war killed at least 1,945 people and injured another 4,325 in 2024—the highest yearly casualty figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
Since the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force in 1999, "casualty records have included 165,724 people recorded as killed (47,904) or injured (113,595) or of unknown survival outcome (4,225)," according to the new report from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).
The ICBL published the report as state parties to the treaty kicked off a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. It details not only casualties but also treaty updates; production, transfers, and stockpiles of mines; alleged or confirmed uses; existing contamination; and international efforts to aid victims and clean up impacted regions.
Also known as the Ottawa Treaty, it is now supported by 166 countries, after the Marshall Islands ratified the pact in March and Tonga acceded in June. Despite that progress, there have also been steps backward, as Mark Hiznay, Landmine Monitor editor for ban policy, highlighted in a Monday statement.
"Five states renounced their treaty obligations in a matter of months," Hiznay said, "when evidence shows if they use mines, it can take decades and enormous resources to clear contaminated land and assist the new victims, who will feel the impact of mine use long after the conflict has ceased."
The state parties in the process of legally withdrawing are Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. ICBL director Tamar Gabelnick argued Monday that "governments must speak out to uphold the treaty, prevent further departures, reinforce its provisions globally, and ensure no more countries use, produce, or acquire antipersonnel mines."
"Turning back is not an option; we have come too far, and the human cost is simply too high," Gabelnick warned.
The 2025 Landmine Monitor is out now.Casualties from landmines and unexploded bombs have risen. On average, 17 people were killed or injured every day in 2024, nearly half of them children.As states meet for the Mine Ban Treaty this week, MAG urges renewed commitment.More ➡️ buff.ly/CP8m0BL
[image or embed]
— MAG (Mines Advisory Group) (@minesadvisorygroup.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 5:35 AM
There have been recent reports of mine use by both state parties to the pact and countries that have refused to embrace the treaty. The publication notes alleged use by government forces in Myanmar; by Iran, along its borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan; and by North Korea, along its borders with China and South Korea. Additionally, in July, Thailand accused a fellow state party, Cambodia, of using mines along their disputed border. Cambodia has denied the allegations.
Another state party, Ukraine, is trying to unlawfully "suspend the operation" of the treaty while battling a Russian invasion, and the report points to "increasing indications" of mine use by Ukrainian forces in 2024-25. Russia—one of the few dozen nations that have not signed on to the agreement—has used mines "extensively" since invading its neighbor in February 2022.
The United States has also never formally joined the treaty and has come under fire for recent decisions. After initially aiming to accede to the treaty, the outgoing Biden administration last year approved a plan to provide antipersonnel landmines to Ukraine. This year, the Trump administration has made deep cuts to foreign aid that have disrupted mine clearance operations.
The global ban on antipersonnel landmines saves civilian lives but faces serious threats from countries leaving the treaty and new landmine use.Immediate and strong action is needed to counter these life-threatening developments.New Landmine Monitor 2025, out now⤵️
[image or embed]
— Jan Kooy (@kooyjan.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 5:14 AM
"Even when fighting stops, these hidden killers remain active for decades, continuing to destroy lives long after the combat has stopped," Anne Héry, advocacy director at the group Humanity & Inclusion US, said in a Monday statement. "States parties must live up to their obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty: to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any use of antipersonnel mines by any actor, under any circumstance."
"A large part of the victims recorded in the Landmine Monitor 2025, like in the previous years, are injured or killed by landmines and explosive remnants long after the fighting has ended, when people return to their homes believing they can start a new life," she continued. "Landmines are truly barbaric weapons that kill and injure largely outside periods of active conflict."
On Wednesday, Humanity & Inclusion US executive director Hannah Guedenet will join fellow experts for a virtual briefing "to discuss the latest Monitor reports, the human cost of these weapons, and the role US leadership must play at this pivotal moment," the group leader previewed in a Monday opinion piece for Common Dreams.
"Bringing these insights directly to policymakers and advocates is essential to strengthening global norms and advancing effective solutions," she wrote. Despite never joining the Mine Ban Treaty or the 2010 Convention on Cluster Munitions, "the United States has long been one of the world's largest supporters of mine clearance and victim assistance, helping make former battlefields safe for farming, economic investment, and community life."
"The case for action is both moral and pragmatic. Every mine removed or cluster bomb destroyed reopens land for cultivation, enables displaced families to return home, and prevents future casualties. These are tangible, measurable outcomes that support US foreign policy priorities: stability, economic recovery, and the protection of civilians in conflict," she added. "In a time of never-ending partisan fights, this is a place where both sides can come together and agree on the right steps forward."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular