r/Defeat_Project_2025

When Kenni Miller started as a shift manager in his local Sheetz convenience store in Altoona, Pa., he felt something that he rarely had as a Black man in the workplace.

- He felt trusted. He felt appreciated.
When he was fired a few weeks later, in the summer of 2020 after a background check, Mr. Miller, then 27, was devastated. A nonviolent, felony drug conviction from his teenage years had never caused him to be denied a job before. And he already proved he could do the work.

- “I was well spoken,” Mr. Miller told The New York Times in an interview. “They had me running the cash register, talking to people, all the customers. I’m doing these things, learning the whole store, so I’m equipped for the job.

- That’s not the issue here, right?”

- In 2024, Mr. Miller was part of a class-action lawsuit against Sheetz filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the company’s criminal background checks disproportionately screened out applicants of color.

- But soon after President Trump took office, the E.E.O.C. abruptly dropped the case.

- The agency cited an executive order by Mr. Trump that directed federal agencies to “deprioritize” cases like Mr. Miller’s, in which companies are scrutinized not for intentional discrimination, but for having policies that have an unintentional, “disparate impact” on minority applicants.

- The result has been an abandonment of civil rights cases across the federal government, in departments including education, housing, trade, justice and the E.E.O.C. There is no public accounting of exactly how many cases have been closed, but legal advocates describe a generational void in civil rights enforcement.

- “It is absolutely widespread, and it is absolutely devastating,” said Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “We know a lot of time with discrimination, there’s rarely a smoking gun. A lot of people don’t know that they’re being subjected to discrimination. We need our federal agencies to look into that hidden discrimination.”

- For Mr. Trump, the directive against disparate impact litigation is part of a broader push to eradicate “diversity, equity and inclusion” — a catchall term increasingly used to describe policies that benefit anyone who is not white and male — from every part of American life.

- He and other opponents of the cases argue that employers should not be penalized for the mere implication of discrimination, usually shown through statistics. Instead, they say, the focus should be directed at explicit and intentional discrimination.

- Nick Ruffner, a spokesman for Sheetz, declined to comment on the E.E.O.C’s decision to dismiss its lawsuit. But he said in a statement, “Sheetz does not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” and the company wanted “to reaffirm our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and treating every team member and customer with respect.”
The impact of the decision to abandon discrimination cases has been felt acutely by those who have turned to the E.E.O.C., the nation’s top enforcer of workplace discrimination laws.

- Under its new chair, Andrea Lucas, the agency has aggressively prioritized Mr. Trump’s goals, such as pursuing cases of white men who believe they have been discriminated against.

- The agency declined to comment on specific lawsuits. But in a statement, Ms. Lucas said “rooting out race and sex discrimination has always been central to the E.E.O.C.’s mission.”

- The test of disparate impact liability was established in 1971 and has been the legal theory crucial to enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned racial discrimination by employers and other institutions.

- One widely cited example of disparate impact has been the Jim Crow-era literacy tests that some states created as a condition to vote. The tests did not ask about race and so seemed neutral on their face. But they disproportionately prevented Black people from voting because they had long been forced out of schools.

- Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which successfully argued the first disparate impact case at the Supreme Court, said the legal theory is a recognition of the remnants of state-sanctioned discrimination.

- “We didn’t just want to take down the ‘Whites only’ signs,” Ms. Smirniotopoulos said. “Fundamentally, the civil rights movement was fighting for the ability for people to actually get living wage jobs, and housing, access to mortgages, and all of the things that actually make for an equal society.”

- The measure was codified by Congress in 1991, and upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2015. Because disparate impact remains codified in law — which the president cannot erase unilaterally — Mr. Trump could only demand that agencies stop making the cases a priority.

- The agencies have taken heed.
The Education Department, which has severely drawn back its civil rights investigations, stopped pursuing disparate impact investigations in areas like school discipline.

- The Department of Housing withdrew guidance for how the agency would assess disparate impact in enforcing fair housing laws, including redlining, and began dropping housing discrimination cases from its docket. In one instance, a public housing authority found to have favored white applicants withdrew a settlement two days after its offer, citing Mr. Trump’s order, according to an investigation by ProPublica.

- The Federal Trade Commission dismissed its claims of discrimination it had brought against three Texas car dealerships for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers in charging more for add-ons.
The Department of Justice also dropped several high-profile cases predicated on disparate impact theory, including several lawsuits against police and fire departments whose hiring policies and exams were found to be discriminatory. It also recently terminated the first-ever environmental justice settlement in which Alabama officials were supposed to provide septic tanks to Black residents. The Trump administration called the plan “illegal D.E.I.” and scrapped the deal. The agency also issued a rule that eliminated disparate impact from its enforcement of Title VI.

- And the Office of Management and Budget, which sets policy for the entire federal government, proposed a sweeping new regulation that prohibits the use of federal funds to “promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability” for all agencies.

- The rule could ban federal funding for studies, litigation or other activities predicated on the idea that certain policies and practices could disproportionately harm certain groups — which could affect everything from the study of maternal mortality disparities at the Department of Health and Human Services to grant-funded organizations that tackle issues like housing.

- Filling in the gaps are legal advocacy groups that are trying to keep cases going. Mr. Miller, with the help of a team of private attorneys, decided to become a named plaintiff in the Sheetz case, to take the place of the E.E.O.C. in the lawsuit.

- “What the administration or folks who support dropping disparate impact say is that they want people to be judged by their merits,” said Pooja Shethji, a lawyer at Outten & Golden LLP, one of the lawyers representing Mr. Miller, “and that’s exactly what Mr. Miller wants — to be judged by the work, and his qualifications.”

- The request is still pending before a judge, and a ruling could come down any day.

- Mr. Miller said he has found a new job, but the shame he felt walking down the road with his nametag after he’d been abruptly let go still weighs on him. He said he felt compelled to stand up for Black men in America, who are often overlooked and over-incarcerated.

- The E.E.O.C. found that Sheetz background check resulted in 14.5 percent of Black job applicants being denied employment, while 13 percent of Native American applicants and 13.5 percent of multiracial candidates were screened out. The denial rate for white applicants was less than 8 percent.

- “The average me doesn’t come back from a situation like that,” Mr. Miller said. “I want to be the one who speaks up for this situation — which is life after having a job — and make sure jobs are held accountable.”

- While Mr. Trump’s order specifically took aim at race-based cases, it has broad consequences for other groups, including women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and people with disabilities.

- When Leah Cross started training for a new job as an Amazon delivery driver, her female colleagues gave her a piece of advice that they said would “help her keep up with the boys.”

- She should purchase a “Shewee,” they told her, the camping device used by women to urinate in the woods, or in otherwise remote areas. It would help her meet her delivery quotas and avoid being punished for straying from her route for a bathroom break — a predicament her male colleagues rarely found themselves in because they could easily urinate in bottles.

- Ms. Cross felt up to the challenge. When she landed a job at the world’s biggest online retail giant in August 2022, she felt like she had made it.

- “Getting a leg into that industry, I saw it as, like, working for Google,” Ms. Cross recalled in an interview. “I know it’s not amazing, but I was just kind of like, ‘Hey, I’m part of something.’”
But by the end of her four-month stint she felt she was part of a humiliating trend. Like her female colleagues, she was relieving herself in her delivery van several times a day. She had received phone calls from her manager when he was notified that she deviated from her route, often to find a bathroom to use sanitary products. In November 2022, she was fired for “failure to perform.”

- Ms. Cross was among three former Amazon workers who filed a grievance against Amazon in 2023, alleging the company violated wage laws by introducing strict delivery quotas and monitoring drivers with GPS tracking and surveillance cameras that alerted supervisors if a driver went off route for a bathroom break.

- Ms. Cross went further, also filing a discrimination charge with the E.E.O.C. that year, alleging that women suffered disproportionately from Amazon’s strict policies because women could not urinate in bottles as easily as men and are more likely to need access to bathrooms to take care of menstruation needs.

- A spokeswoman for Amazon declined to comment on Ms. Cross’s complaint. The company has maintained that workers are allowed to take bathroom breaks, and that its delivery app shows where public bathrooms are.

- “You don’t see a lot of females to look up to when you’re starting this position, because it takes a lot for females to meet these working conditions,” Ms. Cross said.

- In December, 2024, the E.E.O.C. contacted Ms. Cross, stating that it was “very interested in moving forward with Ms. Cross’s case.”

- “I kind of accepted at that time that there wasn’t a whole lot that I could do based on my standing, and financial background,” Ms. Cross said. “But I saw hope.”

- But last fall, the agency notified Ms. Cross that it would no longer be investigating her case, citing Mr. Trump’s directive. Ms. Cross, with the backing of three legal advocacy groups unsuccessfully sued the EEOC last year over its withdrawal from disparate impact cases. A judge dismissed her case.

- The case illuminated the difficult path ahead for many Americans, particularly for those who don’t have the resources to take on big companies and for whom the federal government has been their only recourse.

- And civil rights attorneys say that because of the administration’s attacks on D.E.I., it is getting harder to find people willing to be the face and name of private lawsuits.

- “It takes a lot of bravery in this moment,” Ms. Smirniotopoulos said, “considering what it means to have the president and the federal government saying that discrimination doesn’t exist.”

A federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s order requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to restore signs and exhibits that were removed by the Trump administration.

- The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday halted the ruling, which would have restored park materials that the administration says were purged as part of the administration’s effort to get rid of materials that “disparage” Americans.

- The judges determined that the Trump administration “made a strong showing that the harms that the district court relied on” to order the restoration of the materials did not meet the standards for an injunction.

- Judges David Barron, Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman also found that the groups suing the government “cannot show that a stay of the district court’s order … would cause them substantial injury.”

- Barron was appointed by former President Obama, while Gelpí and Rikelman are appointees of former President Biden.

- The Trump administration last year directed NPS units to review all public-facing content for messaging that disparages Americans or that “emphasizes matters unrelated to the beauty, abundance, or grandeur” of natural features.

- The administration and its supporters have described the effort as a matter of national pride. Critics call it an effort to whitewash history and undermine science on topics such as climate change that the administration finds unfavorable. 

- This led to the removal of dozens of materials such as signs, exhibits and films, including an “African American Civil War Memorial wayside” at the National Mall.

- Last month, a federal judge ordered the park service to reinstate the displays.

- The same three-judge panel previously halted the Friday deadline under the now-overturned injunction. 

- In response to Thursday’s ruling, Democracy Forward, which is representing groups that sued the department, said it was disappointed, but it also described the ruling as only a procedural setback in the case.

- “While we are disappointed by this decision, we also recognize the simple fact that this is merely a temporary procedural setback. The First Circuit did not condone the Trump-Vance administration’s censorship or issue any ruling on whether its actions are lawful,” said Brooke Menschel, the group’s senior counsel, in a statement. 

- “Unfortunately, for now, the decision allows the administration to continue removing and altering interpretive materials that are critical for millions of visitors to understand our nation’s history, right at the moment when so many Americans will be enjoying the parks over the upcoming semiquincentennial weekend,” Menschel said. “Our national parks are places of learning, reflection, and truth — not political messaging, but the administration has politicized them through censorship.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain people for more than 90 days under the Trump administration's mass detention policy without providing them a chance to be released on bond, a divided U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.

- The ruling by a 2-1 panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could affect thousands of individuals who have been detained in states within its jurisdiction, including Texas and Louisiana, as part of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.

- A different panel of the same court had been the first in the nation to endorse the Trump administration's novel interpretation of a federal immigration statute as allowing mandatory detention of non-citizens living in the United States.

- But the February ruling did not address whether the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment require those same migrants being given a chance to seek release by appearing before an immigration judge for a bond hearing.
U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority in Thursday's opinion, said the U.S.

- Supreme Court made clear in 2001 that the due process clause protects everyone, including the two Mexican citizens and one Honduran whose cases were before the 5th Circuit.

- "It is part of the historic majesty of this long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic rights to those within our boundaries, including a right to be heard when personal liberty is taken," wrote Southwick, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.
U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying "the majority marginalizes the Constitution's express grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress."

- Rebecca Cassler, a lawyer for the migrants at the American Immigration Council, in a statement said they "are delighted that the panel recognized the core constitutional principle that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely."

- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not respond to a request for comment.
Under federal immigration law, "applicants for admission" to the United States are subject to mandatory detention ⁠while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

- Bucking a long-standing interpretation of immigration law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already residing in the United States, and not just people arriving at the border, qualify as "applicants for admission" subject to mandatory detention.

- The Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Justice Department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. As a result, immigration judges, who are employed by the department, across the ⁠country began ordering mandatory detention.

- The federal appeals courts are divided on whether that interpretation of the law is correct, leading the Trump administration last week to ask the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

The FBI is surging hundreds of personnel from around the country to aid in its ongoing investigation of the 2020 election in Georgia, according to an internal FBI memo and a source familiar with the matter -- marking an increase in resources to investigate the election that President Donald Trump lost.

- The FBI is surging hundreds of personnel from around the country to aid in its ongoing investigation of the 2020 election in Georgia, according to an internal FBI memo and a source familiar with the matter -- marking an increase in resources to investigate the election that President Donald Trump lost.

- The memo, which was reviewed by ABC News, described the probe as an "FBI Atlanta priority investigation."

- A source said the memo was referring to the ongoing investigation into the 2020 election in Georgia, where the FBI earlier this year raided a Fulton County election site and seized hundreds of boxes of 2020 ballots.

- "In support of the Director's Office priority effort, the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) and Criminal Division are requesting all FBI field offices to immediately surge support to an FBI Atlanta priority investigation," the memo said.

- President Donald Trump has fixated on his loss in the 2020 election, pushing claims of fraud despite providing no evidence.

- The memo said the FBI is directing 260 personnel, including investigative analysts, to "surge support" to the ongoing investigation. Field offices around the country are being instructed to dedicate a certain number of personnel, depending on their size.

- The FBI personnel are being requested to conduct hundreds of "records checks," the memo said, directing the work be completed by July 17.

- "Overtime (including weekends and holidays) has been authorized," the memo said.

- An FBI spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.

Amid the flurry of consequential Supreme Court decisions that have come down recently, it's the one about temporary protected status that has America's healthcare sector the most worried.

- The ruling last week cleared the way for the Trump administration to cancel TPS for Haitians and Syrians. Experts say deporting Haitian TPS recipients will have a catastrophic impact on the nationwide healthcare workforce crisis — a workforce that is hugely dependent on immigrant labor.

- The pain will be felt across hospitals and emergency rooms, which already operate under persistent staffing shortfalls, but it's the long-term care sector, including senior care facilities and home care, that will suffer the greatest disruptions, said Steffie Woolhandler, a distinguished professor of health policy at City University of New York at Hunter College and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School.

- "It's going to be a disaster in the Boston area, where a lot of our nursing home and home care aides are Haitian," Woolhandler told NPR. But beyond that, she added, "If the United States becomes inhospitable to noncitizens, which I think Trump is doing, we're going to have a lot of problems staffing our entire healthcare system."
Massachusetts has the third largest population of Haitians with TPS (19,000), behind Florida (158,000) and New York (40,000), respectively.

- Woolhandler is one of three authors of a 2025 report analyzing the impact of Trump's mass deportation plans, including the potential effects of stripping TPS protections from people from the 17 countries that the federal government deemed eligible. The status is meant to protect individuals from those countries who are living** in the U.S. from having to return to places where armed conflicts, natural disasters or other conditions make living there unsafe. Pulling from census data, the research team found that roughly 50,000 physicians in the U.S. **are noncitizens, the category that includes people with TPS protections. That's about 9% of all doctors in the U.S. Another 145,000 are registered nurses.

- FWD.us breaks down the numbers even further, estimating that 21,000 Haitian TPS holders are in hard-to-fill jobs as nursing assistants and caregivers.

- The dearth of qualified healthcare workers is already putting existing institutions under tremendous strain. Woolhandler said two-thirds of hospitals report they've had to close beds because they don't have enough staff, and about half of nursing homes similarly say that they can't take new admissions because they don't have enough personnel.

- "The thing that has to be said is that the healthcare of everybody is going to be compromised by this. If you start throwing out workers that play a key role in the whole continuum of care … it tends to create a bottleneck or a backup," she said.

- If a family can't find a bed in a nursing home or home aid caregiver, then those people may end up stuck in a hospital or in emergency rooms, Woolhandler said.

- Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge, which represents more than 5,300 aging service providers nationwide, called the ruling a direct threat to the delivery of much-needed care and services.

- "It puts older adults and the providers who care for them in an untenable position," Sloan said in a statement. "Staff and caregivers who support older adults every day — legal employees who in some of our communities represent 8% or more of the entire workforce — can now lose their jobs overnight."

- The legal limbo has communities wracked with worry, particularly in Springfield, Ohio, where 1 in 4 residents is of Haitian descent. Hours after the ruling, dozens of panicked TPS holders were calling Viles Dorsainvil asking for advice. The 40-year-old is the co-founder and executive director of Haitian Support Center, a nonprofit that provides a range of services to Haitian nationals and refugees, including legal assistance.

- "They're wondering if they can still keep their assets or money at the bank, if they can still go to work because TPS came with the work permit, and with the driver's license privilege," Dorsainvil told NPR. "The community is devastated."

- The Trump administration has released little information about how it will withdraw protections under the program for more than 330,000 Haitian and 4,000 Syrian TPS holders affected by the high court's ruling last week. On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security announced that existing Employment Authorization Documents, which permit TPS recipients to legally work in the country, will expire on July 10.

- Dorsainvil said he's advising people that the most important step they can take is to sign a power of attorney to someone they trust. Parents with American-born children should also plan to sign over guardianship of their kids, in case DHS pursues family separations, he said.

- For now, he said, he's got little else to share with the people calling, but he shares their anxiety.

- Dorsainvil is also a TPS recipient, but unlike those who fled the destruction of the 2010 earthquake, he came to the U.S. in 2020 on a visitor visa. At the time, he did not intend to stay more than six months. But during his stay, Haiti's already fragile political system devolved into unrest and violence that led to the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, and continues to today.

- "There was no way I could go home," Dorsainvil said, adding that it was the Biden administration's extension of the TPS program for Haitians that allowed him and his brother to stay in the country. It wasn't until 2024, when Trump first set his eyes on ending the TPS program for Haitians, that Dorsainvil and his sibling, a former doctor in Haiti who now works as a nurse in Chicago, both applied for asylum. Those applications have still not been resolved.

- Over the next few weeks, he said, he's forging ahead with his life, trusting that somehow things will work out. He's trying to finish his graduate studies at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio — he's in a dual master's degree program for international relations and public administration.

- When he first decided to stay in the U.S., phone calls home to his mother and daughter revolved around the dangers of the armed gangs that have taken over much of the country because of the political vacuum that exists. Now they spend most of their calls discussing the political turmoil in the U.S.

- "When I was outside of the U.S., the way they sell it to you, you would believe that if you came to this country everything would be okay. But it's totally different," he said.

For decades, disabled people have fought for their rights to go to school and live alongside peers without disabilities — rights that some fear could be losing ground under the Trump administration.

- Last month, the Department of Education announced it would shift oversight of special education to the Department of Health and Human Services, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose comments on the limits of disabilities such as autism have drawn sharp rebukes from advocates and lawmakers.

- Meanwhile, after a White House push to police homelessness, the Department of Justice released guidance that lowered the barrier to institutionalizing any person with a disability.

- Taken together, the actions signal a worrying return to a reality where people with disabilities are pushed to the margins of society, advocates said.

- "It's a direct, frontal assault on the rights of people with disabilities to live their lives the way that people who are nondisabled live their lives," said Selene Almazan, legal director for the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. "I can't imagine that as a country, that would be something that we would agree we should go back to."

- Since the 1960s, legislation and court decisions have expanded supports and protections for people with disabilities to go to school with nondisabled peers and to live and work in their communities. Before that, people with mental illnesses or developmental and intellectual disabilities were largely confined to institutions.

- Advocates have pushed back on what is known as the "medical model," where an individual's disability is viewed as a defect to be cured. Instead, under a "social model" of disability, differences can be accommodated and supported, as people with and without disabilities learn and work alongside each other.

- Families and advocates have warned that moving special education to a health department marks a return to the medical model. They also have been angered by Kennedy's attempts to link vaccines to autism, going against decades of research that show no such link, and his framing of autism as a debilitating disease.

- Kennedy's comments last year, where he said children with autism would never write a poem, pay taxes or hold a job, raised questions about how he would oversee an agency meant to help students develop those skills. Kennedy later said he was referring to people with " severe autism ″ or those who are nonverbal.

- "Many of the things he said autistic people will never do, (special education) is in charge of making sure students with disabilities have the opportunity to do," said Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. "Will he execute that faithfully, or does he consider disabled students a lost cause until we find some medical cure?"

- In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that segregating disabled people who are otherwise able to live in their community with proper supports was a form of discrimination. The Olmstead v. L.C. decision led to requirements that government agencies provide disability services in the most integrated setting possible — in mainstream schools, homes and workplaces.

- But in a memo issued in June, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel upended that guidance. It argued that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor Section 504, two major disability rights laws, requires states to provide services in the most mainstream setting. While the memo does not change the law, it signals how federal agencies may interpret and enforce civil rights issues related to the topic. It could embolden states or school districts to decline to support people with disabilities in mainstream environments

- The White House has already acted on a similar philosophy. Last year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on homelessness that endorsed civil commitment, where a court orders individuals into involuntary hospitalization or treatment programs. Trump directed HHS to reduce barriers to institutionalizing people with mental illnesses.

- In its memo, the Justice Department acknowledged its interpretation of the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision is "out of step" with the common understanding. If a state starts to provide services in institutional settings, legal challenges likely would follow, the department said.

- The Republican administration's steps fit a worldview in which the government has no obligation to support people with disabilities, said Claudia Center, legal director at Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

- "It's dark, and it's awful," Center said. "And I think it's contrary to the majority view in our country. ... It's out of touch with where our society is."

- The moves have created a deep sense of uncertainty for students with disabilities.

- Lindsey Althaus says home and community-based services in northwest Ohio have been instrumental to her family. Her 12-year-old son, Whitman, has autism and a neurological disorder called apraxia, in which the brain struggles to tell muscles how to move to form words or perform other motor skills. For some of his school career, with proper support services, Whitman was able to spend much of his school day in a classroom that included kids without disabilities.

- Through a Medicaid waiver program, Althaus pays her mother to care for Whitman in her absence. That allows him to spend time out in the community with his grandmother while Althaus and her husband are working or away with their daughter.

- Under the Justice Department's new interpretation of Olmsted, states would have fewer obligations to fund and support those programs. Kennedy, in testimony to lawmakers on Capitol Hill earlier this year, criticized similar programs as subject to fraud.

- "We want to be able to have him in the community," said Althaus, who works as a disability rights advocate. "It's just starting to feel like Whitman's not going to be welcome anymore. We're going back to this: You're either perfect, or you're not in the light."

- For many students with disabilities, schools are where they receive the majority of support services and where they are integrated among their peers. Before Magda Nakassis's 8-year-old son, who is autistic and nonverbal, started public school in Maryland, his preschool experience had largely been defined by being kicked out of things, she said.

- In school, Nakassis said, she found teachers and staff members who understood her son's needs and told her to stop apologizing for them. A program at his school called Fantastic Friends teaches mainstream fifth graders about autism and they spend recesses with children in the autism program. Every year, Nakassis said, there is a waitlist to be a Fantastic Friend.

- Nakassis said that it has been difficult to see the ways autism in particular has become politicized. Every child is entitled to a public education in this country, Nakassis said, and special education is a response to the fact that some children have differences that require additional support.

- Regardless of his diagnosis, his right to an education is not a medical issue, she said, but rather a question of equity and access in a society that often pushes disabled people to the margins.
"There are lots of kids like him out there, and I sometimes wonder, 'what did we use to do?'" Nakassis said. "I can't believe it was better."

The same day that the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) told its staffers that it will “prioritize the investigation and prosecution of birth tourism schemes.”

- Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald issued a memorandum to DOJ employees on Tuesday that the agency shared on social media hours after the Supreme Court issued its ruling that rejected Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship. In the notice, McDonald shared several stories of what he called “birth tourism schemes.”

- “The benefits of United States citizenship require little explanation,” he said. “Regrettably, the American system is exploited each year by thousands of foreigners who travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth and secure citizenship for their child.”

- “Birth tourism schemes exploit our immigration system and violate criminal law,” McDonald continued.

- He went on to say that the DOJ “will investigate and hold accountable those who engage in this unlawful conduct, as well as those who solicit and sell these criminal services to others.” He said he was directing staffers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize these cases.

- “The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” he said. “Together, we will bring illegal birth tourism to an end and those responsible to justice.”

- The Supreme Court’s decision earlier in the day was one of the most significant blows Trump's second term agenda has so far suffered. The justices ruled in a contentious 5-4 decision to strike down the President’s Executive Order seeking to limit birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S. with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal resident of the U.S.

- The outcome dealt a setback to his hardline approach to immigration. 

- The President expressed his displeasure with the ruling on Truth Social, calling it “too bad for our Country.” At the same time, however, he said that “we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation.”

- Other members of the President’s party joined him in criticizing the court’s decision, with some Republicans calling for a constitutional amendment to impose restrictions on birthright citizenship and others saying they would seek to limit it through legislative means. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Tuesday that birthright citizenship has been “overused and abused.”

- “I’m sure that we’ll continue to look at that,” he said. “I’m sure that the conclusion from this decision is you have to amend the Constitution to fix that.”

A Rio Grande Valley nun who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while on her way to Sunday Mass has been released, according to U.S. Representatives Monica De La Cruz and Henry Cuellar.

- In an update from U.S. Rep. Monica de la Cruz (R-TX-15), after speaking with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mullin, Sister Letty is coming home.

- “My office worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security, and I’m grateful they acted to resolve this quickly. Thank you to everyone who kept her in their prayers,” De La Cruz said in her update.

- U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D), Texas 28, also reported that after speaking with DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Tom Homan, he is pleased to share that Sister Letty is coming home.

- “The order has been given for her to be released today instead of tomorrow, and she’ll be home tonight. My office stayed engaged with the Department of Homeland Security throughout this process, and I appreciate everyone who helped make this possible. Thank you to all who kept her in your prayers. We’re thankful for this good news,” Cuellar said.

- On Sunday, Our Lady of Sorrows Church in McAllen announced on social media that Sister Letty had been detained by ICE while on her way to Sunday Mass.

- ValleyCentral reached out to Sister Norma Pimentel, Executive Director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, who confirmed that Sister Letty was detained Sunday morning by ICE agents while she was on her way to Mass at Our Lady of Sorrows Church.

- Sister Norma added that she has contacted ICE to get information, but they haven’t called her back.

- Our Lady of Sorrows Church posted the following statement on social media: “We ask our parish family to please keep this religious sister Letty in your prayers. Reports indicate that she was detained while on her way to Sunday Mass. We pray for her safety, peace, and strength during this difficult time, and we hope for a swift and just resolution that allows her to be released soon.”

- The Catholic Diocese of Brownsville told ValleyCentral that they are awaiting additional information and will get back to us as soon as they hear anything.
On Sunday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D), Texas 34, responded to the detention of Sister Letty in McAllen, who was on her way to Sunday Mass:

- “This is just another effect of this Administration’s hyperaggressive immigration policies in our communities. They have now led to the targeting of nuns on their way to Sunday Mass. It’s a far cry of the criminals they said they would detain and deport. I’m in touch with church officials and closely monitoring this situation. I urge for Sister Letty’s immediate release.”

- ValleyCentral reached out to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a comment and additional information, but has yet to respond.

Democrats in 25 states and the District of Columbia on Monday sued the Trump administration over its recent guidance on new Medicaid work requirements, arguing the strict rules will prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need.

- The attorneys general and governors who filed the lawsuit allege that an interim final rule released earlier this month by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversteps the text of the law last summer that set in motion the changes to Medicaid.

- They claim the Republican administration’s narrow interpretation of parts of the statute, including new limits to a medical frailty exemption, will create harmful coverage barriers and chaos in states that have been rushing to implement new systems by the January deadline.

- “Added administrative burdens will cause individuals who are eligible for Medicaid to lose or be denied coverage,” the plaintiffs write. “People with disabilities, patients in the middle of cancer treatment, or those struggling with another serious or complex health condition, shouldn’t be at risk of losing the care that helps maintain their health.”

- Spokespeople for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CMS, the agencies named in the lawsuit, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has promoted the new rules as commonsense measures to eliminate government freeloading and preserve benefits for those who need them most.

- The new Medicaid restrictions, which Democrats have criticized, were part of Trump’s big tax and policy law in 2025. The change affects those covered through an expansion in most states that gave more lower-income people access to the government’s safety net healthcare program.

- Starting Jan. 1, expansion enrollees age 19 to 64 will have to show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programs, among others.

- This month’s announcement from CMS caught states off guard with a new definition of medical frailty. The law had said medically frail people include those who have substance use disorders, disabilities or serious medical conditions. But the CMS rule went further, saying someone’s condition must “significantly impair” their ability to work, volunteer or attend school at the rates required in the law for them to be granted an exemption.

- In 2027 and once in 2028, the patient can attest that they meet this definition. But when they try to renew coverage in 2028, they’ll need to prove it. Health analysts and state Medicaid directors have said they aren’t clear on what existing documentation could prove that point.

- In the lawsuit, states allege that this change came “contrary to months of regular communications with CMS and preliminary guidance materials upon which Plaintiff States based their implementation plans.” They say CMS has still not provided states with enough clarity on how they can update their systems appropriately.

- Kinda Serafi, a partner at the legal and consulting firm Manatt Health who is working with states to make the changes, said the administration “moved the goalposts” with its rule on medical frailty.

- “By going beyond the clear language of the statute, CMS opened the door to this court challenge,” she said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the Democrats suing the administration, said the new rule puts thousands of her state’s residents at risk.

- “New Yorkers who are battling cancer, living with a disability, managing a serious mental health condition, or recovering from addiction should be able to get the health care they need without being buried in paperwork,” she said in a statement.

A major shakeup to the federal student loan system affecting millions of borrowers will take effect July 1.

- The changes mean some Americans -- especially lower-income borrowers -- will face higher monthly payments on their student loans. Other borrowers will face new limits on loans.

- Roughly 43 million Americans currently have student loan debt, totaling nearly $1.7 trillion, according to the Office of Federal Student Aid, a division of the Department of Education.

- Education Secretary Linda McMahon, whose mission is to shutter the department, has said the Trump administration will no longer tolerate American taxpayers taking on the debts that are not their own.

- The major overhaul of the system is part of provisions within President Donald Trump's signature tax law -- the Working Families Tax Cuts Act -- that passed last year, along with other executive orders targeting the Department of Education.

- Here’s what borrowers need to know:

- Fewer repayment options

- Department of Education and education experts are touting the Trump administration's student loan overhaul as the biggest change to the portfolio in decades.

- One of the biggest changes is the end of a Biden-era repayment program called Saving on a Valuable Education or "SAVE." There are currently about 7 million borrowers enrolled in that program, and now they will have 90 days to switch to a new plan to pay back their student debt.

- There will only be two repayment plans that new student loan borrowers can choose: the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) or the Tiered Standard repayment plan. The Education Department says that by phasing out other plans, it will make the process smoother and simpler for borrowers to make their payments on time.

- But student loan advocates warn monthly payments under the RAP plan will be higher for borrowers. The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) found that the median U.S. household could see student loan defaults spike and premiums increase by hundreds of dollars a month.

- New borrowing limits

- Another big change is a cap on how much money graduate students can borrow. Before this change, students could borrow up to the cost of their tuition and fees.

- As of July 1, graduate students pursuing Master’s degrees will only be able to take out federal loans up to $20,500 per year or $100,000 in total.

- Professional students, which includes law school or medical school, will be able to borrow up to $50,000 per year or $200,000 total.

- There are also new limits on Parent PLUS loans, which is now a $65,000 lifetime limit on loans to parents for their children to attend college. In all, most graduate borrowers will not be allowed to take out loans exceeding $257,500.

- Education experts who spoke to ABC News emphasize that the Trump administration's limits could significantly curtail graduate student borrowing or force some borrowers to forgo graduate education altogether.
Clare McCann, the policy director at the Postsecondary Education & Economics Research (PEER) Center, told ABC News that it’s conceivable that some graduate borrowers won't achieve their desired degrees.

- "This may end up being a bit of an overcorrection," McCann said. "We could see implications for student access."

- Meanwhile, the Education Department argued that these new caps will "curb excessive borrowing and force institutions to evaluate their costs." Department of Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent told ABC News that the caps will ensure higher education is more affordable for millions of Americans.

- "Affordability is the name of the game right now," Kent said. "These loan caps will put downward pressure on institutions to lower their costs. We've got to get the cost of higher education down in this country. We've got to make the system less cumbersome, less complex, [and] easy to understand."

- Former President Joe Biden attempted a signature student loan forgiveness plan to relieve portions of student loan debt for over 40 million American borrowers but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023.

- In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Biden’s Department of Education exceeded its authority under the HEROES Act, which is a 2003 law that states the government can provide relief to recipients of student loans when there is a "national emergency."

- What borrowers should do now

- The Education Department has created a "repayment calculator" on its website where students can calculate their monthly bills and compare plans.

- Borrowers can apply for one of the two new repayment plans on StudentAid.gov. The Education Department claims the application will take 10 minutes to complete.

- Kent, the education department under secretary, urged students to get back into active repayment because broad student loan forgiveness that was once promised to borrowers isn't going to happen.

- "[Borrowers] have a responsibility as somebody who took out a loan to repay it," Kent said. "It's not your neighbor's job to repay your loan, it's your job to repay your loan, but there are tools available to help you to make sure that you have a manageable payment."

The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.

Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”

He added: “We keep that promise today.”

The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”

With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution.

Here’s what else to know:

• Read the decision: In a sign of the importance of the birthright decision, the court’s decision and dissents tallied nearly 200 pages.
• The majority: The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
• Dissents: Three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented, and Justice Alito called it a “serious mistake.”

A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

-U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president's order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year's midterm election cycle

- Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump's order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump's order "unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers."

- It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation's elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

- The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

- But in an interim order before Thursday's ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year's election cycle were relevant: "In light of the EO's specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs," she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss the challenges.

- Trump's executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare.

- It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

- Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

- The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump's executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

- The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia.

- Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

- The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

- In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.

- Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year's vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to "take over" election administration in Democratic areas.