JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part I (Social Justice Policy Brief #174)
The presidential pardon is a constitutional power granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It allows the President to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment. While originally intended to offer clemency as a form of mercy or to correct miscarriages of justice, the use of pardons has evolved—and at times, been weaponized for political purposes.
The Role of the Judiciary Against The Other Branches of Government – A Historical Background (Civil Rights Policy Brief #244)
Just this week a number of reports have surfaced that detailed President Trump’s frustration with the Supreme Court and both the federal and state level judiciary in general.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Gifts to Artificial Intelligence Companies (Technology Policy Brief # 149)
In his first few days in office, Donald Trump announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank to invest in growing the US’s AI infrastructure and rescinded former President Joe Biden’s executive order requiring safety submissions from AI developers. His big, beautiful bill showers much more money in the industry, and aims to eliminate state oversight or regulation of AI companies as well.
The Future of Student Loans in Trump’s Presidency (Education Policy Brief #203)
Since Trump’s attack on the Department of Education, there has been some confusion surrounding the future of student loans. During the Biden Administration, there were discussions on a $20,000 loan forgiveness plan for each borrower, but that has since been struck down by the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been no discussed plans of mass loan forgiveness, but instead, mandatory loan repayments will be enacted.
Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration: A Busy 4-Month History
It is no secret the disdain the Trump Administration has shown towards the Justice system in America. On Truth Social, President Donald Trump has blasted the judges who have ruled against his agenda as “Crazed”, “Trump Hating”, and rogue, “activist judges” who hate the legal system.
Justice Delayed: The Mounting Crisis of America’s Immigration Court Backlog (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
There are over 3 million cases currently pending in U.S. immigration courts, with the trend steadily rising since 2012, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC project. These cases reflect more than just bureaucratic dysfunction—they represent a failing immigration system. The problem goes beyond inefficient government & red tape; it’s a legal & human rights crisis affecting families, asylum seekers, & entire communities.
The Hidden Burden: How Tariffs Hurt Marginalized Communities and Lower-Income Americans (Economic Policy Brief #87)
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union.
Economic Crossroads: Are Tariffs Ending North American Relations? (Economic Policy Brief #86)
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union. These tariffs, framed as efforts to “protect American jobs,” have significantly raised the cost of imported goods such as electronics, food, clothing, and raw materials. While intended to support domestic industries, the policy has instead imposed hidden costs on American consumers—especially those from lower-income and marginalized communities.
The Distinction Between Law and Policy And The Role of The Courts
he beginning of President Trump’s second term saw a slew of executive orders on a number of policies and also saw numerous responses to those orders. More than two hundred legal challenges have been brought to oppose the implementation of these executive orders. The results have been mixed.
Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration: A Busy 4-Month History
Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration: A Busy 4-Month History
It is no secret the disdain the Trump Administration has shown towards the Justice system in America. On Truth Social, President Donald Trump has blasted the judges who have ruled against his agenda as “Crazed”, “Trump Hating”, and rogue, “activist judges” who hate the legal system.
His rivalry with the courts extends to the personal arena as well, with a host of cases unrelated to his official actions as president being litigated in the past few years alone. Ranging from his hush money scandal to mishandling of government documents and trying to overturn the 2020 election, Trump is no stranger to courtrooms.
But Donald Trump’s second term has seen an onslaught of lawsuits and challenges to his agenda that is unprecedented. Judges across the board have had to issue temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions against the Trump Administration’s actions, allowing for the multitude of lawsuits to play out. Trump in his first term saw 55, and between his 2025 inauguration and April, he has already seen 25.
For context, George W. Bush faced six, Obama saw 12, and Biden faced 14. So what are the main cases that have triggered this wave of restraining orders and pushes by MAGA Republicans to seek the impeachments of justices who restrain Trump’s agenda?
Analysis
The list of lawsuits facing the Trump Administration is vast, with the law and policy journal Just Security tracking 260 cases, including 10 closed cases. But they can be broadly categorized into five different arenas: Immigration, Universities and Their Students, Federal Agencies and Their Staffs, DOGE, Foreign Policy, and then a mix of other miscellaneous, but still important, court cases.
Immigration
One of Trump’s biggest targets since assuming office has been undocumented immigrants, and he has targeted them aggressively. Citing a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, Trump labeled the presence of foreign gang members (primarily those of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua) as warranted the classification of an invasion, and thus allowing him to detain and deport those he deems at fault. His legal woes really began with his mass deportation campaign, including many being sent to an infamous El Salvadoran prison or third-party countries that those deported had no connection to.
In connection with the El Salvador case, one man in particular became the focal point: Kilmar Abrego Garcia. His case revolved around the lack of due process the detainees had, and their inability to contest their detention, as Garcia claimed he wasn’t a member of the gang. After a huge back-and-forth, with injunctions preventing the detainee’s deportation and the Trump Administration ignoring those warnings, three courts, including the Supreme Court, have told the Trump administration to “facilitate” Garcia’s release.
Trump has yet to make a meaningful effort on this front, and even sat within El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele as he said he also would not facilitate his return. As of now, federal judges are suggesting the government is stonewalling, and one has ordered an inquiry into whether the White House violated the Supreme Court’s order.
Trump is pushing back, invoking state secrets privilege to prevent the inquiry from going anywhere.
Universities and Their Students
Trump’s grudge against higher education has extended to extremely vast budget and grant cuts to universities that don’t do what he says. Almost each one has been challenged in court, with schools and researchers from Harvard all the way to UC Berkeley pushing back to regain funding for their projects, which are often lifesaving research.
Many judges have blocked these funding cuts while the cases pend, but his cuts extend far beyond collegiate and research funding.
There is also a host of foreign students who have been detained, deported, or denied entry into the country, often in connection with pro-Palestine protests on college campuses. In most cases, they were detained and transferred to a Louisiana detention center (likely for a favorable judge), but all have been released by judges.
As part of Trump’s campaign against Harvard, he has essentially banned international students from enrolling at the university. Harvard has stood its ground so far, and this case is still making its way to the courts, as the school has asked a judge to block the visa restrictions Trump placed.
Cuts in Government Agencies and Their Staffs
There are lawsuits against Trumps funding cuts of the Department of Health and Human Services immigration legal resources, which are currently being appealed. There are lawsuits by a coalition of nonprofits and small businesses against the Office of Management and Budget’s memo requiring every federal agency to pause any activities related to President Donald Trump’s executive orders. This is also in the process of being appealed in the D.C Court of Appeals.
Department heads, fired either by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) or Trump, are also protesting their removals.
Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, cited a lack of valid legal reasoning for her removal. Cathy A. Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, used the same reasoning in her lawsuit against her removal from the board.
Arguably more important has been the ongoing case launched after Susan Grundmann, former Chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, sued President Trump, challenging her removal from the authority.
All of the above cases are still in the appeal process, and the board members and workers have been, at least nominally, reinstated to comply with courts blocking their firings while the lawsuits play out.
But there have been cases where the government has outright won. Hampton Dellinger, a Special Counsel, sued Trump over his firing without cause. A federal judge allowed him to return to work while the case proceeded, and the Supreme Court rejected the government’s appeal of this decision in February. But in March, the circuit court then issued a decision that effectively removed Dellinger from his position. The next day, Dellinger dropped his case.
Lawsuits Against DOGE
Many of the aforementioned firings were tied to DOGE’s actions, which is also a common lawsuit target. Nonprofits and states have pushed back against the department’s firings of federal workers, including National Park staff, on the basis that DOGE does not have a legal right to do so.
DOGE has had a bit more of a troubled court history. In one case, labor unions sued them and the Social Security Administration over their access to the sensitive private information of Americans. Judges ordered a stay on the government’s access, but the government’s appeal was promptly denied. Although the case is still ongoing, for the moment, DOGE has lost access to the database (although they may have still gotten out of the database before losing access).
Elon Musk, Trump’s now ex-right-hand man, is also not immune to lawsuits. Fourteen states have filed a lawsuit questioning DOGE’s very basis for existing and the power it has so far been able to wield. After a very long back-and-forth of motions to dismiss and appeal, they issued an order and memorandum opinion that granted Defendant’s motion to judge agreed to dismiss the complaint against President Trump, but denied the motion to dismiss for all other Defendants.
One of the core cases here, Public Citizen Inc et al v. Donald J. Trump and Office of Management and Budget, recently was consolidated with a host of other similar lawsuits under Lentini v. DOGE. This case is currently consolidating evidence from Musk’s lawyers about what exactly his position is, and also weighing motions from the government to dismiss the case.
Foreign Polic Lawsuits
On the foreign policy front, the lawsuits against USAID’s dismantling have been a focal point from day one. Three main cases, one from the American Foreign Service Association, one from the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, and one from the Global Health Council are all currently still being litigated.
Far more recently have been a slew of lawsuits challenging Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. Oregon managed to get a stay on some tariffs placed while their case proceeds, as did five businesses that rely on imports who came together to sue Trump.
Other Important Cases
In almost all the arenas above, the government has resorted to a tried and true method of delaying decisions and appealing them until they can find a favorable court to give them the result they desire, whether that be a certain appellate court or even the Supreme Court.
But while those cases continue through the judicial system, there have been a handful of other canvases that warrant mentioning, as they have mostly already made their ways through the courts.
Mexico has been trying to sue American gun manufacturers in relation to the high rates of gun violence in the country by cartels using American-made weapons. On June 5th, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that weapons manufactures were protected, ending a years long process
Another flashpoint have been the dropping of criminal cases against NY Mayor Eric Adams, which happened back in April in what many deem an explicit quid pro quo to help Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. But recently, the City Council has been considering a charter revision that could give the council the power to begin removal proceedings against a sitting mayor. The move comes as the NY mayoral race begins picking up speed, with Andrew Cuomo making a stunning comeback to be the front-runner while newcomers like Zohran Mamdani are gaining a lot of momentum.
Finally, there was a glimmer of hope for the separation of church and state. In late May, the Supreme Court, in an even 4-4 split after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, blocked funding for a religious charter school in Oklahoma. Taxpayer funds, including funds used for public schools, have long been considered off limits to religious institutions on a 1st Amendment basis.
The Supreme Court is about to have a very busy summer, between the older cases making their way through the appeals process up to them and new cases constantly being brought. Right now, 37 cases are awaiting decisions, over half of the court’s caseload this term. Each case will have far-reaching consequences, and the Supreme Court is beginning to look like one of the last bastions of resistance to Trump’s agenda.
Engagement Resources
- Court Listener is a free database giving direct access to court documents, legal opinions, and upcoming case dates on any U.S.-based case.
- Just Security’s Litigation Tracker is a database tracking the court documents in each case. Just Security is a non-partisan, digital law and policy journal.
- AP News has a database tracking the lawsuits, which have been blocked, which are pending, and which are in place, while also giving news updates.
Justice Delayed: The Mounting Crisis of America’s Immigration Court Backlog (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
Justice Delayed: The Mounting Crisis of America’s Immigration Court Backlog
Immigration Policy Brief #144 | Morgan Davidson | June 4, 2025
There are over 3 million cases currently pending in U.S. immigration courts, with the trend steadily rising since 2012, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC project. These cases reflect more than just bureaucratic dysfunction—they represent a failing immigration system. The problem goes beyond inefficient government & red tape; it’s a legal & human rights crisis affecting families, asylum seekers, & entire communities.
The backlog refers to unresolved cases involving deportation, asylum, or adjustment of status proceedings. Of the more than 3.6 million pending cases, approximately 2 million are asylum claims, not deportation cases. Data shows that only 1.17% of adjudicated cases involve any criminal charge other than unauthorized presence in the U.S. This means people fleeing violence or living in the country without criminal records are being swept into a legal system where the average wait for a decision is 4–5 years.
The U.S. immigration court system is administered by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which operates under the Department of Justice, not the federal judiciary. Immigration judges are DOJ employees under the authority of the Attorney General, currently Pam Bondi, who reports directly to President Trump. EOIR handles deportation, asylum, & related cases, many of which involve unrepresented individuals. There is no right to a public defender in these courts, & the administrative nature of proceedings raises major due process concerns, particularly as the Trump administration pushes for more expedited removals.
Analysis
The backlog has grown steadily for over a decade, but key surges have worsened the crisis. In 2014, a spike in unaccompanied minors & families from Central America overwhelmed the system, requiring additional legal protections & court resources. In 2018 & 2019, another wave of asylum seekers, mainly from Honduras, Guatemala, & El Salvador, arrived amid rising violence. The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy pushed even more people into formal removal proceedings. Then came COVID-19, which effectively paused court operations while new cases continued to accumulate. These surges, paired with systemic underinvestment, created today’s record-breaking backlog.
A major structural issue is the lack of capacity. With only about 700 immigration judges nationwide, the courts are severely understaffed. That shortage is compounded by outdated systems, limited digital infrastructure, & slow case processing tools. Many courts still operate on paper, with minimal access to remote hearings or case tracking. While border enforcement spending has surged, particularly in states like Texas through Operation Lone Star, investment in court modernization has lagged far behind.
For immigrants stuck in the backlog, the effects are deeply personal. Many are left in limbo—unable to work legally, facing housing instability, & dealing with long-term stress. Some endure prolonged detention or family separation, waiting years for hearings that may last just minutes.
The backlog also undermines the immigration system itself. Justice delayed erodes public trust, reduces enforcement credibility, & can even incentivize further migration by signaling that the system is too overwhelmed to respond. Meanwhile, local communities are bearing the brunt. Cities & counties often provide food, housing, & legal aid to immigrants without federal support. In some regions, schools, clinics, & shelters are stretched to their limits.
The shift from the Biden administration to Trump’s second term has intensified these pressures. Biden prioritized enforcement against high-risk individuals & allowed ICE attorneys to close low-priority cases to ease the docket. His administration also expanded humanitarian protections like TPS & boosted access to legal counsel. Trump, by contrast, has reinstated a broad enforcement-first agenda. Under his leadership, expedited removals have expanded, TPS has been rolled back, & legal aid programs have been defunded. Policies like the Laken Riley Act now mandate detention for certain noncitizens & give states the power to sue over lax immigration enforcement. While both administrations faced a system under strain, Biden focused on backlog management, while Trump’s approach reflects a shift toward punitive control, at the expense of due process & judicial capacity.
Engagement resources–
- TRAC Immigration: Get data-driven insights into immigration enforcement, court backlogs, asylum trends, & more. https://tracreports.org/
- Bipartisan Policy Center’s Immigration Reform Proposals: Explore balanced approaches to immigration policy that prioritize security, economic growth, and humanitarian concerns. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/topics/immigration/
- ACLU Know Your Rights: The ACLU outlines the rights of Immigrants in the U.S. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
The Hidden Burden: How Tariffs Hurt Marginalized Communities and Lower-Income Americans (Economic Policy Brief #87)
The Hidden Burden: How Tariffs Hurt Marginalized Communities and Lower-Income Americans
Summary
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union. These tariffs, framed as efforts to “protect American jobs,” have significantly raised the cost of imported goods such as electronics, food, clothing, and raw materials. While intended to support domestic industries, the policy has instead imposed hidden costs on American consumers—especially those from lower-income and marginalized communities.
Contrary to popular belief, tariffs are not paid by foreign exporters. They are effectively a tax paid by U.S. importers, who typically pass the increased cost on to American consumers in the form of higher prices. This economic structure means that the burden of tariffs is shouldered domestically, often by those who can least afford the added expense.
Analysis
The 2024–2025 tariff escalation represents a continuation—and intensification—of Trump’s earlier trade policies. However, the focus has shifted toward even broader categories of goods, now encompassing essentials like groceries, school supplies, construction materials, and medical equipment. The economic consequence is a rise in prices for basic necessities, with particularly harsh impacts on Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income households, who spend a larger share of their income on these goods.
In response, key U.S. trading partners have imposed retaliatory tariffs—taxes on U.S. exports designed to mirror or punish U.S. trade actions. For example, China has targeted American agricultural products, and the EU has increased tariffs on U.S. machinery and vehicles. These countermeasures have caused sharp declines in export demand, hurting U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and small business owners. The resulting farm bankruptcies, job losses in manufacturing hubs, and shrinking revenues in export-dependent sectors have rippled through many communities—especially rural areas and small towns that are economically vulnerable.
Additionally, minority-owned businesses are experiencing disproportionate hardship. These businesses often operate on thinner profit margins and rely heavily on imported goods and materials. Rising costs make it harder for these entrepreneurs to compete, grow, or even survive. Many have been forced to raise prices, reduce services, or shut down altogether.
While the stated goal of the tariffs is to incentivize domestic production, the short-term result has been increased financial pressure on American consumers and small businesses, without sufficient domestic supply chains ready to absorb demand. Economists from institutions such as the Brookings Institution, Economic Policy Institute, and Tax Foundation have repeatedly shown that such policies, absent comprehensive supply chain investments, increase inequality and economic hardship among working-class Americans.
Engagement Resources
- Economic Policy Institute (EPI)
Researches the economic effects of trade policies and advocates for policies that uplift working-class and marginalized communities.
https://www.epi.org - Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program
Provides current data and analysis on the impacts of tariffs on urban, minority, and low-income communities across America.
https://www.brookings.edu/program/metropolitan-policy-program/ - Prosperity Now
Focuses on economic equity and building wealth for low-income communities and communities of color, addressing the fallout of harmful economic policies like tariffs.
https://prosperitynow.org
Economic Crossroads: Are Tariffs Ending North American Relations? (Economic Policy Brief #86)
Economic Crossroads: Are Tariffs Ending North American Relations?
Economic Policy Brief #86 | Saiabhiram Akkaraju | May 28, 2025
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union. These tariffs, framed as efforts to “protect American jobs,” have significantly raised the cost of imported goods such as electronics, food, clothing, and raw materials. While intended to support domestic industries, the policy has instead imposed hidden costs on American consumers—especially those from lower-income and marginalized communities.
Contrary to popular belief, tariffs are not paid by foreign exporters. They are effectively a tax paid by U.S. importers, who typically pass the increased cost on to American consumers in the form of higher prices. This economic structure means that the burden of tariffs is shouldered domestically, often by those who can least afford the added expense.
Analysis
The 2024–2025 tariff escalation represents a continuation—and intensification—of Trump’s earlier trade policies. However, the focus has shifted toward even broader categories of goods, now encompassing essentials like groceries, school supplies, construction materials, and medical equipment. The economic consequence is a rise in prices for basic necessities, with particularly harsh impacts on Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income households, who spend a larger share of their income on these goods.
In response, key U.S. trading partners have imposed retaliatory tariffs—taxes on U.S. exports designed to mirror or punish U.S. trade actions. For example, China has targeted American agricultural products, and the EU has increased tariffs on U.S. machinery and vehicles. These countermeasures have caused sharp declines in export demand, hurting U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and small business owners. The resulting farm bankruptcies, job losses in manufacturing hubs, and shrinking revenues in export-dependent sectors have rippled through many communities—especially rural areas and small towns that are economically vulnerable.
Additionally, minority-owned businesses are experiencing disproportionate hardship. These businesses often operate on thinner profit margins and rely heavily on imported goods and materials. Rising costs make it harder for these entrepreneurs to compete, grow, or even survive. Many have been forced to raise prices, reduce services, or shut down altogether.
While the stated goal of the tariffs is to incentivize domestic production, the short-term result has been increased financial pressure on American consumers and small businesses, without sufficient domestic supply chains ready to absorb demand. Economists from institutions such as the Brookings Institution, Economic Policy Institute, and Tax Foundation have repeatedly shown that such policies, absent comprehensive supply chain investments, increase inequality and economic hardship among working-class Americans.
Engagement Resources
- Economic Policy Institute (EPI)
Researches the economic effects of trade policies and advocates for policies that uplift working-class and marginalized communities.
https://www.epi.org - Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program
Provides current data and analysis on the impacts of tariffs on urban, minority, and low-income communities across America.
https://www.brookings.edu/program/metropolitan-policy-program/ - Prosperity Now
Focuses on economic equity and building wealth for low-income communities and communities of color, addressing the fallout of harmful economic policies like tariffs.
https://prosperitynow.org
The Distinction Between Law and Policy And The Role of The Courts
The Distinction Between Law and Policy And The Role of The Courts
Policy Summary: The beginning of President Trump’s second term saw a slew of executive orders on a number of policies and also saw numerous responses to those orders. More than two hundred legal challenges have been brought to oppose the implementation of these executive orders. The results have been mixed. At times, courts have upheld actions the Trump Administration has supported (just this month the Supreme Court has upheld Trump’s actions to bar transgender troops from the military). While at other times courts have rendered decisions that the Trump Administration opposes (a Rhode Island judge’s order to temporarily resume federal funding for certain foreign aid programs, the Supreme Court’s temporary order to bar deportation flights from Texas). Despite this uneven record the Trump Administration has lashed out at the courts for not being supportive of the agenda the Administration is trying to pursue. One statement that the Administration has used is “judicial tyranny” to describe the legal environment in the United States today.
In March, Chief Judge Boasberg ordered deportation flights to turn around and return to Texas. The planes did not but it still led to some calls for the judge to be impeached. Chief Justice John Roberts then issued a rare statement that said, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Roberts also this month stated that the job of the judiciary is “to check the excesses of Congress and the executive.”
That led to a response from Vice – President J.D. Vance who called the statement from the Chief Justice “a profoundly wrong sentiment.” This followed the Vice – President’s remarks in February where he stated on X “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
While these competing statements and others concerning the power and independence of the judiciary continue, attacks on judges and the judiciary are ongoing.
Policy Analysis: The Chief Justice had anticipated inflamed rhetoric against the judiciary in general and against court personnel. At the end of 2024 in December, the Chief Justice issued his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary where he denounced violence directed toward federal judges and wrote that attempts to intimidate judges for rulings we disagree with were “inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. The Chief Justice is correct in stating that judges should be free to perform the duties of their job free from threats of violence, harassment and intimidation.
But there is an element not being aadressed in this discussion of judicial independence and judicial deference to executive power and that is the distinction between law and policy. The comments made by Vice – President Vance implies that because a majority of the voters who voted for Donald Trump and Republicans that the President and the White House should have free reign to implement their policy agenda. But what the Vice – President misses here and what the Chief Justice never brought up is that law and policies are not the same. The laws of this country – the Constitution, the federal statutes and case law – provide the legal framework about how the government can act. If the government simply ignores the boundaries that the law has provided, then there would be no reason for any administration – Republican or Democrat – to follow the law. Policies on the other hand, are the chosen ways that an administration choses to enact a particular government goal. This means that a certain policy – for example, immigration policy – can be implemented in any number of ways. There is no set way to put immigration policy in practice; that would be at the discretion of the administration in power with the caveat that the implementation be done within the bounds of the laws on the books.
It appears that the Vice – President has made an error and thinks that laws are the same as policies when they are in fact not. Because certain immigration executive orders have been temporarily put on hold the Vice – President believes that courts are not allowing the administration to implement the will of the people. But he gets this wrong because the courts have not stated that no immigration policy can be implemented at all.
The Trump Administration can still implement an immigration policy. It just can’t use the one it has chosen at the moment because in some manner the policy does not follow the current laws and is therefore legally defective. That determination comes from a court of law which should be for the most part unbiased. A court is much more well – versed in the legal framework and it is up to the court to explain why a certain policy may be outside the accepted legal framework. A court of law has nothing to do and does not abide by the will of the people but simply compares the contested policy with the law and determines if it can go forward or must be blocked. There is no reason for it to defer to the executive branch because its duty is to reign in an individual or government branch if they stray too far outside the bounds of the law.
Too often IT many important cases about policies are brought before a court of law to decide and ordinary folk often believe that a court is deciding on the propriety of a certain policy. But that is not the case. A court simply decides if the policy is legally permissible under the law while political actors decide on the best course of action to take to implement a policy within the law. If the Vice – President can understand this distinction, then he and this Administration can understand why courts and the Supreme Court have handed down the decisions that they have. Courts are not blocking a policy entirely but are instead saying it cannot be done in this manner and must be modified to comport with current law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
U.S. Supreme Court – the high court’s 2024 report on the state of the federal judiciary.
JUNE OP ED: Trump’s Assault on Our Country’s Organizational Fabric
JUNE OP ED: Trump’s Assault on Our Country’s Organizational Fabric
By The USRESIST NEWS Team
The Trump administration is taking a wrecking ball to institutions—government and non-government alike– that support democracy and protect our citizens. The administration seems to be fixated on destroying organizations that provide social services to those in need, and those who speak out against Trump and his policies. There is the false rationale that damaging or destroying these organizations will help reduce the budget deficit; and or that that these organizations wrongfully support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. But these are not well founded claims and don’t justify the government’s actions. The Trump administration appears to have no grand strategy in going after these organizations. The assaults are taking place in a seemingly mean-spirited way with little forethought to their impact on the quality of life and democratic framework of our society. Below are some examples.
Non-Profit Organizations
Politico reports how the Trump administration is mounting a sweeping offensive on America’s nonprofit sector, deploying a blend of funding cuts, the elimination of tax benefits, and bureaucratic paralysis. In just over two months, at least 10,000 nonprofit workers have lost their jobs, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Non-profits providing essential services including housing, education and domestic violence support — and who are already scrambling in an uncertain economic environment — now face an even steeper funding and staffing drought.
Government Agencies
The administration’s DOGE initiative resulted in the seemingly arbitrary dismantling of several government agencies that service those in need. These include USAID, that provides health and education services to poverty stricken people in developing countries; the National Labor Relations Board that protects the rights of private-sector employees to organize and bargain collectively for better wages and working conditions; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, that monitor banking practices and the safety of consumer products; and the Department of Education that oversees federal education policy and administers funding for educational programs at the federal level. Although federal judges have ruled several of these closings unconstitutional ( Claiming Congress, not the Executive, is the branch of government responsible for shutting down agencies), most of these agencies remain closed or shells of what they once were.
Law Firms
The Administration is taking efforts to close American law firms with lawyers that had previously represented positions adverse to Trump. These retributive actions include issuing executive orders and presidential memorandums limiting the ability of attorneys to obtain access to government buildings, stopping any consideration for future employment with the government, canceling government contracts, and preventing any company that uses such a firm from obtaining federal contracts. Several firms, such as Paul Weiss and eight others have made deals with the administration to provide pro bono services in order to avoid sanctions and restore access to government contracts. Others, such as Wilmer Hale have been successfully pushing back on the government’s efforts. District Judge Richard Leon, commenting in one of these cases said “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!”
Educational Institutions
The Administration has been carrying out what appears to be a personal vendetta against certain Ivy League colleges, especially Harvard and Columbia. The attempted take down of Harvard includes efforts to control the university’s curriculum, staffing and admissions policies; its admissions of foreign students, its research grants and its non-profit status. The administration is basing its attacks on what they say is the prevalence of antisemitism at Harvard, but there is little data to support this charge. Harvard has pushed back with well-articulated legal challenges, which federal judges are reviewing.
Columbia has taken a different tack agreeing to make certain changes in staffing and the management of protests in exchange for being able to continue with federally funded research.Columbia acquiesced to most of the administration’s demands in a memo that laid out measures including banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to remove or arrest individuals, and taking control of the department that offers courses on the Middle East from its faculty.
Media
The Trump administration has signaled its dislike of media organizations that oppose its policies. Recent effort targeted at media interference include a $60 billion lawsuit against CBS for what it claims was a misleading interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024; shutting down the Voice of America; ceasing funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio, and barring the Associated Press from attending press briefings in the Oval Office.
Looking at these actions in total can be cause for alarm and despair. They reflect the efforts of an administration that lacks tolerance for diversity of opinion and free speech; that values the wealth of the few over the well-being of the many; and that fails to see the important role government has in uniting rather than dividing our country and supporting our people.
The World’s Spiritual Leaders: Who They Are and How Big Their Flocks Are
The World’s Spiritual Leaders: Who They Are and How Big Their Flocks Are
Brief # 172 Social Justice Policy | By Inijah Quadri | May 23, 2025
Policy Issue Summary
In an era marked by escalating global crises—from climate change and geopolitical conflicts to rising authoritarianism and social inequality—spiritual leaders continue to wield significant influence over billions worldwide. Their roles transcend religious rituals, often intersecting with geopolitics, human rights, and social justice. This article profiles the current heads of major global faiths—Catholicism, Tibetan Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy—examining their leadership styles, political entanglements, and the size of their followings. These figures shape not only the spiritual lives of their adherents but also the moral frameworks through which societies interpret justice, peace, and progress.
Analysis
Pope Leo XIV (Catholicism)
On May 8, 2025, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost became the first American to ascend to the papacy, taking the name Pope Leo XIV. With a background as a missionary in Peru and head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, he inherits a Church of approximately 1.4 billion adherents. His early messages have emphasized peace, particularly in conflict zones like Ukraine and Gaza, and he has signaled a commitment to continue the social justice initiatives of his predecessor, Pope Francis. However, his American roots and the political leanings of his family have raised questions about the potential for increased politicization within the Church.
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tibetan Buddhism)
At 89 years old, the 14th Dalai Lama remains a symbol of compassion and resilience for approximately 20 million Tibetan Buddhists worldwide. Living in exile in India since 1959, he continues to advocate for nonviolence and human rights. In a recent statement, he declared that his successor would be born outside of Chinese-controlled Tibet, a move that challenges Beijing’s claims over the reincarnation process and underscores the ongoing struggle for Tibetan autonomy.
Chief Rabbis David Yosef and Kalman Ber (Judaism)
In 2024, Rabbi David Yosef and Rabbi Kalman Ber were appointed as the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Chief Rabbis of Israel, respectively. Their appointments continue the Yosef family’s significant influence within Israeli religious circles. Together, they oversee the spiritual guidance of Israel’s Jewish population, which numbers around 7 million, and play pivotal roles in matters of religious law, conversion, and kosher certification. Their leadership also impacts the broader Jewish diaspora, which totals approximately 15 million globally.
Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb (Sunni Islam)
As the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar since 2010, Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb is a leading authority for Sunni Muslims, who constitute the majority of the world’s 1.9 billion Muslims. He has been a vocal advocate for interfaith dialogue and recently called for restraint and dialogue between India and Pakistan amid rising tensions. His leadership emphasizes moderation and has significant influence over Islamic education and jurisprudence worldwide.
Shankaracharyas (Hinduism)
Hinduism, with over 1.2 billion adherents, does not have a single spiritual leader but is guided by various Shankaracharyas who head monastic institutions established by Adi Shankaracharya. In a historic event at the 2025 Maha Kumbh Mela, three prominent Shankaracharyas united to issue a joint directive advocating for the protection of ‘Sanatan Dharma’ and the banning of cow slaughter. This collaboration highlights a growing trend toward unity among Hindu spiritual leaders in addressing contemporary social and political issues.
Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Communion)
The Anglican Communion, comprising approximately 85 million members, is currently without a spiritual leader following the resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby in late 2024. The process to appoint his successor has been fraught with delays and criticisms of mismanagement. This leadership vacuum comes at a time when the Communion faces internal divisions over issues such as LGBTQ+ inclusion and the role of women in the Church.
Patriarch Kirill (Eastern Orthodoxy)
Patriarch Kirill has led the Russian Orthodox Church since 2009, overseeing a flock of approximately 100 million believers. His tenure has been marked by a close alignment with the Russian state, particularly evident in his support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This stance has drawn criticism from other religious leaders, including Pope Francis, and has raised concerns about the politicization of the Church. Despite this, Patriarch Kirill continues to exert significant influence over Orthodox Christianity in Russia and beyond.
Wrap-Up
In a world grappling with multifaceted crises, the influence of spiritual leaders remains profound. Their guidance not only shapes the spiritual lives of their followers but also impacts global discourses on peace, justice, and human rights. As these leaders navigate the complexities of modernity, their actions and teachings will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the moral and ethical contours of our global society.
Engagement Resources
- The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (http://dalailama.com/): Official website providing teachings, schedules, and news related to the Dalai Lama.
- Chief Rabbinate of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Rabbinate_of_Israel): Information on the roles and responsibilities of Israel’s Chief Rabbis.
- Al-Azhar Official Website (https://www.azhar.eg/): Resources and publications from Al-Azhar University and the Grand Imam.
- Sringeri Sharada Peetham (https://www.sringeri.net/): One of the prominent monastic institutions in Hinduism, providing insights into the teachings of the Shankaracharyas.
- Church of England – Archbishop of Canterbury (https://www.churchofengland.org/): Updates on the appointment process for the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
- Russian Orthodox Church – Official Website (https://www.patriarchia.ru/en/): News and statements from the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill.
Week That Was: Global News In Review
Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief # 202 Foreign Policy | By Ibrahim Castro | May 27, 2025
Israel faces increasing international pressure
The Annapurna Express, Published: May 24, 2025, 5:17 p.m.,
https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/54598/
International pressure has been mounting as Israel continues its bombardment and siege of Gaza. The renewed assault has left thousands more dead in just the last weeks since the breaking of the ceasefire deal in January 2025. Over 52,615 Palestinians are reported to have been killed, though the true number is likely to be far higher and to remain unknown until international journalists and aid agencies are allowed into the strip. Last week, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, warned that Israel’s escalating aggression and prolonged blockade have pushed the population to the brink of famine, stating Palestinians are enduring “what may be the cruelest phase of this cruel conflict”. The UN has released projections that up to 14,000 children are at risk of dying of famine in the Gaza strip if aid is not allowed in soon.
The United States recently suggested it had reached a direct ceasefire arrangement with Hamas, but the Israelis did not agree to it, and it has disappeared from the bargaining table . The announcement of the deal comes after criticism from the White House that Israel has purposely prolonged the war on Gaza. The leaders of the United Kingdom, France, and Canada together threatened to take concrete actions against Israel, including targeted sanctions. The U.K. has suspended its free trade talks with Israel and the EU foreign minister has announced that the bloc would review its trade relations with Israel. Ireland has announced it would present plans to ban trade of goods with Israeli businesses in occupied Palestinian territories. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated on a German public broadcaster ARD that the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza “can no longer be justified on the grounds of a fight against Hamas”.
The steps taken thus far have mostly been symbolic and have not translated into direct action or relief, yet they signal growing grievances towards Israel from its traditional western allies over its renewed and prolonged assault on Gaza.
Unrest in Bolivia as Evo Morales is out of the presidential race
Former Bolivian President Evo Morales waves during an event at which he proclaims himself as a candidate for the presidency in the 2025 elections, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, April 19, 2025.
Bolivia’s former leader Evo Morales launched his fourth presidential bid this year, ignoring the Bolivian constitution, which only allows three terms in office. A power struggle between Morales and his former ally and finance minister, President Arce, has fractured their dominant Movement Toward Socialism party, or MAS, forcing Morales to break off and create his own political party. Morales wasBolivia’s first Indigenous president who governed the country from 2006 until his ouster in 2019.
Last week Bolivia’s pro-government supporters and security forces confronted protesters loyal to the former president in street clashes, the second such violent escalation as fears of further unrest in the Andean nation continue to grow. The protesters and counter protesters exchanged throws of firecrackers, homemade explosives and stones in the city of El Alto, while riot police unleashed tear gas on the crowds. Morales has repeatedly promised that Bolivia would “convulse” if the electoral tribunal bars him from the race, heightening a sense of crisis in the run-up to the deeply polarized vote scheduled for Aug, 17 2025. The tribunal has recently disqualified former President Evo Morales from running in the August presidential vote.
Floods in Australia
An aerial photo shows flooding at Settlement Point Road in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia, EPA May 23, 2025
Last week parts of Australia got months worth of rain in just a few days. Rescuers have worked on reaching thousands of affected people. Four bodies have been retrieved from floodwaters in New South Wales, more than 50,000 people remained isolated for days and an estimated 10,000 properties have been damaged in the record-breaking flooding in New South Wales. Flood waters have begun to subside in some areas and weather conditions have improved in recent days. The Climate Council, an Australian research group, stated that these kinds of disasters were no longer simply “natural”. The latest research for Australia showed more rain was falling during these flooding events. Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, acknowledged the rising frequency of these events during a visit to the affected areas.
International Sanctions on Syria Removed
US President Donald Trump meets with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [Handout/Saudi Press Agency via Reuters]
The Trump administration has removed sanctions on Syria, following a surprise policy pivot during a diplomatic trip to the Gulf states. The US State Department, at the same time issued a waiver to a 2019 law, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which established additional sanctions and financial restrictions on institutions and individuals related to the conflict in Syria. The waiver would now, according to the State Department “enable our foreign partners, allies, and the region to further unlock Syria’s potential”.
The European Union has expressed its concern as to whether the new Syrian government would govern in a more pluralistic manner, respecting the rights of minorities and women. Despite these reservations the EU has also decided to lift economic sanctions in an effort to help the war-torn country recover. The sanctions relief comes on the heels of Syrian rebels’ recent ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad, who suppressed pro-democracy protests in 2011, triggering a decade-long civil war and the installing of sweeping international sanctions.
ASEAN Summit in Malaysia
Laos’ Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone, Myanmar’s Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Aung Kyaw Moe, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar, Ibrahim, Philippines’ President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, and Prime Minister of Timor-Leste Xanana Gusmao join hands for a group photo as they attend the 46th ASEAN Summit, at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 26, 2025. REUTERS/Hasnoor Hussain TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
US Tariffs are high on the agenda of the ongoing ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Malaysia’s foreign minister has called on Southeast Asian nations to deepen regional economic integration and present a united front in their attempt to address the current global trade uncertainties resulting from US tariffs. Developing Southeast Asian nations were slapped with rates ranging from 17% on the Philippines, 49% Cambodia, 36% Thailand, 32% Indonesia, 24% on Brunei , and 24% on the host country Malaysia. The group could use its collective industrial muscle as leverage over the Trump administration in sectors like electric vehicles, semiconductors and critical minerals.
The bloc has also called for an increase in efforts for a ceasefire in Myanmar, as the conflict has spilled over borders, with a growing number of refugees fleeing to neighbouring ASEAN nations and a rise in trans-border crime. The regional bloc has so far led fruitless diplomatic efforts to end Myanmar’s conflict since the military staged a coup and deposed civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021.
Habeas corpus: What is it, and can it be suspended? (Elections & Politics Brief #185)
Habeas corpus: What is it, and can it be suspended?
Elections & Politics Brief #185 | Nate Iglehart | May 18, 2025
One of the most fundamental aspects of a fair and just legal system is the ability to challenge one’s detention, often referred to as “habeas corpus”. Habeas corpus is an old but crucial pillar of justice, dating back to the 13th-century Magna Carta, which stated that “No man shall be arrested or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
Without a recourse to challenge detention, a government could jail someone without having to justify its decision to a judge. As a result, someone detained, regardless of whether they committed a crime or not, would have no way of ensuring their rights are protected, as there would be no judge to guarantee due process.
The Founding Fathers of the U.S. knew this and enshrined habeas corpus in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. But in recent weeks, the Trump administration has seemingly decided the Constitution is far more flexible than ever before, with key administration officials suggesting the suspension of habeas corpus to assist in Donald Trump’s deportation campaign as it grates against judges across the country.
Analysis
In the face of what he calls “activist judges”, Donald Trump has not backed down from stretching both the Constitution and the justice system to fit his needs, defying court orders and having his allies try to impeach judges who rule against his efforts to deport perceived criminal migrants. For the moment, the courtroom battles seem likely to continue into the coming months.
But in early May, the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, suggested that the Trump administration was eyeing ways to suspend habeas corpus, calling it a “privilege”. His justification is one that the administration has been leaning on intensely: that the arrival and presence of illegal migrants in the U.S. constitutes an “invasion,” which would give the administration extensive emergency powers.
More recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem echoed the idea that migrants illegally crossing the border from Mexico could warrant a suspension of habeas corpus.
Now, there are times when habeas corpus can, and has, been suspended, primarily in times of rebellion and invasion. Across American history, it’s been suspended four times: once under the threat of a British invasion of New Orleans in 1814, once under President Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War in 1861, once under President Theodore Roosevelt during a 1905 rebellion in the Philippines, and once under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Each suspension, save for the case during the Civil War, was ordered after being authorized by Congress, as while the original phrasing of habeas corpus doesn’t specify which government branch can suspend it, most legal experts agree that only Congress can do it. In the Civil War case, Lincoln faced such backlash after skipping congressional authorization that he went back and requested (and received) it.
There is also a decent breadth of legal precedent regarding who gets habeas corpus rights. In the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that only Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Clarence Thomas has also recently suggested that habeas corpus was indeed a constitutional right of national citizenship.
But that point of national citizenship is an important delineation, as the Trump administration would argue that habeas corpus doesn’t apply to noncitizens. Trump’s argument has some legal basis, as in 2020, the Supreme Court tossed out a decision by a lower appellate court allowing an illegal immigrant to file a writ of habeas corpus to overturn his asylum claim denial.
However, this line of argument runs into a sizable hurdle, as that 2020 decision applied more to his asylum claim instead of the detention. Additionally, a separate decision in the 2008 case of Boumediene v. Bush ruled that foreign nationals, at Guantánamo Bay in this case, needed to have meaningful habeas corpus reviews by civilian judges.
Whether or not Trump will try to suspend habeas corpus is an open question, depending on whether both judges and Congress believe illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion.” But Miller’s suggestion is an indication of the growing influence of the far-right in the Trump administration’s already hardline immigration policy.
Stephen Miller himself was a key immigration policy advisor in Trump’s first term and has come back the second time around with bigger plans. These plans are largely in line with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a checklist from far-right activists for Trump’s second term.
From sending troops to the southern border to limiting refugee admissions and revoking the temporary protected status of thousands of migrants, Trump’s policies are in line with that wish list.
While Miller himself has distanced himself from Project 2025, Trump brought in Russell Vought, an architect of the project. But here, there is a little gray around what Project 2025 believes regarding habeas corpus.
The actual text of Project 2025 doesn’t explicitly reference habeas corpus, and the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution does explicitly say, “in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court confirmed that only Congress possesses the constitutional power to suspend the writ.”
But it also focuses on many questions about following legal decisions and whether habeas corpus can be violated if there’s another avenue for contesting one’s detention. This has been an argument the Trump administration has made in recent court hearings regarding its deportation efforts.
Only time will tell if habeas corpus can, and will, be suspended. But the questions raised about how far the Trump administration is willing to push its power are troubling, especially with the fate of millions of undocumented immigrants on the line.
Engagement Resources
- The American Immigration Council is a nonprofit group that coordinates litigation, research, and advocacy for immigration policies.
- The American Constitution Society is a legal organization that advocates for a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution.
- The Federalist Society is a conservative and libertarian legal organization that advocates for a more fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.
The Prison-Industrial Complex: Profiting Off Punishment in America (Economic Policy Brief #85)
The Prison-Industrial Complex: Profiting Off Punishment in America
Economic Policy Brief #85 | Inijah Quadri | May 16, 2025
The prison-industrial complex (PIC) in the United States represents a deeply entrenched system where incarceration is commodified, intertwining the interests of government agencies and private enterprises. This nexus has transformed the U.S. criminal justice system into a profit-driven enterprise, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
As of 2025, the United States operates approximately 1,566 state prisons, 98 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,277 juvenile correctional facilities, 133 immigration detention centers, and 80 Indian country jails. Collectively, these facilities confine about 1.9 million individuals nationwide. State prisons hold the majority, with over 1 million incarcerated, followed by local jails housing approximately 619,000 individuals. Federal prisons detain about 209,000 people, while juvenile facilities, immigration detention centers, and Indian country jails account for the remainder. This extensive network underscores the scale and complexity of the U.S. incarceration system.
Private prison corporations, notably GEO Group and CoreCivic, have capitalized on policies that favor mass incarceration. Recent legislative developments, such as the Laken Riley Act, have expanded the criteria for detention, promising increased profits for these entities. These companies have secured lucrative contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), anticipating a surge in detainee numbers.
Beyond detention facilities, the exploitation extends to prison labor. In states like Alabama, incarcerated individuals work for corporations like McDonald’s and Home Depot under conditions likened to modern-day slavery. Despite generating significant revenue for the companies—estimated at about half a billion dollars annually—the workers receive minimal compensation, and refusal to work can lead to severe penalties.
This system disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and incarceration. The PIC’s entrenchment in American society raises critical questions about justice, equity, and the true cost of profit-driven punishment.
Analysis
The prison-industrial complex is sustained by a confluence of factors that prioritize profit over rehabilitation and justice. Private prison companies, such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, have been instrumental in shaping policies that ensure a steady influx of inmates. These corporations have invested heavily in lobbying efforts, with the two largest for-profit prison companies spending $1.7 million and $1.3 million respectively, on federal lobbying in 2024. Such financial influence has led to the enactment of laws that favor incarceration, including mandatory minimum sentences and stringent immigration policies.
The economic incentives for incarceration extend beyond the prison walls. Incarcerated individuals are often compelled to work under exploitative conditions, producing goods and providing services for major corporations. In Alabama, for instance, prisoners are employed by private companies like Home Depot, Wayfair, and McDonald’s through a state-run work program that generates significant revenue. Despite prisoners earning wages, the state garnishes 40% and imposes additional fees. Refusing work can result in harsh penalties, including denial of family visits and transfer to high-security prisons with poor conditions, deterring parole chances.
The racial disparities within the PIC are stark. Black Americans are incarcerated at disproportionately high rates, with one out of every three Black boys born today expected to be sentenced to prison, compared to one out of six Latino boys and one out of 17 white boys. This overrepresentation is not reflective of higher crime rates but is indicative of systemic biases within the criminal justice system. Policies such as the “War on Drugs” have disproportionately targeted communities of color, leading to mass incarceration and the subsequent disenfranchisement of these populations.
The PIC also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and incarceration. Individuals released from prison often face significant barriers to reintegration, including limited access to employment, housing, and education. These challenges are compounded by the stigma associated with incarceration, leading to high recidivism rates and a continuous supply of labor for the prison system.
Efforts to dismantle the PIC face significant challenges. Powerful lobbying by private prison companies influences legislation, while public perception often supports punitive measures over restorative justice. However, grassroots movements and advocacy groups continue to push for reforms, highlighting the need for a justice system that prioritizes human dignity over profit.
Engagement Resources
- Critical Resistance (https://criticalresistance.org/): An organization dedicated to dismantling the prison-industrial complex through grassroots organizing and advocacy.
- The Sentencing Project (https://www.sentencingproject.org/): Provides research and advocacy on criminal justice reform, focusing on reducing incarceration rates and addressing racial disparities.
- Prison Policy Initiative (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html): Offers data-driven insights into the U.S. criminal justice system, highlighting the impacts of mass incarceration.
- Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) (https://incarceratedworkers.org/): A union for incarcerated workers advocating for labor rights and the abolition of prison slavery.
- Worth Rises (https://worthrises.org/): A nonprofit organization working to dismantle the prison industry and end the exploitation of those it targets.
- States of Incarceration (https://statesofincarceration.org/): A national public history project exploring the history and impact of mass incarceration in the U.S.
- Liberation Library (https://www.liberationlib.com/): Provides books to incarcerated youth, promoting education and empowerment as tools for liberation.