Democracy Now! Audio - Democracy Now! 2026-07-01 Wednesday

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

Democracy Now! Wednesday, July 1, 2026

From New York, this is Democracy Now. This is a fight of who belongs and who this administration wants to erase. And we won't let them do that. This victory is not the end. It is not the beginning. But it's a reflection and a pause. The Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship. President Trump says he'll go to Congress next.

We'll speak to Columbia University historian May 9. Then, in a loss for the civil rights of transgender Americans, the court upholds safe bands on trans athletes participating in women and girls' sports. We'll get reaction from the ACLU's Chase Strangeo. Then the Supreme Court upholds mail-in ballots. But Trump continues to fight for Congress to pass the SAVE Act, which could disenfranchise millions of. of voters, we'll speak to Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman.

And finally, ahead of July 4th, we'll talk about the fight over reparations in Evanston, Illinois, with Howard Law Professor Justin Hansford. After the city of Evanston established a reparations commission in 2021, that was one of the most influential around the country, the Donald Trump Department of Justice has sought to kill it. But here on the 250th anniversary, of the nation's founding, we know that racial justice actually requires us to repair the injustices of the past.

All that and more coming up. Welcome to Democracy Now, DemocracyNow, DemocracyNow.org, the Warren Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. In Venezuela, the confirmed death toll from last week's devastating twin earthquakes is nearing 2,000 people, though that number is expected to soar. On Tuesday, NASA researchers said a review of satellite images along the coast of La Gaida, near this epicenter of the June 24th earthquake, showed more than 58,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. Tens of thousands of people are still missing one week after the quake struck with hopes fading that rescue teams will find remaining survivors trapped in the rubble. The United Nations warns displaced survivors are likely to face hunger and the spread of disease.

as the quakes have escalated. Venezuela's already dire humanitarian crisis caused in part by harsh U.S. sanctions. Even before the earthquakes, aid groups estimate nearly 8 million people in Venezuela were already in need of urgent humanitarian support. The World Food Program is appealing for $50 million to provide food assistance to some 500,000 people in Venezuela over the next three months. Indirect technical talks between U.S. and Iranian teams got underway in Qatar today after Iran's top negotiators said his nation would not enter further high-level negotiations until the U.S. meets the terms of its memorandum of understanding with Iran. Mohamed Bakar al-Aulibaf spoke on Iranian state television.

Even now that we are negotiating with America, we are not negotiating with a friend. We are negotiating with an untrustworthy enemy who will definitely take action against us whenever they find the opportunity. In truth, a person can negotiate well only if they are also prepared for war. Ralebaugh added Iran's guarantee of free passage to the Strait of Hormuz is only valid for 60 days and that Iran would never give up its rights to control the waterway under any circumstances. He called the Strait Iran's greatest instrument of power. Following those remarks, Iran's Navy, set a commercial container ship, ran aground and shallow waters as it tried to circumvent the normal shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense minister, Israel Katz, has threatened to bomb Iran for a third time, despite the Trump administration's apparent efforts at diplomacy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Tuesday with Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, telling his forces they would continue their occupation as long as Hezbollah poses a threat. It was his first visit to Lebanon since Israel invaded its northern neighbor. March 2nd, Israeli attacks on Lebanon since then, have killed over 4,000 people and have continued despite the U.S. ceasefire with Iran, which requires Israel stop bombing Lebanon and withdraws forces. In Washington, D.C., the House of Representatives Tuesday rejected a war

powers resolution seeking to limit President Trump's authority to involve U.S. forces in Israel's war on Lebanon. The measure was brought by Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Taleb, the only Palestinian-American serving in Congress. It was rejected. on a vote of 189 to 235 after 22 Democrats joined most Republicans voting against it. The United Nations is calling on donors to fill a $100 million gap in funding for UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. On Tuesday, UN Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez said millions of Palestinians are

at risk due to the shortfall, as well as Israel's massive restrictions on Urnurwa's ability to work in the occupied Palestinian territories. This comes as Israeli media is reporting the Trump-created, so-called Board of Peace, will soon begin managing humanitarian shelters in Gaza. The newspaper Israel Hayom reports the first site will open near Rafah within weeks and will be policed by a multinational force armed with so-called less lethal weapons. The report also stated Israel's military will continue expanding its control beyond the so-called yellow line agreed to when the U.S. broker at October ceasefire, Israel continues to violate the agreement on a daily

basis. Republicans controlling the House Rules Committee have refused to allow a floor vote on a bipartisan amendment seeking to block the integration of the U.S. and Israeli militaries. The proposed U.S. Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative would accelerate U.S.-Israeli technology sharing co-production of weapons systems and partnerships on the military use of artificial intelligence, biotechnology and more. An amendment by California Democrat Roe Kana and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massey would have removed the initiative from the 27 National Defense Authorization Act. Congress member Kana spoke out Tuesday after Republican leaders refused to make the amendment eligible for debate. This is unconscionable. They're not even giving us a vote on the amendment.

Thomas and I will continue to fight to make sure we don't compromise American. sovereignty. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling Tuesday rejected President Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship, a right that's enshrined into the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office that declared children born in the U.S. to undocumented people or immigrant parents without permanent status would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship. Conservative justices John Roberts, Amy Coney-Barritt, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in opposing Trump. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision, quote, citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community.

The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person in this land. We keep that promise today, unquote. Immigrant rights advocates gathered at the steps of the Supreme Court. This is Illinois Democratic Congress member Delia Ramirez, who's the daughter. of Guatemalan immigrants. I am the proud, proud daughter of Maria Elvira Ramirez-Gera, a Guatemalan immigrant who crossed the border pregnant with me. I am a citizen by birthright.

I am an American, and every single person in this country, if you're born here, you're an American period. Pointo, no exceptions. Am I right? We'll have more on this story after headlines with Columbia University professor, historian Maynai, also a birthright citizen. In another major Supreme Court decision, Justice's ruled states can prohibit transgender student athletes from competing in women's and girls' sports teams upholding bans in Idaho and West Virginia.

Justices ruled unanimously that the state bans do not violate Title IX, the federal law against sex discrimination and education. They split six to three over whether the transathletes are unconstitutional. with the conservative majority finding they do not run afoul of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling was lauded by President Trump, who said on social media, Big Win, Senior Council for ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, Joshua Block, said in a statement, quote, this is a heartbreaking ruling. The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, in fact, promotes the equality of all women and girls. We'll have more on this story with the ACLU's Chase Strangio. In a major ruling on campaign finance, the Supreme Court has struck down a federal law that limited the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office in their six to three ruling. The court's conservative justices wrote that coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, quote, the court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption.

the contribution limits were meant to check, she wrote. This comes as a new report by public citizen finds cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, big tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in this election cycle. That's more than half the record $517 million that corporations have reported spending so far. In Colorado, 29-year-old Democratic Socialist and first-time congressional candidate Milat Kiroz has defeated 15-term incumbent Congresswoman Diana DeGette in the first congressional district primary. Kuros appears to have carried more than half of all votes in the three-way race to represent the Denver-based district. She won despite a flood of dark money spent to quash her campaign while supporting DeGette's re-election. That included funds indirectly funneled by the Super PAC operated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee into outside spending groups, including pro-choice majority action.

Milat Kiro spoke to his supporters at a raucous victory party Tuesday evening. To take the bugarchy! Also on Tuesday, Colorado Democratic Senator John Hickenlooper survived a strong primary challenge from progressive state senator Julie Gonzalez, who was backed by the Democratic Socialists of America. In immigration news, hundreds of thousands of immigrant children facing deportation orders are having to represent themselves in court. That's according to the Vera Institute of Justice and Dropsite News, which looked at federal immigration data that showed more than 400,000 immigrant children have been forced to appear in court without legal representation. In related news of federal court in Denver, Colorado is the latest to oppose the Trump administration's efforts to indefinitely imprison immigrants, most of whom have no criminal records without access to a bond hearing. This is at least the fourth time a federal court has rejected Trump's mass detention policy. Advocacy groups have filed a complaint on behalf of dozens of immigrants who were deported from the United States to Ghana and then return to their countries of origin, despite their fears they could face towards.

torture or persecution. The complaint was filed with West Africa's top human rights court, accusing Ghana's government of complicity with the Trump administration and deporting the immigrants summed to the countries they had fled to and others left stranded in third countries to which they had no ties. The complaint involves 27 of at least 60 immigrants who've been deported to Ghana since September under Trump's so-called third country agreements. And thousands of people rallied in different regions of South Africa for another round of anti-immigrant. demonstrations Tuesday. Vigilante violence against African immigrants has soared across South Africa in recent months, driving many people to flee in fear. Thousands of immigrants, most from Zimbabwe and

Malawi, have requested consular support to evacuate South Africa as they're living in constant fear of violent harassment on the streets and attacks on their businesses by xenophobic groups. Among their targets is Princess Adjé, who grew up in South Africa since moving from Ghana as a toddler. She's been sleeping on the streets outside of government office in Durban since May when an anti-immigrant mob broke into her hair in beauty salon and looted it. It was awake because we don't know when they're going to attack us again. They've been here twice. So we don't know when they're going to attack us again.

So we can all sleep. Some people sleep for a few hours. You wake up. We also have to sit and watch. I can't pay my rent in the shop. I can't pay my rent at home. I can't feed my child. I can't feed my family.

Everything just went zero. My whole life just went zero. And those are some of the headlines. This is Democracy Now, Democracy Now.org, the war and peace report. I'm Amy Goodman. We begin today with the landmark Supreme Court ruling rejecting President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the justice has upheld birthright citizenship reaffirming the

principle that children born on U.S. soil are American citizens are right enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling strikes down President Trump's executive order from his first day back in office last year that declared children born in the U.S. to undocumented people or immigrant parents without permanent residency would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision, quote, citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person in this land. we keep that promise today, unquote. Conservative justices, John Roberts, Amy Coney-Barrid and Brett Kavanaugh,

joined the three liberal justices and opposing Trump. But Justice Kavanaugh wrote, he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution. In their dissents, conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Lido, Jr., called the decision a serious mistake that would open the door to so-called birth tourists. President Trump, who followed the case closely, even attended part of the oral arguments in person, said on social media, quote, the Supreme Court appell birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the president that has now been determined during this process. Congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship.

They will have my complete and total support, the president wrote. Well, for more on this momentous decision and long history of struggle over birthright citizenship, we go to Southern Maryland, where we're joined by a birthright citizen. May Nye, Lung Family Professor of Asian American Studies and Professor of History at Columbia University, author of several books, including the award-winning impossible subjects, illegal aliens, and the making of modern America. Professor Nye, welcome back to Democracy Now. Start off by talking about the significance of the Supreme Court ruling upholding birthright citizenship.

Thank you, Amy, for having me. It's pleasure to be here. This is a very important ruling. It upholds a constitutional principle that was set in after the Civil War that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. It's extremely important because not only in upholding the Constitution, it puts a break on President Trump's insane drive against immigrants to drive people out of the country and to deny them any rights while they're here. So talk about exactly what this means for people. You yourself, is that right, a birthright citizen? Yes, my parents are immigrants. So talk about what this means at this point.

And President Trump almost not skipping a beat in saying, okay, we'll just go to Congress. worse then? Well, Justice Kavanaugh opened that door for him, unfortunately. What it means right now is that despite all of the decisions and rulings and support for the Supreme Court for his program of mass deportations, ending immigration, ending asylum, ending temporary protective status, all of these measures against immigrants, this would have been the culmination of that campaign to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented and temporary migrants. So it puts a break on that agenda, and it also avoids, I think, what would be chaos in this country if that were to go into effect. Explain what you mean with Justice Kavanaugh opening the door and also talk about the House Speaker saying that they would take this up,

Although, of course, he dismissed Congress once again early yesterday. Well, I think it's extremely unlikely that Congress could even pass such legislation. Maybe they could get some votes in the House where they have not been able to in the past. I don't think it could ever pass the Senate and would have to go through the Supreme Court again to see if it was constitutional. So I think it's a pipe dream, but this is a path that Trump will take to keep the issue alive and to keep fighting and to keep up his resolution. against immigrants, especially people of color.

Professor Nye, you wrote a piece earlier this year for the economists headlined, America is a nation of immigrants with a history of exclusion. As we go into this 250th anniversary of the birth of the United States, can you talk about that history? What form the exclusion is taken? Are there moments where xenophobia recedes, and where it, like this moment today, to say the least, rears its ugly head.

You know, all the discussion we're having right now about the 14th Amendment is really important for us to remember because it is the importance of it is that it broke the tie between citizenship and race. And it laid the possibility, indeed the principle, that America is a multiracial democracy, not just for white people, not just for people, not just for whites and blacks, but for all people.

And that is the legacy of the Civil War and the 14th Amendment. Now, what happened, though, after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, is that there were moves in the South to retake the South for white supremacy, and this was by and large supported by the Supreme Court in many decisions that eviscerated the meaning of citizenship for the freed black people. And this, as we know, culminated in 18, with the Plessy decision, which created the legal fiction of separate but equal and enshrined segregation into the Constitution.

Now, Wang Kim R, the decision that upholds birthright citizenship, is just two years after, three years after Plessy. So we have to ask what happened in between those two times. And as the Supreme Court eviscerated the 14th Amendment for black people, it also upheld Chinese exclusion laws, laws that refused naturalization to Chinese people, laws that said Chinese could be deported without any due process whatsoever. And so we have simultaneously going on in the Supreme Court an evisceration of black civil rights and a strong exclusionary agenda aimed at Chinese but actually put into the foundations of our immigration policy.

These exclusions are potentially used against all immigrants. So these are part of the long struggle to reinterpret the 14th Amendment so that it mainly serves corporations. You know, we have the emergence of the corporation as a legal person with rights under the 14th amendment. So people are dropped to the background and we have the emergence of the corporation as a legal person with rights under the 14th Amendment. So people are dropped to the background, and we have the power of business and money now taking over the rights of the 14th Amendment. I want to go to the grandson of Juan Kim Ark, Norman Wong, who celebrated the Supreme Court decision upholding birthright citizenship in San Francisco. Wong Kim Ark's victory ensured that people like me and millions of others would be recognized as fully American. not as outsiders in the country of our birth.

His case transformed the 14th Amendment from the words on paper into living promise. Today, that promise is still being tested. Earthright citizenship is not just a legal principle. It's a statement about who we are as a nation. It affirms that America is not the defined by bloodlines or exclusion. but shared values and equal rights. This is Wong Kim's Ark legacy. This is my legacy.

It is our legacy. As we wrap up, Professor Nye, the significance of who Norman Wong's grandfather was. And as we move into July 4th, as everyone is celebrating history, what that history is all about. You know, Wang Kim-Arck, and that statement by his descendant is a wonderful statement about the principle of birthright citizenship. But let's be reminded that why did the Supreme Court uphold birthright citizenship in 1898 at a time when it was rolling back civil rights for black people? I think one of the things in the ruling of Wang Kim-Arck that is important is that they

said if we deny birth-right citizenship to Chinese Americans, we deny it to all the Europeans and their descendants in this country. And they had their eye on the fact that immigration was on an uptick from Europe in the 1880s and 1890s, and they wanted to protect those people. Today we have a very different country, and it's not just Europeans and their children who enjoy birthright citizenship, but the children of all immigrants. And that is a different country today, and that difference is what the president, and his administration is trying to attack.

May Nye, Lung Family Professor of Asian American Studies, professor of history at Columbia University, author of a number of books, including Impossible Subjects, Illegal Aliens in the Making of Modern America. Coming up, the Supreme Court uphold state bans on trans athletes in women's girls' women's and girls' sports. We'll speak with the ACLU's Chase Strangeo. We'll also talk to Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman about the Supreme Court ruling on mail and ballots and President Trump's continuing to push for the Save America Act.

Stay with us. You look great to me. Some say you look like your father. But in me, I've never met. Small things by Cassie Velazza. This is Democracy Now, Democracy Now.org. I'm Amy Goodman. In another major Supreme Court decision, justices ruled states can prohibit transgender student

athletes from competing in women's and girls' sports, upholding bands in Idaho and West Virginia. Justices ruled unanimously the state bans don't violate Title IX, the federal law against sex discrimination. in education. They split six to three over whether the trans athlete bans are unconstitutional. With the conservative majority finding, they do not run afoul of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling was lauded by President Trump, who said on social media, big win. Senior counsel for the ACU's LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project Joshua Block said in a statement, unquote, this is a heartbreaking ruling. The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from

and, in fact, promotes the equality of all women and girls, unquote. For more, we're joined by Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV project. In December of 2024, Chase made history as the first openly trans attorney to present oral arguments at the U.S. Court. He joins us here in New York. Welcome back to Democracy Now, Chase. Explain these two Supreme Court rulings. Yeah. So I think it's important for people to understand just one big picture point here, which is that we have before the Supreme Court this decision about trans athletes participation in sports. And the court is making a ruling on both Title IX, which is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education and the Equal Protection Clause. And of course,

this is a precedential legal system. So if the court is offering a constrained reading of these statutory protections and constitutional protections, it's going to impact everyone, not just trans people. And so I just want to start with that. And then on the Title IX piece of the ruling, with sports, Congress passed an additional statute called the Javits Amendment, which does give a lot more leeway when it comes to the ways in which sports can be regulated. And so the court can find its Title IX ruling to the context of sports. And in essence said that if we accept the premise, that sex means sex assigned at birth, that this is a potentially reasonable way to manage the context of sports, which are zero-sum. It's a very narrow Title IX ruling. On equal protection,

we have the split in the court, in essence, saying that it doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Again, we're dealing with the 14th Amendment before this court to exclude categorically trans women and girls from women's sports. And that is obviously a devastating ruling, but again, very much cab into the context of sports. Put this into the broader context of intensifying attacks against the trans community and other decisions by the Supreme Court. Yeah, I mean, I think we have to understand the way in which sports in particular was being used as a way to vilify trans people with two ultimate objectives, both from the Trump administration, and from states around the country.

The first is that there is an effort that we're seeing escalate to push trans people out of public life, out of our schools, out of our workplaces, and sports was hopefully going to be the wedge that conservatives used for a broad legal ruling that legitimized those efforts. And also, especially from the Trump administration, we're seeing attacks on trans people and as immigrants as an F, as part of the administration's central goal of expanding executive power and increasing the legitimacy of the Trump administration's authority over every aspect of our bodily autonomy in everyday life. I want to turn to one of the plaintiffs in the case. This is Becky Pepper Jackson of West Virginia. Speaking when she first filed her lawsuit, at the time

she was just 11 years old. I first tried out for a school sport, my six grade year for cross-country. Everyone of my family is runners, so it was nice to get help from them. I originally wanted to try out for the long-distance team because that's what I had known and loved from cross-country and running with my family.

But my coach told me that if I were to just go for a long distance, I wouldn't have made the team because it was much more competitive during track season. So she encouraged me to try shot put and niscus, which as it turned out, I really loved. Being able to

compete alongside my peers was really fun for me because it taught me teamwork. I made a lot of friends, but most of all I just had fun and that's all I wanted to do. When my mom told me about the fact that I wouldn't be able to play the sports that I love, I was devastated. I asked my mom what my options were and they said that we could talk to the ACOU and land illegal and that's when we filed our lawsuit with them. Becky Pepper Jackson is now a 15-year-old high school sophomore. She recently won first place in the shot put at the state high school track and field championships and came in fourth in a discus competition in May.

The state governor criticized her win, writing on social media, quote, The state track and field championship confirms the fundamental unfairness of letting boys competing girls sports, unquote. Becky Pepper Jackson is believed to be the only person in the entire state the ban applies to. If you can respond to who Becky is and the significance of this and this issue of the focus on going after trans athletes, I heard Illinois Governor Pritzker yesterday saying about the Supreme Court ruling, we have three trans athletes that this affects of over 100. thousand athletes. Yeah, we're talking about an incredibly small number of athletes. There is

Becky in West Virginia, and there's one athlete in Idaho. So that's two people. And again, Becky was 11 years old when she filed her lawsuit. She transitioned before she ever went through puberty. In 2021, when that lawsuit was filed, the rhetoric was very much about this so-called unfairness was about going through an endogenous typical male puberty. Well, guess what? Becky never went through that puberty. Becky has all the typical characteristics. of someone assigned female at birth. And she was terrible at running. She could not make the team and was told you should become a thrower.

She works hard. She, every single day. And here she is being demonized just for trying to participate with her friends. And as we wrap up, can you talk about the other athlete, Lindsay Hickox in Idaho? Lindsay Hickox also, she wanted to play on a club intramural team in college. We're talking about the least competitive context you could imagine. and she just wanted to be a part of her collegiate experience. Both Becky and Lindsay just wanted to be part of teams,

and here we are demonizing them when we have serious problems in this country. So where do you go from here, Chase, with your work? We continue to fight. Look, these are devastating rulings from the Supreme Court, both this term and last term, and yet in the lower courts, we're still achieving important victories that are delaying some of the most egregious harms from the Trump administration's attack on trans people.

So in and out of the courtroom, we keep fighting, but we need people to understand that their freedom is bound up in ours. These rulings will affect them, too. And so if we aren't mobilizing together, then we're going to get these constrained interpretations of our civil rights protections. And ultimately, that's going to serve the Trump administration's objectives to ultimately make all of our lives more constrained and less free. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ-N-HIV project. In December of 2024, Chase made history by becoming the first openly trans attorney to present oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court for United States v. Scrimetti. This is Democracy Now.comocracy.org. I'm Amy Goodman. And another major Supreme Court ruling this week, justices voted five to four.

to uphold a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after an election as long as their postmark by election day. A ruling overturning the law could have seen hundreds of thousands of voters disenfranchised in future elections due to postal delays or because they live in remote rural locations. A New York Times review of the 2024 election found at least 725,000 such. ballots. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney-Barrick, joined with the liberal justice to make the majority. The ruling is a blow to President Trump who sought to limit voting by mail, even though he himself votes by mail, while promoting conspiracy theories about mail-in ballots. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Monday, President Trump criticized the court's decision. Well, because of the mail-in ballot ruling, which was a little bit surprising.

gives people more time to vote illegally, let's say. But the Save Act is even more important. And that's the right. Do you have to be a citizen of our country? Okay, you have to show you're a citizen of our country called citizenship. That was a ruling that was, I think it was very detrimental to honest elections. In his dissent, Justice Alito echoed some of President Trump's rhetoric linking mail and voting with election fraud. He wrote, quote,

Today's decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans' faith in the integrity of this country's elections. Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud, he said. For more, we're joined by Ari Berman, National Voting Rights correspondent from Mother Jones. His latest article is headlined in a rare blow to Trump. The Supreme Court just saved mail-in voting for now. Another recent piece, how Democrats can still win the redistricting war by 20,

28. Ari, welcome back to Democracy Now. Start off with the Supreme Court upholding mail-in voting. Well, hi, Amy. Thank you for having me back on this show. It was a rare victory for voting rights and a rare victory for voting rights against Donald Trump. And basically what the Supreme Court did is it upheld these grace periods for mail ballots so that if your ballot is postmarked by Election Day, it can be counted in the case of Mississippi up to five days earlier. The laws vary in different states. But just to contradict what President Trump said, it's not delaying the election. The election is still taking place on Election Day.

It's just giving people more time for their votes to be counted if there are things like Pulse of delays, which we saw in 2020. And so it was a big deal because a ruling the other way could have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters and injected chaos into the midterms. And so that's not going to happen now. It was still very disturbing, however, to hear Justice Alito and four of the conservative justices really echo a lot of Trump's lies about mail voting and claim that mail voting leads to voter fraud, which every study shows it does not. And so Even though this was a victory for voting rights, my fear is that this is going to emboldened Republicans to double down on their efforts to try to get rid of male voting, including the Save America Act trumps a sweeping voter suppression bill, which he seems desperate to go to any lengths to try to pass. I mean, Oregon votes completely by mail. Is that right, Ari?

Yeah, Oregon votes completely by mail. Washington votes completely by mail. California uses mail voting in. large numbers. Lots of Republican-controlled states use mail voting in large numbers. Alaska, for example, Utah, for example. There's study after study after study that shows that mail voting is safe and secure. And a lot of Republicans use mail voting in places like Florida, in places like Arizona. Trump himself has voted by mail most recently in a special election in the spring. And so basically, smart Republican strategists don't want to end mail voting. But the fact is that President Trump is obsessed with this issue. He blames mail voting for the reason why he lost in 2020, even though that's not actually why he lost. And so mail voting is just one of a number of different options that people have to vote.

You can vote by mail. You can vote early. If you still want to vote the traditional way, you can vote in person on Election Day. And giving voters those options is what leads to increase voter turnout. There's no evidence of voter fraud from And it's really just unfortunate that not just the president, but justices on the Supreme Court are now echoing so many of these mogulies about mail voting. In the wake of the court's ruling, President Trump again pushed for the passage of the SAVE Act. He posted on social media, quote, there's only one reason to oppose cheating, he said. And he goes on to say, in a time when there's a powerful communist movement taking place in our country,

one more dangerous in World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, September 11th, all Democrats, and our five Republican Senate holdouts must vote to save our country, he said. He has also called passing the Save Act a national emergency. Of course, what he's talking about in what is more dangerous than 9-11 and World War I and World War II and Pearl Harbor are Democratic socialists winning in this country. but can you explain what the SAVE Act is, even as Speaker Johnson just dismissed the House of Representatives? Yeah, so the entire SAVE Act is predicated on a lie, which is that there's widespread voter fraud in elections, which there is not. And specifically, that non-citizens are voting in large numbers in elections, which is demonstrably untrue. And so the entire thing is based on a lie, but it would do a number of things. It would not just require a voter ID to cast a ballot, which 21 million Americans don't have a current driver's license, but it require, for example, proof of citizenship to register to vote. So you'd have to have a passport or a birth certificate to be able to register to vote.

These are things that people don't carry around with them on a regular basis. It would make voter registration much more difficult. You'd have to register to vote at an elections office, which means that you could no longer register to vote online or by mail or. at the DMV or all the places that people normally register, it has been expanded to essentially end mail-in voting, which would disenfranchised millions of voters. So it really is a maga-fever dream of all the worst things that President Trump wants to do on voting in one bill. And I think there's a reason why it hasn't passed even a Republican-controlled Congress, because even a number of Republicans believe this goes too far. And by the way, it would hurt a lot of Republican

constituencies as well. Rural voters, voters who vote by mail, voters who have changed their names and their birth certificate is different than their other documents. They could all be disenfranchised as well. So this bill is predicated on the lie, but it would disenfranchise tens of millions of voters if it became law. In a major ruling on campaign finance as we wrap up, Ari, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that limited the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. It was a six to three ruling. The court's conservatives wrote coordinated expenditure limits violate the first amendment. But Justice Elena Kagan wrote, the court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption

that the contribution limits were meant to check, unquote. This comes as a new report by public citizen finds cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, big tech, and online betting corporations. have collectively spent nearly $300 million to influence federal elections in this election cycle alone. Ari. Well, what it means is it's a continuation of the Citizens United decision from 2010 that gave billionaires far more power to spend unlimited sums in money. And the costs of campaigns has skyrocketed since then. And this is going to give billionaires even more influence in the political.

process because now they're going to be able to give money directly to parties. They can give a lot more to parties than they can give to candidates. And that money is going to be routed back in support of candidates. And so if you're a billionaire that wants to have a big impact, you not only can give to a super PAC now, you can give millions of dollars to a political party. And that's essentially going to support candidates. Whereas before, there were limits on how candidates could coordinate with these parties. And so more dark money is going to flood the system. More billionaire money is going to flood the system. This is another way that the Supreme Court has put its thumb on the scale to help Republicans in the midterms because Republicans have more money in these party committees than Democrats do right now.

And they said this violates the First Amendment, but what's going to happen is it's going to lead to more outright corruption. If you're an Elon Musk, for example, that wants to have influence on an administration, you're now going to have another avenue in which you can donate tens of millions of dollars, and that's going to now directly support political candidates. And so it's just another distressing example of how the Supreme Court has flooded the system with more billionaire dark money. Ari Berman, national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, will link to your pieces among them in a rare blow to Trump. The Supreme Court just saved mail in voting for now. Coming up on this 250th anniversary of the United States, we talk about the fight over reparations in Evanston, Illinois and how that fits in to this look back at history.

We'll speak to Howard Law Professor Justin Hansford. Stay with us. High Fly by the late great pianist and composer Randy Weston to see his music listened to him. and watch our interview. You can go to Democracy Now.org. This is Democracy Now. I'm Mimi Goodman. The Department of Justice is attempting to sabotage

a major victory for reparative justice in Evanston, Illinois that compensates victims of historic housing discrimination. In 2021, the Evanston City Council agreed to pay Black residents and their descendants

reparations up to $25,000 for preemptive. property down payments, mortgages, and other related fees, making it the first U.S. city to adopt such a measure. For decades, black residents of Evanston were subjected to redlining and other forms of housing discrimination, which prevented them from obtaining bank loans to purchase property. The reparations program is being funded through donations and revenue from a local tax on recreational marijuana sales. But last month, the Trump administration, joined a lawsuit filed by the Conservative Advocacy Group Judicial Watch, attempting to halt the

program claiming its race-based criteria are unconstitutional. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division said in a statement, quote, there are sound ways for a city to remedy past discrimination or direct resources to its most vulnerable citizens in neighborhoods. Simply handing out money based on race, however, is not the answer. race discrimination, pure and simple, and it's illegal, he said. Defenders of Evanston's reparations program are fighting back.

And ahead of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, racial justice advocates are looking at Evanston as an opportunity to redress historical grievances. For more, we go to Bethesda, Maryland, where we're joined by Justin Hansford, Howard University Law Professors, scholar, activist. founding director of the Ogletree Reparative Bar Association. He's been on the front lines of the legal battle for reparations as the author of Jailing a Rainbow, the unjust trial and conviction of Marcus Garvey. Professor Hansford, welcome back to Democracy Now. Put what's happening in Evanston

in the context of this 250th anniversary of the United States. Sure, happy to be here, Amy. Well, what's happening in Evanston right now is a trend sweeping the country. We have over 20 cities, five states, California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Washington. Also, Massachusetts is on the rise. Cities and states around the country, starting to explore the concept of reparative justice. And that includes looking at the sweep of history in their city, in their town. in their state in trying to find a way to make things right and pursue racial justice. Here in Evanston, we saw one of the more groundbreaking examples of that.

We had a city that did the research and did an investigation found itself guilty of engaging in redlining, zoning, deed restrictions that confined black residents from 1919 to in 1969 in just one part of the town, ultimately resulting in them being dispossessed from opportunities to gain equity and build wealth throughout half of the 20th century. And so the city decided to create a program to provide redress for those people to the tune of $25,000 for direct descendants. And now the Department of Justice is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit that wants to stop people from making things right in that city. And how do you respond to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division?

She said there are sound ways for a city to remedy past discrimination. This isn't one of them, essentially. Right. Well, it's a misreading of the record. She implies that people are just giving out reparations on the grounds of race. But we saw here that there was a report done in impact study. that actually we at the Howard University Thurgood Marshall Center helped to produce that showed specifically in detail that this was an intentional campaign that the city was

involved in and the city admitted to those facts. And the city itself is tying very specifically a remedy to the harms that it found in that report. And if you look at students for fair admissions against Harvard, the 2003 Supreme Court case, Even though that case sought to end diversity programs, it very explicitly said that you can seek to remedy past harms if you detail the specific harms in a report that allows you to narrowly tailor the remedy to those harms. So what we're seeing here is another situation where the 14th Amendment and the Fair Housing Act, which is what the government is using to try to say that this program is illegal and unconstitutional. These things that were part of the effort to reconstruct our country after the Civil War, some of the greatest racial justice tools in our 250-year history in the United States

are being used as a sword against us. What was designed to shield people from racial injustice is now being used as a weapon. So it's a terrible way to bring in the 250th anniversary. Robin Rous Simmons, who spearheaded Evanston's reparations program and now chairs the Evanston Reparations Committee, criticized the Trump administration efforts saying, quote, this lawsuit is designed to intimidate and discourage other communities

that are beginning their process of reparations inspired by what Evanston has done. Simmons added Trump's lawsuit is, quote, an attack on the revived hope that black communities have felt having a path through a hyper-local process to reparations, unquote. 2021, Democracy now spoke to Robin Rue Simmons, who is then an Evanston City Council member.

She explained what Evanston achieved for Black residents impacted by historic housing discrimination. What we passed on this last Monday was the first disbursement or the first remedy, which is going to be in the form of a housing remedy, $25,000 direct benefits to eligible Black residents for home. equity, home wealth acquisition or purchase, any type of improvement, but something that will build wealth through home equity. And I have to say that in 2002, under the leadership of Judge Lionel Jean Baptiste, who was the second ward alderman at the time, our city passed a resolution in support of HR 40. So we've been working towards this for some time in Evanston. So that's Robin Bruce Simmons. And Professor Hansford, if you can also put this in the context of President Trump

at this point, refusing to sign off on a bipartisan housing bill, since housing is such a critical issue for people across this country. Now, that is different from what's happening in Evanston. At least at this point, he is. Right. Well, you know, it's all connected because we know that throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century, housing has been the primary way that families have built wealth. And we are in a country where there is a 10 times as much wealth in the white community as there is in a black community. And that's not there through luck or hard work or through intelligence. But that gap is a result primarily of this type of dispossession on the grounds of housing. And you have stories of Evanston, like the stories of Lewis Weathers, who is a Korean War veteran.

in who came back in 1959, ready to buy a home for his family, but was forced into this contract that ensured that he would never actually own his home, never actually build equity, never ever have an opportunity to build wealth. And now this program is allowing his son to inherit at least some type of remedy where the son might have inherited a home, equity, been able to help build generational wealth. Now there is an effort, at least, by the city to make things right for that family. And that's just an example of what could be happening and will be happening all across the country. And I just want to just add really quickly that what Robin Rue Simmons said, and we feel that she is essentially one of the leaders of this reparations movement,

the Rosa Parks, if you will, of this movement. The effort to bring a lawsuit to stop this particular program is meant to send a message to programs and cities and states around the country that this something that is dangerous or illegal. I want to send a message also and say that we have your back. At the Ogletree Reparations Bar Association, we are fighting back. We're building an army of lawyers to fight these battles. We want to make sure that everyone knows that it is constitutional to pursue reparations in the United States under the U.S. Constitution. I want to go back again a few years to 2021. When we spoke to the actor and activist Danny Glover, who, who served on the National African-American Reparations Commission.

In 2019, he testified before the House of Representatives in favor of reparations. This is Danny commenting on the reparations effort in Evanston. I mean, we can't tell you how. I mean, there's no way to express how significant this is. It's part of this theme, multi- complicity of expressions by local communities. I mean, and we talk about this on a local level. Imagine how that resonates beyond Evanston, Illinois. Imagine the kind of discourse that happens, the discussions in community by ordinary citizens about reparation.

So that's the legendary actor Danny Glover. It's just been revealed today publicly on the Today Show that he's been living with Alzheimer's for a number of years. For people to see all our interviews with Danny, you can go to DemocracyNow.org. But Professor Hansford, if you can comment on what he says, and as we wrap up in this last minute, to also put it in a global perspective, Ghana has recently. introduced a UN resolution calling for reparations throughout the diaspora for the legacies of the transatlantic slave trade. Is that correct, Amy? And that resolution received over 123 yes votes in support of the reparations movement. 50 some odd countries stood to the side and only three countries voted no, those countries being the U.S., Israel, and Argentina. So what we're seeing right now is a global consensus that this is the right thing to do. And when reparations for many years has been seen as some

sort of marginal, radical program, the truth of the matter is, when we look at the world, what is radical is the effort to try to fight these programs, to try to turn back the clock, and to try to ignore the inevitability of history. And I actually, in addition to what, Danny Glover said, I want to also assert that I believe that reparations is what justice will look like in the 21st century all across the world because it is a way to redefine for our people what it means to do the right thing. It's a way to provide deterrence in a world that is in desperate need of it and we need to move forward with this program expeditiously. Justin Hansford, Howard University Law Professor on the front lines of the legal battle

for reparations. Thank you for being with us. tune in to our July 3rd special with, and happy birthday to Isis Phillips. I'm Amy Goodman.