Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Criminalizing Dissent, Freedom Of Speech, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Federal Court Challenges to Trump Administration Arguments
The number of active lawsuits in federal courts challenging Trump administration arguments has now topped 100. In 21 of those cases, judges have already issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, effectively stopping, at least for now, parts of Trump’s agenda.
For example, as reported in the New York Times this past Sunday, trial court judges have blocked for now Trump’s mass firings of civil servants, Musk’s access to sensitive federal agency data, the relocation of transgendered women inmates to men’s prisons, the pursuit of immigrants inside houses of worship, and the freezing of up to $3 trillion of federal funding to the states. And in a very important case, a federal judge entered a final judgment reinstating the head of the federal watchdog agency. And just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration halting the sending out of those billions of foreign aid dollars.
But it must be pointed out that in a number of preliminary victories against Trump’s actions, the government, though losing the first round in the case, have nevertheless stalled in obeying the court’s orders. And Trump, himself, posted the absolutist notion that, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
Five of the judges who have ruled against Trump were appointed by Republican presidents, one by Trump himself. As a result of Trump’s losing record in court cases so far, there is now talk on the right of seeking to impeach judges who rule against the Trump Administration. And the number of death threats judges are experiencing from the public have gone up alarmingly, as well.
Guest – Stephen Rohde is a civil rights activist, author, and constitutional scholar. He practiced civil rights law for almost 50 years. He currently serves as chair of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (aka ICUJP), which was formed in the wake of 9/11 for the purpose of organizing faith-based communities to call for an end to war and violence. He is also a past President of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and past Chair of Death Penalty Focus, and Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. Despite that long list of affiliations, today he’s not speaking on behalf of any of those organizations.
—-
Free Speech Protections Threatened Under Trump Administration
On March 4, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened to cut federal funding to colleges that permit what he calls “illegal protests.” This statement on social media has sparked a wave of reactions from civil rights groups as a direct attack on fundamental freedoms such as speech and assembly.
In his post, Trump echoed ideas from previous executive orders, including his 2019 order and one issued in January, which specifically targeted pro-Palestinian student protests on college campuses, calling them antisemitic. But Trump’s latest comments go further, asserting that any protest deemed illegal would lead to harsh consequences, including the imprisonment of agitators and expulsion or arrest of American students. The details, however, remain unclear, particularly around how the government would define “illegal protests” or the enforcement of such measures.
Trump’s latest threat has reignited concerns about the balance between freedom of speech and government intervention on college campuses. It also raises important questions about the rights of students, faculty, and protesters in the context of broader political and social movements.
Guest – Attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and the Center for Protest Law and Litigation in Washington, DC. Mara is one of the nation’s leading litigators defending protesters and winning numerous reforms in police practices at mass assemblies and demonstrations.
———————–
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Gaza, Human Rights, Illegal Immigration
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Trump Executive Orders Erasing Protections For Underclass
This is the first week of Black History Month, and we at the Law and Disorder show are eager to celebrate it. But that’s not what’s happening in the Trump administration. The Defense Department under the headline “Identity Months Dead at DoD” has eliminated various Heritage Months, including Black History Month. Meanwhile, the Defense Intelligence Agency has “paused” the recognition of Black History Month.
Even more alarming is Trump’s Executive Order eliminating the use of D.E.I., that is “diversity, equity and inclusion”, as factors to be considered by all federal agencies when hiring their employees. Trump claims the elimination of DEI will result in America becoming a “colorblind and merit-based society.” However, DEI programs do not hire less qualified applicants for jobs, they simply require governmental agencies to seek out well-qualified minority and women candidates for all job openings. That is, to remove any discriminatory barriers that result in hiring fewer well-qualified women and minorities, and the disabled, in their work force. Margareet Huang, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s president and chief executive got it right when she said, “His (Trump’s) attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion—are just a sanitized substitute for the racist comments that can no longer be spoken openly.”
Meanwhile, and closely related to Trump’s attack on DEI, are his multifaceted attacks on immigrants and in particular those who join in public protests against his policies, such as his policies on Israel and Palestine.
For many years, and especially after October 7, 2023, as a way to stifle demands for Palestinian human rights and sovereignty, there has been a concerted effort to conflate criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism. Now Trump has upped the ante. On January 29, he pledged to deport non-citizen college students, and others, who take part in pro-Palestinian protests, and promising “immediate action” by his Justice Department to prosecute such protesters. He issued a warning to all the resident immigrants who join in what he called “the pro-jihadist protests,” warning that “we will find you, and we will deport you.” He threatened to cancel the foreign student visas of what he labeled “Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”
To implement these sweeping threats, Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.” Among other things, the order reaffirms Executive Order 13899 that Trump issued on December 11, 2019, during his first term. It required all executive departments and agencies charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws to consider the highly controversial “working definition” of anti-Semitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including eleven “Examples of Anti-Semitism.”
On May 1, 2024, the House of Representatives on a 320-91 bipartisan vote, passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act. It would enshrine the very same flawed IHRA “working definition” in federal law. It now goes before the Senate. On January 21, without even waiting for the Act to become law, Harvard University set a dangerous precedent by agreeing to adopt the IHRA definition as part of a settlement of two federal lawsuits that had accused the school of failing to do enough to prevent antisemitic discrimination.
Guest – Stephen Rohde is a civil rights activist, author, and constitutional scholar. He currently serves as chair of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (aka ICUJP), and he is also a past President of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and past Chair of Death Penalty Focus and Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice.
—————————————-
Academic Freedom, Censorship, Freedom Of Speech, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The First Amendment And TikTok
On January 17, for the first time in modern American history, a unanimous US Supreme Court upheld a sweeping prior restraint on free speech imposed by Congress banning over 170 million users in the United States from having access to the popular social media platform TikTok that the Court itself admitted “allows users to create, publish, view, share, and interact with short videos overlaid with audio and text.” In 2023 alone, U. S. TikTok users uploaded more than 5.5 billion videos, which were in turn viewed more than 13 trillion times around the world. The avoid the ban, the law requires TikTok’s parent company, the China-based ByteDance, to divest its ownership.
From January 18 to 19, the ban was in effect for about 12 hours until Donald Trump tweeted that as President he would grant a stay of execution, pending a potential sale of TikTok. It was only 12 hours some may say, but it is estimated that during that time the ban blocked 6,750,000 videos that would have been viewed over 178,000,000 times worldwide. The ban is easily the most extensive act of censorship in human history.
Shortly after he was sworn in, Trump signed an Executive Order purporting to suspend the ban for 75 days. Serious questions have been raised whether Trump’s order is legal and enforceable. And despite his order, Apple and Google have still not reinstated TikTok at their stores preventing new subscribers from accessing TikTok.
Meanwhile, the First Amendment rights of 170 million TikTok users hang in the balance.
Guest – Ramya Krishnan is a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School. Her litigation focuses on issues related to government transparency, protest, privacy, and social media. Ramya co-authored the Knight Institute’s amicus brief in TikTok. v. Garland, one of the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the TikTok ban which resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision. Read Amicus Brief
—-
Federal Court Rejects Attempt To Remove Ethnic Studies Curriculum
As Israel’s war in Gaza and the West Bank rages on, the free speech battles here in the United States continue with Congress, state legislatures and college administrators trying to silence pro-Palestinian protests by conflating criticism of Israel with the odious epithet of “antisemitism.” Pro-Palestinian groups are being banned, students are being disciplined, and faculty members are being suspended and fired.
But last November, there was some hopeful news when a federal court rejected attempts by Jewish parents and teachers to remove an ethnic studies curriculum from the Los Angeles Unified School District that they had labelled “antisemitic” and “anti-Zionist.”
On November 30, 2024, in a 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin wrote that a system of education “which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues” must allow teachers and their students “to explore difficult and conflicting ideas.” He added that “we must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions that chill teachers from adopting the pedagogical methods they believe are most effective,”
The ruling represents a welcome rebuke to the efforts of Republican state legislators and conservative parent groups to try to restrict the teaching of comprehensive American history in public schools, to ban books that examine that history as well as racism, sexism, and LGBTQ issues, and to eliminate programs that seek to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in American education.
In 2022, a group calling itself “Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles,” comprised of what the lawsuit calls Jewish, Zionist teachers and parents of students sued the Los Angeles Unified School District; United Teachers of Los Angeles; its president Cecily Myart-Cruz; the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium; Theresa Montaño, the Consortium’s secretary; and Guadalupe Carrasco, its co-founder.
To discuss the important free speech and academic freedom issues involved in this case, we’ve invited the lawyer who represented the ethnic studies curriculum, Ms Montano and Ms Carrasco.
Guest – Mark Kleiman is a former activist and organizer and a long-time civil rights and human rights attorney. With extensive experience in whistleblower protection, he has brought cases that exposed massive fraud against public programs and has forced drug companies, nursing home chains, and defense contractors to repay hundreds of millions of dollars. Since 2019 he has devoted thousands of hours to defending activists, scholars, and students who have been attacked for their defense of Palestinian human rights.
————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Remembering The Legacy of Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter passed away on December 29, 2024, at the age of 100. His legacy in human rights has left an indelible mark on global diplomacy. Elected in 1977 as the 39th President of the United States, Carter made human rights a central theme of his administration. He believed that as a global power, the US had a responsibility to champion freedom, dignity, and justice for all people, regardless of nationality or political system. This vision led to the introduction of policies aimed at addressing both the internal injustices within the U.S. and the broader human rights violations occurring around the world.
One of Carter’s most significant achievements in this realm was his focus on condemning authoritarian regimes and promoting democratic movements. His administration applied pressure on governments, particularly in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, to uphold human rights standards, often linking U.S. foreign aid and diplomatic relations to a country’s record on human rights. Though controversial at times—especially in relation to U.S. alliances with regimes like those in Iran and Egypt—Carter’s commitment to human rights was revolutionary in its directness.
Beyond policy, Carter also helped create lasting institutions that would carry forward his vision. The Carter Center, founded in 1982, became a beacon for promoting democracy, advancing health, and improving human rights globally. Through the Center, Carter personally monitored elections, mediated peace talks, and worked to eliminate diseases that disproportionately affected the world’s most vulnerable populations. After leaving office, Carter’s work as a human rights advocate set a new precedent for U.S. foreign policy, showing that human rights can—and should—be a priority in shaping international relations and peace efforts.
Guest – Mischa Geracoulis is a journalist and critical media literacy expert. Mischa is the Curriculum Development Coordinator at Project Censored, and serves on the editorial board of the Censored Press and The Markaz Review. She writes about journalistic ethics and standards, press and academic freedoms, identity and culture, and the protracted disinformation campaign against the Armenian Genocide. She is author of the forthcoming book to be published by Routledge, Media Framing and the Destruction of Cultural Heritage.
—-
War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of its Military Machine
The United States is engaged in constant, if often invisible, wars. Or, if not invisible, at least not accurately and fully reported on in the corporate media. Thereby leaving the people of the United States far from fully informed as to what and where U.S. military troops are stationed or engaged in military action. For example, while there has been a great deal of media coverage of the U.S. supported Israeli war in Palestine, one would have needed to pay extra close attention to that coverage to know that the U.S., even before that war began, had 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in the area. Or that the Biden Administration has just recently sent at least 1,500 more to join them. And how many of us know that late last year retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brick, said that, and I quote: “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S. Everyone understands that we (Israel) can’t fight this war without the United States.
So last year, Norman Solomon, our guest today, wrote a much noted and much-admired book titled, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of its Military Machine. And that book has just been reissued with an up-dated afterword about the Gaza War, by the author. Naomi Klein, best-selling author of The Shock Doctrine, says the book is “A Staggeringly Important Intervention”. Noam Chomsky, says Solomon’s book is a “gripping and painful study of the mechanisms behind our invisible, but perpetual, national state of war.”
Guest – Norman Solomon is the co-founder of RootsAction.org and Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, and is, in fact, the author or co-author, of 12 books, most touching on today’s topic in either close or tangential ways. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
—————————
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Taxpayers Against Genocide: Lawsuit Against Congress Members For Approving $26.38B In Military Aid To Israel
On December 19, 2024, a coalition of human rights activists and organizations filed a class action lawsuit against California Congress members Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman. The lawsuit alleges that the representatives misused their authority by approving $26.38 billion in military aid to Israel, despite evidence that these funds contribute to ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Supported by more than 500 plaintiffs across Northern California, the case highlights growing public demands for accountability in U.S. foreign policy. It was filed by the group Taxpayers Against Genocide.
At the core of the lawsuit is the argument that Thompson and Huffman ignored clear evidence of war crimes committed with U.S.-provided weapons, effectively forcing their constituents into moral complicity. Plaintiffs describe profound emotional and moral injuries resulting from their representatives’ actions, emphasizing the ethical responsibility to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding human rights violations.
Sign up to the TAG mailing list: classactionagainstgenocide@proton.me
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, aiming to halt military aid to Israel and secure accountability for decisions made in Congress. With plaintiffs ranging from seasoned activists to ordinary constituents, the case represents a significant legal challenge to U.S. military support for Israel amid increasing scrutiny over its devastating consequences for Palestinian civilians.
Guest – Seth Donnelly, a Sonoma County resident, former Bay Area high school teacher, human rights advocate, and one of the founders of Taxpayers Against Genocide.
Guest – Maria Barakat, a Lebanese Palestinian antiwar activist, sociologist of law and society, and public policy expert specializing in equity from UC Berkeley. Both Seth and Maria are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
—-
Judges Who Issued ICC Arrest Warrants Against Netanyahu Accused Of Being Anti-Semitic
On November 1, when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Netanyhu accused the judges of “anti-Semitic hatred toward Israel.”
When Donald Trump vowed to crack down on campus protests by invoking the Insurrection Act to enlist the US military, he warned American colleges and universities that if they do not “end antisemitic propaganda,” they would lose accreditation and federal financial support.
Today, one of the oldest and most virulent forms of hatred – antisemitism – is being weaponized as a cudgel to silence opposition to Israel’s war against the Palestinians. If you criticize Israel, you are an “antisemite.” If you condemn Zionism, you are an “antisemite.” If an international court, with 125 member countries, dedicated to what Kofi Annan called “the cause of all humanity,” accuses Israel (and it is important to note, also Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif) of war crimes, the judges (from France, Benin, and Slovenia) are guilty of “antisemitism.”
The founders of Israel willingly took on a known risk when they established a Jewish state, choosing sacred religious symbols, the Star of David (Magen David) as the official state insignia on the nation’s flag, the menorah as the official state emblem, and Hebrew as the state’s official language. In 2018, the Knesset doubled down by passing a law designating Israel the “Nation-State of the Jewish people.” The chairman of the special legislative committee that drafted the law, described it as simply confirming “the founding principle on which the state was established,” that “everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel belong only to the Jewish people.” The Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel said the law “contains key elements of apartheid.”
During the highly contested debate over Zionism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anti-Zionists and non-Zionists repeatedly warned that establishing a Jewish state would pose grave dangers not only to indigenous Arab inhabitants, but to Jews around the world. Today that complex history has been largely replaced by an official, sanitized version that doggedly erases the many Jewish voices that have sounded well-grounded alarms over the establishment of a militarized theocracy.
Guest – Professor Marjorie Feld is the author of a new, groundbreaking book, The Threshold of Dissent: A History of American Jewish Critics of Zionism. She is a professor of history at Babson College and the author of Nations Divided: American Jews and the Struggle Over Apartheid.
—————————————
Civil Liberties, Crony Capitalism, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, Uncategorized, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Charting A Way Forward: A Billionaire President, Economies and Policies
The corporate media has been working to normalize Trump and his cabinet nominees who are waiting in to take the reins of the US government on January 20, 2025. Trump won the popular vote by less than his three predecessors Biden, Obama, and Bush. He lost in 2020 and attempted to stay in power by a coup that failed. But last month he succeeded in staging a comeback. He will be more focused, organized, and more brutal than he was the last time.
During his campaign he took full advantage of peoples’ disgust with the neoliberal capitalist Democratic Party and Biden and Harris. Her campaign emphasized joy but put forward no real program to address their situation. 70 million people voted against her.
Real wages in America have not risen in 50 years. The minimum wage has stayed the same – $7.50 an hour-for 15 years under both Democratic and Republican administration. Half the country is poor or near poor. Most people don’t have enough money in the bank to survive a crisis.
For profit health care Is so arbitrary and cruel that Luigi Mangione has become a popular hero, like Robin Hood, even though he shot someone in the back.
Food prices have skyrocketed. Rent is too high. Home purchases are impossible for the average person. So is paying college tuition without going into debt. And the final insult was that Trump, the adjudicated rapist, has been named man of the year by Time Magazine which put his photo on the cover and wrote about his ringing the bell opening the New York Stock Exchange surrounded by his repellent family.
On January 20 he will be, in his words, dictator for the day. He’ll begin his program of massive deportations and retribution against his opponents in the press and in the government. Who are the people he has chosen to support this effort? What might we expect?
Guest – Patrick Martin, senior editor at the world socialist web site where he covers a range of political issues in the United States.
—-
![]()
![]()
CCR Landmark Verdict Brings 42 Million in Settlement To Torture Victims
Last month, in a landmark verdict, a jury in a federal court in Virginia found a government contractor liable for its role in the torture of three Iraqi men at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison back in 2003-2004, and ordered the company to pay a total of $42 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the men who brought the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from the famed Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City and pro bono counsel from Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, and Akeel & Valentine. The private defendant company, acting as a government contractor, was CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
The company was found liable for conspiring to torture and commit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of the Iraqi men, one a middle school principal, one a fruit vendor and one a journalist.
Guest – Attorney Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights filed this landmark case more than 16 years ago. Her areas of legal expertise include matters of torture, war crimes and militarism. Among her many major cases is the case titled, Situation of Afghanistan at the International Criminal Court; and the case titled, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests-v-Vatican. Prior to her work at the CCR, she worked at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
——————————————–
