|
The lawsuit targets Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Bessent, Rubio for violating federal records laws by using messaging app Signal for high-level national security deliberations, and seeks to recover unlawfully deleted messages and prevent further destruction.  Following bombshell reporting that top Trump administration officials used the auto-deleting messaging app Signal to coordinate high-level, allegedly classified war operations, nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight filed a lawsuit against those officials for violations of the Federal Records Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit seeks to prevent further unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel the recovery of any records created through their unauthorized use of Signal. Those named in the suit include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of State and acting Archivist Marco Rubio. Yesterday, the Atlantic reported that the top national security officials named above, as well as Vice President J.D. Vance and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, discussed war operations in a private Signal group chat that included Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, who appears to have been added by mistake. According to Goldberg, messages in the group chat were set to disappear after a certain number of days. American Oversight’s lawsuit underscores the serious risks to democratic accountability when public officials conduct government business on secretive, untraceable platforms — particularly when those platforms are designed to erase records. “This reported disclosure of sensitive military information in a Signal group chat that included a journalist is a five-alarm fire for government accountability and potentially a crime,” said American Oversight Interim Executive Director Chioma Chukwu. “War planning doesn’t belong in emoji-laden disappearing group chats. It belongs in secure facilities designed to safeguard national interests — something any responsible government official should have known. Our lawsuit seeks to ensure these federal records are preserved and recovered. The American people deserve answers and we won’t stop until we get them.” The Federal Records Act requires federal officials to preserve communications related to official government business. Generally, agencies ensure retention of messages sent on apps like Signal by setting policies requiring officials and personnel to forward them to official systems for proper archival or take other steps to preserve their content. Since President Trump took office, American Oversight has filed numerous lawsuits and launched investigations into Trump’s mass firing of independent inspectors general, DOGE’s secretive efforts to invade agencies, the Trump administration’s quid pro quo campaign with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and its directive to USAID staff to shred and burn government records. American Oversight will continue to hold Trump and his allies accountable by shining a light on the administration’s actions. American Oversight also played a key role in holding the Trump administration accountable during the president’s first term. Using public records backed by aggressive litigation, American Oversight uncovered extensive evidence of corruption, conflicts of interest, and abuses of power throughout the administration.
0 Comments
Texas lawmakers advance bill that makes it a crime for teachers to assign "Catcher in the Rye"3/26/2025  Lawmakers in Texas are seeking to impose harsh criminal penalties on school librarians and teachers who provide award-winning works of literature to students. Identical bills in the Texas Senate and House would make it a crime for librarians and teachers to provide books or learning materials that contain sexually explicit content, punishable by up to 10 years behind bars — whether or not a book has educational or literary merit.
Currently, if someone is charged with providing sexually explicit content to a child, they can argue that the content was provided in pursuit of a scientific, educational, or governmental purpose. SB 412 and HB 267 would remove this affirmative defense. This defense exists because, while some people provide explicit content to children to harm them, books that include sexual content have long been a valuable component of secondary education. Many classic works of literature, including "The Odyssey," "Catcher in the Rye," "Brave New World," and "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," have sexually explicit scenes. Under SB 412, which the Texas Senate voted to advance last week and now awaits approval by the House, teachers and librarians would no longer be able to argue that sexually explicit content can serve an educational purpose. Only law enforcement officials and judges would be exempted under the new law. SB 412 also leaves in place an exception if the adult providing the sexually explicit content is married to the child, which is legal in Texas, with a judge’s approval, if the child is at least 16 years old. In the last few years, Texas teachers and librarians have faced an onslaught of criticism from conservative activists and lawmakers for offering well-regarded works of literature to students. Books that have come under fire in Texas include Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye,” “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, and “The Color Purple” by Alice Walker. In December, one district briefly restricted access to the Bible in an attempt to comply with a book-banning bill passed in 2023. Some activists have even targeted picture books about gender-identity or children with two parents of the same gender, saying such books are causing harm to young children. We started a new publication, Musk Watch. NPR covered our launch HERE. It features accountability journalism focused on one of the most powerful humans in history. It is free to sign up, so we hope you’ll give it a try and let us know what you think. Remaking Texas education Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), the primary sponsor of SB 412, has sponsored several other bills during Texas’ current legislative session to ban materials from schools and libraries that don't conform to his right-wing Christian ideology and aim to infuse religion into the classroom. In addition to SB 412, five other bills sponsored by Middleton passed the Texas Senate last week. SB 11 allows school districts to allocate time each day for teachers and students to pray or read from religious texts, including the Bible. SB 10 requires all classrooms to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. SB 13 overhauls the process by which books are selected for school libraries. Instead of trained librarians, school boards would have the final say over which books are allowed on the shelves of school libraries. School districts would also be required to form library advisory boards of parents and other community members to recommend whether a book should be added or removed from a school’s collection. Finally, the bill places a blanket ban on books that have “indecent content or profane content.” SB 18 would defund any libraries that host children’s drag queen story hours, a frequent target of conservative activists and lawmakers in Texas and other states. SB 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about gender identity and sexual orientation; developing policies or training about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and considering diversity in hiring decisions. One lawmaker said this bill would prevent taxpayer money from being spent to advance “political activism and political agendas.” Other states consider harsh penalties for teachers and librarians Multiple states, including Indiana and Arkansas, have already passed laws that make educators or librarians vulnerable to harsh penalties, or even jail time, for providing “obscene” materials to minors, the Washington Post reported. In December, a federal judge struck down parts of an Arkansas law that would have "established a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison, for librarians and booksellers who distribute ‘harmful’ material to a minor,” ruling that “elements of the law [were] unconstitutional." A 2024 analysis by the Associated Press found that in the first four months of last year, “lawmakers in more than 15 states… introduced bills to impose harsh penalties on libraries or librarians.” Legislators in multiple states, including Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona, have already introduced similar legislation this year. In Alabama, HB 4 would change current criminal obscenity laws to include “public libraries, public school libraries, and their employees or agents in certain circumstances.” The bill, which has 50 cosponsors, gives educators and librarians “15 business days [after receiving a valid complaint] for staff to move material to an age-restricted section; remove material; cease conduct; or make an official determination that the material or conduct does not violate the law.” Complaints can be sent by any resident in the same county as the public library or a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the school. If the person who files the complaint does not receive notice of action within 25 days, the material can be taken to law enforcement. The bill excludes college and university libraries and librarians. In Georgia, SB 74 would “repeal an exemption for libraries and librarians,” and make them vulnerable to “a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature” if they knowingly sell or distribute “harmful materials to minors.” The bill includes an exception for “librarians who make good faith attempts to identify and remove material harmful to minors.” The legislation was passed by the state Senate earlier this month, and has now moved to the House. Arizona SB 1090 states that “an employee or independent contractor of a public library in this state may not refer an unemancipated minor [or facilitate access for an unemancipated minor] to any sexually explicit material in any manner.” The legislation states that an employee of a public library “who acting with criminal negligence violates this section is guilty of a class 5 felony.” The bill passed a Senate committee in January, but, even if it passes the state legislature, it is unlikely that it will be signed into law by Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs.  "The [Gun Control Act] reaches, and permits ATF to regulate, at least some 'partially complete' frames or receivers," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 7-2 ruling upholding a Biden-era regulation targeting internet weapon parts kits. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the federal government's efforts to combat a flood of untraceable "ghost guns" assembled from internet-ordered firearm kits, rejecting arguments that the assemble-yourself firearms are not subject to a federal gun control law. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling that struck down down a 2022 rule subjecting the sale of firearms kits to the same tracking and background checks as conventional guns. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the rule unlawful on the grounds that the 1968 Gun Control Act covers only ready-made firearms—or a finished "frame or receiver" of such a weapon—not unassembled parts kits. Gorsuch's opinion for the court rejected that narrow reading of the law and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' statutory authority. "The GCA reaches, and permits ATF to regulate, at least some 'partially complete' frames or receivers," he wrote, adding that gun rights advocates had failed to prove that the bureau's regulation was facially inconsistent with the law. The court's decision spurred separate dissents from Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas. "The Court decides this case on a ground that was not raised or decided below and that was not the focus of the briefing or argument in this Court," Alito wrote, referring to the "extreme" example Gorsuch used to show how a nearly finished receiver should be subject to the Gun Control Act. Thomas, meanwhile, objected to the court's reading of the Gun Control Act as covering partially complete frames or receivers. "The statutory terms 'frame' and 'receiver' do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of 'firearm,'" Thomas wrote. "That should end the case." Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote concurring opinions. Sotomayor wrote that "some manufacturers have sought to circumvent the Act's requirements by selling easy-to-assemble firearm kits and frames, which they claim fall outside the statute's scope." But "ATF's rule simply confirms what was already clear: The Gun Control Act does not tolerate such evasion," she added. Kavanaugh wrote that the Gun Control Act penalizes only those who "willfully" violate the law's licensing, recordkeeping or serialization requirements. "Therefore, with respect to ATF's rule, the 'willfulness' requirement should help prevent the Government from unfairly penalizing an individual who is not aware that his conduct violates the law," Kavanaugh wrote. Jackson wrote that the dispositive issue is whether the ATF exceeded its statutory authority with the rule, which she added the agency did not. "Proper excess-of-authority review must focus on actual statutory boundaries, not on whether the agency's discretionary choices overlap precisely with what we, as unelected judges, would have done if we were standing in the agency's shoes," Jackson wrote. "And where, as here, the statute's boundaries do not foreclose the agency's action, the excess-of-authority claim should meet its end." Under the Biden-era rule from the ATF, online firearm kit makers are subject to the same requirements as other gun sellers: namely, they must have a federal license, conduct background checks for customers, maintain sales records, and include serial numbers on their products. The ATF has said the rule is necessary to address an "explosion" of crimes using these unserialized weapons. Between 2016 and 2021, the government says it submitted more than 45,000 ghost guns to ATF for tracing, with a success rate of less than 1%. The challenge to the rule came from Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael Andren and a group of weapons parts manufacturers, one of whom marketed a kit for a Glock-variant semiautomatic pistol that could be built in about 20 minutes, according to the government. The gun owners and manufacturers said the law makes clear that only "functional" frames or receivers should be regulated as such. They stated that the Gun Control Act applies to items that can "readily be converted" to firearms, but does not include such expansive language for the "frame or receiver" of a firearm. The court's decision comes less than a year after the Supreme Court held that the ATF did, in fact, exceed its statutory authority in banning the sale of bump stocks, a type of firearm accessory that uses the recoil of a weapon to simulate automatic fire. That rule was adopted by the ATF during the first Trump administration in response to the deadly mass shooting at a Las Vegas music concert. The court signaled that it was more receptive to the agency's "ghost gun" rule during oral arguments in October, with several conservative justices appearing sympathetic to the government—a stark contrast to the grilling the government's lawyer received in the bump stock case the previous term. Wednesday's decision came in Bondi v. Vanderstok, No. 23-852.  Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a call by President Donald Trump for the impeachment of a federal trial judge who temporarily barred the federal government from deporting noncitizens pursuant to an executive order published on Saturday.
The rare public statement was the latest development in a fast-moving battle over Trump’s efforts to deport noncitizens alleged to be members of a Venezuelan gang pursuant to an eighteenth-century law that had been invoked only three previous times in the country’s history. Trump’s executive order relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or other judicial review when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” occurs. Trump found that Tren de Aragua “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Based on that conclusion, he indicated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.” On Saturday, James Boasberg – the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia – prohibited the federal government from deporting any noncitizens for 14 days pursuant to the executive order published earlier in the day. Boasberg also ordered the Trump administration to turn around any flights that had already taken off. Despite Boasberg’s order, news outlets – including The New York Times – reported that the Trump administration had deported more than 200 noncitizens to El Salvador on Saturday night and Sunday morning. None of the planes carrying those noncitizens landed in El Salvador before Boasberg issued his written order. Boasberg held another hearing on March 17 on whether the Trump administration had violated his March 15 order. Citing “national security concerns,” a lawyer for the Department of Justice declined to answer the judge’s questions, insisting only that the government had not violated the written order. In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday morning, Trump contended that Boasberg should be impeached. In a statement released by the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office on Tuesday, Roberts indicated that “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Last year, Roberts handed Trump a significant victory in Trump v. United States, which bolstered the power of the presidency and established that the president is generally immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. But Tuesday’s statement was not Roberts’s first rebuke of Trump. In 2018, after Trump described a federal district judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy as an “Obama judge,” Roberts pushed back. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts told the Associated Press.  In his first month in office, President Trump has ordered a radical set of changes to the federal government. Some are within the traditionally understood scope of a president’s power, but many appear to purposely violate statutes, setting up tests of whether limits imposed by Congress on the White House are constitutional.
The bounds of presidential power can be hazy, and the Republican-appointed supermajority on the Supreme Court could expand them. Still, so many of Mr. Trump’s actions have defied apparent legal limits that some scholars say the country is approaching a constitutional crisis. Here are 38 of the Trump administration’s biggest moves so far. Reading the list ⚠️ Actions that appear to conflict with specific statutes or to violate the Constitution. 🚫 Actions that have been temporarily blocked by a judge, either partly or completely. Actions without these symbols appear more likely to fall within mainstream understandings of presidential power, but may still be unusual or subject to legal challenges. Staffing, firings and DOGE
Froze federal hiring
Spending ]
Most U.S. foreign aid
Foreign affairs
Immigration and border policy
|
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.