update - Fed judge blocks Trump cuts to NIH health research grants
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
The Insurrection Act needs a major overhaul. Originally enacted in 1792, the law grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military domestically and use it against Americans under certain conditions. While there are rare circumstances in which such authority might be necessary, the law, which has not been meaningfully updated in over 150 years, is dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse.
More on Domestic Deployment of the Military >>
What is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.
Although it is often referred to as the “Insurrection Act of 1807,” the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871. Today, these provisions occupy Sections 251 through 255 in Title 10 of the United States Code.
What does invoking the Insurrection Act allow the president and military to do?
Under normal circumstances, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the U.S. military — including federal armed forces and National Guard troops who have been called into federal service — from taking part in civilian law enforcement. This prohibition reflects an American tradition that views military interference in civilian government as being inherently dangerous to liberty.
Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus rule and allows the president to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement. That might involve soldiers doing anything from enforcing a federal court order to suppressing an uprising against the government. Of course, not every domestic use of the military involves law enforcement activity. Other laws, such as the Stafford Act, allow the military to be used to respond to natural disasters, public health crises, and other similar events without waiving the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.
In theory, the Insurrection Act should be used only in a crisis that is truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage. However, the Insurrection Act fails to adequately define or limit when it may be used and instead gives the president significant power to decide when and where to deploy U.S. military forces domestically.
When can the president invoke the Insurrection Act?
Troops can be deployed under three sections of the Insurrection Act. Each of these sections is designed for a different set of situations. Unfortunately, the law’s requirements are poorly explained and leave virtually everything up to the discretion of the president.
Section 251 allows the president to deploy troops if a state’s legislature (or governor if the legislature is unavailable) requests federal aid to suppress an insurrection in that state. This provision is the oldest part of the law, and the one that has most often been invoked.
While Section 251 requires state consent, Sections 252 and 253 allow the president to deploy troops without a request from the affected state, even against the state’s wishes. Section 252 permits deployment in order to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebellion” whenever “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the president to use the military in a state to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provision to deploy troops to desegregate schools in the South after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
The second part of Section 253 permits the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This provision is so bafflingly broad that it cannot possibly mean what it says, or else it authorizes the president to use the military against any two people conspiring to break federal law.
Who decides when the conditions for deployment have been met?
Nothing in the text of the Insurrection Act defines “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” or any of the other key terms used in setting forth the prerequisites for deployment. Absent statutory guidance, the Supreme Court decided early on that this question is for the president alone to decide. In the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, the Court ruled that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and . . . his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”
However, there are exceptions to the general rule that courts can’t review a president’s decision to deploy. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds “a permitted range of honest judgment,” makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law.
Moreover, even in cases where the courts will not second-guess the decision to deploy troops, the Supreme Court clarified in Sterling v. Constantin (1932) that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed. In other words, federal troops are not free to violate other laws or trample on constitutional rights just because the president has invoked the Insurrection Act.
Is invoking the Insurrection Act the same as declaring martial law?
The Insurrection Act does not authorize martial law. The term “martial law” has no established definition, but it is generally understood as a power that allows the military to take over the role of civilian government in an emergency. By contrast, the Insurrection Act generally permits the military to assist civilian authorities (whether state or federal), not take their place. Under current law, the president has no authority to declare martial law.
How has the Insurrection Act been used in the past?
The Insurrection Act has been invoked numerous times throughout American history for a variety of purposes. Presidents George Washington and John Adams used it in response to early rebellions against federal authority. President Abraham Lincoln invoked it at the start of the Civil War, and President Ulysses Grant used it to crush the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1870s. Several other presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Rutherford Hayes, and Grover Cleveland, have deployed troops under the Insurrection Act to intervene in labor disputes, invariably on the side of employers. Most famously, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked the Insurrection Act during the civil rights movement to enforce federal court orders desegregating schools and other institutions in the South.
When was the Insurrection Act last invoked?
The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid from President George H.W. Bush in response to civil unrest in Los Angeles that followed the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating Black motorist Rodney King. At 29 years and counting, this is the longest period the United States has ever gone without an invocation of the Insurrection Act.
No president has unilaterally invoked the Insurrection Act against a state’s wishes since Lyndon Johnson did so to provide protection for civil rights activists in Alabama marching from Selma to Montgomery in 1965.
How should the Insurrection Act be reformed?
The lack of clear standards within the Insurrection Act itself, combined with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Martin v. Mott, has created a situation where the president has almost limitless discretion to deploy federal troops in cases of civil unrest. Such unbounded authority to use the military domestically has always been dangerous. In the 21st century, it is also unnecessary and untenable. The United States has changed profoundly in the 150 years since the Insurrection Act was last amended, as have the capabilities of state and federal civilian authorities and the expectations of the American people. The Insurrection Act — arguably the most potent of the president’s emergency powers — should reflect those realities.
To address these concerns, Congress should amend the Insurrection Act to define more clearly and precisely what situations may trigger it. Congress also should establish mechanisms for review of the president’s decision that will guard against abuse while still preserving the president’s flexibility in a crisis.
www.brennancenter.org
More on Domestic Deployment of the Military >>
What is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.
Although it is often referred to as the “Insurrection Act of 1807,” the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871. Today, these provisions occupy Sections 251 through 255 in Title 10 of the United States Code.
What does invoking the Insurrection Act allow the president and military to do?
Under normal circumstances, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the U.S. military — including federal armed forces and National Guard troops who have been called into federal service — from taking part in civilian law enforcement. This prohibition reflects an American tradition that views military interference in civilian government as being inherently dangerous to liberty.
Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus rule and allows the president to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement. That might involve soldiers doing anything from enforcing a federal court order to suppressing an uprising against the government. Of course, not every domestic use of the military involves law enforcement activity. Other laws, such as the Stafford Act, allow the military to be used to respond to natural disasters, public health crises, and other similar events without waiving the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.
In theory, the Insurrection Act should be used only in a crisis that is truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage. However, the Insurrection Act fails to adequately define or limit when it may be used and instead gives the president significant power to decide when and where to deploy U.S. military forces domestically.
When can the president invoke the Insurrection Act?
Troops can be deployed under three sections of the Insurrection Act. Each of these sections is designed for a different set of situations. Unfortunately, the law’s requirements are poorly explained and leave virtually everything up to the discretion of the president.
Section 251 allows the president to deploy troops if a state’s legislature (or governor if the legislature is unavailable) requests federal aid to suppress an insurrection in that state. This provision is the oldest part of the law, and the one that has most often been invoked.
While Section 251 requires state consent, Sections 252 and 253 allow the president to deploy troops without a request from the affected state, even against the state’s wishes. Section 252 permits deployment in order to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebellion” whenever “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the president to use the military in a state to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provision to deploy troops to desegregate schools in the South after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
The second part of Section 253 permits the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This provision is so bafflingly broad that it cannot possibly mean what it says, or else it authorizes the president to use the military against any two people conspiring to break federal law.
Who decides when the conditions for deployment have been met?
Nothing in the text of the Insurrection Act defines “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” or any of the other key terms used in setting forth the prerequisites for deployment. Absent statutory guidance, the Supreme Court decided early on that this question is for the president alone to decide. In the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, the Court ruled that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and . . . his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”
However, there are exceptions to the general rule that courts can’t review a president’s decision to deploy. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds “a permitted range of honest judgment,” makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law.
Moreover, even in cases where the courts will not second-guess the decision to deploy troops, the Supreme Court clarified in Sterling v. Constantin (1932) that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed. In other words, federal troops are not free to violate other laws or trample on constitutional rights just because the president has invoked the Insurrection Act.
Is invoking the Insurrection Act the same as declaring martial law?
The Insurrection Act does not authorize martial law. The term “martial law” has no established definition, but it is generally understood as a power that allows the military to take over the role of civilian government in an emergency. By contrast, the Insurrection Act generally permits the military to assist civilian authorities (whether state or federal), not take their place. Under current law, the president has no authority to declare martial law.
How has the Insurrection Act been used in the past?
The Insurrection Act has been invoked numerous times throughout American history for a variety of purposes. Presidents George Washington and John Adams used it in response to early rebellions against federal authority. President Abraham Lincoln invoked it at the start of the Civil War, and President Ulysses Grant used it to crush the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1870s. Several other presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Rutherford Hayes, and Grover Cleveland, have deployed troops under the Insurrection Act to intervene in labor disputes, invariably on the side of employers. Most famously, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked the Insurrection Act during the civil rights movement to enforce federal court orders desegregating schools and other institutions in the South.
When was the Insurrection Act last invoked?
The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid from President George H.W. Bush in response to civil unrest in Los Angeles that followed the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating Black motorist Rodney King. At 29 years and counting, this is the longest period the United States has ever gone without an invocation of the Insurrection Act.
No president has unilaterally invoked the Insurrection Act against a state’s wishes since Lyndon Johnson did so to provide protection for civil rights activists in Alabama marching from Selma to Montgomery in 1965.
How should the Insurrection Act be reformed?
The lack of clear standards within the Insurrection Act itself, combined with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Martin v. Mott, has created a situation where the president has almost limitless discretion to deploy federal troops in cases of civil unrest. Such unbounded authority to use the military domestically has always been dangerous. In the 21st century, it is also unnecessary and untenable. The United States has changed profoundly in the 150 years since the Insurrection Act was last amended, as have the capabilities of state and federal civilian authorities and the expectations of the American people. The Insurrection Act — arguably the most potent of the president’s emergency powers — should reflect those realities.
To address these concerns, Congress should amend the Insurrection Act to define more clearly and precisely what situations may trigger it. Congress also should establish mechanisms for review of the president’s decision that will guard against abuse while still preserving the president’s flexibility in a crisis.
The Insurrection Act Explained
The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.
Guide to Invocations of the Insurrection Act
In 230 years, the Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises.
As the guide shows, invocation of the Insurrection Act has not always led to the actual deployment of troops. Sometimes the mere threat of military intervention has been enough to resolve a crisis. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in some cases, the Act has been invoked multiple times in response to a single event. The guide presents these latter incidents as single entries but includes citations to all relevant presidential proclamations that invoked the Act. Lastly, the guide also includes three events (highlighted) that are often regarded as uses of the Insurrection Act even though the requirements of the law were not followed.
To download an Excel version of the guide with sourcing, click here.
The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This 147-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty. However, recent events have revealed dangerous gaps in the law’s coverage that Congress must address.
More on Domestic Deployment of the Military >>
What does the term “posse comitatus” mean?
In British and American law, a posse comitatus is a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county. In any classic Western film, when a lawman gathers a “posse” to pursue the outlaws, they are forming a posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus.
What are the origins of the Posse Comitatus Act?
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and the return of white supremacists to political power in both southern states and Congress. Through the law, Congress sought to ensure that the federal military would not be used to intervene in the establishment of Jim Crow in the former Confederacy.
Despite the ignominious origins of the law itself, the broader principle that the military should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government is a core American value. It finds expression in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, which were in part reactions to abuses committed by the British army against American colonists.
Today, the Posse Comitatus Act operates as an extension of these constitutional safeguards. Moreover, there are statutory exceptions to the law that allow the president to use the military to suppress genuine rebellions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.
What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?
The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.
Are all members of the military covered by the Posse Comitatus Act?
No, only federal military personnel are covered. While the Posse Comitatus Act refers only to the Army and Air Force, a different statute extends the same rule to the Navy and Marine Corps. The Coast Guard, though part of the federal armed forces, has express statutory authority to perform law enforcement and is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Members of the National Guard are rarely covered by the Posse Comitatus Act because they usually report to their state or territory’s governor. That means they are free to participate in law enforcement if doing so is consistent with state law. However, when Guard personnel are called into federal service, or “federalized,” they become part of the federal armed forces, which means they are bound by the Posse Comitatus Act until they are returned to state control.
What are the main statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?
There are many statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, but the most important one is the Insurrection Act. Under this law, in response to a state government’s request, the president may deploy the military to suppress an insurrection in that state. In addition, the Insurrection Act allows the president — with or without the state government’s consent — to use the military to enforce federal law or suppress a rebellion against federal authority in a state, or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state government is unable or unwilling to do so.
What are the constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?
There are no constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The law allows only for express exceptions, and no part of the Constitution expressly empowers the president to use the military to execute the law. This conclusion is consistent with the law’s legislative history, which suggests that its drafters chose to include the language about constitutional exceptions as part of a face-saving compromise, not because they believed any existed.
This has not stopped the Department of Defense from claiming that constitutional exceptions to the law exist. The Department has long claimed that the Constitution implicitly gives military commanders “emergency authority” to unilaterally use federal troops “to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” when doing so is “necessary” and prior authorization by the president is impossible. In the past, the department also claimed an inherent constitutional power to use the military to protect federal property and functions when local governments could not or would not do so. The validity of these claimed authorities has never been tested in court.
What are the weak points in the Posse Comitatus Act?
Events in 2020 and 2021 have highlighted two loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act. The first involves the District of Columbia National Guard. Unlike all other state and territorial National Guards, the DC Guard is always under presidential control. Despite this, the Department of Justice has for years asserted that the DC Guard can operate in a non-federal, “militia” status, in which it is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act. By this interpretation, presidents can use the DC Guard for law enforcement whenever they choose.
Another weakness in the Posse Comitatus Act arises from the law that allows the National Guard to operate in “Title 32 status.” In Title 32 status, a middle ground between purely state operations and federalization, Guard personnel are paid with federal funds and may perform missions requested by the president, but they remain under state command and control. That means they are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, even though they are serving federal interests.
How have these loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act been exploited?
In the summer of 2020, President Trump deployed the DC National Guard into Washington to police mostly peaceful protests against law enforcement brutality and racism. Simultaneously, over the objections of DC’s mayor, the administration asked state governors to deploy their own Guard personnel into Washington in Title 32 status, and 11 governors did so. Although these out-of-state forces were nominally under their governors’ control, it was later revealed that they were reporting up through the DC Guard’s chain of command for “coordination” purposes. That meant they were ultimately taking orders from the president. In this way, the Trump administration brought a large, federally controlled military force into Washington and used it for civilian law enforcement, all while skipping over the procedures in the Insurrection Act and evading the political costs of invoking it. That is exactly what the Posse Comitatus Act is meant to prevent.
Moreover, the deployment of non-federalized, out-of-state Guard forces into a jurisdiction without its consent represents another threat to the Posse Comitatus Act. When operating in Title 32 status, Guard forces are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act because they are under state command and control. A key part of that control is the governor’s right to decline a particular federal mission. That right is meaningless if the president can simply approach a different governor and ask her to deploy her state’s Guard into the unwilling governor’s state. In this scenario, the cooperating governor becomes a fig leaf for the president to use the military as a police force anywhere in the country, free from the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act.
How should the Posse Comitatus Act be reformed?
Congress should pass three reforms to help close these loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act. First, it should transfer control over the DC National Guard from the president to the mayor of Washington. The president would still be able to take command of the DC Guard when necessary by federalizing it, but it would then be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, just like all other federally controlled military forces.
Second, Congress should clarify that governors may not send their National Guard forces into another state or territory without the latter jurisdiction’s consent. This will stop future presidents who want to use the military domestically, but do not want to follow the laws established by Congress, from going from governor to governor until they find one who is willing to do their dirty work.
Third, Congress should enact a law clarifying that the Posse Comitatus Act applies to National Guard forces whenever they report through a federal chain of command, regardless of whether they have officially been called into federal service. This will ensure that form is not elevated over substance and will more fully realize the principle behind the law.
www.brennancenter.org
More on Domestic Deployment of the Military >>
What does the term “posse comitatus” mean?
In British and American law, a posse comitatus is a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county. In any classic Western film, when a lawman gathers a “posse” to pursue the outlaws, they are forming a posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus.
What are the origins of the Posse Comitatus Act?
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and the return of white supremacists to political power in both southern states and Congress. Through the law, Congress sought to ensure that the federal military would not be used to intervene in the establishment of Jim Crow in the former Confederacy.
Despite the ignominious origins of the law itself, the broader principle that the military should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government is a core American value. It finds expression in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, which were in part reactions to abuses committed by the British army against American colonists.
Today, the Posse Comitatus Act operates as an extension of these constitutional safeguards. Moreover, there are statutory exceptions to the law that allow the president to use the military to suppress genuine rebellions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.
What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?
The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.
Are all members of the military covered by the Posse Comitatus Act?
No, only federal military personnel are covered. While the Posse Comitatus Act refers only to the Army and Air Force, a different statute extends the same rule to the Navy and Marine Corps. The Coast Guard, though part of the federal armed forces, has express statutory authority to perform law enforcement and is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Members of the National Guard are rarely covered by the Posse Comitatus Act because they usually report to their state or territory’s governor. That means they are free to participate in law enforcement if doing so is consistent with state law. However, when Guard personnel are called into federal service, or “federalized,” they become part of the federal armed forces, which means they are bound by the Posse Comitatus Act until they are returned to state control.
What are the main statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?
There are many statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, but the most important one is the Insurrection Act. Under this law, in response to a state government’s request, the president may deploy the military to suppress an insurrection in that state. In addition, the Insurrection Act allows the president — with or without the state government’s consent — to use the military to enforce federal law or suppress a rebellion against federal authority in a state, or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state government is unable or unwilling to do so.
What are the constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act?
There are no constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The law allows only for express exceptions, and no part of the Constitution expressly empowers the president to use the military to execute the law. This conclusion is consistent with the law’s legislative history, which suggests that its drafters chose to include the language about constitutional exceptions as part of a face-saving compromise, not because they believed any existed.
This has not stopped the Department of Defense from claiming that constitutional exceptions to the law exist. The Department has long claimed that the Constitution implicitly gives military commanders “emergency authority” to unilaterally use federal troops “to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” when doing so is “necessary” and prior authorization by the president is impossible. In the past, the department also claimed an inherent constitutional power to use the military to protect federal property and functions when local governments could not or would not do so. The validity of these claimed authorities has never been tested in court.
What are the weak points in the Posse Comitatus Act?
Events in 2020 and 2021 have highlighted two loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act. The first involves the District of Columbia National Guard. Unlike all other state and territorial National Guards, the DC Guard is always under presidential control. Despite this, the Department of Justice has for years asserted that the DC Guard can operate in a non-federal, “militia” status, in which it is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act. By this interpretation, presidents can use the DC Guard for law enforcement whenever they choose.
Another weakness in the Posse Comitatus Act arises from the law that allows the National Guard to operate in “Title 32 status.” In Title 32 status, a middle ground between purely state operations and federalization, Guard personnel are paid with federal funds and may perform missions requested by the president, but they remain under state command and control. That means they are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, even though they are serving federal interests.
How have these loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act been exploited?
In the summer of 2020, President Trump deployed the DC National Guard into Washington to police mostly peaceful protests against law enforcement brutality and racism. Simultaneously, over the objections of DC’s mayor, the administration asked state governors to deploy their own Guard personnel into Washington in Title 32 status, and 11 governors did so. Although these out-of-state forces were nominally under their governors’ control, it was later revealed that they were reporting up through the DC Guard’s chain of command for “coordination” purposes. That meant they were ultimately taking orders from the president. In this way, the Trump administration brought a large, federally controlled military force into Washington and used it for civilian law enforcement, all while skipping over the procedures in the Insurrection Act and evading the political costs of invoking it. That is exactly what the Posse Comitatus Act is meant to prevent.
Moreover, the deployment of non-federalized, out-of-state Guard forces into a jurisdiction without its consent represents another threat to the Posse Comitatus Act. When operating in Title 32 status, Guard forces are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act because they are under state command and control. A key part of that control is the governor’s right to decline a particular federal mission. That right is meaningless if the president can simply approach a different governor and ask her to deploy her state’s Guard into the unwilling governor’s state. In this scenario, the cooperating governor becomes a fig leaf for the president to use the military as a police force anywhere in the country, free from the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act.
How should the Posse Comitatus Act be reformed?
Congress should pass three reforms to help close these loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act. First, it should transfer control over the DC National Guard from the president to the mayor of Washington. The president would still be able to take command of the DC Guard when necessary by federalizing it, but it would then be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, just like all other federally controlled military forces.
Second, Congress should clarify that governors may not send their National Guard forces into another state or territory without the latter jurisdiction’s consent. This will stop future presidents who want to use the military domestically, but do not want to follow the laws established by Congress, from going from governor to governor until they find one who is willing to do their dirty work.
Third, Congress should enact a law clarifying that the Posse Comitatus Act applies to National Guard forces whenever they report through a federal chain of command, regardless of whether they have officially been called into federal service. This will ensure that form is not elevated over substance and will more fully realize the principle behind the law.
The Posse Comitatus Act Explained
The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force.
“A federal judge has blocked federal election officials from enforcing Trump’s executive order forcing states to apply citizenship requirements, saying it imposes significant burdens and would harm eligible voters,” according to an X post from Politico Senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney
The block is a major blow to the Trump administration. In the executive order, Trump wanted to add new requirements for people to vote.
This includes asking for ID or any sort of documentation to prove your citizenship and ensure all mail ballots are received by Election Day.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
The White House has previously called these requirements “common sense.” They also believe any objection from the left is “insane.”
“The Trump administration is standing up for free, fair, and honest elections, and asking this basic question is essential to our Constitutional Republic,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement when the executive order was released.
'Significant burdens': Judge deals major blow to Trump's new voting requirements
The block is a major blow to the Trump administration. In the executive order, Trump wanted to add new requirements for people to vote.
This includes asking for ID or any sort of documentation to prove your citizenship and ensure all mail ballots are received by Election Day.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
The White House has previously called these requirements “common sense.” They also believe any objection from the left is “insane.”
“The Trump administration is standing up for free, fair, and honest elections, and asking this basic question is essential to our Constitutional Republic,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement when the executive order was released.
'Significant burdens': Judge deals major blow to Trump's new voting requirements
Judge blocks Trump’s election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.
The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.
The attorneys general had argued the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House had defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.
Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”
Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.
Messages seeking a response from the White House and the Department of Justice were not immediately returned. The attorneys general for California and New York praised the ruling in statements to The Associated Press, calling Trump's order unconstitutional.
“Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people," New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.
The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.
President Donald Trump speaks during the congressional picnic on the South Lawn of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)© The Associated Press
Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.
Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.
New York attorney general Letitia James is seen after the New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary Debate at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the Gerald W. Lynch Theater on Thursday, June 12, 2025 in New York City. (Vincent Alban/The New York Times via AP, Pool)© The Associated Press
During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.
Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.
O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.
Christina A. Cassidy, The Associated Press
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.
The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.
The attorneys general had argued the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House had defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.
Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”
Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.
Messages seeking a response from the White House and the Department of Justice were not immediately returned. The attorneys general for California and New York praised the ruling in statements to The Associated Press, calling Trump's order unconstitutional.
“Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people," New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.
The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.
President Donald Trump speaks during the congressional picnic on the South Lawn of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)© The Associated Press
Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.
Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.
New York attorney general Letitia James is seen after the New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary Debate at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the Gerald W. Lynch Theater on Thursday, June 12, 2025 in New York City. (Vincent Alban/The New York Times via AP, Pool)© The Associated Press
During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.
Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.
O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.
Christina A. Cassidy, The Associated Press
A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday stopped Secretary of State Marco Rubio from proceeding with plans to downsize the State Department, saying that it was prohibited behavior under an injunction she issued last month.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston barred the Republican administration from carrying out much of its plans to reorganize and slash departments while she hears a legal challenge brought by labor unions and others. She said that President Donald Trump had failed to seek Congressional cooperation to do so when he ordered government-wide cuts.
But, in late May, the State Department notified Congress of an updated reorganization of the agency that would cut programs and personnel even more deeply than previously revealed.
Rubio this week also ordered U.S. embassies to fire all remaining staffers with the U.S. Agency for International Development. He said the State Department will take over USAID’s foreign assistance programs by Monday.
The Trump administration said Rubio had launched a reorganization of the State Department independently of the president's directive and so was exempt.
Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was not convinced.
“If the State Department has any question about whether planned actions fall within the scope of the Court’s injunction, the Court ORDERS the Department to first raise those questions with the Court before taking action,” she wrote in an order issued Friday.
Judge blocks State Department from firing workers while injunction is in effect
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston barred the Republican administration from carrying out much of its plans to reorganize and slash departments while she hears a legal challenge brought by labor unions and others. She said that President Donald Trump had failed to seek Congressional cooperation to do so when he ordered government-wide cuts.
But, in late May, the State Department notified Congress of an updated reorganization of the agency that would cut programs and personnel even more deeply than previously revealed.
Rubio this week also ordered U.S. embassies to fire all remaining staffers with the U.S. Agency for International Development. He said the State Department will take over USAID’s foreign assistance programs by Monday.
The Trump administration said Rubio had launched a reorganization of the State Department independently of the president's directive and so was exempt.
Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was not convinced.
“If the State Department has any question about whether planned actions fall within the scope of the Court’s injunction, the Court ORDERS the Department to first raise those questions with the Court before taking action,” she wrote in an order issued Friday.
Judge blocks State Department from firing workers while injunction is in effect
Trump White House wins major victory ahead of military parade
The Trump administration has won a court battle to gut the Department of Education as the president prepares to celebrate his birthday military parade.
A Maryland federal court declined to block a sweeping round of layoffs at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) - a quiet but crucial arm of the Department of Education that gathers and analyzes data on how American schools are performing.
In April, two groups representing education researchers sued the government, claiming the Department had recklessly slashed 90 per cent of IES staff, canceled major research contracts, and put decades of valuable data at risk.
They asked the court to reinstate the workers, revive the contracts, and stop any data from being destroyed.
But Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled against them, at least for now, saying the lawsuit was too broad, lacked hard evidence, and didn't clearly show any direct harm.
'The record in this case underscores that it is poorly suited for preliminary relief,' Gallagher wrote in a 13-page opinion.
Still, she didn't hold back in raising alarm bells over the Trump administration's actions - warning that the agency, now gutted, may no longer be able to fulfill its mission.
'IES is not doing a number of tasks Congress requires of it,' she noted. 'It has likely gone too far in downsizing.'
The Trump administration has won an early court battle to gut a key federal education agency, despite a judge warning the cuts may have crippled its functions
The judge stressed that her ruling doesn't mean the case is over.
She said the matter needs to go to trial with a full set of facts, and signaled that both sides may have to compromise.
The court has given both parties until June 19 to lay out a schedule for the next steps - setting the stage for a high-stakes legal showdown over whether the Trump team has unlawfully gutted one of the government's main education watchdogs.
The ruling comes just days before Trump's long-anticipated military parade, billed as a show of national might and administrative overhaul as he begins the second phase of his second term.
But stormy skies could rain on the spectacle.
Lightning in the area would force the Pentagon to delay the parade's marquee events - including flyovers and parachute jumps along Constitution Avenue. Still, Trump made it clear Saturday morning that the show would proceed.
'OUR GREAT MILITARY PARADE IS ON, RAIN OR SHINE. REMEMBER, A RAINY DAY PERADE BRINGS GOOD LUCK. I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN D.C.' he posted on Truth Social - fixing the spelling of 'perade' in a second post.
The parade will be the largest military presence on D.C. streets since the Gulf War victory celebration in 1991 - and falls on Trump's 79th birthday.
Trump White House wins major victory ahead of military parade
President Donald Trump addresses the troops on Tuesday at Fort Bragg. While he's denied Saturday's parade is a birthday celebration for him - he turns 79 - he'll be front-and-center taking in all the spectacle
Though he's denied it's a personal celebration, he'll be front and center: delivering remarks, accepting a folded flag from a parachutist, and leading an enlistment and reenlistment ceremony.
According to the Associated Press, the event will feature 6,700 troops, 150 vehicles, and 50 aircraft.
The court decision coincides with a damning new report showing the Department of Education is spending $7 million a month on employees who aren't working - part of the Trump administration's controversial deferred resignation program.
According to calculations by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 252, the department has spent over $21 million in just three months on idle employees, many of whom accepted Trump's offer to voluntarily leave their posts while continuing to receive pay through September 2025.
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, chair of the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE), defended Trump's deferred resignation plan - which allows federal employees to leave their posts while still collecting pay - but blamed the courts for delaying further cuts.
She said the judiciary was standing in the way of what voters elected Trump to do: slash bloated federal departments, including the Department of Education.
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) echoed the criticism, calling the $7 million-a-month figure a 'slap in the face' to taxpayers.
She accused federal workers of abusing paid leave and pledged to work with the Trump administration to overhaul Washington's bureaucracy.
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) heads up Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus efforts in the Senate
Members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union protest against firings during a rally to defend federal workers in Washington, DC on February 11, 2025
At her confirmation hearing in February, Education Secretary Linda McMahon backed Trump's promise to eliminate the department entirely - saying he intended to work with Congress to make it happen.
An estimated 75,000 federal employees accepted the administration's deferred resignation offer across various agencies.
But Democrats blasted the cuts in a letter to McMahon, calling the 1,300 affected DOE workers 'dedicated public servants' and warning the layoffs endangered vital education services.
With a trial looming and tens of millions in taxpayer dollars at stake, the battle over the future of the Department of Education is far from over.
The Trump administration has won a court battle to gut the Department of Education as the president prepares to celebrate his birthday military parade.
A Maryland federal court declined to block a sweeping round of layoffs at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) - a quiet but crucial arm of the Department of Education that gathers and analyzes data on how American schools are performing.
In April, two groups representing education researchers sued the government, claiming the Department had recklessly slashed 90 per cent of IES staff, canceled major research contracts, and put decades of valuable data at risk.
They asked the court to reinstate the workers, revive the contracts, and stop any data from being destroyed.
But Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled against them, at least for now, saying the lawsuit was too broad, lacked hard evidence, and didn't clearly show any direct harm.
'The record in this case underscores that it is poorly suited for preliminary relief,' Gallagher wrote in a 13-page opinion.
Still, she didn't hold back in raising alarm bells over the Trump administration's actions - warning that the agency, now gutted, may no longer be able to fulfill its mission.
'IES is not doing a number of tasks Congress requires of it,' she noted. 'It has likely gone too far in downsizing.'
The Trump administration has won an early court battle to gut a key federal education agency, despite a judge warning the cuts may have crippled its functions
The judge stressed that her ruling doesn't mean the case is over.
She said the matter needs to go to trial with a full set of facts, and signaled that both sides may have to compromise.
The court has given both parties until June 19 to lay out a schedule for the next steps - setting the stage for a high-stakes legal showdown over whether the Trump team has unlawfully gutted one of the government's main education watchdogs.
The ruling comes just days before Trump's long-anticipated military parade, billed as a show of national might and administrative overhaul as he begins the second phase of his second term.
But stormy skies could rain on the spectacle.
Lightning in the area would force the Pentagon to delay the parade's marquee events - including flyovers and parachute jumps along Constitution Avenue. Still, Trump made it clear Saturday morning that the show would proceed.
'OUR GREAT MILITARY PARADE IS ON, RAIN OR SHINE. REMEMBER, A RAINY DAY PERADE BRINGS GOOD LUCK. I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN D.C.' he posted on Truth Social - fixing the spelling of 'perade' in a second post.
The parade will be the largest military presence on D.C. streets since the Gulf War victory celebration in 1991 - and falls on Trump's 79th birthday.
Trump White House wins major victory ahead of military parade
President Donald Trump addresses the troops on Tuesday at Fort Bragg. While he's denied Saturday's parade is a birthday celebration for him - he turns 79 - he'll be front-and-center taking in all the spectacle
Though he's denied it's a personal celebration, he'll be front and center: delivering remarks, accepting a folded flag from a parachutist, and leading an enlistment and reenlistment ceremony.
According to the Associated Press, the event will feature 6,700 troops, 150 vehicles, and 50 aircraft.
The court decision coincides with a damning new report showing the Department of Education is spending $7 million a month on employees who aren't working - part of the Trump administration's controversial deferred resignation program.
According to calculations by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 252, the department has spent over $21 million in just three months on idle employees, many of whom accepted Trump's offer to voluntarily leave their posts while continuing to receive pay through September 2025.
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, chair of the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE), defended Trump's deferred resignation plan - which allows federal employees to leave their posts while still collecting pay - but blamed the courts for delaying further cuts.
She said the judiciary was standing in the way of what voters elected Trump to do: slash bloated federal departments, including the Department of Education.
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) echoed the criticism, calling the $7 million-a-month figure a 'slap in the face' to taxpayers.
She accused federal workers of abusing paid leave and pledged to work with the Trump administration to overhaul Washington's bureaucracy.
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) heads up Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus efforts in the Senate
Members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union protest against firings during a rally to defend federal workers in Washington, DC on February 11, 2025
At her confirmation hearing in February, Education Secretary Linda McMahon backed Trump's promise to eliminate the department entirely - saying he intended to work with Congress to make it happen.
An estimated 75,000 federal employees accepted the administration's deferred resignation offer across various agencies.
But Democrats blasted the cuts in a letter to McMahon, calling the 1,300 affected DOE workers 'dedicated public servants' and warning the layoffs endangered vital education services.
With a trial looming and tens of millions in taxpayer dollars at stake, the battle over the future of the Department of Education is far from over.
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge who barred the Trump administration from deporting Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil declined Friday to order his release from an immigration detention center, saying the former Columbia University student hadn’t yet proven he was being held illegally.
The ruling is a setback for Khalil, who was detained in March. He had appeared to be close to winning his freedom after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz held that the government’s initial effort to deport him on foreign policy grounds was likely unconstitutional.
The judge had given the Trump administration until Friday morning to appeal an order that could have led to Khalil’s release.
But the government filed court papers saying it believed it could continue detaining Khalil based on its secondary rationale for expelling him from the U.S. — an allegation that he lied on his green card application.
Farbiarz, who sits in New Jersey, wrote in his Friday ruling that Khalil’s lawyers hadn’t presented enough evidence that detention on those grounds was unlawful and suggested that Khalil’s next step could be to ask for bail from an immigration judge in Louisiana.
One of Khalil's lawyers, Amy Greer, criticized the Trump administration's legal maneuvering as “cruel, transparent delay tactics” meant to keep her client away from his wife and newborn son ahead of their first Father’s Day as a family.
“Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians,” she said in a statement. "It is unjust, it is shocking, and it is disgraceful.”
Khalil has previously disputed the notion that he omitted information on his application.
In a filing last week, he maintained he was never employed by or served as an “officer” of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, as the administration claims, but completed an internship approved by the university as part of his graduate studies.
Khalil said he also stopped working for the British Embassy in Beirut in December 2022, when he moved to the U.S., despite the administration’s claims that he had worked in the embassy’s Syria office longer.
Earlier Friday, Khalil's lawyers asked the judge to order his release, saying he had satisfied all of the court’s requirements and that the government’s lawyers had missed a morning deadline to challenge the judge’s Wednesday ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups representing Khalil, also released a video Friday featuring actors Mark Ruffalo, Mahershala Ali and other celebrity fathers reading a letter Khalil wrote to his newborn son from jail ahead of his first Father’s Day on Sunday.
“One day you might ask why people are punished for standing up for Palestine,” read Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello. “These are hard questions, but I hope our story shows you this: The world needs more courage, not less. It needs people who choose justice over convenience.”
Khalil was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
His was the first arrest under President Donald Trump’s crackdown on students who joined campus protests against the war in Gaza.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy.
Khalil’s lawyers say the Trump administration is simply trying to crack down on free speech.
Khalil isn’t accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. The international affairs graduate student served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists.
He wasn’t among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics.
The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.
Philip Marcelo, The Associated Press
Mahmoud Khalil can remain jailed over claims he lied on green card application, judge says
The ruling is a setback for Khalil, who was detained in March. He had appeared to be close to winning his freedom after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz held that the government’s initial effort to deport him on foreign policy grounds was likely unconstitutional.
The judge had given the Trump administration until Friday morning to appeal an order that could have led to Khalil’s release.
But the government filed court papers saying it believed it could continue detaining Khalil based on its secondary rationale for expelling him from the U.S. — an allegation that he lied on his green card application.
Farbiarz, who sits in New Jersey, wrote in his Friday ruling that Khalil’s lawyers hadn’t presented enough evidence that detention on those grounds was unlawful and suggested that Khalil’s next step could be to ask for bail from an immigration judge in Louisiana.
One of Khalil's lawyers, Amy Greer, criticized the Trump administration's legal maneuvering as “cruel, transparent delay tactics” meant to keep her client away from his wife and newborn son ahead of their first Father’s Day as a family.
“Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians,” she said in a statement. "It is unjust, it is shocking, and it is disgraceful.”
Khalil has previously disputed the notion that he omitted information on his application.
In a filing last week, he maintained he was never employed by or served as an “officer” of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, as the administration claims, but completed an internship approved by the university as part of his graduate studies.
Khalil said he also stopped working for the British Embassy in Beirut in December 2022, when he moved to the U.S., despite the administration’s claims that he had worked in the embassy’s Syria office longer.
Earlier Friday, Khalil's lawyers asked the judge to order his release, saying he had satisfied all of the court’s requirements and that the government’s lawyers had missed a morning deadline to challenge the judge’s Wednesday ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups representing Khalil, also released a video Friday featuring actors Mark Ruffalo, Mahershala Ali and other celebrity fathers reading a letter Khalil wrote to his newborn son from jail ahead of his first Father’s Day on Sunday.
“One day you might ask why people are punished for standing up for Palestine,” read Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello. “These are hard questions, but I hope our story shows you this: The world needs more courage, not less. It needs people who choose justice over convenience.”
Khalil was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
His was the first arrest under President Donald Trump’s crackdown on students who joined campus protests against the war in Gaza.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy.
Khalil’s lawyers say the Trump administration is simply trying to crack down on free speech.
Khalil isn’t accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. The international affairs graduate student served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists.
He wasn’t among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics.
The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.
Philip Marcelo, The Associated Press
Mahmoud Khalil can remain jailed over claims he lied on green card application, judge says
BOSTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s order to block incoming foreign students from attending Harvard University will remain on hold temporarily following a hearing Monday, when a lawyer for the Ivy League school said Trump was using its students as “pawns.”
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston extended a temporary restraining order on Trump's proclamation until June 23 while she weighs Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction. Burroughs made the decision at a hearing over Harvard's request, which Trump's Republican administration opposed.
Burroughs granted the initial restraining order June 5, and it had been set to expire Thursday.
Trump moved to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard earlier this month, citing concerns over national security. It followed a previous attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard's ability to host foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Burroughs has temporarily blocked that action, too, and is weighing whether it should remain on hold until the case is decided.
Ian Gershengorn, a lawyer for Harvard, told Burroughs on Monday that Trump was “using Harvard’s international students as pawns" while arguing the administration has exceeded its authority in an attempt to retaliate against the school for not agreeing to the president's demands.
“I think there is no finding that Harvard is dangerous,” he said.
Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status.
Foreign students were brought into the battle in April, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short, and on May 22 she revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.
The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students and harmed Harvard’s reputation as a global research hub, the school said in its lawsuit. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the suit said.
The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard’s students, including two universities in Hong Kong.
While Harvard's legal team on Monday said the federal government was unfairly and illegally singling the university out in Trump's proclamation, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis countered that the administration has scrutinized dozens of universities over the past two months.
“The power is within Harvard to fix this,” Davis said, adding that currently the federal government believes “other universities might be better” to host foreign students.
Davis was the sole attorney to attend and defend the Trump administration during Monday's hearing compared with the six Harvard attorneys, a contrast that Burroughs commented on repeatedly.
“Not only do you have this case but you have it alone,” she said.
Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___
Binkley reported from Washington.
Judge extends order suspending Trump's block on Harvard's incoming foreign students
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston extended a temporary restraining order on Trump's proclamation until June 23 while she weighs Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction. Burroughs made the decision at a hearing over Harvard's request, which Trump's Republican administration opposed.
Burroughs granted the initial restraining order June 5, and it had been set to expire Thursday.
Trump moved to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard earlier this month, citing concerns over national security. It followed a previous attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard's ability to host foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Burroughs has temporarily blocked that action, too, and is weighing whether it should remain on hold until the case is decided.
Ian Gershengorn, a lawyer for Harvard, told Burroughs on Monday that Trump was “using Harvard’s international students as pawns" while arguing the administration has exceeded its authority in an attempt to retaliate against the school for not agreeing to the president's demands.
“I think there is no finding that Harvard is dangerous,” he said.
Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status.
Foreign students were brought into the battle in April, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short, and on May 22 she revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.
The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students and harmed Harvard’s reputation as a global research hub, the school said in its lawsuit. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the suit said.
The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard’s students, including two universities in Hong Kong.
While Harvard's legal team on Monday said the federal government was unfairly and illegally singling the university out in Trump's proclamation, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis countered that the administration has scrutinized dozens of universities over the past two months.
“The power is within Harvard to fix this,” Davis said, adding that currently the federal government believes “other universities might be better” to host foreign students.
Davis was the sole attorney to attend and defend the Trump administration during Monday's hearing compared with the six Harvard attorneys, a contrast that Burroughs commented on repeatedly.
“Not only do you have this case but you have it alone,” she said.
Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___
Binkley reported from Washington.
Judge extends order suspending Trump's block on Harvard's incoming foreign students
Michael Nigro was in his element, snapping photos of a phalanx of Los Angeles Police Department officers pushing back protesters, when his neck jerked to the side and his helmet registered a percussive "ding."
The non-lethal bullet did not injure the veteran freelance photographer, thanks to that protection.
"It felt very very intentional," Nigro tells NPR of the incident at a rally against ICE raids last week, "a chilling effect to convince us to go away and not document what's occurring."
Press advocates say such episodes have been common at the often charged and sometimes violent protests that have played out in Los Angeles over the past 10 days. They say law enforcement officials at the protests have not always demonstrated restraint or distinguished between people who pose a threat and others who are reporting on developments.
Sponsor Message
On Monday, the Los Angeles Press Club and the investigative reporting site Status Coup filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department in federal court, alleging that officers at the demonstrations are routinely violating journalists' rights.
"Being a journalist in Los Angeles is now a dangerous profession," states the complaint, filed in the Western Division of the Central District of California. "LAPD unlawfully used force and the threat of force against Plaintiffs, their members and other journalists to intimidate them and interfere with their constitutional right to document public events as the press."
The messy protests that have unfolded in real time on cable television and social media carry a strong sense of theatricality but also the threat of violence — from both sides. In some instances, protesters have attacked and burned cars.
And at times, journalists have reported law enforcement exacerbated rather than simply encountered tensions with protesters — an assessment that contradicts official statements.
"We're on TV," ABC News reporter Matt Gutman said as a police officer bellowed at him. "And now you're pushing me on live television. We didn't push anyone. You know that's true."
"Obviously, massively high tensions here," Gutman said, turning to the camera, while trying to placate the increasingly agitated officers. "These guys are tired. It's also hot. It's been a long day and a long week ... I think there has been respect between the media and law enforcement here. We have kept our distance."
LAPD has not returned NPR's detailed requests for comment. Nor has the L.A. County Sheriff's Department.
L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the No Kings protests Saturday, which have built on the momentum of the anti-ICE demonstrations of recent days, started peacefully in Los Angeles.
"It went well until police officers started being attacked — the LAPD, the LASD and the [California Highway Patrol]," McDonnell told a reporter from local station KNBC. Protesters have said confrontational law enforcement officials changed the tenor of the encounters.
Even prior to the No Kings events, protests over President Trump's immigration policies popped up in cities across the country as ICE agents have seized and detained people suspected of being in the country without full legal status — many of whom have no criminal record and face no criminal charges.
Sponsor Message
In Los Angeles, Trump took the unusual step of nationalizing units of the California National Guard and also sent in U.S. Marines over the objections of Gavin Newsom, the state's Democratic governor.
The state of California is suing the administration over the move, alleging the president is unlawfully using those troops "for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city."
Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act to do so. The last time U.S. troops were sent to handle protests and riots was 1992 — also in Los Angeles, when violent riots broke out over the acquittal of police officers charged with beating Rodney King. More than 60 people died in those riots. These protests have not matched that scale or ferocity.
Despite the controversy over the presence of federal troops, almost all of the incidents cited by press rights advocates have involved Los Angeles law enforcement.
History of tensions between police and journalists
"This isn't new here. History repeats itself," says Adam Rose, press rights chair of the press club. "The LAPD — and often the L.A. Sheriff's Department as well — arrest and attack journalists. They will arrest them. They will detain them. And they will cause serious injury as well with these 'less-lethal' munitions."
Decades ago, the LAPD police and the LA press maintained a cozy relationship. But that turned sour.
In 2021, the LAPD swept a major city park of a homeless encampment, as NPR has previously reported. Police detained at least 16 journalists in a single night. Two reporters and an independent news blogger were arrested and held at a police station for hours. Two other reporters were zip-tied at the scene. Officers shot two photojournalists with "less-lethal" rubber bullets.
Capt. Stacy Spell, at that time the chief LAPD spokesman, later told NPR that it was often hard for police officers to figure out whether someone was a journalist or not.
Sponsor Message
"Once upon a time there was a very traditional look as to what the media looked like," Spell said. "And now there are more independents and more people who post on social media or online or use some form of technology to express their views or their points or their stories." He said the priority was to keep the public safe.
Over three dozen incidents tallied
Freelance visual journalist Michael Nigro, shown here at protests in Los Angeles' Koreatown neighborhood shortly after being struck in the helmet by a non-lethal bullet fired by a Los Angeles Police Department officer. His helmet bears a bright mark where the projectile hit him. Given he wears several labels marked "press," Nigro says it felt like an effort to intimidate him from covering the protests.
John Rudoff
In 2022, in part as a result of that incident, California legislators revised state law to specify that journalists have the right to be in public spaces during upheaval — even if others must disburse or follow a curfew.
Rose was part of an intense effort to secure those changes. At his initiative, the press club is once more compiling a database about incidents involving journalists and law enforcement in L.A. It has compiled more than three dozen such instances it says it has verified that have occurred since the protests over the ICE raids began in Los Angeles earlier this month.
"In order to have an informed public, we must have a free press," Rose says. "When journalists can't tell that story — and can't tell that story safely — that prevents the story from being told. That right has been deprived, not just for the journalists, but for the public at large."
The incidents have gained national attention. On Friday, a coalition led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent a letter of protest to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who until last fall was a Fox News host, and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, as well as the Los Angeles police chief and the Los Angeles County sheriff.
"While we also recognize the important role of law enforcement to protect public safety and crowd control, the right and ability of the press to document law enforcement and other government activity safely and effectively is foundational to self-government and has long been recognized and protected by the courts," the letter stated. It was signed by 60 news organizations and press rights groups, including NPR.
Sponsor Message
Consider a selection of the episodes that the press club has compiled, including some that were captured live in the moment by the journalists themselves:
Journalists for CNN were led from areas of protest and conflict with hands behind their back — though police told them they were being detained, though not arrested. A Fox crew encountered a "flash bang" projectile near their vehicle — but said they thought it wasn't aimed at them.
CNN and Fox News have played down the seriousness of those episodes.
Sponsor Message
Other journalists say they believe they were targeted; in other instances, they allege little discretion was exercised between subduing protests that might get out of hand and repelling the press.
While rubber bullets are considered "less lethal" munitions, they can do harm. A peer-reviewed article published in 2017 in the medical journal BMJ Open found that rubber and plastic bullets caused "significant morbidity and mortality" as well as significant injury in many of those who survived being hit. The study concluded that those non-lethal bullets "do not appear to be appropriate weapons for use in crowd-control settings."
"I was like, 'Okay, somebody has it out for me,'" says Nigro, the veteran photographer.
He says he's covered violent protests and combat, including the war in Ukraine. He says his helmet and flak jacket are each marked "press" on both sides and that he carries two professional grade cameras clearly defining him as a working reporter to authorities.
"We are not up in their faces. We are not preventing them from doing their job," Nigro says. "When you have professionals that are gauging a situation as volatile as that, and there are press around, a head shot like that at close range feels like it's intentional."
The non-lethal bullet did not injure the veteran freelance photographer, thanks to that protection.
"It felt very very intentional," Nigro tells NPR of the incident at a rally against ICE raids last week, "a chilling effect to convince us to go away and not document what's occurring."
Press advocates say such episodes have been common at the often charged and sometimes violent protests that have played out in Los Angeles over the past 10 days. They say law enforcement officials at the protests have not always demonstrated restraint or distinguished between people who pose a threat and others who are reporting on developments.
Sponsor Message
On Monday, the Los Angeles Press Club and the investigative reporting site Status Coup filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department in federal court, alleging that officers at the demonstrations are routinely violating journalists' rights.
"Being a journalist in Los Angeles is now a dangerous profession," states the complaint, filed in the Western Division of the Central District of California. "LAPD unlawfully used force and the threat of force against Plaintiffs, their members and other journalists to intimidate them and interfere with their constitutional right to document public events as the press."
The messy protests that have unfolded in real time on cable television and social media carry a strong sense of theatricality but also the threat of violence — from both sides. In some instances, protesters have attacked and burned cars.
And at times, journalists have reported law enforcement exacerbated rather than simply encountered tensions with protesters — an assessment that contradicts official statements.
"We're on TV," ABC News reporter Matt Gutman said as a police officer bellowed at him. "And now you're pushing me on live television. We didn't push anyone. You know that's true."
"Obviously, massively high tensions here," Gutman said, turning to the camera, while trying to placate the increasingly agitated officers. "These guys are tired. It's also hot. It's been a long day and a long week ... I think there has been respect between the media and law enforcement here. We have kept our distance."
LAPD has not returned NPR's detailed requests for comment. Nor has the L.A. County Sheriff's Department.
L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the No Kings protests Saturday, which have built on the momentum of the anti-ICE demonstrations of recent days, started peacefully in Los Angeles.
"It went well until police officers started being attacked — the LAPD, the LASD and the [California Highway Patrol]," McDonnell told a reporter from local station KNBC. Protesters have said confrontational law enforcement officials changed the tenor of the encounters.
Even prior to the No Kings events, protests over President Trump's immigration policies popped up in cities across the country as ICE agents have seized and detained people suspected of being in the country without full legal status — many of whom have no criminal record and face no criminal charges.
Sponsor Message
In Los Angeles, Trump took the unusual step of nationalizing units of the California National Guard and also sent in U.S. Marines over the objections of Gavin Newsom, the state's Democratic governor.
The state of California is suing the administration over the move, alleging the president is unlawfully using those troops "for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city."
Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act to do so. The last time U.S. troops were sent to handle protests and riots was 1992 — also in Los Angeles, when violent riots broke out over the acquittal of police officers charged with beating Rodney King. More than 60 people died in those riots. These protests have not matched that scale or ferocity.
Despite the controversy over the presence of federal troops, almost all of the incidents cited by press rights advocates have involved Los Angeles law enforcement.
History of tensions between police and journalists
"This isn't new here. History repeats itself," says Adam Rose, press rights chair of the press club. "The LAPD — and often the L.A. Sheriff's Department as well — arrest and attack journalists. They will arrest them. They will detain them. And they will cause serious injury as well with these 'less-lethal' munitions."
Decades ago, the LAPD police and the LA press maintained a cozy relationship. But that turned sour.
In 2021, the LAPD swept a major city park of a homeless encampment, as NPR has previously reported. Police detained at least 16 journalists in a single night. Two reporters and an independent news blogger were arrested and held at a police station for hours. Two other reporters were zip-tied at the scene. Officers shot two photojournalists with "less-lethal" rubber bullets.
Capt. Stacy Spell, at that time the chief LAPD spokesman, later told NPR that it was often hard for police officers to figure out whether someone was a journalist or not.
Sponsor Message
"Once upon a time there was a very traditional look as to what the media looked like," Spell said. "And now there are more independents and more people who post on social media or online or use some form of technology to express their views or their points or their stories." He said the priority was to keep the public safe.
Over three dozen incidents tallied
Freelance visual journalist Michael Nigro, shown here at protests in Los Angeles' Koreatown neighborhood shortly after being struck in the helmet by a non-lethal bullet fired by a Los Angeles Police Department officer. His helmet bears a bright mark where the projectile hit him. Given he wears several labels marked "press," Nigro says it felt like an effort to intimidate him from covering the protests.
John Rudoff
In 2022, in part as a result of that incident, California legislators revised state law to specify that journalists have the right to be in public spaces during upheaval — even if others must disburse or follow a curfew.
Rose was part of an intense effort to secure those changes. At his initiative, the press club is once more compiling a database about incidents involving journalists and law enforcement in L.A. It has compiled more than three dozen such instances it says it has verified that have occurred since the protests over the ICE raids began in Los Angeles earlier this month.
"In order to have an informed public, we must have a free press," Rose says. "When journalists can't tell that story — and can't tell that story safely — that prevents the story from being told. That right has been deprived, not just for the journalists, but for the public at large."
The incidents have gained national attention. On Friday, a coalition led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent a letter of protest to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who until last fall was a Fox News host, and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, as well as the Los Angeles police chief and the Los Angeles County sheriff.
"While we also recognize the important role of law enforcement to protect public safety and crowd control, the right and ability of the press to document law enforcement and other government activity safely and effectively is foundational to self-government and has long been recognized and protected by the courts," the letter stated. It was signed by 60 news organizations and press rights groups, including NPR.
Sponsor Message
Consider a selection of the episodes that the press club has compiled, including some that were captured live in the moment by the journalists themselves:
- An Australian television correspondent was shot by a law enforcement officer with a rubber bullet during a live shot as she stood to the side of protests in downtown Los Angeles. The officer taking aim could be seen in the background as it happened.
- A photographer for the New York Post was struck in the forehead by another rubber bullet, his stunning image capturing its path immediately before impact. "I just got shot in the head," the visual journalist, Toby Canham, exclaimed in real-time as his digital camera was rolling.
- A veteran Los Angeles Times reporter, by his account, says he was shoved by a Los Angeles Police Department officer after reminding him that journalists were exempt, under state law, from the city's recently imposed curfew. Several of his colleagues reported being struck by "police projectiles."
- A student journalist says LAPD officers shot him twice with rubber bullets. One nearly severed the tip of his pinky, which required surgical reattachment.
- A freelance journalist says he believes he was shot by a deputy from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. A CT scan showed what appears to be a 40mm "less lethal" munition embedded in a two-inch hole in the reporter's leg.
- A New York Times reporter was assessed at a hospital after being struck by another non-lethal round.
Journalists for CNN were led from areas of protest and conflict with hands behind their back — though police told them they were being detained, though not arrested. A Fox crew encountered a "flash bang" projectile near their vehicle — but said they thought it wasn't aimed at them.
CNN and Fox News have played down the seriousness of those episodes.
Sponsor Message
Other journalists say they believe they were targeted; in other instances, they allege little discretion was exercised between subduing protests that might get out of hand and repelling the press.
While rubber bullets are considered "less lethal" munitions, they can do harm. A peer-reviewed article published in 2017 in the medical journal BMJ Open found that rubber and plastic bullets caused "significant morbidity and mortality" as well as significant injury in many of those who survived being hit. The study concluded that those non-lethal bullets "do not appear to be appropriate weapons for use in crowd-control settings."
"I was like, 'Okay, somebody has it out for me,'" says Nigro, the veteran photographer.
He says he's covered violent protests and combat, including the war in Ukraine. He says his helmet and flak jacket are each marked "press" on both sides and that he carries two professional grade cameras clearly defining him as a working reporter to authorities.
"We are not up in their faces. We are not preventing them from doing their job," Nigro says. "When you have professionals that are gauging a situation as volatile as that, and there are press around, a head shot like that at close range feels like it's intentional."
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Monday it was illegal for the Trump administration to cancel several hundred research grants, adding that the cuts raise serious questions about racial discrimination.
U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts said the administration’s process was “arbitrary and capricious” and that it did not follow long-held government rules and standards when it abruptly canceled grants deemed to focus on gender identity or diversity, equity and inclusion.
In a hearing Monday on two cases calling for the grants to be restored, the judge pushed government lawyers to offer a formal definition of DEI, questioning how grants could be canceled for that reason when some were designed to study health disparities as Congress had directed.
Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, went on to address what he called “a darker aspect” to the cases, calling it “palpably clear” that what was behind the government actions was “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”
After 40 years on the bench, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young added. He ended Monday’s hearing saying, “Have we no shame.”
During his remarks ending the hearing, the judge said he would issue his written order soon.
Young’s decision addresses only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects the Trump administration has cut — those specifically addressed in two lawsuits filed separately this spring by 16 attorneys general, public health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. A full count wasn’t immediately available.
While Young said the funding must be restored, Monday’s action was an interim step. The ruling, when formally issued, is expected to be appealed. The Trump administration didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
While the original lawsuits didn’t specifically claim racial discrimination, they said the new NIH policies prohibited “research into certain politically disfavored subjects.” In a filing this month after the lawsuits were consolidated, lawyers said the NIH did not highlight genuine concerns with the hundreds of canceled research projects studies, but instead sent “boilerplate termination letters” to universities.
The topics of research ranged widely, including cardiovascular health, sexually transmitted infections, depression, Alzheimer’s and alcohol abuse in minors, among other things. Attorneys cited projects such as one tracking how medicines may work differently in people of ancestrally diverse backgrounds, and said the cuts affected more than scientists — such as potential harm to patients in a closed study of suicide treatment.
Lawyers for the federal government said in a court filing earlier this month that NIH grant terminations for DEI studies were “sufficiently reasoned,” adding later that “plaintiffs may disagree with NIH’s basis, but that does not make the basis arbitrary and capricious.” The NIH, lawyers argued, has “broad discretion” to decide on and provide grants “in alignment with its priorities” — which includes ending grants.
Monday, Justice Department lawyer Thomas Ports Jr. pointed to 13 examples of grants related to minority health that NIH either hadn’t cut or had renewed in the same time period — and said some of the cancellations were justified by the agency’s judgement that the research wasn’t scientifically valuable.
The NIH has long been the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.
apnews.com
U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts said the administration’s process was “arbitrary and capricious” and that it did not follow long-held government rules and standards when it abruptly canceled grants deemed to focus on gender identity or diversity, equity and inclusion.
In a hearing Monday on two cases calling for the grants to be restored, the judge pushed government lawyers to offer a formal definition of DEI, questioning how grants could be canceled for that reason when some were designed to study health disparities as Congress had directed.
Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, went on to address what he called “a darker aspect” to the cases, calling it “palpably clear” that what was behind the government actions was “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”
After 40 years on the bench, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young added. He ended Monday’s hearing saying, “Have we no shame.”
During his remarks ending the hearing, the judge said he would issue his written order soon.
Young’s decision addresses only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects the Trump administration has cut — those specifically addressed in two lawsuits filed separately this spring by 16 attorneys general, public health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. A full count wasn’t immediately available.
While Young said the funding must be restored, Monday’s action was an interim step. The ruling, when formally issued, is expected to be appealed. The Trump administration didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
While the original lawsuits didn’t specifically claim racial discrimination, they said the new NIH policies prohibited “research into certain politically disfavored subjects.” In a filing this month after the lawsuits were consolidated, lawyers said the NIH did not highlight genuine concerns with the hundreds of canceled research projects studies, but instead sent “boilerplate termination letters” to universities.
The topics of research ranged widely, including cardiovascular health, sexually transmitted infections, depression, Alzheimer’s and alcohol abuse in minors, among other things. Attorneys cited projects such as one tracking how medicines may work differently in people of ancestrally diverse backgrounds, and said the cuts affected more than scientists — such as potential harm to patients in a closed study of suicide treatment.
Lawyers for the federal government said in a court filing earlier this month that NIH grant terminations for DEI studies were “sufficiently reasoned,” adding later that “plaintiffs may disagree with NIH’s basis, but that does not make the basis arbitrary and capricious.” The NIH, lawyers argued, has “broad discretion” to decide on and provide grants “in alignment with its priorities” — which includes ending grants.
Monday, Justice Department lawyer Thomas Ports Jr. pointed to 13 examples of grants related to minority health that NIH either hadn’t cut or had renewed in the same time period — and said some of the cancellations were justified by the agency’s judgement that the research wasn’t scientifically valuable.
The NIH has long been the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.
Judge rules some NIH grant cuts illegal, saying he's never seen such discrimination in 40 years
A federal judge says it was illegal for the Trump administration to cancel several hundred research grants issued by the National Institutes of Health.
apnews.com
