Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

News

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Bamilia Delcine Olistin restocks product at Bon Samaritain Grocery, a Haitian-owned grocery, on February 3, 2026 in Springfield, Ohio. A federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration's attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, but Haitian TPS beneficiaries and residents of Springfield continue to face uncertainty over their protected status.

Getty Images, Jon Cherry

Warrantless Surveillance

Almost 3 weeks ago, House Republicans appeared to be spitting mad because the Senate had had the temerity to pass a DHS funding agreement overnight by unanimous consent and then recess. The Senate did that because it was the best deal that could get passed. (The House still hasn’t acted on that Senate DHS funding bill.)

But last night, around 2 am, the House passed a 10 day extension of existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 authorities by unanimous consent and then recessed until Monday. Apparently, it’s fine when the House does it. Why did the House do this? Because it was the best deal that could get passed.


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 is a portion of law that allows for warrantless surveillance of US citizens under some circumstances.
Because what’s at issue is not the meaning of the law, but how it’s used, we provide two contrasting explanations: one from Intel.gov and one from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Government intelligence agencies focus on what they claim is a tool to help them do their jobs better. The ACLU focuses on the unintended consequences of this tool being used.

Unlike the House, the Senate will attempt to address this extension by unanimous consent since the law expires on April 20*. However, there may be objections to the unanimous consent request and if so, the law could expire before the Senate acts.

*While the legislative language would lapse on next week, FISA courts can, and already have, certified the Section 702 provisions for at least another year. So, what changes next week if no action is taken is…nothing. For now. The court did demand some limited changes to how Section 702 is implemented. However, those changes do not align with what many members of Congress, across both parties and chambers want. What Congress members would like to see, among other things, are requirements for warrants for surveillance of communications by US citizens.

Temporary Protected Status for Haitians

The second Trump Administration has been revoking all of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations it can. TPS status is designated by the federal government for people from countries where returning or staying would dangerous to due to factors like political instability or natural distaster. Haitians are one of the largest group of immigrants covered by TPS status.

As long as TPS is active, these immigrants are here legally. But, as soon as it’s revoked, they become immigrants here illegally, even though no actions of theirs have had anything to do with that change in status.

Rep. Pressley (D-MA7) put together a discharge petition on a bill introduced by Rep. Gillen (D-NY4) to force the administration to keep TPS for Haitians active and this week the House, including some Republicans, voted to pass it 224-204.

The bill has to now go to the Senate and, like any other bill, would need the President’s signature before becoming law. This last step is unlikely; the President would be more likely to veto it.

This bill’s passage is notable because it’s yet another instance (the last being the bill to release the Epstein files) in which a discharge petition was successful. Given that these petitions exist to get around leadership objections, what that means is that more and more, rank and file members are telling leadership they disagree with leadership’s positions and priorities and will work with the minority party to put forth bills.

Still rare, but a sign perhaps of some substantive change in how the House will operate going forward.


Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less