Scarlet Kim

If you were concerned about Kimmel, here's another for you… Journalist Mario Guevara has been detained for 100+ days, ironically arrested as he filmed a "No Kings" protest. Trump admin just issued an order of final removal, to send him to El Salvador—where he fled 21 years ago.

“Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture” by @tomdannenbaum cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/…

For a century, Congress has allowed non-citizens serving in armed conflict to naturalize at deploy overseas as U.S. citizens We urge the U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling that a Trump-era policy blocking military service members’ expedited path to citizenship is unlawful

Over the past three years, 120 deported veterans have finally returned home to the United States. But without a pardon from President Biden, most of these veterans will soon be at risk of deportation again by the upcoming Trump administration.

We are urging the appeals court to uphold the ruling and protect the expedited path to citizenship that our immigrant military service members are entitled to under the law.

NEW: Four years after a court struck down a policy blocking military service members’ expedited path to citizenship, the Biden Administration has decided to continue defending this Trump-era policy.

As a result of our lawsuit, the Idaho attorney general and a federal court recognized Idaho officials can’t enforce the state's No Public Funds for Abortion Act — which makes it a crime to use public funds to promote or counsel in favor of abortion — against public university professors. Students and professors can once again discuss abortion in the classroom without fear of legal repercussions. news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/pr…

Read the full case summary for Idaho Federation of Teachers v. Labrador: buff.ly/45mkSGN

@superwuster Mittelstand

Our lawsuit seeks to restore public debate about abortion to a vital forum—the public university. As SCOTUS declared: “To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation.” /19 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

The NPFAA is part of a broader censorship wave against open discussion of abortion. For example, some states have recently considered bills to force internet providers to block websites that provide information on abortion. /18 aclu.org/news/reproduct…

This inquiry is especially critical in Idaho, which has enacted some of the most draconian abortion restrictions after Dobbs. Idaho now prohibits abortion at all pregnancy stages, with only narrow affirmative defenses virtually impossible to navigate. /16 nytimes.com/interactive/20…

In our post-Roe world, it is ever more urgent to ensure the next generation is equipped to study abortion in all its facets, particularly as we grapple with the grim consequences of abortion bans. /15

The law’s lack of clarity is of particular concern to professors. Can they present ethical theories of bodily autonomy? Or statistical research demonstrating abortion access can decrease maternal mortality rates? Or how feminist theory has addressed the right to abortion? /14

We also argue that the law is so vague that no ordinary person can understand what speech it prohibits, in violation of the 14th Am.’s Due Process Clause. In particular, the NPFAA does not define “promote” or “counsel in favor of,” which are expansive and highly subjective. /12

The law could encompass discussions about proposed legislation to scale back Idaho’s criminalization of abortion; public health data implying advantages to abortion access; or medical, social, or familial circumstances where abortion might improve health outcomes. /13

This sweeping prohibition runs contrary to SCOTUS’s longstanding recognition that academic freedom is "a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.” /11 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

Our lawsuit contends that the NPFAA violates the First Amendment rights of Idaho’s public university professors by broadly and prospectively suppressing all academic speech that might express a viewpoint favorable to abortion/10

Idaho’s public universities have also interpreted the law to apply to professors’ academic speech. E.g., Univ. of Idaho guidance instructs that the NPFAA applies to class discussion and that “academic freedom” is “not a defense to violation of law.” /9 theintercept.com/2022/09/27/abo…

These professors have a lot to fear under the law. Public employees found to violate the NPFAA face up to 14 years of imprisonment, termination from employment, and financial penalties. /8

These professors represent just a small fraction of the educators who fear prosecution due to the NPFAA’s restrictions. For example, the union plaintiffs, @AFThighered federations, represent many members who have been similarly chilled by the law. /7 twitter.com/AFTHigherEd/st…