Monday, February 27, 2017
"A Georgia man and woman have been sentenced to a combined 35 years after terrorizing a black child’s birthday party with Confederate flags, racial slurs and threats.
Jose Ismael Torres and Kayla Rae Norton were convicted earlier this month under a street gang terrorism law for the 2015 harassment in Douglassville, outside Atlanta, and cried in court on Monday.
Video footage from the party, little more than a month after Dylann Roof’s Charleston church massacre, shows a parade of trucks roaring by with Confederate battle flags.
One person is heard shouting the n-word, while witnesses said that another had a gun sand said “he was gonna kill the n-----s.”
Pair gets 35 years for terrorizing party with Confederate flags - NY Daily News
"It’s widely known that the Trump administration has overturned Obama-era protections for transgender students. It’s less well known that the way it did so, emphasizing states’ rights, was a gigantic tactical mistake that is going to blow up in their faces.
The substantive issue is whether transgender students in public schools should be allowed to use gender-appropriate restrooms, or whether schools may require them to use single-stall bathrooms or those corresponding to the students’ biological sex at birth.
Legally speaking, there are two avenues in which this debate is moving forward. First are two “guidance letters” by the Education Department, stating that Title IX—which prohibits discrimination in educational contexts based on sex—covers trans students as well, and requires schools to let them use gender-appropriate restrooms. That letter didn’t have the force of law, but because the DoE could withhold funds from non-conforming school districts, it did wield the power of the purse-strings.
Those letters were officially retracted in a February 22 letter by the civil rights directors of the Education and Justice Departments.
But there’s also the second legal avenue, which is a case brought by the ACLU on behalf of Gavin Grimm, a transgender student in Virginia—a case that will be argued at the Supreme Court on March 28. In that case, G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, the Court is set to decide the same question: whether Title IX covers trans people.
In that regard, the February 22 letter is extremely odd. It doesn’t take a position on Title IX, instead saying that the government needs more time to “further and more completely consider the legal issues involved.” And it adds, echoing President Trump’s statements, that “there must be due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.”
That was a huge mistake, for three reasons.
First, the administration missed the opportunity to tell the Supreme Court its interpretation of Title IX. Earlier in the litigation, courts had deferred to the Obama administration’s interpretation. But with that gone, the Supreme Court now has…. nothing.
“We don’t really know the government’s position on Title IX,” said Joshua Block, the ACLU’s lead lawyer, in a press call discussing the G.G. case. “Technically, their position is neutral.”
That’s exactly right. And while the new government’s position isn’t technically part of the G.G. litigation, its February 22 letter practically begs the Court to weigh in.
It wouldn’t have been hard to simply take the opposite view. True, the new administration has only been in office a month, but that’s certainly not stopped them from taking bold positions on immigration, national security, and a myriad of other issues. Moreover, they’re not working on a blank slate. Conservatives (and one district court) have articulated anti-trans interpretations of Title IX for years.
Here, I’ll articulate one right now: Title IX is about sex discrimination, and was passed in 1972. The term “transgender” wasn’t invented until 1975, and there’s not a scintilla of evidence that Congress had anything like it in mind. Anyway, sex and gender are different things. This is a massive expansion of legislation that is totally unjustified by the statute or its legislative history.
That wasn’t hard to say—and yet the Trump administration chose not to say it, abdicating legal ground that it could easily have occupied.
Second, emphasizing states’ rights is incoherent. Said Block, “sex discrimination in public schools hasn’t been left up to the states since 1972. That’s why Title IX was passed. The federal government said that it is going to protect everyone no matter what state they live in.”
That, too, is exactly right. Like it or not, the whole point of federal legislation on civil rights is to take primacy over states’ rights. That, unlike the question of transgender equality, is in the statutory history of Title IX, and it’s absurd to argue “states’ rights” against a law that understands states’ rights quite clearly, and deliberately takes precedence over them...."
Why Trump’s Anti-Trans ‘States’ Rights’ Claim Will Backfire - The Daily Beast
Sunday, February 26, 2017
"LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed Saturday that it held Muhammad Ali Jr., the son of the late legendary boxer, for questioning in a Florida airport earlier this month, but said Ali wasn't singled out because he's a Muslim.
Ali Jr., 44, and his mother, Khalilah Camacho-Ali, the second wife of Muhammad Ali, were pulled aside for questioning at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Feb. 7 while returning from a speaking engagement in Jamaica, Chris Mancini, a Florida lawyer and friend of the Ali family, told The Courier-Journal on Friday.
Mancini said the pair were detained because of their Arabic-sounding names, and Ali Jr. was repeatedly asked, "Where did you get your name from?" and "Are you Muslim?"
Customs spokesman Daniel Hetlage declined to provide details of the incident, citing policies that protect travelers' privacy, but he wrote in an email that the agency does not discriminate on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
"We treat all travelers with respect and sensitivity," he said. "Integrity is our cornerstone. We are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles."
Reached by phone, Hetlage said it's not uncommon for customs and border protection officers to pull travelers aside after initial passport inspection for a secondary screening, which can consist of additional questions and verification of a traveler's identity. What is asked in these interviews varies depending on the situation, he said, but "we have no interest in questioning anyone for two hours about their religion."
Questions about religion can and do sometimes come up, he said, but it isn't something officers — who process more than 1.2 million international travelers daily — routinely ask about.
"With the number of Muslims flying in and out internationally every day, the math doesn't even support it," Hetlage said.
Ali Jr., who was born in Philadelphia and holds a U.S. passport, told customs officers that he is Muslim, said Mancini, who added that the questions asked of Ali Jr. are indicative of profiling. He also said he and the Ali family are considering filing a federal lawsuit following the incident."
Customs: Ali’s son wasn't detained because he's Muslim