Education

ACLU: Dismantling of Core Civil Rights 

and Education Offices is Violation of Laws 

Only Congress Can Change

    WASHINGTON – (ACLU) -- 11/20/2025 -- The U.S. Department of Education announced on Nov. 18 that it will transfer critical work to other federal agencies — an unprecedented move that undermines the department’s core mission and threatens students’ civil rights. This action represents a deliberate attempt to dismantle the agency from within, despite the fact that only Congress has authority over the department.

    “The Trump administration claims core education programs can be carried out elsewhere, yet it has offered no explanation for how agencies like Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services, or State will uphold the education access requirements Congress explicitly entrusted to the Department of Education,” said ReNika Moore, director, ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Federal law requires these programs to remain within the Department of Education, and transferring them through interagency agreements violates that mandate.”

    These offices, staffed by career professionals with deep knowledge of how to best serve students and educators, are responsible for administering K-12 and higher education programs, supporting Native students, and safeguarding the rights of students with disabilities.

    Although the plan calls for Labor to administer K-12 programs that are “better aligned with workforce and college programs,” it is silent concerning the continued administration of congressionally mandated funding programs for school districts to develop high quality curriculum, provide accommodations and services for children with disabilities, help children meet state academic content and performance standards, provide before- and after-school programs, reduce class sizes, improve graduation rates, expand the availability of pre-schools, provide mental health supports, implement language instruction to assist English learners, and provide education to migratory students.

    The removal of these critical offices from the department guts the structure Congress established in 1979 to guarantee that students, regardless of race, national origin, sex, or disability, receive fair and equitable opportunities to learn.

    “Secretary McMahon is violating laws that only Congress can change. By transferring these offices across agencies that lack the expertise to lead education policy, the administration is breaking the law, eliminating academic supports to close education achievement gaps, deliberately weakening civil rights oversight, and putting millions of students at risk,” said Kimberly Conway, ACLU senior policy counsel and former attorney advisor with Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. “Congress must immediately intervene to halt this unlawful restructuring, safeguard the integrity of the department’s civil rights and education offices, and demand that the department comply with the law and keep its central role in ensuring equal educational opportunity for every student."

Education

Ruling Called Major Victory 

for Secular Public Education by FFRF

    (FFRF) -- Nov. 8, 2025 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation is celebrating a major victory for secular public education after a federal judge in Connecticut ruled that a teacher was not entitled to display a Christian crucifix on her public classroom wall.

    In Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, U.S. District Judge Sarah F. Russell issued a detailed opinion rejecting claims by longtime teacher Marisol Arroyo-Castro that her free speech and religious exercise rights were violated when she was instructed to remove a nearly foot-high crucifix she prominently displayed on a wall near her desk at DiLoreto Middle School in New Britain, Conn.

    The court correctly found that Arroyo-Castro was acting in her capacity as a government employee when she decorated her classroom, meaning her religious display constituted government speech — not private expression. The judge further ruled that the district acted reasonably to avoid violating the Establishment Clause by preventing a teacher from displaying a Christian symbol to a captive audience of students during instructional time.

    “This decision is a victory for every student’s right to a public education free from religious pressure or indoctrination,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “A public school classroom is a place for learning, not for preaching. Author Ruth Hurmence Green has referred to crosses as ‘Christian torture symbols,’ and this is particularly true of crucifixes depicting a writhing human form. It is not only shocking for a public school teacher to affix such a sectarian symbol on a classroom wall, but it is also highly insensitive.”

    Gaylor also pointed out that the actions of the teacher, who is Catholic, show a clear preference for Roman Catholicism, since crucifixes are the predominant Catholic symbol although some non-Catholic Christians use the crucifix. The vast majority of Connecticut citizens are not Catholic, but even if they were, the constitutional separation between religion and government clearly interdicts such a display in a public classroom.

    The case arose after Arroyo-Castro refused repeated requests from administrators to remove the crucifix, even after being told she could keep it in a private space, such as inside a desk or car. When she defied those directives, the district placed her on paid leave. Assisted by the Christian nationalist legal group First Liberty Institute, Arroyo-Castro sued the district earlier this year.

    The court concluded that allowing the crucifix to remain “runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause.” It clarified that the Supreme Court’s 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton ruling — which allowed a football coach to pray privately after games on a high school football field — did not apply. As Judge Russell explained, “Unlike the students in Kennedy, who were engaged in other activities while the coach prayed, Ms. Castro’s students received the religious message when they were required to be present in the classroom receiving instruction from Ms. Castro.”

    In September, the district released a report by an independent investigator detailing concerns from students and staff about Arroyo-Castro’s religious conduct in the classroom. According to the report, Arroyo-Castro reprimanded students by saying things like, “I hope papa God helps you with your lies” and “Go find God.” The investigation concluded that her behavior made many students uncomfortable and that her repeated use of religious language in a public school setting created an environment that alienated much of her class.

    FFRF commends the Consolidated School District of New Britain for upholding its constitutional duty despite outside pressure and for providing a model of how public officials should respond to similar state/church violations.

    “This teacher wasn’t punished for being Christian,” Gaylor emphasizes. “She was disciplined for putting her personal faith above the law and her students’ rights. The court rightly reminded her — and all public employees — that no one’s faith gives them permission to violate student rights or blur the wall between church and state.”

    (Original press release date: Nov. 4, 2025)

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 42,000 members nationwide, including more than 500 members in Connecticut. FFRF’s purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

Law and Order

Court Strikes Down Key 

Part of Trump’s Unlawful 

Voting Executive Order

     WASHINGTON, D.C. (ACLU) —11/6/2025 -- A federal court issued a decisive ruling in League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump, Oct. 31, permanently blocking a provision of President Trump’s March voting executive order that sought to add a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote with the federal voter registration form that would disproportionately impact voters of color. The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally alter election procedures — powers that rest with Congress and the states.

     The ruling makes permanent the preliminary injunction issued in the case in April, and reaffirms a foundational principle of American democracy: no president can violate the separation of powers to change our elections and erect barriers that disenfranchise eligible voters.

    In a joint statement, plaintiffs and counsel, who are a coalition of voting and civil rights organizations, said: “The court’s ruling confirms what we have long argued: the President may not rewrite election law to impose a burdensome show-your-papers rule that would shut out countless Americans from the ballot box. This executive order was an attempted overreach of power, bypassing the Constitution’s clear allocation of authority to Congress and the states to set election rules. Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can register and vote free from expensive and unnecessary requirements.” 

    The League of Women Voters Education Fund, League of Women Voters of the United States, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Hispanic Federation, NAACP, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Asian and Pacific Islander Vote are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

    The court’s opinion: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/10/MSJ-Opinion.pdf

    The court’s order: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/10/217-Order-Granting-MSJ.pdf

Opinion

What Will Happen 

To All The Crops?

By Steve Rensberry

    EDWARDSVILLE -- 10-11-2025 -- I've been watching the fields take shape around Southern Illinois now that harvest has begun and I have to admit it worries me where all the corn is going to go, and the beans. 

    Is it going to rot in silos, get turned into fuel at double the cost, be the last crop some farmers ever harvest as bankruptcy and Great Depression level hardships move in? Is this it, the funeral is about over? 

    Are billions in bailouts going to be issued, robbing other areas of the country of funds that may be just as important? I'm not a farmer but many of my relatives are, or were, and many of my friends are. 

    The worse part is that none of this was necessary -- it's all tariff politics and tariff induced consequences, and neither China nor Brazil will be hurting one iota. You'd see smoke coming out my ears if I was a farmer. Is the fed gov trying to literally starve us of everything we need to live healthy lives, and to maintain healthy rural communities and places to raise our families? It's disturbing to watch it happen.

Due Process

ACLU Challenges Denial of

Due Process in Immigration Courts

Denying bond hearings violates rights, upends decades of precedent

    BOSTON – (ACLU) -- 9/24/2025 -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, together with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, the law firm Araujo and Fisher, the law firm Foley Hoag, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court to challenge the widespread denial of bond hearings to people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    As the complaint demonstrates, this denial is a violation of statutory and constitutional rights, upending decades of settled law and established practice in immigration proceedings. As a result, thousands of people in Massachusetts will be denied due process.

    The complaint, filed Sept. 22, 2025, alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice recently and abruptly began to misclassify people arrested by ICE inside the United States. DHS and DOJ are now systematically reclassifying these people from the statutory authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which usually allows for the opportunity to request bond during removal proceedings, to the no-bond detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not apply to people arrested in the interior of the United States and placed in removal proceedings.

    “All people in the United States are entitled to due process — without exception,” said Daniel McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “When the government arrests any person inside the United States, it must be required to prove to a judge that there is an actual reason for the person’s detention. Our client and others like him have a constitutional and statutory right to receive a bond hearing for exactly that purpose. Yet the Trump administration is now ignoring that right and jailing people arbitrarily without a hearing. The Fifth Amendment says that no person can be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that the promise of our Constitution remains a reality.”

    In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which established the current detention regime for people arrested and detained for civil immigration violations. Since then, people arrested inside the United States and placed in removal proceedings, regardless of whether they initially entered without permission, have been subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and thus entitled to a bond hearing unless subject to certain criminal and national security exceptions.

    In late 2022, the Immigration Court in Tacoma, Washington began misclassifying § 1226 detainees arrested inside the United States as mandatory detainees under § 1225, solely because they initially entered the country without permission. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that this practice was likely illegal in April 2025 and ordered a bond hearing for a wrongfully detained litigant.

    Nevertheless, three months later, DHS adopted the Tacoma Immigration Court’s unlawful practice nationwide and began to ask immigration judges to deny bond hearings. Some immigration judges rejected this argument, but on September 5, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential decision that purports to require all immigration judges to misclassify people in this manner. In the short time since, multiple federal courts have ruled that the BIA's decision is incorrect, but DHS and DOJ continue to misclassify people and unlawfully deny bond hearings.

    “Federal courts across the country, including here in Maine, have found the government’s attempt to deny bond hearings by misclassifying people under § 1225 to be unlawful,” said Max Brooks, an immigration attorney with the ACLU of Maine. "Millions of people who have been waiting for their day in court are now at risk of being jailed indefinitely over civil violations. We look forward to vindicating the rights of people in this situation with today’s class action lawsuit.”

    “ICE’s current refusal to provide bond hearings for detained clients violates due process and upends nearly 30 years of established practice,” said Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Araujo & Fisher LLP. “The people impacted by this policy are neighbors, friends, and family members, living peacefully in the United States and making important contributions to our communities. Currently, the only recourse is to file individual habeas petitions for each detained client — a process that keeps people detained longer and stretches the resources of our courts. We’re proud to team with the ACLU to ask the court to protect their due process rights of our class members.”

    This case is brought on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Mr. Guerrero Orellana has been living in the United States for over a decade and is a devoted husband and father. He brings this case to vindicate his own right to a bond hearing — where an immigration judge can determine whether his detention is justified to protect the community or ensure his appearance in court — and that of thousands of other detainees in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire who will be denied the opportunity to seek release on bond under the new legal ruling adopted by the executive branch. The complaint alleges that the government's new policy violates constitutional and statutory due process rights and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

Religon and State

FFRF Demands State Department

Remove Unconstitutional 

Christian Nationalist Posts

    (FFRF) - 9/13/2025 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the State Department immediately remove unconstitutional Christian nationalist posts from its official social media accounts.

    In a letter sent to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, FFRF objects to recent posts on the Department’s official X account that falsely promote Christianity as the foundation of the government of the United States and promise to eradicate policies that “demean the Christian faith.”

    One post reads:

    “Our nation was founded on the recognition that moral virtue and a steadfast faith in God are necessary preconditions of freedom. Yet under the Biden Administration, U.S. foreign policy belittled Christianity and weaponized government against faith. That era has ended. Under @POTUS’s leadership, the State Department will eradicate practices that devalue and demean the Christian faith.”

    Another post vows that the department will “never apologize for our God-given rights”:

    “At @POTUS’s direction, @SecRubio is taking action to secure religious liberties both at home and abroad, including terminating unlawful State Department policies targeting Christians and addressing the violent repression of Christians overseas. We will never apologize for our God-given rights.”

    “These statements send a dangerous and unconstitutional message that the State Department serves Christians first and reduces millions of other Americans to second-class citizens,” writes FFRF Legal Counsel Chris Line. “U.S. foreign policy should defend human rights, not elevate one religion above all others.”

    FFRF’s letter points out that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires strict government neutrality between religion and nonreligion. FFRF underscores that America’s Founders deliberately created a secular government — investing sovereignty in “We the People,” not a deity. The U.S. Constitution contains no reference to God and expressly prohibits religious tests for public office, religious oaths, and any establishment of religion by government.

    “America’s strength lies in its secular Constitution,” the letter emphasizes. “True religious freedom requires a government free from sectarian favoritism.”

    With nearly 37 percent of Americans now identifying as non-Christian — including almost 29 percent who are religiously unaffiliated — FFRF stresses that the State Department is obligated to represent all citizens equally, not to promote Christian nationalism.

    FFRF is urging the State Department to delete the unconstitutional posts and confirm in writing what steps it will take to ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

    

    Date of original press release: 9/10/2025

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters of nontheism. With more than 42,000 members, FFRF advocates for freethinkers’ rights across the globe. For more information, visit ffrf.org.

First Amendment

Shuttering the Corporation for 

Public Broadcasting Will Undermine

Democracy, Endanger Communities

    WASHINGTON — (FreePress) -- 8-5-2025 -- On Aug. 1 the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced that it would shut down operations later this year. The move follows Congress’ mid-July decision to claw back $1.1 billion in funding from the previously approved federal budget for the corporation, which provides federal support for the operations and programming at hundreds of NPR and PBS affiliates across the country.

    CPB has reportedly told its employees that a majority of positions will be eliminated on Sept. 30 with a small transition team staying on through January 2026. “We now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,” CPB president and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement.

    Zeroing out federal funding for public media has been a dream of Republicans since the Nixon administration. But the congressional vote, which was prompted by a rescission request from the Trump White House, marks the first time they’ve succeeded. Past efforts ran up against an outspoken public — including people of every political persuasion — who believe federal funding for public media is taxpayer money well spent.

    Hardest hit by the closure of CPB will be smaller and rural stations, some of which receive more than 50 percent of their budgets from the federal government.

    Free Press Co-CEO Craig Aaron:

    “The shuttering of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — and the many dedicated public servants losing their jobs — is devastating for this country. It puts vital outlets in communities all across the country in jeopardy and endangers essential educational programs, news coverage, and life-saving emergency alerts. The ripples will be felt far beyond Washington, D.C..

    “The end of CPB is the direct result of the deep and corrupt failure of Congress and the Trump administration to invest in informing the American public. They have trashed decades of democracy-building work and will deny many journalists, artists, educators and creators the opportunity to be heard. The cost of their decisions is almost incalculable in terms of lost opportunities, untold stories, closed minds — and yes, the lives of people who won’t know about the next earthquake, wildfire or tsunami before it’s too late.

    “Public broadcasting is far from perfect, and for too many years the leadership of institutions like CPB, NPR and PBS have tried too hard to placate the politicians who were committed to their destruction. Despite incredible popularity — and even greater public need — the public media system has been starved and sidelined by partisan attacks and poor choices. But the promise of public media is still worth fighting for, and so are the many journalists, producers, engineers and employees who have committed their careers to these institutions and produced incredible work under trying circumstances.”

    “But this is about far more than one government agency or the embarrassingly low public investment the United States makes in public media compared to the rest of the world. The elimination of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting is about trying to end accountability, pump out propaganda, and sow the kind of chaos and disinformation under which authoritarianism thrives. We won’t stop that march with pledge drives and tote bags.

    “It will take years of organizing to rebuild what the Trump regime has demolished in six months. And that will require a vision that goes far beyond what we lost today — one that doesn’t just replace what’s been lost but reinvents public media as a bulwark against authoritarianism that meets the civic needs of all our communities. This is about fighting for democracy and recognizing that if we don’t keep fighting we stand to lose a lot more than this.”

Background:

    In February, Free Press Action Co-CEO Craig Aaron testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the Trump administration’s censorship of media viewpoints the president dislikes, calling it a “free-speech emergency.” In May 2024, he testified about false claims of bias at NPR and PBS. Free Press Action is leading grassroots efforts to craft public policy that supports local noncommercial news and information.

Commentary

The Myth of the 'Bleeding

Heart Liberal' Never Dies

By Steve Rensberry

Commentary

    RP News (OPINION) -- 7/19/2025 -- I read a comment yesterday from a conservative who shared a familiar trope. Liberals are soft; conservatives are hard. The gentleman said that when it comes to liberals he has always thought of them as people who have "big hearts but small minds." Conservatives, on the other hand, are intelligent and practical and not afraid to make the tough decisions, he said. 

    Ok, got it, the old "bleeding heart liberal" myth which I've heard repeated since about birth, is still alive. If only it wasn't such a malicious and mistaken characterization. Think about it. Conservatives show disdain for liberals because they care -- too much!! They should be meaner, crueler and more inhumane! But seriously, who decides exactly where that balance point is? The illiberal worries about people loving their neighbor too much, but the equally important question is: how insensitive is too insensitive? When is punishment just and when does it become cruel and unusual to the point of death?

    On April 28, 2020, news organizations were conveying official reports of more than one million people who died from the covid infection in the U.S. Were those lives just collateral damage to keep capitalist society functioning? How fatalistic do we want to be? I'm not sure, but I'd prefer to be on the side of the people who care too much, rather than on the side of those who care too little.

    On the same subject, I was also called a "libtard" yesterday, by a conservative -- the tired old and disgusting anti-liberal slur that never dies. It is, I suppose, an indication of the true state of existential being for conservatives, even here in 2025, making themselves feel strong and smart by thinking of those they despise as retarded or sub-par. Being a freethinker, skeptic and lover of truth apparently is a hill too steep to climb for those needing absolute metaphysical certainty, however dubious.

    The 'libtard' comment came from a poor misguided soul on a social media page promoting the ultra rightwing and 'project 2025'-loving Hillsdale College, sadly located in my birth state of Michigan. "Warning, do not engage with a bored libtard who only has a keyboard for company," said 'Hati Mari,' urging another poster not to engage with me. Well of course, because unlike liberal institutions which teach students to learn and discover and think for themselves, this college does not teach people how to think independently or to engage independently, it teaches them to be obedient, in total thought, to a specific ideology. I really thought they were beyond using such a dumb word like 'libtard' that applies literally to no one, but Hillsdale's primary glue is an irrational, quasi-philosolphical, fundamentalist hatred for liberalism, secularism, and other religions beside the one they parrot, so I'm not surprised.

    A brief summary from the rationalwiki site, a much more trustworthy info source in many respects than the college itself. "Hillsdale College is a far-right Christian college located in Hillsdale, Michigan. They are strongly against social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism. Hillsdale has a love-hate view when it comes to mass murderer and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The college was in favor of the Euromaidan uprising in Ukraine, but they essentially support the Russian occupation of Crimea, as they claim that it was in opposition to NATO expansion. Hillsdale College also condemned the invasion of Ukraine, but they also see Putin as a conservative strong man."

First Amendment Rights

Woman Fights 4-Year Prison 

Sentence for Black Lives Matter Protest

ACLU of South Carolina Has Represented Martin Since 2023

    COLUMBIA, S.C. (ACLU) — 7/15/2025 — A South Carolina woman who received a 4-year prison sentence for participating in a Black Lives Matter protest during the summer of 2020 is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case.

    Brittany Martin is a Black woman, mother, chef, and activist who joined protests in Sumter following the May 2020 police murder of George Floyd. Local police arrested her after five days of nonviolent protest, and she was convicted of the South Carolina state crime of “breach of peace of a high and aggravated nature.” She was sentenced to four years in state prison. She was pregnant at the time of her conviction and gave birth to her daughter, Blessing, while incarcerated, prompting nationwide outrage and shows of solidarity. On Friday, July 11, Ms. Martin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

    “I am praying that this case be overturned. This is a battle to exercise and uphold our constitutional rights,” said Brittany Martin. “They’ve got to give us some justice and let us know that we still have our First Amendment right to freedom of speech in this country. My case would be the perfect example of that.”

    The ACLU of South Carolina has represented Ms. Martin since April 2023, arguing that Ms. Martin’s conviction for engaging in non-violent protest violated the First Amendment and that her four-year prison sentence for that illegal conviction was an outrage. The South Carolina Department of Corrections released Ms. Martin on November 27, 2024. She remains committed to fighting for justice in the courts and in her community.

    “South Carolina’s conviction of Brittany Martin is yet another moment in a long and shameful history of the State using criminal enforcement to silence dissent. In multiple 1960s Civil Rights-Era cases, the Supreme Court had to intervene to correct South Carolina’s unconstitutional actions, and we have asked that it do so again here,” said Meredith McPhail, staff attorney for the ACLU of South Carolina.

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals refused to consider Ms. Martin’s First Amendment arguments on appeal, ruling that they were not properly raised at trial. The petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of Ms. Martin’s case and to clarify that procedural rules—like the one invoked by the SC Court of Appeals—cannot excuse state appellate courts from conducting the careful, independent review that the Supreme Court has long required in First Amendment cases. The court will now decide whether to take up the case.

    “Courts play a critical constitutional role in protecting individuals who express viewpoints that are unpopular with government officials and majority sentiment,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “In 1963, the Supreme Court stepped in to protect the First Amendment rights of Black civil rights protesters who were prosecuted and convicted in South Carolina for the same offense, for doing what Brittany Martin did in 2020. It’s time for the Supreme Court to reinforce the courts’ role in protecting freedom of speech.”

    The petition highlights a lack of consistency in how different state courts decide whether to review constitutional facts in First Amendment cases like Ms. Martin’s. Because juries tend to reflect local majority opinions, courts have long held that independent appellate review is necessary to protect unpopular speech.

    The arguments in this petition rely on a long record of court cases upholding the right to protest, including the landmark 1963 case Edwards v. South Carolina, which overturned the criminal conviction of Black students who were arrested on a breach of peace charge after refusing to disperse from a protest.

    For more information and previous filings in Brittany Martin’s case, see the ACLU-SC case page for The State v. Brittany Martin.

Tariffs

 Tarifflation Fallout: 39% of Global

Consumers Rethink Travel  

    BELLEVUE, Wash. -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- 7/8/2025 -- Rising costs driven by tariffs are reshaping how global consumers live, shop, and engage with brands, according to a new study released recently by UserTesting. Conducted in partnership with Talker Research, the study surveyed 4,000 consumers across the U.S., U.K., and Australia and revealed that a growing number of people are scaling back spending, switching brands, and rethinking long-standing habits—from summer travel to everyday purchases.

    Tariffs are no longer background noise, they’re triggering real lifestyle changes. Consumers across the globe are actively cutting back:

• 42% are buying fewer products overall
• 27% are switching to generic or store-brand alternatives
• 18% are shopping second-hand more often
• 20% are traveling less
• And notably, 39% say tariffs caused them to reconsider their summer travel plans entirely

    Price hikes are especially visible: 72% of U.S. consumers, 55% of Australians, and 68% of Brits report noticing tariff-related increases. Many are voting with their wallets—nearly half of U.S. and U.K. consumers who noticed these hikes say they’ve already switched away from their favorite brands to find better value.

    As tariffs push prices upward, many consumers are reassessing where their products come from—bringing new awareness, and in some cases, a preference for domestically made goods. 54% of U.S. respondents, 61% of U.K. respondents and 64% of Australians reported they would be more likely to buy domestically manufactured products due to tariffs. Day-to-day, a majority of global respondents (53% across all three regions) show a preference for domestic brands, with only a small fraction preferring international alternatives. This suggests that tariffs aren’t just shaping wallets, but may be actively transforming how consumers think about product origin and brand loyalty.

    The impact of tariffs goes far beyond bank accounts. Across all three regions surveyed, consumers report a growing sense of emotional strain—from stress and anger to sadness and feeling overwhelmed—as rising costs disrupt not just their budgets, but their sense of control.

    In the U.S., the emotional weight appears to be hitting hardest. Over one-third of Americans say tariffs leave them feeling stressed (37%), with nearly a quarter feeling overwhelmed (23%) when hearing about economic changes tied to trade policy. Emotions are just as raw in other regions, with anger and frustration rising sharply in both Australia and the U.K.

    Notably: 

• 31% of Australians and Brits alike say tariffs make them feel angry
• 26% of U.K. consumers report feeling sad about the current economic outlook, the highest across regions

    As economic uncertainty stretches on, brands are now navigating an increasingly emotionally charged marketplace, where trust, tone, and transparency matter as much as price.
    
    While many brands have raised prices, most consumers aren’t automatically assigning blame, yet. In fact, 54% (U.S.), 65% (Australia), and 55% (U.K.) say their perception of brands hasn’t changed.

    The deciding factor? Honesty.

• 72% of Americans,
• 82% of Australians, and
• 80% of Brits say that transparent communication about pricing changes is essential to maintaining their trust.

    “Whether tariffs remain or not, it’s clear they’ve already reshaped consumer habits,” said Bobby Meixner, VP of Solution Marketing at UserTesting. “Consumers understand that price hikes may be out of a company’s control. What they’re looking for is honest, upfront communication—and they’re making purchase decisions based on it.”

    A Global Shift in Sentiment

• 78% of Australians and 62% of Brits believe U.S. tariff policy has negatively impacted their national economies.
• More than 25% of global respondents believe their country’s economy will never return to pre-tariff conditions.
• In the U.S. and U.K., a majority of consumers expect at least 19 months before they’ll see economic recovery.
• And 19% of consumers in the U.S. and U.K. say they’re considering a second job, side hustle, or longer hours just to keep up.

About the Study

    The study was commissioned by UserTesting and conducted by Talker Research. A total of 4,000 consumers were surveyed between June 4 and June 12, 2025, including a nationally representative sample of adults (18+) across the United States (2,000), Australia (1,000), and the United Kingdom (1,000).

    For more insights and the full report, click here.

Missouri Courts

Missouri's Abortion Bans Blocked 

By Preliminary Injunction

    Kansas City, Mo. (ACLU) – 7/6/2025 – A Jackson County circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Missouri’s abortion bans and several targeted regulations of abortion providers. The new preliminary injunction clears the way for Missouri’s Planned Parenthood members to again provide procedural abortion care.

    In May, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the state’s legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, forcing the circuit court to temporarily vacate its original orders, and effectively implement a de facto abortion ban.

    "While the clarification on the standard is welcome, its immediate consequence temporarily pulled back implementation of Missourians’ constitutional right to access abortion care and providers’ right to offer that care,” said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. “This critical win begins to restore abortion access in our state, but Missourians must be vigilant and defeat the attacks on the constitutional rights that we secured at the ballot box last November.”

    The order did not address the pending request to enjoin other targeted restrictions that are preventing medication abortion access from being restored in Missouri. Previously, both Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri submitted complication plans to satisfy the existing requirements to allow them to offer medication abortions. The Department of Health and Senior Services failed to respond to either affiliates’ submissions or follow-up inquiries for several weeks. Instead, the department manufactured an “emergency rule” that resembled many of the court-blocked regulations and cited it as the reason for refusing the submitted plans.

    “Abortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it. Care starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We’re not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.” said Emily Wales, president and CEO, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains said. “

    “We are grateful that procedural abortion can resume in the state of Missouri, just as voters demanded last November. However, the whiplash has created immense confusion for patients in Missouri,” said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. “This decision is a step forward toward fully realizing Missourians' right to reproductive freedom, and the staff at our Central West End health center in St. Louis will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments."

    The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union, Crowell & Moring, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The full case is currently slated for trial in January 2026. (press release date: 7/3/2025)

Case: Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. Missouri

Politics and Culture

Christian Nationalism 

and the Rationalization 

of Discrimination and Violence

Four Perspectives on the Dangers

6/19/2025

Center for American Progress

Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom - Center for American Progress

See: An Interview With Amanda Tyler of the Baptist Joint Committee

    

    Religious liberty is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, yet the meaning of this core American value has been debated throughout the nation’s history. Today, conflicts most often arise from Christian nationalism, the anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone. At its core, this idea threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also leads to discrimination, and at times violence, against religious minorities and the nonreligious.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubter's Parish

How the Religious Right Gets It Wrong and What to Do About It

By Martin Thielen

See: Doubter's Parish

    Today, many (although not all) religious right Christians believe Jesus dislikes LGBTQ persons, immigrants, liberals, elites, science, welfare, MSNBC, wokeness, critical race theory, Joe Biden, non-Christians, and Democrats. On the other side of the ledger, they believe Jesus loves America, churchgoers, capitalism, the military, conservatives, Fox News, guns, MAGA Republicans, aggressive masculinity, and Donald Trump. The fact that the life, teachings, and example of Jesus challenge these assumptions doesn’t deter religious right Christianity one iota.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lutheran Confessions

Why Conservative Christians Hate Compassion

By Clint Schnekloth

See: Lutheran Confessions

    In recent years, conservative Christian voices have been on a tear, decrying compassion as a threat to traditional Christian values. The argument is that compassion—especially when it extends to marginalized groups—gives progressive Christians leverage to dismantle conservative moral teachings. . . . At the root of this backlash lies something far simpler than theological analysis: homophobia.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Christians Against Christian Nationalism

Statement from Christians Against Christian Nationalism

See: Statement

    As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.

    Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our fellow Christians to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.

Free Speech

Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision

Called a Win for Academic Speech

    OKLAHOMA CITY (ACLU) -- 6/18/2025 -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on July 17 that the state’s 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools. The suit was originally filed in 2021 on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs in K-12 and higher education.

    “Almost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma’s universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma’s higher education classrooms,” said Adam Hines, legal fellow at the ACLU of Oklahoma. “For far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But the government is certain to appeal this victory, and parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools. We will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma’s K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.”

    Last year, a lower court also blocked the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction because they are vague, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates. These provisions remain enjoined. The state Supreme Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of any of the provisions.

    “This decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma’s higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Students in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow – not stick to government-approved talking points.”

    The lead authors of the law in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to “implicit bias,” “systemic racism,” and “intersectionality,” among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students’ and educators’ speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of students of color, LGBTQ students, and young women and girls.

    The case will now go back to federal court where a partial preliminary injunction is in place. Cross-appeals have been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which are expected to proceed shortly.

    “This ruling is another significant victory in the fight to end classroom censorship in Oklahoma” said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono cocounsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. “By confirming that HB 1775 does not apply to the higher education classroom, this decision allows Oklahoma’s college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. We look forward to working alongside the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and Lawyers’ Committee in the continued fight to invalidate this law.”

    “Today's decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country's history in full – including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,” said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Our country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism — this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.”

    The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey.

    For more information about the lawsuit, please see here.

Law and Government

Groups Say Bill Requiring Display of 

Commandments in Classrooms 

is Blatantly Unconstitutional

    AUSTIN, TEXAS (AU)  — 6/4/2025  — Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom From Religion Foundation announced on May 29 that they will sue over Texas Senate Bill No. 10, which requires Texas public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Having received final legislative approval yesterday, the bill will now be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott and is expected to be signed into law.

    Under S.B. 10, every public elementary and secondary school in Texas must display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments “in a conspicuous place in each classroom.” The bill mandates that the display be no smaller than 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall and that the Commandments be set forth “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.” The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, selected by lawmakers and associated with Protestant faiths, be used for every display.

    S.B. 10 is prohibited by longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

    Following this precedent, a federal district court recently held in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to S.B. 10 violates parents’ and students’ rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the displays will religiously coerce students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-sponsored religious messages, and will usurp families’ right to direct children’s religious education. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by Americans United, the ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the ACLU of Louisiana, is currently on appeal in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In response to the passage of S.B. 10, the groups intending to challenge the law issued the following joint statement:

    “S.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional. We will be working with Texas public school families to prepare a lawsuit to stop this violation of students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights.

    “We all have the right to decide what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. Government officials have no business intruding on these deeply personal religious matters. S.B. 10 will subject students to state-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments for nearly every hour of their public education. It is religiously coercive and interferes with families’ right to direct children’s religious education.

    “Texas communities and public schools are religiously diverse. Many public school families do not practice any religion at all, while many others practice religions that do not consider the Ten Commandments to be part of their faith traditions. Even among those who may believe in some version of the Ten Commandments, the particular text they adhere to can differ by religious denomination. The version of scripture set forth in S.B. 10, however, is associated only with Protestant faiths, and does not reflect the beliefs of most Jewish and Catholic families.

    “S.B. 10 will co-opt the faith of millions of Texans and marginalize students and families who do not subscribe to the state’s favored scripture. We will not allow Texas lawmakers to divide communities along religious lines and attempt to turn public schools into Sunday schools. If Governor Abbott signs this measure into law, we will file suit to defend the fundamental religious freedom rights of all Texas students and parents. We encourage all concerned public school parents to contact us at au.org.” (Story originally published 4/29/2025)

Extremist Groups

New Report Documents 1,371 

Extremist Groups in U.S.

State-by-State List Includes Interactive Map

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. (SPLC) — 5/31/2025 — The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released its annual Year in Hate & Extremism report on May 22, which chronicles trends in hard-right activity, exposes the players who are driving extremism and equips communities with data and tools to prevent radicalization.

Interactive SPLC Hate Map

    The new report documents 1,371 hate and antigovernment extremist groups in the United States in 2024 and traces their growing influence on local, state and national government. As these groups tighten their grip on the U.S. political system, the report tracks how their actions are dividing and demoralizing people across the country while dismantling democracy from within.

    “After years of courting politicians and chasing power, hard-right groups are now fully infiltrating our politics and enacting their dangerous ideology into law,” said Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the SPLC. “Extremists at all levels of government are using cruelty, chaos and constant attacks on communities and our democracy to make us feel powerless. We cannot surrender to fear. It is up to all of us to organize against the forces of hate and tyranny. This report offers data that is essential to understanding the landscape of hate and helping communities fight for the multiracial, inclusive democracy we deserve.”

    Throughout 2024, hard-right groups used state legislatures and school boards — particularly in the South — as battlegrounds to target Black and Brown communities, women, immigrants, Jewish people, Muslim people, Indigenous communities and LGBTQ+ people. Many of the extremist actors focused on whitewashing American history through book bans and changes to curriculum, pushing for companies to eliminate all DEI initiatives, and threatening violence against election workers. Now, as the Trump administration welcomes extremist ideology into its ranks, these actors are taking their model of success to the nation’s highest offices.

    The report also finds a growing wave of white nationalism that is motivated by theocratic beliefs and false claims of “Christian persecution” and “white genocide.” This movement seeks to dominate social, cultural and political life in the United States and craft a Christian, fascist state in its own image.

    To better mobilize against hate and extremism, it is imperative that we not only understand the power and influence of these groups, but also their recruitment strategies. That’s why the report highlights the tactics hard-right groups use to attract, influence and motivate their members. For example, the growing influence of the most extreme corners of the manosphere — a collection of blogs, forums and websites, where members mobilize around misogyny and anti-feminism — has enabled male supremacists to capture the attention of young people, often using edgy “humor” to degrade women and trans people.

    “While 2024 has been a tough year for our democracy and for communities targeted by hate and conspiracies, we didn’t get here by accident. We know that these groups build their power by threatening violence, capturing political parties and government, and infesting the mainstream discourse with conspiracy theories,” said Rachel Carroll Rivas, interim director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project. “By exposing the players, tactics and code words of the hard right, we hope to dismantle their mythology and inspire people to fight back.”

    A state-by-state list of hate and antigovernment extremist groups and an interactive map is available HERE.

    The sections in this report include:

• The false fear of ‘White Genocide’
• From screens to schools: Male supremacy’s impact and prevention tactics
• Anti-DEI efforts and the attempted whitewashing of America
• A strategic application of chaos
• Targeting democracy: Local militias and national sovereign citizens
• Decline of the neo-Confederates
• Turning Point USA: A case study of the hard right in 2024
• Understanding Telegram’s toxic recommendations

    “Now is not the time to remain silent or compromise our shared values. It is imperative to call on organizations, institutions, and businesses to stay firm in their commitment to justice, equity and inclusion and use their resources to hold the line against hate and discrimination,” Huang said.

    SPLC offers these policy recommendations as part of the larger effort to counter hate and extremism:

• Hold executive power accountable;
• Promote inclusive responses to hate and extremism;
• Maintain civil rights and hate crimes as top priorities and make hate crime reporting mandatory;
• Prevent political violence;
• Build community resilience and center victims;
• Support diversity, equity, include, and accessibility (DEIA) programs;
• Teach accurate history and critical thinking skills;
• Promote online safety and hold tech and social media companies accountable.

    To read the report in its entirety, visit splcenter.org.

    About the Southern Poverty Law Center

    The Southern Poverty Law Center is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people. For more information, visit www.splcenter.org.