|
Doris Miller manned a gun he was never trained on at Pearl Harbor, becoming the first Black American awarded the Navy Cross.  The Navy is reportedly working to rename an aircraft carrier under construction that was set to honor a Black sailor celebrated for his heroism at Pearl Harbor, with President Donald Trump's name among those discussed as a replacement Three people familiar with the internal discussions told the network that the Navy is moving to rename the future USS Doris Miller in honor a Pearl Harbor hero and the first African-American recipient of the Navy Cross. Two sources indicated internal conversations about renaming the ship to honor Trump Amid those discussions, the Navy has effectively stopped referring to the ship as the Doris Miller internally and has been calling it only by its hull number, CVN-81 An executive order on shipbuilding that Trump signed last week also referred to the carrier by that hull number rather than its intended name. Naming a carrier after a sitting president would be unprecedented. Doris Miller, the War Hero Doris Miller was a mess attendant, one of the few roles open to Black sailors in the era's segregated Navy. He was also the son of a sharecropper from Waco, Texas. After enlisting in 1939, he served aboard the battleship USS West Virginia when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. During the attack, Miller carried wounded sailors to safety and manned a .50-caliber antiaircraft gun he had never been trained to use, firing until the ammunition ran out. Adm. Chester Nimitz awarded him the Navy Cross in 1942, making him the first African American to receive the decoration. Miller was killed in November 1943 when the escort carrier he was serving aboard, the USS Liscome Bay, was sunk in the Pacific. Cuba Gooding Jr. later portrayed him in the 2001 movie Pearl Harbor. Then-Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly named the carrier in his honor on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 2020. It was the first aircraft carrier named for an African American and the first named for an enlisted sailor. Questions Abound The effort to rename the ship has been underway since earlier this year. . Instead, the Navy is looking to name a different vessel after Miller and is recommending him for the Medal of Honor—the nation's highest military award—according to one source. The move follows a broader review of how Navy ships are named. A commission convened in 2025 under then-Navy Secretary John Phelan examined how ships and other military assets are named. Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao's office has been looking at updating that guidance, including specifying that ships may be named after presidents. The carrier is not expected to be delivered until 2034, according to USNI News. No timeline has been reported for a name change, and it remains unclear what the ship will ultimately be called.
0 Comments
"[T[he injunction meddles in 'the workings of ' the executive branch, preventing it from even trying to lawfully implement the order," the court said in a per curiam decision.  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the federal government to begin implementing President Donald Trump's executive order for an overhaul of mail voting systems ahead of the November midterm elections, finding it was too early for Democratic states to challenge the controversial policies. The ruling clears the way, at least for now, for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Postal Service to take a more active role in the administration of mail voting pursuant to Trump's executive directive. Historically, the federal government has played little to no role in mail voting, which has been under the total purview of individual states. The high court granted the Trump administration's request to lift an injunction against the president's order directing, among other things, the DHS to establish a master list of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and for the U.S. Postal Service to adopt new rules for mail ballots. A group of Democratic states say the executive order is unconstitutional and won an injunction from a Massachusetts federal judge barring its implementation. In an unsigned, per curiam, opinion, the Supreme Court said it was too early for the states to challenge the executive order because any harm stemming from an internal federal directive is purely speculative. "[T[he injunction meddles in 'the workings of ' the executive branch, preventing it from even trying to lawfully implement the order," the court said. The three justices dissented. The majority noted in its ruling that it "does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the order itself does not harm the states, so the district court lacked jurisdiction to bar the government from trying to implement it." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the states face a "sufficiently concrete and imminent injury" to bring their challenge in federal court. Specifically, the executive order creates a "credible threat" that the Trump administration will prosecute state and local officials for refusing to use the citizenship lists compiled by DHS, which the states say are necessarily incomplete, Sotomayor added. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a more sharply worded dissent, said the order "violates well-established precedents concerning this court’s equitable discretion and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections. It also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges." As the Supreme Court was deliberating the administration's request, the U.S. Postal Service finalized its rule implementing the executive order, setting new ballot design requirements and calling for states to transmit the identities of mail ballot recipients prior to federal elections. The new rule is likely to be challenged in court prior to the midterm elections, as several Democratic election officials wrote comments criticizing the proposed rulemaking. Trump, who has himself voted by mail, has been waging a legal fight against mail voting in the run-up to the November midterms, which could determine the fate of the remainder of his second term agenda as president. In his speeches and social media posts, the president has repeated the charge that mail voting is rife with fraud. At the end of June, however, the Supreme Court rejected a Trump-backed effort to stop the counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day in various states. Lawsuit Challenges New York City’s Frequent ‘Emergency Removals’ of Black and Latino Kids from Home  A federal lawsuit filed Thursday accuses New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) of routinely separating children and parents through unjustifiable and unconstitutional means — abrupt removals that are mischaracterized as emergencies and executed without court orders. “These seizures — which predominantly and disproportionally target the City’s Black and Latino families — frequently occur in the middle of the night, involve armed police officers, and result in ACS caseworkers pulling terrified children out of their beds,” reads the filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District in Manhattan. “Children have characterized the experience as ‘like being kidnapped.’” The class action suit was filed on behalf of parents and children who were separated. It cites The Imprint’s investigation published in December, which revealed that so-called “emergency removals” are standard practice in New York City and across the country, amounting to between 70% and 95% of all entries into foster care. And although the U.S. Supreme Court declared more than 50 years ago that such removals require court-approval — with limited exceptions — the vast majority take place well before a judge has weighed evidence from caseworkers. Thursday’s legal complaint describes this practice as “shockingly” frequent in New York City. Between 50% and 60% of all removals there are conducted this way, lawyers for the plaintiffs state, even though many of the cases do not involve “imminent risk” to the child’s life or health. As a result, plaintiffs’ attorneys argue, the practice bypasses “fundamental constitutional protections, exploits well‑documented decision‑making biases favoring family separation, and inflicts lasting harm on children and families.” The suit underscores the racial disproportionality among separated families, which state officials have denoted as “extreme” in large swaths of New York. City data shows nearly 90% of roughly 1,400 emergency removals in the 2025 fiscal year involved kids identified as “Black non-Hispanic” or “Hispanic/Latinx.” The city’s overall child population is just 56% Black and Latino. “After seizing children,” the legal complaint states, “ACS regularly fails to provide information to frightened parents about where their children will be taken, who will take care of them, or when they will see them again.” In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Administration for Children’s Services said it is reviewing the lawsuit with the city’s Law Department. The spokesperson also defended the agency’s use of emergency removals. “ACS is committed to keeping families together whenever that is safely possible, said Marisa Kaufman in an email. “Emergency removals are only considered in circumstances where all other options are ruled out, and teams of highly trained child protective staff determine that a child is in imminent danger and that there is not enough time to get a court order.” Kaufman also said that in more than 97% of child protection cases, children are never removed from their homes. Emergency removals have been the subject of controversy for years in New York City. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio and his child welfare commissioner defended emergency removals after the practice increased, prompting critical scrutiny from the city council. This week’s lawsuit was filed by civil rights and legal advocacy groups representing low-income parents and children, including New York’s Legal Aid Society, the Family Justice Law Center, the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as family defense clinics at New York University and City University of New York. The corporate firms Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP are also part of the team. “No family forgets the moment it is torn apart,” their complaint begins. They detail the cases of five families in the 94-page filing. Following emergency removals of children, “distress, trauma, and psychological damage far outlast the terrifying moments of a child’s seizure and resulting period of family separation,” the lawsuit states. It further notes that at least 25% of the time, judges reverse the child welfare agency’s initial decision to remove, and order the child’s return. The named plaintiffs in the case are two single mothers from the Bronx, and their children. One of the mothers, identified in the filing as 36-year-old Denise Archer — no real names are used — describes how she was separated from her three kids twice without court orders. The emergency removals took place after she sought help for her daughter, who has autism and ADHD. Her attorneys said Archer was not available for an interview, but in a joint press release with other plaintiffs, the Bronx community advocate, a former foster youth, described losing her own children to foster care. “ACS workers are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and you have to be very cautious with them when you’re a Black or Latino parent,” said Archer. “I tried to go to ACS to seek some type of assistance when my family was going through a hard time, and it turned into an almost three-year separation where I had to fight every step of the way to get my kids returned home.” Common practice nationwide More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanley v. Illinois that parents are entitled to a hearing on their fitness prior to having their children taken by the government. Exceptions can be made if the child is in imminent danger and would be harmed if left at home until a hearing could take place. Yet, as The Imprint revealed last year, the vast majority of foster care entries begin as an emergency removal in states and counties across the country. In 2024 and 2025, they accounted for between 86% and 100% of all child welfare removals in Texas, Illinois and Washington, according to administrative data obtained by The Imprint. Anecdotal evidence from a judge in Fairfax County, Virginia, and a case review by legal scholars in Fulton County, Georgia, found that 90% or more removals in those counties were executed prior to a full court hearing. New York City is a rare jurisdiction that makes this data public: One report shows 54% for the first quarter of 2025. Legal advocates say removing a child when a true emergency doesn’t exist denies parents the opportunity to advocate for themselves — or to have a lawyer speak on their behalf — until a hearing can be held, often days or weeks after losing their child. If Atlanta mother DeCharae Key had been afforded this opportunity prior to removal, she told The Imprint last year, her daughter would not have become a ward of the state of Georgia. “It would have been very different, because I would have had a chance to explain myself,” she said. Key is one of two Georgia mothers who have also been challenging the practice in court. In both cases their families were subjected to emergency removals when — by the agency’s own admission under oath — the children were safe and their parents were cooperating with child welfare case plans. Though the children were eventually returned to their families, the mothers have appealed their cases to higher courts. As in the New York lawsuit, they’re seeking systemic reform — and are asking the Georgia Supreme Court to bar child welfare caseworkers from relying on emergency removals. The plaintiffs in New York are seeking a jury trial, financial damages for the plaintiffs, and changes to policy and practice. They argue that the city’s practice violates the children’s and parents’ due process rights and their rights to be free from racial discrimination and unreasonable seizure by the government under the Constitution’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class that includes children and parents who have, will, or could face emergency removals. Black and Latino parents and children are also included as a subclass for the racial discrimination claim. Last week, in a different federal court in Manhattan, a panel of appeals court judges revived a closely watched lawsuit brought by a Bronx father who alleged that New York City’s child welfare agency violated his family’s constitutional rights by needlessly taking custody of his infant son on an emergency basis and without a court order. One of the legal advocates filing this week’s separate class-action said the recent court action should send a signal to child welfare leaders around the country, not just in New York. “The message to the head of every child protective agency in the country is that they should be sitting down with their lawyers and asking, ‘How do they ensure that their staffs are complying with constitutional requirements?’” said Chris Gottlieb, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Law. “That’s both because it’s good for children, and because if they don’t, they and their caseworkers are going to be liable.” A comprehensive study led by Simon Fraser University (SFU) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) reveals that juvenile Chinook salmon in British Columbia's Lower Fraser River estuary are swimming in a toxic "chemical cocktail" containing more than 200 organic contaminants, including cocaine, antidepressants, and diabetes medications.  Published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, this expansive screening highlights how heavy urban development, agricultural runoff, and wastewater discharge have contaminated critical nursery habitats. Overview of the Findings Researchers tested hundreds of water and fish tissue samples collected from five major sites in the Lower Fraser estuary between 2019 and 2021. Samples were analyzed for more than 595 organic contaminants across multiple chemical classes.
What Contaminants Were Found? The detected chemicals span an alarming variety of consumer, medical, and industrial categories:
The Ecological Impact & Risks According to researchers from Simon Fraser University, the presence of these chemicals triggers multi-tiered environmental concerns:
This collaborative research was supported by the Government of Canada’s Whales Initiative to trace human pollution footprints and inform ongoing recovery efforts for culturally and ecologically valued salmon populations The JAMA study authors concluded that career FDA scientists acted with extreme caution and lacked ideological bias, repeatedly verifying that serious harms from the drug are "rare".  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a federal appeals court ruling to preserve nationwide mail-order and telehealth access to the abortion pill mifepristone while ongoing litigation plays out. The decision prevents immediate disruptions to medication abortion, which represents the most common method of ending pregnancies in the United States. Key Details of the Ruling
Core Context of the Lawsuit The emergency appeal directly stemmed from a lawsuit spearheaded by the state of Louisiana. Louisiana officials argued that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) policies allowing remote prescription delivery bypassed and undermined its strict state-level abortion ban. This marks the second major instance of the Supreme Court intervening in mifepristone access. In 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed a separate challenge from anti-abortion medical groups, ruling that those plaintiffs lacked the legal standing required to sue the FDA. Broader Political Landscape The Supreme Court's intervention coincides with heightened friction surrounding federal abortion regulations:
U.S. child welfare systems often mistake poverty for neglect.  It is time to reconsider the orthodoxy of closed juvenile and family court sessions by letting some sunshine in. The first juvenile court in Chicago was open to the public, but over time many states closed sessions. In 1967, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of due process into juvenile court in In Re Gault. Justice Fortas observed that the excesses of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison to those of our juvenile courts. Comparing the excesses of English monarchs to what occurred in closed juvenile sessions might seem hyperbolic, but the harm done to youth and families in the name of good intent was palpable. We’ve made progress, but promoting a culture of greater transparency furthers the goals of systemic accountability, more rigor in fact-finding, and adherence to burdens of proof— proof beyond a reasonable doubt in youth justice cases and clear and convincing evidence in termination of parental right cases. Closed sessions enhance the danger of cheating the evidence by making comparative judgements about “best interest,” criminalizing and conflating poverty with neglect. Due process equals best interest. Opening the doors or peeking inside would also educate the public about the complexity of the issues explored in this chapter and raise the level of practice of lawyers and jurists. Opening or closing the doors is hardly a radical proposal. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution in 2005 recommending that dependency cases be presumptively open. This is not an either-or proposition. We can presumptively open the doors—as twenty states have done—by creating guard rails that balance privacy and public interest. Safeguards which would prevent stigmatizing youth or their families include precluding the publication of the names of parties and not allowing juvenile court records to be disseminated. Judges can also craft casebased orders regarding court access to particularly sensitive material. No state which has opened its doors has reversed its policy. The federal government appealed in all four cases, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated all four appeals and also ordered them to be set for argument and decision by the same panel that will consider an appeal involving an individual attorney’s challenge to the denial of a security clearance.  Amicus briefs have been filed by multiple organizations in the consolidated case Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The briefs support four law firms--Perkins Coie LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP, and WilmerHale—that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a series of 2025 executive orders issued by the Trump administration. These orders imposed sanctions, including the revocation of security clearances and directives to terminate federal contracts, in retaliation for the firms' representation of clients and causes the administration viewed as political adversaries. Key arguments presented by Amicus briefs include:
In the consolidated cases, such as Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, the law firms and supporting amici (including the American Bar Association) successfully argued that the 2025 executive orders were unconstitutional on several fronts. Core Constitutional Challenges First Amendment Retaliation & Free Association: The firms argued the orders were an attempt to punish them for protected legal advocacy and political associations. By targeting firms for representing specific clients (e.g., the Democratic National Committee) or causes (e.g., voting rights), the government engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Fifth Amendment Due Process: Plaintiffs alleged the orders effectively "blacklisted" them—denying security clearances and federal contracts—without any fair procedure, notice, or opportunity to respond to accusations of "dishonest" conduct. Separation of Powers: The challenge asserted that the executive branch was usurping judicial power by sanctioning private firms for their conduct in litigation, which is a field exclusively regulated by the courts. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: The firms argued the orders undermined the relationship between attorneys and their clients, interfering with a client’s right to choose their own legal representation without fear of government retribution. Additional Legal Arguments Bill of Attainder: Some arguments likened the orders to unconstitutional Bills of Attainder because they singled out specific entities (like Perkins Coie) for punishment by executive fiat rather than through a judicial trial. Equal Protection: The orders were challenged for imposing restrictions on specific firms without a "rational basis," thereby violating equal protection under the law. Exceeding Procurement Authority: The firms contended the President exceeded authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), arguing that political blacklisting has no legitimate tie to promoting "economy and efficiency" in government procurement. Federal district judges upheld these arguments in 2025, finding the orders were driven by "personal vendettas" rather than legitimate national security or administrative interests Oral arguments for the consolidated appeals are scheduled for May 14, 2026.
They're not DEI. They're sovereign.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has terminated 49 out of 50 awarded grants under the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program, a nearly $300 million initiative. This mass cancellation, occurring in late March and early April 2026, has stalled critical tribal agriculture projects and stripped millions in funding from Native-led organizations.
Rationale for Termination The USDA justified the abrupt cancellations by citing:
Impact on Tribal Projects The loss of these funds has disrupted long-term planning for infrastructure and land acquisition:
Affected organizations are facing immediate operational crises:
Evidence from Jonathan Ross’ fatal shooting of the Minneapolis woman on Jan. 7 is sought as part of a separate case in which a man was convicted of dragging the federal agent with his car.  U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan ordered federal agencies to turn over unredacted files regarding Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis. The order requires the government to produce these records by May 1, 2026, for an in camera (private) review by a magistrate judge to determine if they can be used as evidence.
Context of the Order The ruling does not stem from a direct criminal case for Good’s death, but from the prosecution of Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala . The Connection:
The judge ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office, DOJ, DHS, and ICE to provide a wide range of materials:
A half-century ago, the Indigenous Tsimshian village of Metlakatla, in Southeast Alaska, preserved its reservation when others in Alaska were terminated. Today, the reserve sustains a thriving fishing industry — and the tribe is fighting in court to expand its territory.  The Metlakatla Indian Community on the Annette Islands Reserve is the only Native reservation in Alaska that successfully preserved its fishing culture by opting out of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). While 22 other reservations in Alaska were dissolved in exchange for land and cash payouts, Metlakatla chose to maintain its federal reservation status and the exclusive fishing rights that came with it. Key Factors in Saving Their Culture
Despite their success, the "salmon people" (as they call themselves) face ongoing hurdles:
|
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.