This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on July 15, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

In yet another controversial move from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons recently told officers that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight against deportation and should be detained “for the duration of their removal proceedings.”

The Washington Post first revealed Lyons’ July 8 memo late Monday. He wrote that after the Trump administration “revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities,” and determined that such immigrants “may not be released from ICE custody.” He also said that rare exceptions should be made by officers, not judges.

The reporting drew swift and intense condemnation online. One social media user said: “Unconstitutional. Unethical. Authoritarian.”

In a statement shared with several news outlets, a spokesperson for ICE confirmed the new policy and said that “the recent guidance closes a loophole to our nation’s security based on an inaccurate interpretation of the statute.”

“It is aligned with the nation’s long-standing immigration law,” the spokesperson said. “All aliens seeking to enter our country in an unlawful manner or for illicit purposes shall be treated equally under the law, while still receiving due process.”

The move comes as President Donald Trump and leaders in his administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, attempt to deliver on his promised mass deportations—with federal agents targeting peaceful student activists, spraying children with tear gas, and detaining immigrants in inhumane conditions at the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz.”

In a statement about the ICE memo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that “President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep Americans safe.”

“Politicians and activists can cry wolf all they want, but it won’t deter this administration from keeping these criminals and lawbreakers off American streets—and now, thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we will have plenty of bed space to do so,” she added, referring to $45 billion for ICE detention in Republicans’ recently signed package.

According to the Post:

Since the memos were issued last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association said members had reported that immigrants were being denied bond hearings in more than a dozen immigration courts across the United States, including in New York, Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia. The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts.

“This is their way of putting in place nationwide a method of detaining even more people,” said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s requiring the detention of far more people without any real review of their individual circumstances.”

Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council told NBC News that her group has also received reports of some immigration judges “accepting the argument” from ICE, “and because the memo isn’t public, we don’t even know what law the government is relying on to make the claim that everyone who has ever entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention.”

The Post reported that “the provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants ‘shall be detained’ after their arrest, but that has historically applied to those who recently crossed the border and not longtime residents.”

The newspaper also noted that Lyons wrote the new guidance is expected to face legal challenges. Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda—like various other policies—has been forcefully challenged in court, and there has been an exodus from the Justice Department unit responsible for defending presidential actions.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

“You can’t, as the president, engage in strikes on a foreign country when there’s no imminent threat, without coming to Congress for authorization,” says Ro Khanna, Democratic congressmember and member of the House Armed Services Committee, criticizing President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites as “blatantly unconstitutional” and a clear instance of executive overreach. Khanna and Republican congressmember Thomas Massie recently introduced a bipartisan Iran War Powers resolution in a bid to prevent further U.S. involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. Khanna shares how anti-war voices in U.S. politics are too often silenced by powerful and wealthy interest groups and urges the Democratic Party to harness widespread anti-war sentiment in opposition to Trump’s increasingly authoritarian foreign policy.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Harvard University has pushed back as President Trump ramps up his attacks on higher education. After Harvard rejected demands by the Trump administration to eliminate all DEI initiatives and further crack down on Palestinian rights protests, including reporting international students to federal authorities, the Trump administration said it’s freezing $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard. University President Alan Garber wrote in a letter to the school community on Monday, “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

“This is an effort to try to take over the ideological agenda of the country by taking over universities,” says Andrew Manuel Crespo, professor at Harvard Law School and general counsel of the Harvard faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

These attacks come as the Trump administration target students who’ve spoken out against the genocide in Gaza. Secretary Rubio and President Trump are extrajudicially revoking student visas and attempting to deport any student they wish, without any due process. Their crime? Disagreeing with the U.S. government’s support for genocide. Students are being kidnapped by masked officers in broad daylight – that should sound the alarm for every American who might openly disagree with President Trump.

These gestapo-like tactics and McCarthyist smears of peace organizations are leading the country down a dark path of unchecked fascism and dictatorship. Between the intimidation of peace groups and blatant attacks on students,every person in the U.S. should stand against this repression – or prepare to face it themselves down the line. Individuals may not like CODEPINK or our messaging around Palestine or China, but that doesn’t exclude them from repression if they let the Trump Administration set this precedent. If they disagree with him on anything at all, they may face the same smears and repression we have. After the groundwork is laid, it’s only a matter of time.

To be clear: CODEPINK is not funded by any foreign government. Protesting war and genocide is not supporting terrorism. Not only are they lying, they are defying the U.S. Constitution to muzzle the burgeoning student movement.

The slanderous statements made by elected officials can have immediate and dangerous consequences for those being lied about, as well as their friends and family. It appears that the United States government is not only committed to waging war abroad, but it is also intent on waging war domestically against U.S. citizens and non-citizens, both of which are also protected by the Constitution.

It is not a coincidence that both Senator Cotton and Secretary Rubio referred to peace activists and students as “lunatics” – they have clearly received their talking points. However, what is actual lunacy is how those elected to serve the American people are ignoring the fact that a majority of Americans do now want wars or war crimes being carried out in our name.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Codepink.

These attacks come as the Trump administration target students who’ve spoken out against the genocide in Gaza. Secretary Rubio and President Trump are extrajudicially revoking student visas and attempting to deport any student they wish, without any due process. Their crime? Disagreeing with the U.S. government’s support for genocide. Students are being kidnapped by masked officers in broad daylight – that should sound the alarm for every American who might openly disagree with President Trump.

These gestapo-like tactics and McCarthyist smears of peace organizations are leading the country down a dark path of unchecked fascism and dictatorship. Between the intimidation of peace groups and blatant attacks on students,every person in the U.S. should stand against this repression – or prepare to face it themselves down the line. Individuals may not like CODEPINK or our messaging around Palestine or China, but that doesn’t exclude them from repression if they let the Trump Administration set this precedent. If they disagree with him on anything at all, they may face the same smears and repression we have. After the groundwork is laid, it’s only a matter of time.

To be clear: CODEPINK is not funded by any foreign government. Protesting war and genocide is not supporting terrorism. Not only are they lying, they are defying the U.S. Constitution to muzzle the burgeoning student movement.

The slanderous statements made by elected officials can have immediate and dangerous consequences for those being lied about, as well as their friends and family. It appears that the United States government is not only committed to waging war abroad, but it is also intent on waging war domestically against U.S. citizens and non-citizens, both of which are also protected by the Constitution.

It is not a coincidence that both Senator Cotton and Secretary Rubio referred to peace activists and students as “lunatics” – they have clearly received their talking points. However, what is actual lunacy is how those elected to serve the American people are ignoring the fact that a majority of Americans do now want wars or war crimes being carried out in our name.

The post CODEPINK Statement Regarding The Recent Defamation of Peace Activists and Unconstitutional Attacks on Students appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by CounterPunch News Service.

Protests in Thomas Paine Park against the detention of Palestinian activist and Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil. Photo: SWinxy CC BY 4.0.

My husband, Mahmoud Khalil, is my rock. He is my home and he is my happy place. I am currently 8 months pregnant, and I could not imagine a better father for my child. We’ve been excitedly preparing to welcome our baby, and now Mahmoud has been ripped away from me for no reason at all.

I am pleading with the world to continue to speak up against his unjust and horrific detention by the Trump administration.

This last week has been a nightmare: Six days ago, an intense and targeted doxxing campaign against Mahmoud began. Anti-Palestinian organizations were spreading false claims about my husband that were simply not based in reality. They were making threats against Mahmoud and he was so concerned about his safety that he emailed Columbia University on March 7th. In his email, he begged the university for legal support, “I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support and I urge you to intervene,” he said in his email.

Columbia University never responded to that email.

Instead, on March 8th, at around 8:30 pm, as we were returning home from an Iftar dinner, an ICE officer followed us into our building and asked, “Are you Mahmoud Khalil?”

Mahmoud stated, “Yes.”

The officer then proceeded to say, “We are with the police, you have to come with us.”

The officer told Mahmoud to give me the apartment keys and that I could go upstairs. When I refused, afraid to leave my husband, the officer stated, “I will arrest you too.”

The officers later barricaded Mahmoud from me. We were not shown any warrant and the ICE officers hung up the phone on our lawyer. When my husband attempted to give me his phone so I could speak with our lawyer, the officers got increasingly aggressive, despite Mahmoud being fully cooperative.

Everyone who knows Mahmoud knows him to be level-headed even in the most stressful situations. And even in this terrifying situation, he was calm.

Within minutes, they had handcuffed Mahmoud, took him out into the street and forced him into an unmarked car. Watching this play out in front of me was traumatizing: It felt like a scene from a movie I never signed up to watch.

I was born and raised in the Midwest. My parents came here from Syria, carrying their stories of the oppressive regime there that made life unlivable. They believed living in the US would bring a sense of safety and stability. But here I am, 40 years after my parents immigrated here, and just weeks before I’m due to give birth to our first child, and I feel more unsafe and unstable than I have in my entire life.

US immigration ripped my soul from me when they handcuffed my husband and forced him into an unmarked vehicle. Instead of putting together our nursery and washing baby clothes in anticipation of our first child, I am left sitting in our apartment, wondering when Mahmoud will get a chance to call me from a detention center.

I demand the US government release him, reinstate his Green Card, and bring him home.

The post On My Husband’s Unconstitutional Arrest appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Noor Abdalla.

We speak with Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna of California about the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on the federal bureaucracy and the gutting of various agencies, led by the president’s unelected billionaire adviser Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

“No DOGE employee should have access to any of Americans’ sensitive, confidential information, and they should not have access to be able to stop payments,” he says. Khanna calls Musk’s actions “unconstitutional” and says the Trump administration must be held accountable. “There is a movement now which is pushing back. We did not have that for a couple months, I acknowledge that. But the Democratic Party in this last week has had a new energy and a new resolve to stand up.”

Khanna also comments on the use of Guantánamo Bay to detain immigrants, Trump’s colonial proposals to seize Gaza and other foreign territories and more.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

As the Trump administration launches what it touts as the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history, we look at how immigrant communities and advocates are fighting back. The administration already faces some setbacks, including in its attempt to end birthright citizenship, which a federal judge halted Thursday from going into effect because it was “blatantly unconstitutional.” Thursday’s ruling is the first in what’s expected to be a long legal battle against Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. “We’re in a moment where there’s a ton of fear in the community,” says Harold Solis, legal director at Make the Road New York, which has filed its own lawsuit against the government. We also speak with Columbia University historian Mae Ngai, who says the fight over birthright citizenship is part of the long history of restrictionist immigration policies in the country. “What we’re seeing this week is shock and awe. It’s meant to terrorize,” she says. “We have to fight on all levels.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to abolish birthright citizenship, which he cannot do unilaterally because it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But his rhetoric has still alarmed immigrant rights advocates who are concerned about Trump’s mass deportation plans and how they would impact mixed-status families. Trump and his “border czar” Tom Homan have both suggested deporting the U.S. citizen children of parents who are undocumented. “No one is safe under Donald Trump,” says Illinois Congressmember Delia Ramirez, whose husband Boris Hernandez came to the United States at 14 as an undocumented immigrant and only recently received a green card. She calls Trump’s immigration plans “un-American, unconstitutional and undemocratic.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to abolish birthright citizenship, which he cannot do unilaterally because it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But his rhetoric has still alarmed immigrant rights advocates who are concerned about Trump’s mass deportation plans and how they would impact mixed-status families. Trump and his “border czar” Tom Homan have both suggested deporting the U.S. citizen children of parents who are undocumented. “No one is safe under Donald Trump,” says Illinois Congressmember Delia Ramirez, whose husband Boris Hernandez came to the United States at 14 as an undocumented immigrant and only recently received a green card. She calls Trump’s immigration plans “un-American, unconstitutional and undemocratic.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen health care provider free from government interference,” Judge Bruce Romanick’s opinion reads. “This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman’s right to procreative autonomy – including to seek and obtain a pre-viability abortion.”

“This is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota,” says Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Hospitals and doctors no longer have their hands tied and can provide abortions to patients with complications. However, the damage that North Dakota’s extreme abortion bans have done cannot be repaired overnight. There are no abortion clinics left in North Dakota. That means most people seeking an abortion still won’t be able to get one, even though it is legal. Clinics are medical facilities that need to acquire doctors, staff, equipment—they can take years to open, like most healthcare centers. The destructive impacts of abortion bans are felt long after they are struck down. This is now the second abortion ban that lawmakers have passed that has been struck down in court. We urge North Dakota lawmakers to respect this ruling and the reproductive autonomy of its people.”

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs asked the court to strike down the ban in its entirety, which the court has decided to do. Plaintiffs argued that the ban was unconstitutionally vague and made it impossible to interpret the confusing language about when medical exceptions were allowed. The ban’s limited and confusing exceptions for health or life gave physicians no clear guidance on how to determine whether a patient was “sick enough” to qualify for abortion care. This left physicians who provided abortions with the threat of having to defend their decision in court if someone were to question the provider’s judgment. Violating the ban was considered a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both.

“Today’s decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution, but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high quality care that our communities are entitled to,” says Tammi Kromenaker, Director of Red River Women’s Clinic, a plaintiff in the case. “Abortion is lifesaving health care; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will. As we see at our clinic every day, pregnancy is complex, and each pregnant person knows what is best for their specific situation.”

Eighteen states currently ban abortion completely or after six weeks of pregnancy—before many know they are pregnant. While most of those bans have very narrow exceptions to save the life of the pregnant patient, those exceptions have not been working in practice. Doctors are unclear who qualifies for the exceptions, and they are terrified to perform any abortions as they face years in prison for violating the bans. In addition to North Dakota, the Center has active lawsuits in Idaho and Tennessee to clarify the “medical emergency” exceptions written into the bans in those states and broaden the circumstances in which physicians can provide abortions.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in another Center lawsuit, Zurawski v. Texas. The state’s high court mostly provided clarity around when pregnant Texans cannot access abortion care, such as for lethal fetal conditions, rather than when they can. The courtrefused to allow abortion care unless a patient has a life-threatening condition.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, and Gender Justice, on behalf of Red River Women’s Clinic, its medical director Dr. Kathryn Eggleston, Dr. Ana Tobiasz, Dr. Erica Hofland, and Dr. Collette Lessard.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

• Supreme Court takes up case on whether banning sleeping rough in unconstitutional.
• Opening arguments begin in Trump hush money trial in New York.
• Supreme Court agrees to hear Administration challenge to lower court ruling against ghost gun bans.
• Independent investigators release results of report into allegations of UNRWA neutrality problems.
• High Speed rail linking Las Vegas to LA begins construction.
• UC Berkeley students hold encampment demanding UC divestment from Israel connected companies.

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – April 22, 2024 Supreme Court takes up case on whether banning sleeping rough in unconstitutional. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

UFA, Russia -- A court in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Republic of Bashkortostan, has sentenced eight men to up to 14 days in jail for taking part in an unprecedented rally earlier this week to support the former leader of the banned Bashqort movement, Fail Alsynov, who has criticized Russia's full-scale aggression against Ukraine.

The Kirov district court on January 18 sentenced activists Salavat Idelbayev and Rustam Yuldashev to 14 and 13 days in jail, respectively, after finding them guilty of taking part in "an unsanctioned rally that led to the disruption of infrastructure activities and obstructed the work of a court" on January 15.

A day earlier, the same court sentenced Ilnar Galin to 13 days in jail, and Denis Skvortsov, Fanzil Akhmetshin, Yulai Aralbayev, Radmir Mukhametshin, and Dmitry Petrov to 10 days in jail each on the same charges.

The sentences were related to a January 15 rally of around 5,000 people in front of a court in the town of Baimak, where the verdict and sentencing of Alsynov, who was charged with inciting ethnic hatred, were expected to be announced. But the court postponed the announcement to January 17 to allow security forces to prepare for any reaction to the verdict in the controversial trial.

On January 17, thousands of supporters gathered in front of the court again, and after Alsynov was sentenced to four years in prison, clashes broke out as police using batons, tear gas, and stun grenades forced the protesters to leave the site. Several protesters were injured and at least two were hospitalized.

Dozens of protesters were detained and the Investigative Committee said those in custody from the January 17 unrest will face criminal charges -- organizing and participating in mass disorder and using violence against law enforcement.

Separately on January 18, police detained two young men in Baimak on unspecified charges. Friends of the men said the detentions were most likely linked to the rallies to support Alsynov.

The head of Bashkortostan, Radiy Khabirov, made his first statement on January 18 about the largest protest rally in Russia since Moscow launched its ongoing invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying he "will not tolerate extremism and attempts to shake up the situation," and promising to find the "real organizers" of the rallies.

It was Khabirov who initiated the investigation of Alsynov, accusing him of inciting ethnic hatred as well as calling for anti-government rallies and extremist activities and discrediting Russia's armed forces.

In the end, Alsynov was charged only with inciting hatred, which stemmed from a speech he gave at a rally in late April 2023 in the village of Ishmurzino in which he criticized local government plans to start mining gold near the village, as it would bring in migrant laborers.

Investigators said Alsynov's speech "negatively assessed people in the Caucasus and Central Asia, humiliating their human dignity." Alsynov and his supporters have rejected the charge as politically motivated.

Bashkortostan's Supreme Court banned Alsynov's Bashqort group, which for years promoted Bashkir language, culture, and equal rights for ethnic Bashkirs, in May 2020, declaring it extremist.

Bashqort was banned after staging several rallies and other events challenging the policies of both local and federal authorities, including Moscow's move to abolish mandatory indigenous-language classes in the regions with large populations of indigenous ethnic groups.

With reporting by RusNews

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

“President Biden’s decision to launch airstrikes in Yemen is not only reckless but contravenes the Constitution and the War Powers Act. At a bare minimum, Biden needs to come to Congress to seek authorization before introducing US armed forces into hostilities. If Biden had enough time to organize a multi-country coalition and premeditate this operation, he had enough time to come to Congress.

“While the ongoing Houthi disruption of commercial shipping in the Red Sea is concerning, this is precisely a situation that demands congressional deliberation, as escalating attacks on Houthi targets in Yemen opens up US troops to likely counter-attacks, which could spiral regional conflict even further and embroil the US in another endless war.

“Instead of pushing for solutions that move the region towards de-escalation, such as a negotiated ceasefire in Israel and Palestine, Biden has decided to add fuel to the fire and snub congressional war powers in the process.

“We strongly urge members of Congress – on both sides of the aisle – to demand answers from the administration, and use any and all available levers to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the War Powers Act, including the introduction of a War Powers Resolution.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Nausicaa Renner.

Kremlin critic Aleksei Navalny says he was immediately placed in a punitive solitary confinement cell after finishing a quarantine term at the so-called Polar Wolf prison in Russia's Arctic region where he was transferred last month.

In a series of messages on X, formerly Twitter, Navalny said on January 9 a prison guard ruled that "convict Navalny refused to introduce himself according to format, did not respond to the educational work, and did not draw appropriate conclusions for himself" and therefore must spend seven days in solitary confinement.

Navalny added that unlike in a regular cell, where inmates are allowed to have a walk outside of the cell in the afternoon when it is a bit warmer outside, in the punitive cell, such walks are at 6:30 a.m. in a part of the world where temperatures can fall to minus 45 degrees Celsius or colder.

"I have already promised myself that I will try to go for a walk no matter what the weather is," Navalny said in an irony-laced series of eight posts, adding that the cell-like sites for walks are "11 steps from the wall and 3 steps to the wall" with an open sky covered with metal bars above.

"It's never been colder here than -32 degrees Celsius (-25 degrees Fahrenheit). Even at that temperature you can walk for more than half an hour, but only if you have time to grow a new nose, ears, and fingers," Navalny joked, comparing himself with the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the Revenant film, who saved himself from freezing in the cold by crawling inside the carcass of a dead horse.

"Here you need an elephant. A hot or even roasted elephant. If you cut open the belly of a freshly roasted elephant and crawl inside, you can keep warm for a while. But where am I going to get a hot, roasted elephant [here], especially at 6:30 in the morning? So, I will continue to freeze," Navalny concludes in his sarcastic string of messages.

Navalny was transported in December to the notorious and remote prison, formally known as IK-3, but widely referred to as Polar Wolf.

Some 2,000 kilometers northeast of Moscow, the prison holds about 1,050 of Russia's most incorrigible prisoners.

Human rights activists say the prison holds serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, repeat offenders, and others convicted of the most serious crimes and serving sentences of 20 years or more.

In some cases, like Navalny's, the government sends convicts who are widely considered to be political prisoners there as well. Platon Lebedev, a former business partner of Mikhail Khodorkovsky who was convicted of tax evasion and other charges during the dismantling of the Yukos oil giant, spent about two years at IK-3 in the mid-2000s.

The prison was founded in 1961 at a former camp of dictator Josef Stalin's Gulag network. The settlement of Kharp, with about 5,000 people, mostly provides housing and services for prison workers and administrators.

Navalny was sentenced to 19 years in prison in August 2023 on extremism charges, on top of previous sentences for fraud. He says the charges are politically motivated, and human rights organizations recognized him as a political prisoner.

He has posed one of the most-serious threats to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who recently announced he is running for reelection in March. Putin is expected to easily win the election amid the continued sidelining of opponents and a clampdown on opposition and civil society that intensified after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

Navalny survived a poisoning with Novichok-type nerve agent in 2020 that he says was ordered by Putin. The Kremlin has denied any role in Navalny's poisoning.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (UF SJP) filed a lawsuit today challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. Contrary to recent media reports, the deactivation order remains in place today.

In response, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to block the deactivation order from going into effect, arguing that Chancellor Ray Rodrigues and Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision to effectively punish the UF chapter of SJP for its association with a national group is a clear violation of the constitutional rights to free speech and association.

“As students on a public college campus, we have every right to engage in human rights advocacy and promote public awareness and activism for a just and reasonable solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict,” said the University of Florida’s Students for Justice in Palestine. “We know we have First Amendment rights in school and we’re bringing this lawsuit to make sure the government doesn’t silence us or others like us.”

For decades, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. And the Supreme Court has long recognized that right. As the complaint explains, the deactivation order violates UF SJP’s First Amendment freedoms by censoring its speech and association, and also runs afoul of the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and association.

“Florida’s deactivation order against a Palestinian rights student group for exercising its free speech and association rights is a clear First Amendment violation,” said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “We hope our client’s brave decision to challenge state officials’ attempt to restrict student speech sends the strong message that censorship in our schools is unconstitutional. There should be no question that independent political advocacy — no matter its viewpoint — is fully constitutionally protected.”

The looming deactivation order has already cast a significant chill on UF SJP’s organizing and advocacy activities in support of Palestinian rights, at a time when the catastrophe in Israel and Palestine is a matter of vital public discourse. If enacted, the order will also deprive the group and its members of critical university resources and facilities necessary for the survival and operation of the organization on campus.

“If Florida officials think silencing pro-Palestinian students protects the Jewish community — or anyone — they’re wrong. This attack on free speech is dangerous: Today it is pro-Palestinian students, tomorrow it could be any other group the governor dislikes,” said Howard Simon, interim executive director of ACLU of Florida. “We recognize colleges are contending with how to manage increased threats and rising tensions on their campuses while keeping students safe — and we take the weight and complexity of these challenges seriously. But it is precisely in times of heightened crisis and fear that government officials, including Gov. DeSantis and University Chancellor Rodrigues, must remain steadfast in their obligations to respect free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus.”

This lawsuit comes amid a troubling rise in calls for schools across the country to censor pro-Palestinian students and student groups for “material support for terrorism,” without any evidentiary basis, along with other extreme and discriminatory proposals to cancel visas and deport international students who protest in support of Palestine.

“Throughout history, students have been central actors in ending segregation, war, and apartheid — and Students for Justice in Palestine sits squarely in that tradition. It is precisely because these principled students pose a challenge to the status quo that they are being targeted with McCarthyist censorship, but the First Amendment simply does not allow for it,” said Dima Khalidi, founder and director of Palestine Legal. “As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza unfolds, we can't let elected officials and university leaders stigmatize groups speaking out for Palestinian human rights. The voices of SJP chapters are more important than ever.”

You can find the complaint online here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The South Korean court declared the law unconstitutional Tuesday, with seven out of its nine judges finding that the law restricted the nation’s constitutional value of free speech. This verdict led to the law’s immediate annulment. 

“The law’s goal of ensuring the safety of people’s lives and bodies constitutes an important public interest,” the court said. “But the restriction of freedom of expression inflicted on those involved is disproportionally severe.” 

The current law is making “individuals dispersing leaflets accountable for any provocations that arise from North Korea,” the court added, explaining its verdict to make the law unconstitutional. 

South Korea criminalized the sending of anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border in March 2021, with it penalizing offenders with up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of 30 million won (US$22,000).

The controversial law passed South Korean parliament during the former progressive Moon Jae-in administration, which argued that sending leaflets towards the North could incite hostility from the North, jeopardizing the safety of border town residents in the South.

The Inter-Korean Relations Development Act, orchestrated by Moon’s progressive bloc, mandated that “no person shall inflict harm or pose serious danger to the life or body of individuals by engaging in any of the following actions,” and explicitly listed “leafleting”.

During the Panmunjom summit between South Korean President Moon and his North Korean counterpart in April 2018, the two leaders agreed to “completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain”. South Korean progressives saw sending leaflets could be defined as hostile activities against the North.

However, the criminalisation sparked backlash from both international and domestic human rights organizations and media outlets. South Korean conservatives and international media opined that sending leaflets was a matter of free speech and a law restricting such an activity was unconstitutional. Dozens of human rights organizations filed a constitutional complaint concerning the prohibition, and sought an injunction against the newly enacted law.

With North Korea returning to its brinkmanship diplomacy after the collapse of its high-stake summit with the United States in Hanoi in February 2019, South Korean conservatives have been arguing for the South to scrap its inter-Korean agreement that mandated the cessation of what Pyongyang defined as hostilities.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry under the conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol, had expressed the ministry’s opinion to the Constitutional Court last year, stating that the law violates the nation’s constitutional value of free speech. 

Edited by Taejun Kang and Elaine Chan.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Lee Jeong-Ho for RFA.

"Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency."

The raid—which was executed by five MPD officers and two county sheriff's deputies—came as the Record was investigating sexual misconduct allegations against Cody.

"I may be paranoid that this has anything to do with it, but when people come and seize your computer, you tend to be a little paranoid," Record publisher Eric Meyer toldThe Handbasket publisher Marisa Kabas in an interview Saturday.

Kari Newell, a politically connected restauranteur who has feuded with the paper, is also believed to have played a role; the Record had recently received a tip about her driver's license being suspended after a 2008 DUI conviction but ultimately decided not to run the story. Newell has confirmed her DUI conviction and has admitted that she continued driving even after her license was suspended.

According to the Record, the raid contributed to the death of 98-year-old co-owner Joan Meyer, who was "otherwise in good health for her age."

Meyer—who the paper said "tearfully watched during the raid" and accused the police of "Hitler tactics"—was "stressed beyond her limits and overwhelmed by hours of shock and grief" and "collapsed Saturday afternoon and died at her home."

The RCFP letter argues that "newsroom searches and seizures are among the most intrusive actions law enforcement can take with respect to the free press, and the most potentially suppressive of free speech by the press and the public."

On Saturday, MPD published a statement on Facebook acknowledging that the federal Privacy Protection Act "does protect journalists from most searches of newsrooms by federal and state law enforcement officials" and "requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists."

However, the post notes that the law grants an exception when journalists "themselves are suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search."

The warrant, which was signed by 8th Judicial District Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, authorized a search for evidence of identity theft and criminal use of a computer.

Eric Meyer, who is Joan Meyer's son, told the Kansas Reflector on Friday that "basically, all the law enforcement officers on duty in Marion County, Kansas, descended on our offices today and seized our server and computers and personal cellphones of staff members all because of a story we didn't publish."

According to the RCFP letter, "based on public reporting, the search warrant that has been published online, and your public statements to the press, there appears to be no justification for the breadth and intrusiveness of the search—particularly when other investigative steps may have been available, and we are concerned that it may have violated federal law strictly limiting federal, state, and local law enforcement's ability to conduct newsroom searches."

"Your department's seizure of this equipment has substantially interfered with the Record's First Amendment-protected newsgathering in this instance, and the department's actions risk chilling the free flow of information in the public interest more
broadly, including by dissuading sources from speaking to the Record and other Kansas news media in the future," the letter continues.

"We urge you to immediately return the seized material to the Record, to purge any records that may already have been accessed, and to initiate a full, independent, and transparent review of your department's actions," the signers added.

Press freedom and civil liberties groups have also condemned the raid.

"Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency," Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy director Seth Stern said in a statement. "Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves."

ACLU of Kansas legal director Sharon Brett said that this "seems like one of the most aggressive police raids of a news organization or entity in quite some time" and "quite an alarming abuse of power."

On Monday, the board of the Society of Professional Journalists unanimously voted to authorize $20,000 to cover the Record's legal costs, according to the Kansas Reflector. Both Meyer and Newell said they are considering lawsuits.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Former Tennessee State Rep. Justin Jones said Friday that he intends to challenge his expulsion in the courts and at the ballot box amid uncertainty about the path ahead for him and fellow removed Rep. Justin Pearson, whose decision to stand in solidarity with constituents protesting the scourge of gun violence drew national attention and praise.

In an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Jones said he believes his expulsion Thursday at the hands of Tennessee House Republicans was "unconstitutional" and that he's exploring legal action.

The Nashville Democrat also said he'll be watching the proceedings of his city's 40-seat Metro Council, which is scheduled to meet on Monday to decide on who will fill the vacancy left by Jones' expulsion until a special election for the seat is held.

Jones is eligible to run in the special election, whether or not he's reappointed by the Metro Council.

While more than a dozen members of the Nashville council have said they would support reappointing Jones, the lawmaker said Friday that it's unclear whether the Republican-dominated Tennessee House would agree to seat him.

"We've heard from the other side that they may not seat us, even if our council appoints us, even if we win a special election," Jones said. "Then we'll see another affront to democracy."

The Memphis City Council is also expected to hold a special meeting in the coming days to determine how to fill the vacancy left by Pearson's expulsion. One commissioner, Miska Clay Bibbs, said Thursday that "when given the opportunity, I will support returning [Pearson] to his seat."

Like Jones, Pearson is also eligible to run in the coming special election for his old seat.

During his MSNBC appearance Friday, Jones said he hopes people across the U.S. are paying attention to developments in his home state because "if it can happen in Tennessee, it can happen anywhere."

Watch the full interview:

Whatever the near future holds for Jones and Pearson in the Tennessee Legislature, the young lawmakers' bold stand for action against gun violence and outspoken opposition to the state GOP's political retaliation made them instant icons in a burgeoning national movement born out of deadly mass shootings like the one that left three children dead in Nashville last week.

"I've gotten to do a little bit of organizing with Justin Pearson, who was just expelled by the Tennessee House. Let me say: he will go farther and do more good than any of the people remaining in that chamber," environmentalist Bill McKibben wrote following Thursday's vote. "You ding-dongs have just launched a rocket."

As Jones put it on Friday: "It wasn't about us, it was about expelling the voices of those young people, expelling a movement. They've done the opposite."

Jones' campaign operation sprung into immediate action following his removal.The Tennesseanreported that while "members of the Legislature are not allowed to fundraise during the legislative session," Jones reactivated his campaign fundraising site "within hours of his expulsion."

If Jones and/or Pearson are reelected and seated, they cannot be expelled again for the same offense, The Tennessean noted. The approved expulsion resolutions accused the two lawmakers of bringing "disorder and dishonor" to the House.

"They're going to do what they do," Pearson said of the Tennessee House's Republican majority ahead of Thursday's expulsion votes. "We have to keep fighting. If we never quit, we never lose."

"They want you to stop clapping, they want you to stop marching, they want you to stop protesting, they want you to stop saying that kids' lives matter, they want you to stop saying that we need to end the gun violence epidemic," Pearson continued. "But what we have to prove by our consistent and persistent effort on this issue is that Tennessee can be a better place than it currently is, and you shouldn't have to be afraid to go to school or go to the grocery store."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

In a move decried by one critic as a "significant loss for the First Amendment," the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge to an Arkansas law requiring companies doing business with the state to sign a pledge vowing not to boycott Israel.

The justices will not hear an appeal to a June 2022 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involving Act 710 of 2017, an Arkansas law imposing a 20% penalty on state contractors with contracts over $1,000 if they refuse an oath not to support the nonviolent international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israeli crimes in Palestine including occupation, settler colonization, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid.

The ACLU petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, Arkansas Times LP v. Mark Waldrip, on behalf of Arkansas Times editor Alan Leveritt, who was informed by officials at the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College that the weekly alternative paper would have to sign the anti-BDS pledge if it wanted to keep its advertising contract with the state school. The publication does not boycott Israel, but refused to sign the oath.

"If states can suppress boycotts of Israel, then they can suppress boycotts of the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood."

In 2021, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court ruled that "supporting or promoting boycotts of Israel is constitutionally protected," however the court later reversed the ruling in a decision written by Judge Jonathan Kobes, an appointee of former President Donald Trump who the American Bar Association deemed "not qualified" to serve.

While pro-Israel groups and individuals hailed the high court's punt as a major blow to BDS, journalism, free speech, and Palestine advocates decried the move.

"We are obviously disappointed at the news today from the U.S. Supreme Court. Permitting state governments to withhold state contracts from citizens who voice opinions contrary to those held by a majority of their state legislators is abhorrent and a violation of the Bill of Rights," wrote Leveritt.

"In our case the Arkansas state Legislature required our magazine to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel if we wanted to receive state advertising," the editor continued. "We refused. We are not boycotting Israel but neither do we sign political pledges in return for advertising. Especially state advertising."

"Thanks to support from our readers, we will not be signing any pledges dictated by our Legislature," Leveritt added. "The Supreme Court can ignore our First Amendment rights but we will continue to vigorously exercise them."

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib(D-Mich.)—the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress—called the high court's decision not to hear the case a "travesty."

The Freedom of the Press Foundation tweeted that "SCOTUS should've stood up for the First Amendment. Instead, it let a ruling stand permitting the government to withhold ads from newspapers that won't pledge to not boycott Israel. Government should not financially pressure the press (or anyone) to echo its views."

Some critics warned that allowing anti-BDS laws to stand—effectively upholding them—will adversely affect Americans' right to voice dissent on a wide range of issues.

"From the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery Bus Boycott to the boycott of apartheid South Africa, Americans have proudly exercised that right to make their voices heard," Brian Hauss—the senior staff attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project—said in a statement.

"But if states can suppress boycotts of Israel, then they can suppress boycotts of the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood," he added. "While we are disappointed with the result in this case, the ACLU will continue to defend the right to boycott in courts and legislatures throughout the country."

Leveritt toldThe Guardian that "this is simply a template. It doesn't stop here. We now have in the Arkansas Legislature bills introduced to deny state contracts to financial and banking institutions that have [environmental, social, and corporate governance] policies that prohibit them from investing in fossil fuels or firearms companies."

"In other states, they've introduced laws to deny state contracts to any company that subsidizes their employees' transportation costs if they go out of state for an abortion," he added. "So this is just going to be used time after time after time, eventually, the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with it, or else it's going to be open season on the First Amendment."

While federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and Texas have ruled that laws banning or penalizing boycotts of Israel are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, each of those states subsequently amended their respective legislation to apply only to larger contractors and exclude individuals.

According to a database compiled by Lara Friedman at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, at least 34 U.S. states have passed laws targeting boycotts of Israel or its illegal Jewish-only settler colonies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Julie Bacha, director of the documentary film Boycott—which highlights efforts to fight anti-BDS laws including in Arkansas—toldMondoweiss that "it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court opted to stay on the sidelines for now, but let's be very clear—the fight to protect the right to boycott is far from over."

"The last—and only—time the Supreme Court reviewed the right to boycott in 1982, it ruled unanimously that the First Amendment protects the right of Americans to engage in boycotts to affect social and political change," she added. "Americans across the country will continue to exercise that right, and take their states to court when that right is violated."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

This is a proposal to the Biden administration on how it might get the debt ceiling law declared unconstitutional by a federal court before the likely default date in June.

It's not hyperbolic to say that congressional Republicans are engaging in economic terrorism. They've taken the U.S. and global economy hostage and threatened to shoot it if President Joe Biden doesn't pay a ransom of cutting spending that Congress has already appropriated. Even if Biden wanted to negotiate with these terrorists, he wouldn't know how, since they won't even specify what the ransom is or what cuts would satisfy them. And that's because if they do specify the ransom, to be meaningful it would be politically unpopular because it would have to cut popular domestic programs—including Social Security and Medicare--and defund part of the military to make a material difference to the national debt.

Biden has rightly said that he won't negotiate with the hostage-takers. But the Republicans have become even more reckless and extremist than in past debt ceiling crises and seem prepared to send the global economy over the financial cliff. In contrast, Biden and congressional Democrats care about a functioning government and the national economy, so when it comes close to "D[efault]-Day," there's a real danger they'll cave and pay a ransom that would hurt ordinary Americans and encourage future hostage-taking.

Why the Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional

The best strategy is to get a federal court to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional and for the administration to issue new debt as necessary to pay the government's bills. Over the past week, I've been in dialogue with some of the country's most respected constitutional scholars including Laurence Tribe, Erwin Chermerinsky, Neil H. Buchanan, and Michael Dorf. They all agree that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional.

As a matter of Constitutional law, the president has the right to prevent the Republican Congress from questioning the national debt and to issue new bonds to prevent default.

Even Professor Tribe, who during the 2011 debt ceiling stand-off between President Obama and Speaker Biden was skeptical that the Constitution provided an off-ramp, has now written to me directly that he's "long since rethought and revised" this view. He tweeted: "Some of history's greatest lessons echo the words of Amazing Grace: 'We once were blind but now we see.'" In another tweet, he eviscerated the constitutionality of the debt ceiling law: "The debt ceiling is a misnomer: it does nothing to cap spending but just creates and illusory threat to stiff our creditors. That's because Section 4 of the 14th Amendment forbids defaulting on the nation's debts."

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states in plain language: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

As Professor Eric Foner, America's leading historian of Reconstruction, has argued in the New York Times, the original intent of this Amendment was to prevent former insurrectionist Confederate leaders who might be elected to Congress from repudiating all or part of the Federal government's debt from the Civil War while honoring the Confederate debt (which was specifically prohibited.)

As Foner writes, "the amendment's language is mandatory, not permissive — the validity of the public debt 'shall not be questioned.' Today, over a century and a half after the amendment's ratification, this promise is no longer considered an 'extraordinary guarantee'; it is an essential attribute of a modern economy."

In its only decision regarding this constitutional clause, Perry v. United States (1935) the Supreme Court stated: "While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle, which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing what- ever concerns the integrity of the public obligations." (emphasis added)

The question is: How can President Biden implement this Constitutional mandate and issue new debt to meet the government's financial obligations if the default date is reached and Congressional Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, thrusting the national and global economy into a profound crisis?

Foner proposes that "if the current House of Representatives abdicates this responsibility, throwing the nation into default by refusing to raise the debt limit, President Biden should act on his own, taking steps to ensure that the federal government meets its financial obligations, as the Constitution requires."

As a matter of Constitutional law, the president has the right to prevent the Republican Congress from questioning the national debt and to issue new bonds to prevent default. In 2011, former President Bill Clinton advised then President Barack Obama to use his constitutional powers to raise the nation's legal borrowing limit on his own if he had to and "force the courts to stop [him']" in order to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in history. Obama instead sent then-Vice-President Biden to negotiate a deal with then-House Speaker Boehner that hamstrung the federal budget and slowed recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.

In any case, while legally correct, the problem with this strategy is that financial markets would likely reject these bonds, or require much higher interest rates because they would be deterred by the risk that the Supreme Court could conceivably overturn the President's action in the future. In the end, a financial crisis would occur anyway.

The only way to avoid this is to get a ruling from a federal court that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional before the drop-dead date.

Ideally, the Biden administration would file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court asking SCOTUS for a declaratory judgement that debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional procedure to ask SCOTUS directly for a ruling since the administration wouldn't be suing anyone in particular and there would be no case in controversy with an actual opposing party so the case wouldn't fall under SCOTUS's Article III original jurisdiction.

A Strategy for Getting a Federal Court Ruling Before the Default Date

So here's an alternative strategy to get the issue into federal court before the drop-dead date: President Biden and Treasury Secretary Yellen should publicly announce now that they plan to continue issuing new Treasury bonds in the normal course in the amounts and on the schedule that debt becomes due despite extraordinary measures. Republicans would almost certainly find a party to sue the administration in federal court to block these plans.

There would then be an actual case in controversy that courts could adjudicate. There is a chance that a court could find that the Republican plaintiff lacks standing to bring the case. But standing can be a malleable standard and courts often bend over backward to grant standing when they really want to hear a case. As legal commentator Mark Joseph Stern has previously argued in Slate, "certain key circuit courts and the Supreme Court seem to follow one standing rule: When a majority wants to decide a case on the merits, they find some justification to grant standing; when it doesn't, they don't." The Republicans would probably forum shop for a district court—say in Texas—that would accept the case. If that court issued a ruling against the administration, the administration could then file a petition with SCOTUS for an emergency appeal.

There is, of course, no guarantee that a lower federal court or SCOTUS would rule in the administration's favor. While they call themselves "textualists" and "originalists" the right-wing Supreme Court majority is increasingly results-oriented and finds whatever text or historical meaning they can conjure up to rule the way they want to. But it's at least possible that even this right-wing court wouldn't be aligned with House Republicans in allowing a default on the national debt. As argued above, the text of the 14th Amendment is quite clear-: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned." And as leading historian Eric Foner explained, the original intent of the Amendment was "mandatory" and prohibited the questioning of all legally authorized federal debt.

And perhaps the Justices' own self-interest would incline at least two of the conservatives to join with the liberals in finding the debt ceiling unconstitutional. After all, the Justices all have investment portfolios and their salaries and pensions are paid by Treasury, all of which would be jeopardized by a default.

If, as it should, a federal court ruled before the drop debt date that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, it would end once and for all the charade of a potential government default which would jeopardize the national and global economy. And even if the court ruled to the contrary, we would be no worse off than present, when markets assume the debt ceiling is legal and Biden will avoid default by making a deal with McCarthy.

What's to lose by the Biden administration giving this strategy a try?

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Miles Mogulescu.

The Philippines Supreme Court on Tuesday declared a 2005 South China Sea oil exploration agreement with China and Vietnam unconstitutional because it allowed foreign corporations to prospect for natural resources belonging to the Filipino people but without proper safeguards. 

The ruling went against the Joint Seismic Marine Undertaking deal, which was signed 18 years ago by the Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC), the China National Offshore Oil Corp., and the Vietnam Oil and Gas Corp. (PETROVIETNAM). 

“The court ruled that the JSMU is unconstitutional for allowing wholly owned foreign corporations to participate in the exploration of the country’s natural resources without observing the safeguards provided in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution,” the court said in a statement.

That section states that all lands of public domain, as well as waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, “and other natural resources are owned by the state.”

The court released its decision while the justices were on a retreat in the northern mountain city of Baguio and as China sought to revive an oil exploration deal with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. His predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, terminated talks with Beijing as both nations continued to be locked in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea. 

During a state visit to Beijing last week, Marcos and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to resume talks about oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea at “an early date,” both sides said.

It was not immediately clear how the Supreme Court ruling would affect that agreement. 

Among those who joined Marcos on his visit to China was former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose administration signed the exploration deal with China and Vietnam.

The deal covered about 80% of Philippine territorial waters and was designed to conduct seismic exploration in an area encompassing nearly 150,000 square km. (57,900 square miles) west of Palawan island.

The ruling noted that a constitutional provision mandates that the “exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the state.” Twelve justices approved the decision while two dissented and one abstained.

“The state may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens,” it stated. 

The Philippine government had argued that the provision did not apply to the JMSU because it covers only pre-exploration activities and not actual exploration. 

The court shot down that argument, ruling that JMSU was “executed for the purpose of determining if petroleum exists” in the agreement area, which covers parts of the South China Sea.

CNOOC and PETROVIETNAM are wholly owned by Beijing and Hanoi, respectively. Corporate and embassy representatives did not immediately respond to RFA-affiliate BenarNews requests for comment.

The ruling stemmed from a petition filed in 2008 by two Philippine congressmen, Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño, both members of Bayun Muna, a leftist party. They argued that the JMSU was illegal because it allowed foreign companies wholly owned by China and Vietnam to undertake large-scale exploration in violation of the constitution. 

The deal expired that same year and was not renewed. Still, the new ruling could have an impact on exploration issues in the disputed waters.

“A win for our country’s sovereignty. Bayan Muna filed this petition as far back as 2008 as China has been using [the] JMSU as cover in its unbridled exploration and incursion in our territory, particularly in the West Philippine Sea,” former Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate said on Twitter.

The West Philippine Sea refers to Manila’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. 

Arroyo, an ally of Beijing, had pushed for the agreement in a bid to build and maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Her successor, Benigno Aquino III, filed a complaint against China before an international court, resulting in a ruling in 2016 that invalidated the sweeping claims of Beijing in the South China Sea. Beijing has since ignored the ruling.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated news service.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Jason Gutierrez and Camille Elemia for BenarNews.

The two-week extension on the return of Papua New Guinea’s general election writs date has been knocked as unconstitutional.

A former Chief Justice, Sir Arnold Amet, said there were no provisions in the Constitution for any extension of writs beyond the fifth anniversary of the date fixed for the return of the writs, which was yesterday — July 29.

He said also that there were no constitutional provisions for a caretaker government to continue beyond this date.

• READ MORE: Other PNG elections reports

Sir Arnold’s stance came as uncertainty surrounded the extension of the deadline for return of writs to August 12.

The extension sought by Electoral Commissioner Simon Sinai was granted by Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae this week because electoral officials in more than half of the country’s 118 electorates had yet to complete counting and declare members of the new Parliament.

Government House has indicated the instrument for gazetting of the extension was signed on Tuesday, but by yesterday there was no formal notice of this.

According to Secretary for Department of Justice and Attorney-General Dr Eric Kwa, the fifth anniversary for the 10th Parliament fell yesterday – July 29.

Sir Arnold’s view
Said Sir Arnold: “And so if July 29, 2022 is the date originally fixed for the return of the writs, as being nearly as may reasonably be to the fifth anniversary of the date fixed for the return of the writs for the previous general election, which according to the 2017 calendar is July 28, then that is in sufficient compliance with the Constitution and Organic Law.

“The originally scheduled time and date for the calling of the first meeting of Parliament pursuant to the Constitution section 124 (1) and the Organic Law on Calling of Parliament for Thursday. August 4, 2022, was consistent with the ‘anniversary of the term of Parliament’.

“The extension of date for the return of writs to August 12 2022, to now extend the time for the return of the writs, as advised by the Head of State, acting on advice of the Electoral Commission, would now require the time and date to be fixed for the first meeting of Parliament to be ‘not more than seven days’ after August 12, 2022, which if not already fixed and advised shall be Thursday August 18 2022.”

Sir Arnold said the potential constitutional implications of this extension were that it:

• Took the date fixed for the return of the writs to beyond the “as nearly as may reasonably be to the fifth anniversary of the date fixed for the return of the writs for the previous general election” by 15 days;
• Took the term of office of the current members of Parliament, also 15 days, beyond the normal term of office of five years;
• Extended the life of the current term of Parliament beyond the five years by 15 days to the return of writs and 21 days to the calling of the first meeting of Parliament, possibly on August 18, 2022.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

(1) Corrective legislation is currently not achievable because the Senate majority is unable to muster the unity and will to reform the filibuster. Moreover, even if the Supreme Court’s rogue rulings were reversed by legislation; there is a strong possibility that said Court would nullify said legislation thereby bringing the effort to naught.

(2) Expanding the Court could only provide temporary protection against future rogue rulings, because future Republican control of the Senate and Presidency (a likely event after the 2024 election) could further expand the Court to restore a rogue-Judge majority.

(3) “Remove and replace” would maintain the current size of the Court, make it more difficult for Republicans to restore domination by rogue Judges, and provide more legitimacy for the reconstituted Court than the other option for reconstituting it. Consequently, “remove and replace” is the best option.

REMOVALS. The Constitution states and/or implies the procedures for removals of federal government office-holders as follows.

1. The Constitution explicitly provides two different procedures for removing misbehaving office-holders: one applicable to the legislative branch (Congress), and another applicable to Executive-branch office-holders (and possibly Judges) who have committed specified crimes. It does not explicitly provide a procedure or procedures for removals of office-holders in the Executive and Judicial branches in cases of noncriminal misbehavior (or other dissatisfaction with their performance); however, procedures in those cases are implicit in the Constitution.

2. Pursuant to Article I, section 5, removal (for cause) of a member of Congress is thru expulsion by a 2/3 vote by the membership in the targeted member’s legislative chamber.

3. Pursuant to Article II, section 4, the procedure for removal of “President, Vice President, and all civil Officers”, in cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, is by impeachment (pursuant to Article I, section 2, [2]) by majority vote in the House of Representatives and conviction (pursuant to Article I, section 3, [6]) by 2/3 vote in the Senate.

4. It is implicit that the President and Vice President, as office-holders elected by and accountable to the electorate, cannot be removed except thru the aforementioned impeachment process or defeat in the next quadrennial election. (The President can be suspended, but not removed, pursuant to procedures provided in the 25th Amendment.)

5. Pursuant to Article III, section 1, Judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”. Although not explicitly stated, it is clearly implied that Judges shall be removed upon engaging in bad behavior. Article III does not state a procedure for such removal. Therefore, that procedure or procedures must be ascertained by logical inference from what is stated elsewhere in the Constitution.

6. >Officials appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, as unelected appointees, can be (and have been) removed: by means other than the impeachment procedure, and for reasons other than the crimes specified in Article II, section 4. That procedure is implicitly inferred by the procedure thru which they are appointed.

7. Pursuant to Article II, section 2, the appointment procedure (with respect to “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges […], and all other Officers […]”) is thru nomination and appointment by the President “with the Advice and Consent” (by majority vote) “of the Senate”. In the absence of any stated procedure for the removal of Presidential appointees for cause other than the crimes specified in Article II, section 4; by inference, the procedure for removals of said appointees must be thru reversal of the appointment procedure. Consequently, two removal procedures are Constitutionally applicable for Presidential appointees.

• For removals in cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, the impeachment procedure, which does not require consent of the President, certainly may be utilized.
• For removals in cases wherein the impeachment procedure is inapplicable (as with non-criminal misbehavior) or is not preferred for other reasons, the logical inference is that said procedure should be a reversal of the appointment procedure, which is to say by proposal of the President with consent (by majority vote) in the Senate.

8. Legality. Historically, the power of the President to remove Presidential appointees has been an issue in controversy.

• Congress, in the Tenure of Office Act (1867) and in an 1876 Act specific to postmasters, required Senate approval for the President to remove Senate-approved Executive branch Officials. However, the Supreme Court (in a split decision with 3 dissents) ruled, in Myers v. United States (1926), that the President may unilaterally remove Executive Branch Officers sans Senate consent. Subsequently, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Court narrowed that ruling so that Officials occupying quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial positions could be removed only thru procedures set by Congress, thereby limiting the President’s power to unilaterally remove Senate-approved Officials to those who are directly subordinate to the President.
• Because Judges serve in a separate and independent branch of government (established by Article III); it is implicit, and has always been accepted, that the President lacks the power to unilaterally remove them. However, it is entirely consistent with the Constitution, to recognize the power of the first two branches (Legislative and Executive) to hold Judges accountable to their oaths (required by Article VI) by removing misbehaving Judges thru Presidential proposal with consent of the Senate. It makes no sense to require a 2/3 Senate vote to remove a misbehaving Judge when a mere majority is sufficient to appoint said Judge. Could the Courts rule such removal procedure unlawful? Because of their conflict of interest, the Courts would lack standing to decide the issue. Consequently, the power to make the removal of Judges, thru Presidential proposal and consent of the Senate, procedurally operational rests with the President and Senate.

9. Noncriminal misbehavior is neither covered by Article II, section 4 nor explicitly addressed elsewhere in the Constitution. Cases wherein such misbehavior would justify removal of a Judge (upon proposal by the President and with the consent of the Senate), includes judicial rulings by which a Judge substitutes his/her personal prejudices and preferences for the actual provisions of the Constitution and/or other valid laws, that is to say cases wherein the Judge abuses his/her power and thereby violates his/her oath (Article VI) by engaging in “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench”.

RULINGS IN NEED OF CORRECTION. Rogue Judges on the current Supreme Court have perpetrated multiple rulings which violate their oaths to rule in accordance with the actual content of the Constitution and other valid laws. Some examples, far short of a complete list.

1. Using the “major question” pretext, six Supreme Court Judges, in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), nullified public interest regulations clearly authorized by statute, namely with respect to the regulation of climate-harming power-plant CO2 emissions. Said Judges “justified” so doing with the implausible assertion that the relevant statute is insufficiently specific in granting, to the regulatory agency, the power to make such regulation.

2. Using an inherently arbitrary and abuse-prone “originalism”, five Supreme Court Judges are cherry-picking historical events in order to create their pretext for nullifying civil and human rights, rights explicitly and/or implicitly provided by the Constitution. Case in point, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), said Judges ignored the historical fact that abortion prior to quickening (4 months) was a right accepted, allowed, and commonly practiced by women at the time of enactment of the Constitution and its 9th Amendment which implicitly prohibits state action to “deny” unenumerated “rights” “retained by the people”. Moreover, in permitting states to impose reproductive bondage upon pregnant women by compelling them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, said Judges ignored the 13th Amendment prohibition against “involuntary servitude” and the 14th Amendment prohibitions which disallow any law which would “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens” or “deprive any person of […] liberty […] without due process of law”. Even if, as the rogue Judges assert, the foregoing Amendments, when enacted, were not intended to protect the rights of women; certainly, the enactment of the 19th Amendment, which provides for women to be full citizens, extended the protections in those Amendments to women.

3. Using an arbitrary and implausible presumption of state-legislature innocence in their partisan and racially discriminatory redistricting decisions despite their histories of abuse, five Supreme Court Judges ruled, in Abbott v. Perez (2018), that anti-democracy gerrymanders, which give voters of one political Party and/or race disproportionate political power, in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and of the 14th Amendment prohibition against denial of “the equal protection of the laws”, cannot be nullified by the federal Courts.

4. Using a concocted extension of 1st Amendment rights (free speech and religious liberty) to business corporations to which the Constitution never intended said rights to apply; rogue Supreme Court Judges, in accordance with their pro-business and religious biases, nullified valid regulatory laws thereby violating Article I, section 8 which gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce”, a power which must be construed in accordance with the relevant purpose of the Constitution as stated in its Preamble, namely “to promote the general Welfare”. Said corporations, the existence of which is nowhere acknowledged in the Constitution, are artificial entities which exist only thru the granting of their Charters. Said Charters are granted by the state and specify the powers and purposes of said corporate entities. Those specified purposes involve commerce; they do not include voting or religious activity, activities in which only human persons can engage. Moreover, it is implicit that the owners of said corporations, being shielded from liability for the wrongful acts of said entities, have no right to extend personal rights (free speech and religious liberty) to said entities. Cases in point: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) which gives corporations unlimited campaign-spending political speech, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which permits some corporations to claim religious objection in order to refuse compliance with a legally valid healthcare mandate to provide specified healthcare benefits for their employees. Said Judges purport to being “originalists” when it comes to depriving people of rights actually provided by the Constitution, but not when creating, for corporations, rights which do not exist for them in said Constitution.

5. It is not only in recent history that Supreme Court Judges have made rulings wherein they substituted their personal prejudices for the Constitution. Notorious past examples include: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decided 7 to 1, Buck v. Bell (1927) decided 8 to 1, and Dennis v. United States (1951) decided 6 to 2. In those cases, victims and Constitutionalists lacked the political power to overcome the consequent injustices. Currently, the Democrats, who purport to oppose the abuses of judicial power by the current six Republican appointees to the Court, control the Presidency and possess the power to rule both chambers of the Congress. Consequently, if they can muster the unity and the will, they possess the power (the filibuster being inapplicable to appointments of Judges) to remove and replace those rogue Judges and then obtain reconsiderations on the Court’s wrongful rulings.

WHAT TO DO. In order to correct the anti-democratic abuses perpetrated by the Republican-appointees on the Court, it will be necessary for activists to think outside the box and to induce the Democrats to take bold action.

1. Necessary measures.

(1) Organize a broad coalition (of the many constituencies harmed by the Court’s various unconstitutional rulings) to stage massively huge protest rallies to demand the removal and replacement of the rogue Supreme Court Judges (mass protest actions which should be achievable given the widespread popular outrage over said Supreme Court rulings).

(2) Persuade Senate Democrats to depoliticize federal Court appointments: by creating a Federal Judicial Commission (as described in 2 below) to make recommendations for appointments and removals of federal Judges.

(3) Persuade the President and Senate Democrats to then use said Commission to remove and replace the misbehaving Supreme Court Judges.

(4) Persuade the reconstituted Court to reconsider and reverse the wrongful rulings of the current rogue Judges (most urgently in West Virginia, Dobbs, and Abbott).

(5) If predominantly Republican gerrymanders cannot be reversed before the 2022 Congressional elections, induce Democrats in the House to refuse to seat as many of the elected Republicans as are disproportionately elected due to their unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders and to order their states’ elections to be repeated with newly drawn districts which are compliant with the VRA and the 14th Amendment, districts to be drawn so as to produce representation proportional to each party’s share of the statewide vote).

None of the foregoing actions require abolishing or reforming the Senate filibuster. At least two Democrat Senators refuse to even reform the filibuster so as to prevent its use against legislation to enforce human and civil rights provided by the Constitution; they evidently delude themselves that Senator McConnell and his Republicans will preserve it when it stands in their way when they regain a Senate majority (which is very likely if Democrats continue to fail to deliver for their base constituencies).

2. The proposed Federal Judicial Commission should be formed as follows.

• Said Commission will be composed of a set number of independent Constitutional law experts, possibly to be recommended by an appropriate body to be established by the American Bar Association [ABA]. It will be the responsibility of the Senate, probably in consultation with the ABA, to create said Commission.
• Said Commission will select and maintain a sufficient panel of qualified candidates for appointment as federal Judges, a panel from which the President would be required to select his appointees to Judicial vacancies. (The President, as well as Senators, could, of course, propose candidates for consideration by the Commission.) Only candidates, who satisfy the following criteria, will be deemed qualified. (1) They must be genuinely committed to uphold all of the human and civil rights (including unenumerated rights) provided to humans by the Constitution. (2) They must be committed to interpret the Constitution: beginning with the text, but recognizing that deviations from the text will be necessary in contemporary circumstances which the framers did not anticipate, insofar as their current counterparts would reasonably be expected to modify said text as appropriate in order to serve the purposes of the Constitution as stated in its Preamble and in its provisions of civil and human rights.
• The Senate will adopt rules: that it may not consider any Judgeship nominee who has not been vetted and approved by the Commission, and that it will provide prompt consideration and decision with respect to any properly vetted Presidential nominee.
• Whenever a credible complaint of misbehavior by a sitting Judge is presented to the Commission, it will investigate and make a finding. If it finds, after providing the accused Judge with an opportunity to answer the pertinent accusations, that the accused Judge is guilty of misbehavior justifying removal; it will recommend that action. Thereupon, the President, will be expected (though not Constitutionally required) to propose to the Senate that the subject Judge be removed. If the Senate concurs, said Judge will then be removed.

3. What if removed Judges or their supporters resist? Then the President, as Commander-in-Chief in control of the coercive state power, can and must employ that power to induce compliance. Mass protest rallies in support of the foregoing “remove and replace” option will make it much easier to effectuate it.

4. With their bold campaign promises, and with their incapacity and failure to deliver, and with their longstanding subservience to big-money special interests to the detriment of much of their disheartened base constituencies; Biden and his Democrats, as it stands currently, are likely to lose their potential to control the federal government, in the upcoming 2022 and 2024 elections. Moreover, they appear oblivious to the adage “use it or lose it”. Trump Republicans, where they control government, exhibit no such hesitation. With their current policies and given the near-certain 2022 election outcome (Democrat loss of its House majority and doubt as their holding their ineffective majority in the Senate), the Democrats have everything to gain and nothing to lose by taking the bold action proposed herein.

5. Given how weak-willed and faint-hearted so many Democrat politicians are, persuading them to take the bold action, which is necessary, may be a long shot. That could be the case with respect to the any of the aforementioned three options. Nevertheless, for progressive activists not to demand and seriously press for bold action is not an acceptable option.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Charles Pierce.

When Ohio voters head to the polls on August 2 for a special primary election, the state legislative candidates on the ballot will be running under districts deemed unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

Ohio's high court struck down proposed state legislative districts as illegal Republican gerrymanders on five separate occasions, but a federal court is poised to implement a previously rejected set of maps as its Saturday deadline is expected to pass without action from right-wing lawmakers in charge of the redistricting process.

The Ohio Supreme Court's most recent decision in the case came on Wednesday, when it ruled that the GOP-led Ohio Redistricting Commission's latest map plan—a resubmission of its invalidated third proposal—violates the state constitution's 2015 prohibition against partisan gerrymandering. State judges ordered the commission to submit a new set of maps by June 3.

On April 20, however, a panel of federal judges gave Ohio a May 28 dead­line to approve a new redis­trict­ing plan that can be imple­men­ted in time for this summer's primary.

In a 2-1 ruling, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amul Thapar and U.S. Western District of Kentucky Judge Benjamin Beaton—both appointees of former President Donald Trump—said that if the state failed to act, it would implement the redistricting commission's third map proposal, which was approved by Ohio Republicans in late February and rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court in mid-March.

At the time, Yurij Rudensky, senior coun­sel in the Demo­cracy Program at the Bren­nan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said that "allow­ing a federal court to dictate the outcome by imple­ment­ing uncon­sti­tu­tional maps would viol­ate the commis­sion's consti­tu­tional duty and the trust of Ohioans who over­whelm­ingly voted to cleanse the process of partisan abuses."

As The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's major newspaper, reported Friday, GOP lawmakers successfully ran out the clock:

Republicans on the Ohio Redistricting Commission largely did nothing during the five weeks the federal court gave them to try to develop a new map. At no point were they known to even have begun working on a map plan, and after waiting several weeks to even hold a public meeting, on May 5, they voted to resubmit the February 28 map, saying it was too late to consider an alternate plan.

"Ohio Republicans have chosen to pass unconstitutional maps again and again and blatantly ignore the will of voters in order to protect their seats," Democracy Docket noted earlier this week on social media.

Alluding to Wednesday's ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court, which denounced Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and other right-wing members of the redistricting commission, MSNBC host Chris Hayes called the state's GOP-run map-drawing process "wildly lawless."

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican and former lieutenant governor of the state, joined the court's three Democratic judges in striking down the redistricting commission's plans.

In her blistering concurring opinion, O'Connor wrote that the commission "engaged in a stunning rebuke of the rule of law" by resubmitting maps that had already been rejected as illegal. She also criticized the federal court for giving GOP commission members "not only a roadmap of how to avoid discharging their duties but also a green light to delay these proceedings by stating its intention to implement" an "invalid and unconstitutional" map.

However, the Ohio Supreme Court stopped short of holding Republican members of the commission in contempt for ignoring its directives, denying such motions filed by map-rigging opponents.

According to The Plain Dealer, the maps soon to be implemented by the federal court will only be used for this year's elections, so Wednesday's ruling by the state high court "likely turns the focus on what state legislative maps Ohio will use in 2024 and beyond."

"A legal challenge filed by myriad groups, including voting rights advocates, Democrats, and generally left-leaning advocacy groups, is pending in the Ohio Supreme Court, and could be settled sometime this year," the newspaper noted. "Meanwhile Republicans, while asking the Ohio Supreme Court to hold off on deciding the state legislative challenge until after the November elections, have signaled they hope to run the clock until O'Connor leaves office at the end of the year due to state age limits on judges."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

When Ohio voters head to the polls on August 2 for a special primary election, the state legislative candidates on the ballot will be running under districts deemed unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

Ohio's high court struck down proposed state legislative districts as illegal Republican gerrymanders on five separate occasions, but a federal court is poised to implement a previously rejected set of maps as its Saturday deadline is expected to pass without action from right-wing lawmakers in charge of the redistricting process.

The Ohio Supreme Court's most recent decision in the case came on Wednesday, when it ruled that the GOP-led Ohio Redistricting Commission's latest map plan—a resubmission of its invalidated third proposal—violates the state constitution's 2015 prohibition against partisan gerrymandering. State judges ordered the commission to submit a new set of maps by June 3.

On April 20, however, a panel of federal judges gave Ohio a May 28 dead­line to approve a new redis­trict­ing plan that can be imple­men­ted in time for this summer's primary.

In a 2-1 ruling, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amul Thapar and U.S. Western District of Kentucky Judge Benjamin Beaton—both appointees of former President Donald Trump—said that if the state failed to act, it would implement the redistricting commission's third map proposal, which was approved by Ohio Republicans in late February and rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court in mid-March.

At the time, Yurij Rudensky, senior coun­sel in the Demo­cracy Program at the Bren­nan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said that "allow­ing a federal court to dictate the outcome by imple­ment­ing uncon­sti­tu­tional maps would viol­ate the commis­sion's consti­tu­tional duty and the trust of Ohioans who over­whelm­ingly voted to cleanse the process of partisan abuses."

As The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's major newspaper, reported Friday, GOP lawmakers successfully ran out the clock:

Republicans on the Ohio Redistricting Commission largely did nothing during the five weeks the federal court gave them to try to develop a new map. At no point were they known to even have begun working on a map plan, and after waiting several weeks to even hold a public meeting, on May 5, they voted to resubmit the February 28 map, saying it was too late to consider an alternate plan.

"Ohio Republicans have chosen to pass unconstitutional maps again and again and blatantly ignore the will of voters in order to protect their seats," Democracy Docket noted earlier this week on social media.

Alluding to Wednesday's ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court, which denounced Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and other right-wing members of the redistricting commission, MSNBC host Chris Hayes called the state's GOP-run map-drawing process "wildly lawless."

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican and former lieutenant governor of the state, joined the court's three Democratic judges in striking down the redistricting commission's plans.

In her blistering concurring opinion, O'Connor wrote that the commission "engaged in a stunning rebuke of the rule of law" by resubmitting maps that had already been rejected as illegal. She also criticized the federal court for giving GOP commission members "not only a roadmap of how to avoid discharging their duties but also a green light to delay these proceedings by stating its intention to implement" an "invalid and unconstitutional" map.

However, the Ohio Supreme Court stopped short of holding Republican members of the commission in contempt for ignoring its directives, denying such motions filed by map-rigging opponents.

According to The Plain Dealer, the maps soon to be implemented by the federal court will only be used for this year's elections, so Wednesday's ruling by the state high court "likely turns the focus on what state legislative maps Ohio will use in 2024 and beyond."

"A legal challenge filed by myriad groups, including voting rights advocates, Democrats, and generally left-leaning advocacy groups, is pending in the Ohio Supreme Court, and could be settled sometime this year," the newspaper noted. "Meanwhile Republicans, while asking the Ohio Supreme Court to hold off on deciding the state legislative challenge until after the November elections, have signaled they hope to run the clock until O'Connor leaves office at the end of the year due to state age limits on judges."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

A state judge on Wednesday invalidated part of Florida's new congressional map—drawn by right-wing Gov. Ron DeSantis' office and approved last month by the Republican-controlled Legislature—siding with plaintiffs who accused the GOP of violating the state constitution through racial gerrymandering.

Judge Layne Smith of the 2nd Circuit Court said that "the enacted map is unconstitutional because it diminishes African Americans' ability to elect candidates of their choice."

As The Guardian reported, Smith's ruling "dealt specifically with DeSantis' decision to dismantle Florida's 5th Congressional District," which "stretched from Jacksonville to Tallahassee, was 46% Black, and is currently represented by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat."

DeSantis, the outlet noted, "chopped the district up into four districts where Republican candidates would be favored to win." The new map, described as "deeply racist" by experts, would end Lawson's congressional career.

As Jacksonville's The Tributary reported Wednesday:

[Smith] ordered the state to adopt a map that maintains an east-to-west version of Jacksonville's 5th Congressional District, stretching from Duval to Gadsden counties.

The ruling came after a Wednesday hearing that saw plaintiffs argue that Gov. Ron DeSantis' congressional map, which eliminated Jacksonville's current Black ability-to-elect district, violated the state constitution.

Equal Ground Florida, one of the civil rights groups that immediately challenged DeSantis' map after it was passed in the face of a sit-in staged by state Democrats, welcomed Smith's ruling.

"The Florida Legislature's redistricting maps in the 1990s and 2010s were similarly struck down, but in those cases, it took six years to get a final ruling," The Tributary reported. "This time, the plaintiffs sought to focus on getting a preliminary injunction redrawing North Florida's districts before the 2022 elections. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs are still seeking a full trial to get the whole map thrown out."

Smith is expected to release a written order by Thursday. DeSantis' office has vowed to appeal. It would first go to the 1st District Court of Appeals and could potentially end up at the Florida Supreme Court.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Any deferral of Papua New Guinea’s national general election 2022 will be unconstitutional, warns former Electoral Commissioner Patilias Gamato.

He said statutory timelines gazetted in the National Gazette for the national elections could not be breached to accommodate a deferral.

“It is important that the 2022 NGE is not deferred. Any idea about deferral will be unconstitutional,” Gamato said in a statement.

• READ MORE: Other PNG elections reports

“The Head of State must not be misled and asked to [make] unnecessary changes [to] dates for the activities within the electoral cycle.

“Should the Electoral Commission delay the issue of writ by two weeks, where will those two weeks come from?”

“All processes are allocated times by law especially nomination, polling, campaign period, polling and counting.

“The campaign period is eight weeks minimum and 12 weeks maximum including nomination period by law.

Campaign period
“Campaign period cannot be reduced if they want to borrow from the campaign period.

“If they allowed for a buffer at the end of the process [it] is okay but they cannot go past the fifth anniversary of the 10th Parliament (5 years term).”

Gamato said that when the Electoral Commissioner advised the Head of State to approve the dates for the next election event, it was final and they must go by those dates.

He said the Head of State cannot be misled and asked to change the dates of the elections every now and then.

“The national government and the EC had five years to prepare for the elections,” Gamato said.

“We need to manage the electoral budget well and spend according to the phases of electoral activities, with the view to controlling the budget.

“It is a requirement that polling schedules and the roll must be approved by the EC and gazetted in the National Gazette.

Programme strictly adhered to
“It must be strictly adhered to the planned electoral activities such as nominations, polling and counting so that voters are not confused.”

He said the two weeks could not come from the campaign period.

“By law, the campaign period must be held a minimum of 8 weeks and a maximum of 11 weeks including the one week of nomination which brings to 12 weeks, you cannot change that allocated time,” he said.

“The term of the 10th National Parliament ends when the writs for the next election event are returned on or before the fifth anniversary of term.

“No government can conveniently try to extend the election to remain in office or in power after their term expires on the 5th anniversary of their term.’’

“The end of the fifth anniversary is the date the 10th Parliament [that] got sworn in 2017,” he said.

“Observing the statutory timelines are critical, especially when managing a major election event such as this.

“Funding in my view is sufficiently allocated by the national government.

“The EC just [has] to manage and work within the budget.”

The Papua New Guinea general election 2022 runs from Saturday, June 11, to Friday, June 24.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Republican Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma was denounced Tuesday for signing into law one of the most extreme forced-pregnancy bills in the United States, a law pro-choice advocates argue is blatantly unconstitutional and must be challenged.

Stitt signed S.B. 612, which targets healthcare professionals by making it illegal for them to provide abortions at any stage of pregnancy with only a narrow exception for pregnant patients who are at risk of death unless their pregnancies are terminated.

"Abortion bans are never about safety. They're about coercion and control."

Under the law, which is scheduled to go into effect this summer, healthcare workers who provide abortion care could be charged with a felony and face as much as 10 years in prison as well as a $100,000 fine.

Stitt and other Republicans have been "emboldened" by the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to stop Texas from enacting its own forced-pregnancy law, known as S.B. 8, last year, said Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

"Oklahoma's total abortion ban is blatantly unconstitutional and will wreak havoc on the lives of people seeking abortion care within and outside the state," Northrup said. "We've sued the state of Oklahoma ten times in the last decade to protect abortion access and we will challenge this law as well to stop this travesty from ever taking effect."

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban later this year, and the state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, which affirmed in 1973 that women in every U.S. state have the constitutional right to obtain abortion care.

Reproductive rights advocates have warned since S.B. 8 went into effect that the court's right-wing majority is likely to overturn the ruling, which would nullify any legal challenges to S.B. 612 in Oklahoma and would ensure other abortion bans can also go into effect.

"We are at a tipping point for abortion rights nationwide," tweeted Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

"This ban, like all abortion bans, will harm real people—people who are making a decision that they know will be best for themselves, their lives, their families, and their futures," Johnson added in a statement

In addition to S.B. 612, Oklahoma Republicans who control the state legislature are pushing two bills modeled on a Texas law passed last year that took enforcement of its abortion restrictions out of the hands of the state by allowing ordinary citizens to sue anyone they believed helped a patient obtain an abortion. Those bills would go into effect immediately if Stitt signs them into law.

"We want to outlaw abortion in the state of Oklahoma," Stitt said Tuesday.

Advocates in Oklahoma warned that the three anti-choice bills will harm healthcare not just for 900,000 women of reproductive age in the state but also for women across the Great Plains region.

"Oklahoma health centers are currently seeing dozens of patients each day who have left Texas to seek abortions," said the group. "Some providers have reported a nearly 2500% increase in Texas patients in the last four months of 2021, compared to the same period in 2020. And in turn, Oklahomans have started leaving for care in Kansas, Colorado, Arkansas, or even states further afield. If Oklahoma health centers are forced to stop providing abortion, the ripple effect will be felt throughout the region."

"Oklahoma's extreme law banning abortion is just one more reason we need federal protections for the right access abortion."

One advocate warned that Oklahoma's effort to "effectively eliminate" abortion care, in the words of S.B. 612 author state Sen. Nathan Dahm, will only "push people further to the margins, force people to carry pregnancies that are dangerous to their own health, or take greater risks to find abortion care wherever they can."

"The people of our region deserve access to essential healthcare in their own communities," said Myfy Jensen-Fellows, advocacy director for Trust Women, a women's health clinic in Oklahoma City. "No one should have to travel out of state to access abortion care. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that they do not want, or that is dangerous to their health."

The White House responded to Stitt's decision Tuesday by calling on the U.S. Congress to protect abortion rights in every state by passing the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA), which would protect healthcare professionals' right to provide abortions and patients' right to recieve care.

Passage of the WHPA "would shut down these attacks and codify this long-recognized, constitutional right," said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.

The U.S. House passed the WHPA last year, but right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joined every Republican senator in blocking the legislation last month.

"Oklahoma's extreme law banning abortion is just one more reason we need federal protections for the right access abortion," said the Pro-Choice Caucus in Congress Tuesday.

Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH) said it was "absolutely disgusted" by Stitt's signing of S.B. 612 and his claim that he was approving the bill in support of "families."

"When people have access to abortion, families and communities thrive," tweeted PRH. "There is a direct tie between abortion bans and devastating maternal health outcomes. Abortion bans are never about safety. They're about coercion and control."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Julia Conley.

Photograph Source: shay sowden – CC BY 2.0

The American justice system is based on liberty, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence – or so it should be. So why do we routinely incarcerate people for months or years before their trial has even begun?

The answer is money. If a judge sets cash bail for someone accused of committing a crime but they cannot afford to pay, they have no choice but to wait behind bars until their rial date. On any given day, an estimated 445,000 people are held pretrial in jails across the US – all of them presumed innocent, but all of them incarcerated. They represent a whopping 67% of the entire jail population.

Your tax dollars are going towards keeping people in jail who have not been found guilty of any crime. But even more worrying than the wasteful spending is the implications for justice.

A new study, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention Revisited, exposes the harm done by keeping people in jail before their trial. Based on data from almost 1.5 million people jailed in Kentucky between 2009 and 2018, researchers found that any time spent in detention pretrial – even if only a short stretch – is bad for the public.

The study found a clear link between pretrial detention and a higher likelihood of arrest for a new crime before case deposition. Unsurprisingly, putting defendants behind bars before they have been tried did not inspire faith in the justice system, and in many cases seemed to lead to reoffending.

The cash bail system is broken. It undermines our constitutional rights – the sixth amendment specific the right to a speedy trial. The eighth amendment calls for reasonable bail and the fourteenth amendment guarantees the protection of liberty and property. By relying on cash bail and putting people behind bars because of their inability to pay up, we contravene their most basic rights.

Reforming the nation’s pretrial system is not about letting people with histories of violence go free. It’s about promoting risk-based decision making on a case-by-case basis that honors due process for the accused. Balanced reforms ensure judges and magistrates preserve individual liberty – which demands freedom from imprisonment until proven guilty – while providing the tools to protect public safety, including the use of pre-trial detention when deemed appropriate.

Keeping the public safe should be a priority for all parties but bail doesn’t achieve public safety. Jails overcrowded with defendants who pose little to no risk, who haven’t even been convicted of the crime they are being held for, and who are being kept away from their families, jobs, and communities, is the avoidable result of a system that doesn’t allow judges to find an appropriate balance between individual liberty and public safety on a case-by-case basis.

Reforming bail should be rooted in the presumption of innocence, right to due process and conservative tenets of freedom – grounded in natural rights to achieve the careful balance between liberty and public safety.  Getting this balance right is a test of a nation founded under the belief that among our natural rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jason Reed.