Maya Boddie

JD Vance caught quietly deleting '100% pro-life' position from his website

Abortion is one of the defining issues of the 2024 election. Now, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the GOP's presumptive vice presidential nominee, is trying to conceal his past opposition for the procedure in all cases.

On Tuesday, JJ Abbott —former Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Tom Wolf's press secretary – combed through Vance's website and found that a page explaining his stalwart opposition to abortion is no longer publicly viewable. As of Tuesday evening, Vance's website, jdvance.com, now redirects to former President Donald Trump's campaign website.

Vance's now deleted statement reads:

I am 100 percent pro-life, and believe that abortion has turned our society into a place where we see children as an inconvenience to be thrown away rather than a blessing to be nurtured. Eliminating abortion is first and foremost about protecting the unborn, but it's also about making our society more pro-child and pro-family. The historic Dobbs decision puts this new era of society intomotion, one that prioritizes family and the sanctity of all life.

READ MORE: 'Last straw': JD Vance’s best friend reveals moment he switched from Never Trump to MAGA

Shortly after the right-wing senator was selected, Politico noted that "it was on abortion where the Biden campaign and its aides and allies have focused much of their immediate attention — an issue that Democrats believe is a key vulnerability for Trump and that would be a critical element in a potential debate between Vance and Harris."

The news outlet also emphasized, "Trump has sought to neutralize abortion as a winning avenue for Democrats by saying he supports letting states decide the issue, even if it was his Supreme Court justices who enabled the fall of Roe v. Wade and saddled the Republican Party with a lightning-rod issue that became a major factor in the GOP’s underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterms."

Although Vance has since toned down his far-right abortion views "to more closely align with Trump’s," Politico adds that "past remarks on abortion and women — and his subsequent attempts to modify them — are providing Democrats running against Trump with rocket fuel for their strategy on abortion rights."

READ MORE: 'They are celebrating that choice': Former GOP lawmaker says 'Moscow' wants JD Vance as VP

Trump campaign kept profile of rally shooter’s family in 2016 database: report

Thomas Crooks — the 20-year-old now deceased gunman who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump Saturday — "was among millions of voters profiled" and included in a Republican database created by the former president's 2016 presidential campaign, according to Channel 4 News.

Crooks' family were also listed in the database, the report notes.

The database, which "was first obtained and revealed by Channel 4 News" in 2020, showed "that both the parents of Thomas Crooks were very likely to be gun owners and shared other gun-related lifestyle indicators."

READ MORE: Security ramped up as potential second Trump assassination plot uncovered: report

Trump's 2016 campaign listed Crooks as "a strong republican, likely gun owner and 'hunter'," according to the report.

Channel 4 notes, "There is no suggestion that any member of the Crooks family had knowledge of the assassination attempt by recent high school graduate Thomas Crooks or that they permitted the illegal use of weapons by him."

Per the report, the MAGA leader's 2016 campaign database "lists the assailant’s parents Matthew, and his wife Mary, 53," alongside "6.7 million people in the swing state of Pennsylvania profiled for their likely ownership of firearms. Both scored highly, with Crook’s father Matthew given particularly high scores."

READ MORE: Secret Service and local police point fingers at each other after Trump rally shooting

Channel 4's full report is available at this link.

Why Brett Kavanaugh’s 'Nixon pardon' argument doesn’t work in Trump’s case: analysis

The US Supreme Court last week heard Donald Trump's argument that he should immune from federal prosecution — particularly in reference to special counsel Jack Smith's January 6 election interference case against the ex-president.

During the oral arguments on April 25, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh made a claim that The Washington Post's Aaron Blake challenges in a Monday, April 29 analysis.

"Kavanaugh invoked President Gerald Ford’s 50-year-old pardon of Richard Nixon, while suggesting that perhaps presidents need to be somewhat insulated," Blake writes.

READ MORE: Ex-prosecutor: SCOTUS delay in deciding Trump immunity is 'corrosive' to democracy

The justice asked, "How about — I think it came up before — President Ford’s pardon? Very controversial in the moment — hugely unpopular, probably why he lost in ’76. Now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, I think, by most people. If [Ford is] thinking about, 'Well, if I grant this pardon to Richard Nixon, could I be investigated myself for obstruction of justice on the theory that I’m interfering with the investigation of Richard Nixon?'"

Blake writes:

If anything, Kavanaugh citing this example would seem to speak to his and his conservative colleagues’ sympathy for at least the broad strokes of Trump’s argument — that presidents shouldn’t have to constantly fear criminal reprisals once they leave office. And it’s at least somewhat logical to think such a fear could hamstring their decision-making and prevent them from doing things that turn out to be vital for the country’s well-being.

It’s just that the Nixon pardon isn’t a great example of a dicey but necessary decision Americans now regard as something a president should feel empowered to do. Maybe it was at one time, but not now that another former president has been accused of dirty tricks, compelling the Supreme Court to take up the question.

The Post senior political reporter emphasizes that the justice "is right that the pardon might well have cost Ford the 1976 election, and also that public opinion warmed to the decision over the years," considering the fact "Gallup polling showed support for the pardon going from 38 percent shortly before he offered it to 35 percent in 1976, but up to 54 percent by 1986."

In 2002, Blake notes, a Washington Post/ABC News poll revisited the issue once more, "and found even stronger support: 59 percent of Americans said Ford had done the right thing, while 32 percent said he had done the wrong thing — a nearly 2-to-1 ratio."

READ MORE: Law professor reams SCOTUS for moving to 'protect Donald Trump' with immunity ruling

Blake suggests "more recent polling suggests that’s not really the case anymore. The pollster YouGov asked such questions in both 2014 and 2018, and Americans were actually about evenly split."

In the 2014 poll, 34 percent said Ford should have pardoned Nixon, but 32 percent said he shouldn’t have. The 2018 poll — notably conducted during Trump’s presidency and after Trump had talked about pardoning himself — showed that nearly 4 in 10 approved of the Nixon pardon and about the same number disapproved.

Blake reports, "Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer wrote last year that 'Ford entrenched a damaging norm that became part of our nostalgia, pushing leaders away from taking legal action against elected officials who abused their power.'"

The Post reporter also notes former US Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) wrote last year, "It set a terrible example, as I predicted at the time, by fostering the idea of presidential impunity. Perhaps if the criminal process had been allowed to work itself out in Nixon’s situation, Trump would not have thought he was immune from accountability, and his behavior would have been different."

READ MORE: Trump’s 'astounding' SCOTUS Jan. 6 immunity brief blasted by legal experts

Blake's full analysis is here (subscription required).

How 'the ineluctable rise of worldwide free market capitalism' has been a 'stunning failure': columnist

Writing in Sunday's New York Times, global economics correspondent Patricia Cohen broke down how financial globalization proves that "almost everything we thought we knew about the world economy was wrong."

Cohen notes the stark contrast between "the world's business and political leaders'" optimistic outlook on the global economy during the 2018 "annual economic forum in Davos," to "now, as the second year of war in Ukraine grinds on and countries struggle with limp growth and persistent inflation, questions about the emerging economic playing field have taken center stage."

The columist points to the "heady triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991," adding, "Associated economic theories about the ineluctable rise of worldwide free market capitalism took on" a sense "of invincibility and inevitability," as "open markets, hands-off government and the relentless pursuit of efficiency would offer the best route to prosperity."

READ MORE: The world economy is changing. People know, but their leaders don't

During that time, Cohen continues, "There was reason for optimism," noting, "During the 1990s, inflation was low while employment, wages and productivity were up. Global trade nearly doubled. Investments in developing countries surged. The stock market rose."

She then emphasizes, "It was believed that a new world where goods, money and information crisscrossed the globe would essentially sweep away the old order of Cold War conflicts and undemocratic regimes," but "there were stunning failures as well," as "globalization hastened climate change and deepened inequalities."

Cohen acknowledges even though "the financial meltdown in 2008 came close to tanking the global financial system," it wasn't until the Covid-19 pandemic, that "the rat-a-tat series of crises exposed with startling clarity vulnerabilities that demanded attention."

READ MORE: A Pride Month reminder: Corporations are not allies

Furthermore, she notes "the consulting firm EY concluded in its 2023 Geostrategic Outlook, the trends behind the shift away from ever-increasing globalization 'were accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic — and then they have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine.'"

Cohen adds:

The economic havoc wreaked by the pandemic combined with soaring food and fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine have created a spate of debt crises. Rising interest rates have made those crises worse. Debts, like energy and food, are often priced in dollars on the world market, so when U.S. rates go up, debt payments get more expensive.

She emphasizes, "as the dust has settled, it has suddenly seemed as if almost everything we thought we knew about the world economy was wrong, referencing a recent World Bank analysis, saying, "Nearly all the economic forces that powered progress and prosperity over the last three decades are fading," adding, "The result could be a lost decade in the making — not just for some countries or regions as has occurred in the past — but for the whole world."

READ MORE: Washington's $849 million capital gains windfall shows 'taxing the rich is a really good idea'

Cohen's article continues at this link (subscription required).

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg dead at 92

Daniel Ellsberg, known as "The Pentagon Papers" whistleblower, died Friday after a battle with pancreatic cancer, The New York Times reports. He was 92.

Per The Guardian, "The Pentagon Papers covered US policy in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967 and showed that successive administrations were aware the US could not win," in addition to "causing a sensation in 1971, when they were published – first by the New York Times and then by the Washington Post and other papers – after the Supreme Court overruled the Nixon administration on whether publication threatened national security."

The former military analyst, according to The Times, distributed an email in March to "Dear friends and supporters," disclosing his "inoperable pancreatic cancer" diagnosis, saying "doctors had given him an estimate of three to six months to live."

READ MORE: Why Julian Assange is at the vanguard for world press freedom

The Post reports Ellsberg also said his remaining time "would be spent giving talks and interviews about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the perils of nuclear war and the importance of First Amendment protections."

He wrote, “When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had every reason to think I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars. It was a fate I would gladly have accepted if it meant hastening the end of the Vietnam War, unlikely as that seemed."

The Times reports:

Mr. Ellsberg was charged with espionage, conspiracy and other crimes and tried in federal court in Los Angeles. But on the eve of jury deliberations, the judge threw out the case, citing government misconduct, including illegal wiretapping, a break-in at the office of Mr. Ellsberg's former psychiatrist and an offer by President Nixon to appoint the judge himself as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, according to The Post, Ellsburg "went on to embrace a life of advocacy, which extended from his 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers — a disclosure that led Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser, to privately brand him 'the most dangerous man in America' — to decades of work advocating for press freedoms and the anti-nuclear movement."

READ MORE: 'His hands are drenched in blood': Recalling Henry Kissinger’s legacy as he turns 100

The New York Times' full report is available at this link (subscription required). The Guardian's report is here (subscription required). The Washington Post's report is here (subscription required).

'Buckets of blood on your hands': Nebraska Democrat slams GOP ahead of anti-trans and anti-abortion bill vote

Nebraska State Republicans are set to advance legislation targeting both gender-affirming care and abortion access.

Democratic State Senator Machaela Cavanaugh has been voicing her opposition for months against LB574, also known as the Let Them Grow Act, which would ban gender-affirming surgeries under the age of 19.

In addition to banning gender-affirming care, LB574 would also allow "Nebraska's chief medical officer regulatory power over other treatments, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers," KETV reports.

READ MORE: 'I will burn the session to the ground' over anti-trans bill, says Nebraska Democrat

Now, GOP State Senator Ben Hansen has amended that legislation, adding a 12-week abortion ban, according to Omaha's KETV— although, "opponents say the way it's written has it more like a 10-week ban, because the 12 weeks starts from a woman's last period."

The Republican lawmakers voted to advance the anti-trans and anti-abortion legislation earlier this week, prompting Cavanaugh to share her outrage on the Senate floor.

Heartland Signal shared a clip from Cavanaugh's speech, writing, "NE State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh (D) thrashes her GOP colleagues as they merge abortion and gender-affirming care bans into one bill: 'Women will die. Children are dying. It is your fault ... If you vote for this, you will have buckets and buckets of blood on your hands.'"

The senator said, "It looks bad. It looks really, really bad. And Senator Repi. Senator Hansen is not going to repeal the criminal penalties because if he were, he would've tried to get an amendment on here. He would've tried to supplement this amendment with what you were asking for between the time he filed it. And today he's lying to you and he's lying to us."

READ MORE: 'Woman of my word': Why this Nebraska senator's filibuster of anti-trans bill is still going

She continued, "And if you vote for it, you know that you know he's lying to you. Don't assuage your guilt. One minute women will die. Children are dying. It is your fault. It is your fault, and you are allowing it to happen. You do literally have blood on your hands, and if you vote for this, you will have buckets and buckets of blood on your hands. Thank you, Mr. President."

Another Democratic lawmaker, Senator Megan Hunt shared her thoughts, saying, "We all know what's going on with this bill and what you guys have put on to it. Whether we're talking about mothers with devastating fetal diagnoses, who you think should be forced to carry a baby to term that has a brain outside of its head... What is wrong with you?" If you can't go out there and face the people you are harming, hurting today, then you are not worthy of this job."

Cavanaugh's work to filibuster the bill since March has helped to prevent it from passing, but now that the legislation is "one vote away" from reaching Nebraska Republican Governor Jim Pillen's desk, the senator's efforts may not be successful.

Still, the determined lawmaker has previously said she will do anything she can to make life "painful" for her GOP colleagues if they proceed with the bill.

READ MORE: 'Only thing I have is time': Nebraska Sen. unmoved by colleagues’ frustration as she blocks anti-trans bill

Watch Cavanaugh's address below or at this link.

READ MORE: 'Only thing I have is time': Nebraska Sen. unmoved by colleagues’ frustration as she blocks anti-trans bill

Click here to view KETV's full report.

'The American people will pay the steepest price': How Joe Manchin self-sabotaged his fossil fuel gambit

Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is being accused of “self-sabotage” after he failed to schedule a confirmation hearing for Richard Glick, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, The Washington Post reports.

Glick was recently nominated by President Joe Biden for a second, five-year term in June. Manchin's flub could not only cause Glick to lose his job at the end of the year – which would result in a 2-2 split between Republican and Democratic commissioners at FERC – but also undermine Manchin’s plan to build out America’s transmission infrastructure.

Despite its reputation as one of the “lesser-known” agencies, FERC boasts significant influence over the country’s transition to clean energy.

READ MORE: Democrats implored to reject Joe Manchin's 'toxic and dangerous' fossil fuel provisions in Pentagon bill

Earthjustice Vice President of Litigation for Climate and Energy Jill Tauber told The Post that the 2-2 split could negatively impact Biden’s climate agenda, as it could further delay the commission’s work of updating transmission policy. She also says if the goal is to build out a better clean energy policy, then it’s important to ensure a “fully constituted FERC,” by putting it in the best possible position to advance policy.

Howard Crystal, the director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Energy Justice Program, agreed with Tauber, saying, “Manchin holding up Glick’s reappointment seriously calls into question whether he even thinks the transmission provisions in the [permitting] bill are necessary or important.”

Although the reason why he declined Glick's hearing is unclear, Manchin’s colleagues have their suspicions. Per the Post, “Some observers have speculated that Manchin, who represents a top coal-producing state, is trying to pressure Biden and FERC to take a friendlier approach to the fossil fuel sector. But others have been left scratching their heads.”

Manchin's truth remains elusive.

READ MORE: Manchin slammed for rejecting paid leave for union workers who 'helped build the state’s economy'

Nonetheless, Manchin maintains his position, insisting that “the American people will pay the steepest price for Washington once again failing to put common sense policy ahead of toxic tribal politics.”

READ MORE: These Republicans are hoping to 'flip Joe Manchin’s seat' in 2024: report

Watch: Dr. Anthony Fauci condemns the 'unconscionable' politicization of COVID-19 vaccines

A September 2022 study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research stated that “political affiliation has become a potential risk factor for COVID-19, amid evidence that Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democrat-leaning counties and evidence of a link between political party affiliation and vaccination views.”

In an interview with NBC’s Nightly News, Dr. Anthony Fauci criticized the “extreme” ideological divide he says is the reason for millions of preventable deaths since COVID-19 first appeared in the United States.

Noting that more Republicans than Democrats have died of COVID, Fauci told NBC News’ Lester Holt, “I mean, it’s just extraordinary that you have under-vaccination in red states and good levels of vaccination in blue states, which gets translated into a disproportionate amount of suffering and death among Republicans compared to Democrats.”

READ MORE: COVID-19 origins: Investigating a 'complex and grave situation' inside a Wuhan lab

“That’s completely crazy,” Fauci said.

During his conversation with Fauci, Holt pointed out that Fauci was “famously beat up by voices on the right,” but noted that on the left, people were “elevating [him] to sainthood.”

“If Dr. Fauci said it, it’s good,” Holt said.

Fauci responded, “I think those extremes are, in some respects, inappropriate and sometimes really counterproductive.” He continued, “The conspiracy theories and distortions of reality and propagations of untruths are also counterproductive.”

READ MORE: 'Politics masquerading as science': Specialists rebuke Florida surgeon general's 'dangerous' anti-vax claims

AlterNet previously reported that “a common talking point among anti-vaxxers is that if COVID-19 vaccines worked, there wouldn’t be so many ‘breakthrough’ infections.” But the reality is that vaccines are effective when: (1) infections are less likely to occur, and (2) the infections that do occur tend to be less severe. President Biden, Fauci, First Lady Jill Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris were all considered ‘breakthrough’ COVID-19 cases, but none of them had especially serious infections or needed to be hospitalized.”

Fauci recalled that at the height of the pandemic in 2020 there were up to 800,000-900,000 cases and about 3,000 deaths per day. Now, the number of daily deaths is around 300.

“It just is unconscionable that you have a life-saving intervention in the form of a vaccine, that you know is safe and highly effective in protecting you from advanced disease,” he said. “And you have people and groups of people who don’t get vaccinated based on political ideology.”

As the country faces a "tripledemic" of three viruses – the flu, COVID-19, and RSV – in the coming months, Dr. Fauci “is not afraid” to recommend a return to masking. “I’m not talking about mandating anything, I’m talking about common sense [that says], ‘I really don’t want to risk myself getting infected and even more so to someone who’s a vulnerable member of my family.’”

According to NBC, Fauci will likely make his last public appearance as Biden’s chief medical advisor for a virtual White House town hall urging people to get Covid boosters ahead of the winter.

Although Fauci is stepping down from his role, he says he doesn’t plan to retire anytime soon.

Watch the interview below or at this link.

READ MORE: The United States is prepared for terrorists, not anti-vaxxers

New DOJ special counsel wastes no time subpoenaing Trump World allies

Just a few weeks after his appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland as DOJ special counsel, Jack Smith is making major moves in his role. The former prosecutor and veteran investigator has subpoenaed local election officials in four states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania – all of which were targeted by Trump and his allies during the 2020 election.

Smith was originally hired to conduct the criminal investigation of classified documents Trump retained at his Mar-a-Lago resort and further investigate the January 6 insurrection. The special counsel is requesting “communications with or involving Donald Trump between June 1, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021, to, from, or involving” Trump, his campaign attorneys and aides including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani.

In addition to Smith’s efforts, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has also been investigating whether Trump and his allies interfered with the 2020 election in Georgia.

READ MORE: Donald Trump 'likely' to be 'front and center' of January 6th Committee criminal referrals

So far, Smith has heard from three out of the four states.

George Christenson, a clerk in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said he received a subpoena earlier this week and is working with the county’s attorney to comply with the request as soon as possible. He also says he doesn’t “expect to find any smoking gun.”

Also in Wisconsin, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell received a subpoena and has mentioned he didn’t expect his response to the subpoena to uncover any new information, because he “doesn’t have any stories of Trump calling me at dinner like the other guys.” Trump ordered a recount of ballots cast in both Wisconsin counties.

Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State, told Associated Press that Wayne County received a subpoena but didn’t confirm what Smith was asking. She responded, “We welcome and support the work of any law enforcement agency working to ensure full accountability for efforts to illegally overturn the fair and accurate results of Michigan’s 2020 election.”

READ MORE: 'Full steam ahead' for DOJ after Donald Trump's 'worst legal week ever': former prosecutor

Wayne County, which is predominantly Black, was accused of “duplicating ballots” by Trump and his allies, for which they filed a lawsuit that failed. However, his efforts did cause the poll workers to pause their count on election day.

Maricopa County, Arizona also received a subpoena. During the 2020 election, Trump and his aides asked Republicans on the county board of supervisors not to certify Biden’s win. It’s also reported that the chairman of the board dodged calls from the White House operator.

Pennsylvania’s second-largest county of Allegheny has not yet responded to the request.

READ MORE: 'Substantial evidence' Donald Trump was part of coup plot after Oath Keepers conviction: expert

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

House Ethics Committee fines Madison Cawthorn $14K for congressional crypto scheme

North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn was ordered by the House Ethics Committee to pay nearly $15,000 to a charity after a House Ethics Committee investigation found “substantial evidence” he improperly promoted a cryptocurrency while in Congress.

The House Ethics Committee in May unanimously voted to form a subcommittee to probe whether the 27-year-old violated conflict of interest rules by promoting a cryptocurrency called “Let’s Go Brandon,” in which he had a financial interest. The committee also looked into allegations Cawthorn engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a Congressional aide. “The committee said in its 81-page report that it did not find evidence of improprieties between Cawthorn and the staffer,” NBC News reports.

As a result of the investigation, the subcommittee demanded Cawthorn pay $14,237.49 to a charitable organization. He is instructed to pay the fine by December 31.

READ MORE: MAGA lame duck Madison Cawthorn reemerges with bizarre, rambling speech against 'soft meterosexuals'

The slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” was coined by Trump supporters during the 2020 presidential campaign, as a replacement for “F*** Joe Biden.”

Nearly six months prior to the investigation, Cawthorn posed at a party with James Koutoulas, who is the main leader of the Let’s Go Brandon cryptocurrency.

The subcommittee further discovered that Cawthorn did not disclose his transactions related to the cryptocurrency to Congress. While it was confirmed that he may not have been aware of his failure to disclose that specific information “in a timely fashion,” he was still ordered to pay $1,000 in late fees to the Treasury Department.

The Trump-backed millennial representative, lost his renomination bid earlier this year after he caused controversy in the GOP by claiming some of his older colleagues used drugs and invited him to a “sexual get-together.”

READ MORE: Lame duck Madison Cawthorn has vacated his offices 'nearly two months' before his term ends

Read the subcommittee’s full report here.

READ MORE: Madison Cawthorn scrutinized for illegal use of campaign cash that should be refunded to donors: report

'Discriminatory intention': DeSantis secretly allocated $12 million for immigrant relocation

Legal challenges continue to mount against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) over his decision to fly migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in September, Orlando Weekly reports.

Per the report, the Florida State Legislature approved an “unauthorized alien” relocation program in the state budget earlier this year, which directed the Department of Transportation to implement “a program to facilitate the transport of unauthorized aliens from this state consistent with federal law.”

However, the program, which involves a whopping $12 million in funds, had not previously been incorporated into the budget. Instead, Orlando Weekly reports, the funding “was tucked into the appropriations bill while House and Senate leaders were reconciling differences in their proposed state spending plans.”

READ MORE: Dare we hope: Will Special Counsel Jack Smith do what Robert Mueller would not?

Several immigrant-advocacy organizations are filing a lawsuit against DeSantis, claiming that implementing such a program is “discriminatory intention” and a violation of constitutional due-process and equal-protection rights. And, according to Axios, the lawsuit highlights the fact that the Constitution only grants power to regulate immigration policy to the federal government, not the state.

Paul Chavez, a senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, and representative for the plaintiffs, said, “the scheme by Gov. DeSantis and the state of Florida to use taxpayer funds for the ‘relocation’ of ‘unauthorized alien’” is a blatant and unlawful attempt to harass immigrants at the state level.”

The plaintiffs include three local nonprofit immigration focused organizations: The Florida Immigrant Coalition; Americans for Immigrant Justice, Inc. (AI Justice); and Hope CommUnity Center, Inc. The organizations say the program will disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic people.

READ MORE: 'Voluntary but compulsory': Why Merrick Garland hired a special counsel to handle Donald Trump

DeSantis’ spokesperson publicly doubled down on the legitimacy of the relocation program, alleging that it does not violate federal law. Still, the complainants argue, though the program is “dressed as a state budget item,” it “is an effort to backhandedly control national immigration, and, as such, it is unconstitutional.”

READ MORE: 'Abusing her position': Mehdi Hasan explains why Sinema will have to 'play a little nicer' if Warnock is reelected

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.