| The Biden administration has a "disinformation" unit tied to immigration. But we don't know much about it yet. The vagueness of what it does, combined with the dystopian nature of its name — "Disinformation Governance Board" — is creating some controversy for the Biden administration. Critics on the right called it "Orwellian," likening it to the Ministry of Truth that clamped down on the truth in George Orwell's "1984." Let's dig into what we know. The Department of Homeland and Security chief told Congress last week that his agency created a board to combat disinformation on immigration — such as what migrants hear from smugglers about how accessible the border is — and also Russian propaganda about the election or the war in Ukraine, and disinformation from terrorist groups.  Migrants cross the Rio Grande into Roma, Tex., from Mexico last month. (Adrees Latif/Reuters) | That raised concerns — particularly on the right — that the government would try to monitor Americans. Say you live in the United States and have family in a Latin American country, and you message them on WhatsApp that now is a good time for them to try to come to the United States by crossing the Mexican border. Might DHS monitor that and then try to stop you from saying it if they deemed it disinformation? Would that violate First Amendment rights? On Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas tried to tamp down on the controversy when he clarified that this board would monitor foreign communication, not Americans. The Biden administration framed this unit as a way to better coordinate work that's already going on in government in the information wars about immigration. Smugglers, for example, play a big role in informing migrants about when to try to cross into the United States. Why federal judges have so much power We've gotten a few questions recently about how a single Donald Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida could strike down the Biden administration's national transit mask mandate. (The Biden administration is appealing the decision to a higher court.) What this district court judge did is totally constitutional. She made a nationwide injunction. An injunction is when a court orders someone not to do something. It usually affects just the people involved in the case. But a national injunction controls how the federal government acts toward everyone, not just people in the case. (In this instance, the government can't force anyone to wear a mask on public transit or planes.) As my colleague Aaron Blake notes, these kinds of injunctions have been happening more frequently over the past several presidencies as Republicans and Democrats duel it out in courts rather than Congress. The existence of the national injunction is helpful to whichever party doesn't have the White House. During the Obama administration, Republican attorneys general sought it to stop the expansion of protections for children of undocumented immigrants. During the Trump era, judges used this tool to halt actions such as the transgender military ban. Scholars, judges and sitting Supreme Court justices have spoken out against national injunctions, but so far there isn't enough political will to get rid of it. After all, the ability to pause a nationwide policy with one ruling is beneficial to everyone at some point. Could abortion one day be illegal in all of the U.S.?  Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion Susan B Anthony List. (Astrid Riecken for The Washington Post) | This June, the Supreme Court is expected to release its decision on whether a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi can stand. If it lets that state law stand, the court will severely weaken 50 years of Supreme Court protections allowing for abortion up to about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The justices might even end all protections under that Roe v. Wade decision. That would be the more extreme decision to come out of this Mississippi case. But it's possible. Whatever the justices decide this summer, there still won't be a federal law about whether or when abortion is legal. That's because there is no federal law on abortion rights; each state can choose its own path up to the limits the Supreme Court set. (For example, on three occasions the justices have let stand Texas's ban on abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected, around six weeks of pregnancy.) But what if there were a federal law on abortion? House Democrats recently tried to protect abortion rights under Roe v. Wade, but it would never pass a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Now, antiabortion activists are putting together a campaign to try to get Republicans in Congress to pass a law banning most or all abortions in the country, reports The Post's Caroline Kitchener. Let's say Republicans take control of the House and Senate in this November's midterm elections. A nationwide abortion ban would be nearly impossible to get through Democrats in the Senate, who can filibuster such legislation. But what if Republicans decide this issue is important enough to end the Senate filibuster for it? In other words, just like the Supreme Court could end its legal protections for abortion, it's possible a GOP-led Congress takes it a step further and bans most abortions by law. | 
Email 
No comments:
Post a Comment