Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Webinar rewind: What you can do to stop voter suppression

When early voting got started in some states, coverage of the long lines was accompanied by stories of voter intimidation — protesters blocking access to polling places or verbally harassing voters. Social media platforms have taken steps to crack down on calls for unlawful voter interference and intimidation, and the FBI has issued warnings. But there are sure to be instances of attempted voter suppression on Election Day.

What can an individual do to stop it?

The Fulcrum convened a panel of experts to discuss how everyone can help put a stop to unlawful voter suppression and intimidation — threats to the already troubled democracy we're dedicated to covering. The Fulcrum's editor-in-chief, David Hawkings, moderated a discussion with:
  • Mindy Finn, CEO of Citizen Data and co-founder of Stand Up Republic
  • Nsé Ufot, chief executive officer, New Georgia Project

Read More

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.

Keep ReadingShow less