SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
sherrilyn ifill
'Delusional' Trump Threatens to Send Tesla Vandals to Prison for 20 Years... in El Salvador
"If genuine steps are taken to remove U.S. citizens convicted of crimes to prisons in El Salvador," said one legal expert, "this removal would violate not only U.S. law but the U.S. Constitution."
Mar 21, 2025
President Donald Trump on Friday morning said anyone caught vandalizing Tesla cars or dealerships would be sent to the notoriously violent prisons of El Salvador for a 20-year sentence, a threat characterized by critics as "delusional" as well as overtly unlawful.
"People that get caught sabotaging Teslas will stand a very good chance of going to jail for up to twenty years, and that includes the funders," Trump stated overnight, adding in all caps: "WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOU!!!"
Several hours later, Trump took up the issue again on his TruthSocial platform, saying: "I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20-year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla. Perhaps they could serve them in the prisons of El Salvador, which have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions!"
"The migrant detentions there are the dry run. He wants to ship U.S. prisoners to El Salvador. We cannot sleepwalk through this."
Civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill said the threat, which follows on Trump's highly controversial deportation of alleged gang members to El Salvador last week, should not be taken lightly.
"Remember that this is where his discussions with El Salvador began," said Ifill in response to Trump's rantings on Friday. "The migrant detentions there are the dry run. He wants to ship U.S. prisoners to El Salvador. We cannot sleepwalk through this."
The #TeslaTakedown movement has gained steam over recent weeks, with people nationwide angered by Elon Musk's wholesale assault on cherished government agencies and programs. The world's richest man, Musk, has been empowered by Trump to spearhead his invented Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
As Axios reports, in response to the popular anger directed at Tesla, "Trump has put the full weight of the U.S. government behind defending and promoting 'first buddy' Elon Musk's car company, which has seen both its sales and stock price slump."
On Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi touted the arrests of three people for alleged acts of vandalism against Tesla, saying, "Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars."
Sending U.S. citizens to a foreign country for imprisonment—even if duly convicted of a crime—is not just insane but would be grossly unconstitutional, as Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a former prosecutor and currently the senior director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program, recently explained.
"It is illegal to expatriate U.S. citizens for a crime," Eisen wrote earlier this month in response to previous threats from the Trump administration to deport people to El Salvador for alleged crimes committed in the United States. "There is no modern precedent for sending U.S. citizens who are convicted of crimes to other countries for punishment, or 'banishment' as it has been formerly called and practiced."
Eisen concluded that it remained "unclear whether the Trump administration is still researching the 'legality' of this proposal or thinking through this scenario with any seriousness. But if genuine steps are taken to remove U.S. citizens convicted of crimes to prisons in El Salvador, this removal would violate not only U.S. law but the U.S. Constitution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Bid to Impose Racially Rigged Congressional Map
As the Alabama ACLU noted, the state must now create a second district "where Black voters have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice by the 2024 elections."
Sep 26, 2023
In a ruling hailed by civil rights defenders as a "win for Black voters," the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday
declined to intervene in a case in which Alabama Republicans are openly defying a federal court's order to redraw the state's racially gerrymandered congressional map.
Evan Milligan, the lead plaintiff in the case, applauded Tuesday's ruling—in which no justices publicly dissented—as a "victory for all Alabamians" and "definitely a really positive step."
The state's Republican policymakers "basically said if you were Black in Alabama, your vote would count for less," Milligan told The Associated Press. "It was our duty and honor to challenge that."
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) described the decision as "another big win for Alabama's Black voters."
Sherrilyn Ifill, the former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), called the ruling "huge."
"I am darned near tearful with pride," she wrote on social media. "It takes so much to litigate these cases—often before hostile courts, with opposition that is unprincipled, and with naysayers all around."
The Brennan Center for Justice's Michael Li said in a statement that "after a string of remarkable victories, Black voters in Alabama are closer than ever to winning relief from discriminatory maps."
A 2022 order by a federal district court ruled that a new congressional map approved by Alabama's GOP-controlled Legislature and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey after the 2020 census diluted Black voting power because it contained just one majority African-American district. The court—which found that the maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment—ordered the state to create a new plan with two Black "opportunity districts."
Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June ruled 5-4 in Allen v. Milligan—with right-wing Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh surprising many observers by joining their three liberal colleagues in the majority—to affirm the lower court's decision.
In response to Allen v. Milligan, Ivey convened a special legislative session to make a new map, which she approved in July, declaring that state lawmakers know "our people and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups."
Despite court orders, Alabama Republicans' new congressional map—the Livingston Congressional Plan 3—lacked a second majority Black district. The map's sponsor, state Sen. Steve Livingston (R-8), said U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told him that he was "interested in keeping my majority."
A federal three-judge panel consisting of two appointees of former President Donald Trump and one appointee of former President Ronald Reagan subsequently blocked the new map, writing that "we are deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires."
Republican Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen then asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case again. In a brief, Allen lamented that Alabama "has been maligned as engaging in 'open rebellion'" for defying multiple federal court orders.
The justices' denial on Tuesday allows an effort to replace the rigged map to continue.
On Monday, a special master appointed by the district court submitted three proposals for a new congressional map in Alabama. One of them will be chosen as the state's map for the 2024 elections. A three-judge panel has tentatively scheduled an October 3 hearing to consider the maps.
LDF president and director-counsel Janai Nelson said on social media that "all maps proposed by the special master would allow Black Alabamians the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice in two congressional districts in the state."
Tuesday's ruling follows the Supreme Court's June decision to allow the redrawing of Louisiana's racially gerrymandered congressional map—a move that will add a second majority-Black district in the Southern state where 1 in 3 residents are African-American.
The ruling also comes amid a battle over Florida's congressional map, drawn by the office of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis—a 2024 presidential candidate—and approved last year by the state's GOP-controlled Legislature. Earlier this month, a state judge ruled that the redistricting plan is an unconstitutional dilution of Black voters' ability to vote for the legislator of their choice and ordered the map redrawn.
The case will now head to the Florida Supreme Court, where a majority of justices are DeSantis appointees.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Wrong and Frightening': Alito Claims Congress Can't Regulate SCOTUS
"What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn't apply to him," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Jul 28, 2023
While conservative Justice Samuel Alito's new Wall Street Journal interview covered various topics, one that provoked intense ire on Friday was his suggestion that federal lawmakers don't have the power to regulate the U.S. Supreme Court.
For a series of Journal opinion pieces—the first was published in April—Alito spent four hours speaking on the record with David B. Rivkin Jr., an attorney who currently has a case before the high court, and James Taranto, the newspaper's editorial features editor.
The latest piece comes after ProPublica revealed in June that Alito took a previously undisclosed 2008 fishing trip to Alaska on a private jet belonging to hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, an excursion organized by Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo.
ProPublica's reporting prompted Alito to defend himself last month with his own Journal opinion piece and his vacation was among the mounting ethics concerns regarding justices that led Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee last week to advance Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-R.I.) Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act without any GOP support.
Pointing to the panel's vote, Rivkin and Taranto wrote Friday:
Justice Alito says he voluntarily follows disclosure statutes that apply to lower court judges and executive branch officials; so do the other justices. But he notes that "Congress did not create the Supreme Court"—the Constitution did. "I know this is a controversial view, but I'm willing to say it," he says. "No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period."
Do the other justices agree? "I don't know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly, so I don’t think I should say. But I think it is something we have all thought about."
"This is wrong and frightening," declared Sherrilyn Ifill former president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. "Justice Alito—and I'm certain not only Justice Alito—believes that the Supreme Court is a branch of our [government] that is unchecked and unaccountable, and unreachable by the power of Congress."
Ifill was among many legal experts and lawmakers who took issue with Alito's remarks, with many citing the U.S. Constitution.
"Article III, Section 2 would like to have a word," tweeted Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.). That part of the Constitution states: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Georgetown University Law Center professor Josh Chafetz highlighted that section of the Constitution and three others about the law-making power of Congress, appropriations for the judicial branch, and the ability of federal lawmakers to impeach judges.
"Alito's unethical grift is matched only by his arrogance," said attorney and former judge Bob Vance. "BTW, he's wrong. The Congress has the power of the purse, controlling funds allocated to the federal judiciary. It can also alter the size of the Supreme Court, which it has done in the past."
U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) addressed the justice directly, writing: "Dear Justice Alito: You're on the Supreme Court in part because Congress expanded the court to nine justices. Congress can impeach justices and can in many cases strip the court of jurisdiction. Congress has always regulated you and will continue to do so. You are not above the law."
Indivisible co-executive director Leah Greenberg tweeted that "it's been clear for a while that Alito does not believe that he's accountable to the legislative branch or the American people for his behavior but it's nonetheless shocking that he would say this out loud."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) suggested Alito's comments could have consequences, saying that "this seems escalatory, and nudges even reluctant court watchers and skeptics of statutory reforms towards doing something. I mean, this is a fancy way of telling everyone to pound sand because he's untouchable."
Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser pointed out that "this is hardly the worst thing about Sammy Alito. But, for the record, Article III judges are not supposed to issue advisory opinions on constitutional questions that are not presented to them in case or controversy that their court properly has jurisdiction over."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who earlier this month sounded the alarm about "a dangerous creep toward authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court," also took aim at Alito on Friday.
"What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn't apply to him. Too bad!" she said. "Corruption and abuse of power must be stopped, no matter the source. In fact, the court should be *most* subject to scrutiny, [because] it is unelected and life-appointed."
"Alito's next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be 'I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I'm not,'" the congresswoman added. "And it'd be boosted by some billionaire who secretly thinks voting rights should only belong to landed gentry."
Other critics called out Rivkin, who not only co-authored the pair of Journal pieces but also represents appellants in the tax case Moore v. United States, which the court has agreed to hear in its upcoming session.
Additionally, as Whitehouse noted, "the lawyer who 'wrote' this is also the lawyer blocking our investigation into Leonard Leo's Supreme Court freebies."
According to the senator, that "shows how small and shallow the pool of operatives is around this captured court—same folks keep popping up wearing new hats."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Incredible': Central Park Five Exoneree Yusef Salaam Declares Victory in NYC Council Primary
"I was 15 years old when I was run over by the spiked wheels of justice. And here I am now taking that same platform and turning it into a purpose, trying to take my pain and doing something about it."
Jun 28, 2023
Yusef Salaam—one of the Central Park Five teenagers who spent years behind bars before being exonerated for a rape they did not commit—declared victory Tuesday night in his Democratic primary race for a New York City Council seat representing Harlem and other parts of Upper Manhattan.
Although the outcome of Tuesday's contest may not be officially finalized for days due to New York City voting rules, with more than 99% of votes counted, Salaam leads state Assemblymember Inez Dickens, his closest competitor in a crowded contest for the 9th Council District seat, by more than 2,700 ballots, according to the city's Board of Elections.
The 49-year-old poet, activist, inspirational speaker, and father of 10 children is all but guaranteed to win November's general election in the overwhelmingly Democratic district.
"Started from the bottom, now I'm here," Salaam—who ran on a progressive platform—told supporters during his victory speech.
"This campaign has been about those who have been counted out. This campaign has been about those who have been forgotten," Salaam continued. "This campaign has been about our Harlem community, who has been pushed into the margins of life and made to believe that they were supposed to be there."
"What has happened, in this campaign, has restored my faith in knowing that I was born for this," he added. "I am here because, Harlem, you believed in me."
Supporters hailed Salaam's unlikely rise to the halls of power, with fellow Central Park Five exoneree Raymond Santana tweeting, "From hated to most loved."
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, called Salaam's apparent victory "a gift NYC doesn't deserve" that "can never balance what this city did to him."
Filmmaker Ken Burns, who along with his daughter Sarah Burns and her husband David McMahon made the 2012 documentary feature The Central Park Five, said he's "hopeful that young people everywhere will appreciate the poetry and justice in this victory."
Bernice King, CEO of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, tweeted one of her father's best-known quotes, "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
Questioned about his lack of political experience earlier Tuesday outside a polling place, Salaam said that he believes being a political novice is "a great thing."
"I was 15 years old when I was run over by the spiked wheels of justice," Salaam told reporters. "And here I am now taking that same platform and turning it into a purpose, trying to take my pain and doing something about it."
In April 1989 Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Korey Wise, Santana, and Salaam were arrested following the beating and rape of a woman jogging in Central Park. The five Black and Latino teens were beaten, deprived of food, drink, and sleep, and otherwise coerced by New York City Police Department officers into falsely confessing to the rape. They were tried, convicted, and spent years behind bars for a crime they did not commit.
Salaam, who was 15 years old when his life was turned upside down, was imprisoned for six years and eight months before his exoneration.
Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump, then just a New York businessman, spent $85,000—more than $200,000 today—on full-page ads in the city's four major newspapers calling for the restoration of capital punishment so that the Central Park Five could be executed.
Salaam reacted to Trump's March indictment on 34 felony counts in connection with alleged hush money payments to women who say the former president had sex with them by buying a full-page New York Times ad of his own.
"Now that you have been indicted and are facing criminal charges, I do not resort to hatred, bias, or racism—as you once did," Salaam's ad said. "Even though 34 years ago you effectively called for my death and the death of four other innocent children, I wish you no harm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Years After Supreme Court Gutted Voting Rights, Advocates Say Congress Must Reverse Damage
At least 29 of the voter suppression laws passed since the Shelby v. Holder County decision would have been subject to the preclearance provision that the ruling ended.
Jun 25, 2023
Since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder exactly 10 years ago Sunday, at least 29 states have enacted nearly 100 restrictive laws including many that are racially discriminatory, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The nonpartisan law and policy think tank said Friday that at least one-third of the voting restrictions—29 of them—passed in the last decade were enacted in 11 states which would have been subject to preclearance, the anti-discrimination rule that provided crucial protections as part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) before Shelby was decided.
Under preclearance, jurisdictions that had histories of barring people from voting based on their race were required to get federal approval before introducing new voting policies.
"Without this guardrail, voters lost a bulwark against discriminatory voting policies, and states previously subject to preclearance were free to implement discriminatory restrictions on voting access without advance checks," wrote Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter at the Brennan Center. "Many states did exactly that. Along with a prior decision narrowly interpreting constitutional protections for voting rights, Shelby County also sent a message to the nation that the federal courts would no longer play their historic role as a robust protector of voting rights."
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County. Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
Texas wasted no time in announcing that a strict voter ID law, previously blocked by preclearance, would go into effect the same day that Shelby was handed down. Similar restrictions, which have been found to have a disproportionate effect on low-income voters and people of color, followed in at least nine states including Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
Since 2020—when the coronavirus pandemic upended voting and Republicans spread baseless lies about so-called "voter fraud" after former President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection—GOP state legislators have largely turned their focus to restricting measures that offer flexibility to voters, such as mail-in ballots, said the Brennan Center.
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County," wrote Singh and Carter. "Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
"For example," they added, "the Brennan Center studied a 2021 Texas law requiring a voter to include their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on mail ballot applications and mail ballots and requiring the number to match the individual’s voter file data. During Texas's March 2022 primary, thousands of mail ballots and mail ballot applications were rejected, disproportionately cast by Latino, Asian, and Black voters."
A number of state legislatures have also taken advantage of the Shelby ruling as they have drawn new district maps.
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation, said Sunday that she knew in 2013 that the Shelby ruling was "catastrophic," but did not predict that the Republican Party would "turn voter suppression into part of its national policy."
Before 2013, said Democracy Docket, which offers analysis and expert commentary on voting rights, the U.S. Department of Justice had blocked more than 3,000 proposed voter suppression laws under the VRA.
The Brennan Center pointed out that within its ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court stated that Congress could pass a new
"coverage formula" to determine which jurisdictions would be covered by a preclearance provision.
"And it should," wrote Singh and Carter, "by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act to set nondiscriminatory baseline national standards for voting and elections."
In an op-ed at Newsweek on Sunday, U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) wrote that another voting rights-related ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this month, Allen v. Milligan, was "energizing" as the high court affirmed that Alabama had racially gerrymandered its electoral map.
However, she said, "we cannot rely on this Supreme Court, or the courts generally, to consistently protect our freedom to vote. We must, together, act."
In addition to passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, she wrote, "we must also engage in robust voter education and outreach efforts, empowering communities with knowledge and resources to help overcome anti-voting barriers."
While Ifill said she did not predict the extent to which the GOP would go to stop marginalized communities from voting, she "also did not predict the extraordinary determination of voters, who, even at the height of a deadly global pandemic refused to be bowed," she said. "That they would stand in line and risk their very lives to vote, despite efforts of Republicans and the indifference of the Supreme Court.
"The Shelby decision was catastrophic, yes," she added. "But we didn't give in and we won't give in. We will find a way to overcome every obstacle to our right to participate as first class citizens in American political life. We will vote and organize and litigate, and legislate until we win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy