# data[].attributes.headline
Article: These kids used the state constitution to fight climate change and won

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: These kids used the state constitution to fight climate change and won

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Update, August 14, 2:55 pm ET: The decision impacts the implementation of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Prior to the ruling, the state government was not permitted to consider the impact of climate change when approving energy projects, but now that process will likely change. The judge also ruled that The decision reads, in part: "Montana's [greenhouse gas emissions] and climate change have proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment and harm and injury to the Youth Plaintiffs." The original article, published June 12, is below: a change to MEPA earlier this year made by the state legislature is unconstitutional. Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on August 14, handing climate activists an unprecedented victory.
Do citizens have a right to a healthy environment? In Montana they do. The state constitution reads, "The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." And a group of young people are using that language to sue the state over its energy policies.

In one of the country's first climate change lawsuits, a group of 16 young people in Montana alleges that the state has violated their constitutional right to "a clean and healthful environment." The plaintiffs are arguing that the state government's ongoing support of the fossil fuel industry in Montana is disproportionately harming them. Depending on the ruling, this could set an example for similar suits across the country.

Montana is a major coal exporter and has the largest coal reserves in the United States. The coal industry has also been a boon for the local economy: Jobs in the coal industry pay about 30 percent more than the median income in the state. The outcome of this case could impact coal's place in the local economy.

At the same time, preserving the environment makes economic sense for Montana, too. Outdoor recreation is a $7.1 billion dollar industry there. Camping, hiking, fly fishing, and other outdoor activities draw tourists to the state. Critics of the state's current energy policy point toward green energy like wind turbines as a possible economic alternative to fossil fuels.

This case could also set a precedent, creating a legal roadmap for similar challenges at a crucial time. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's goal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius will be out of reach unless drastic changes are made in the next two years.

One of the plaintiffs, Grace Gibson-Snyder, remembers when she first noticed the impact of climate change in her hometown. It was during one of her summer soccer practices in August, when wildfire smoke blew into the Missoula Valley, where she lives. "The smoke was so dense that the kids on the team with asthma could not play at all," she said. "And then for the rest of us, it was uncomfortable. It feels like it's scratching your throat and your lungs."

Gibson-Snyder, who is 19, says she's frustrated with the way that young people are discussed as the solution to the climate crisis. She's also frustrated with what she views as government inaction. "I wish lawmakers understood that this is the only way I see a future where I want to be there. And the youth don't have a choice, we will be there one way or another."

The Montana state attorney general's office has referred to this case as a publicity stunt exploiting well-intentioned kids, and gave The Weeds the following statement when asked for comment, which reads in part:

Following the legislative session, there are no existing laws or policies for the district court to rule on. A show trial on laws that do not exist, as the district court seems intent on holding, would be a colossal waste of taxpayer resources. This same lawsuit has been thrown out of federal court and courts in a dozen other states - and it should be dismissed here in Montana as well.

No matter the outcome, the trial in Helena, Montana likely won't be the end of this legal battle, according to Amanda Eggert, environmental reporter for Montana Free Press. "I think there's no question that there will be an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, no matter which way it goes," she said. "So I think we're looking at several years before it's finally decided."

Below is an excerpt of my conversation with Eggert, edited for length and clarity. You can listen to The Weeds on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get podcasts.

Jonquilyn Hill

Can you walk us through the timeline of events regarding this case?

Amanda Eggert

So in March of 2020, 16 youth plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in a district court in Montana. Shortly thereafter, the state moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to bring the lawsuit. And the judge in this case, Kathy Seeley, denied the motion to dismiss and essentially set the lawsuit on a path for trial.

But something interesting that happened recently is that our legislature convened in January for a 90-day session, and they passed a couple of bills that have pretty strong implications for the lawsuit.

Jonquilyn Hill

How so?

Amanda Eggert

Well, central to plaintiffs' claims was the state's energy policy, and that was a legislatively established piece of law that's about 30 years old, establishing a broad energy vision for the state. And the legislature actually repealed the entirety of the policy this spring. So shortly after that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, the state moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that since this piece of law is no longer on the books, the lawsuit has no grounds to proceed.And they asked the judge to dismiss the case based on the repeal of that policy. And she did decide to narrow the scope of the case based on the repeal of that policy. But there's another law at play here too, and that is House Bill 971, and that explicitly prohibits the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions or climate impacts in its environmental review process.

So Judge Seeley actually referenced the passage of House Bill 971 in her order that she issued on May 23, 2023, and she said that the courts may be unable to direct the state to consider greenhouse gas impacts, but it can certainly strike down a statute preventing them from doing something like that. And she's allowed the case to proceed.

Jonquilyn Hill

Were people surprised that Judge Seeley took this case on in the first place?

Amanda Eggert

Yeah, I think it is pretty surprising. It still surprises me to this day. It'll be the first time that a climate change case of this nature goes to trial. There will be a lot of people watching it.

Judges are often reluctant to rule on constitutional claims such as a quote-unquote "clean and healthful environment" because there's some subjectivity to that. Oftentimes, they would prefer to rule on statute alone. You know, what legislators pass in the capitol every two years in Montana, because that can be a little bit more fleshed-out, versus a broad, overarching environmental protection for current and future generations. So, I was surprised, and it's really going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Jonquilyn Hill

Do we know why the judge denied the state's motion to dismiss?

Amanda Eggert

I think she recognized that the plaintiffs have standing and that standing is a legal concept, essentially establishing that the plaintiffs have demonstrable harms and that there are remedial actions that can be taken to correct those harms.

And she also recognized that the state's energy policies do have a direct bearing on those harms.

Jonquilyn Hill

Often, when we talk about climate change, we talk about it on a more global scale, but this seems really individual and really small scale, these young people are saying this is harming me in this particular way.

Amanda Eggert

I've spoken with one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, and I know that they took great care to establish a whole record. Their initial complaint is over 100 pages, which is huge by legal standards.

But in that they're trying to establish very specific individual harms. So there are plaintiffs that talk about being evacuated due to forest fires or plaintiffs who talk about grieving the loss of glaciers in Glacier National Park. There are plaintiffs who talk about concerns related to wildlife.

And in addition to establishing those very specific harms, the plaintiffs also went to great lengths to demonstrate that climate change is happening, that climate change is happening in Montana, and that the state has been extremely permissive in its permitting of fossil fuel extraction, which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Montana.

Jonquilyn Hill

What exactly is the state arguing against the plaintiffs?

Amanda Eggert

The state is making all kinds of claims. A lot of them are central to whether or not the plaintiffs have standing. That's kind of a legal test, establishing that there's a harm that's occurring, that there's some sort of judicial remedy that could correct those harms, and that the actors involved in this situation, the state, are implicated in furthering those harms.

So much of the state's claims thus far deal with whether or not climate change is occurring, whether the plaintiffs have experienced the harms that they allege in their filings, and whether there is any legal foundation to change state energy permitting practices.

Jonquilyn Hill

Underlying this legal battle is another tension in Montana, between preserving the outdoor economy and the state's role as an energy exporter. Can you talk about the impact of climate change in Montana? How is the land itself changing and how is it impacting citizens and the state's economy?

Amanda Eggert

I think one of the clearest assessments we have of climate change impacts in Montana specifically came out in 2017. It's called the Montana Climate Assessment.

Our governor at the time, a Democrat, Steve Bullock, asked the state to put together this assessment, and it found that between 1950 and 2015, the state had warmed on an average between two and three degrees. And then it goes into more specific impacts - we don't have as much snowpack as we used to. And that's a big deal for our rivers.

Montana is a headwater state located along the continental divide. Some of our rivers go all the way down to the Columbia, others go all the way down to the Mississippi. But with the loss of snowpack, we have less snow and therefore water to sustain our rivers into the late summer and fall. That's a big deal for our outdoor economy. Fly fishing is a great big deal in this state. It's also a big deal for agriculture, - lots of farmers are dependent on rivers for irrigation of their crops.

Loss of snowpack is also a big deal for our ski industry and our outdoor recreation economy generally, which is about $7.1 billion. And then there are other impacts, like more extreme wildfires and a longer wildfire season, which has health impacts because there's more smoke that everyone is sucking in through much of the summer and fall.

Jonquilyn Hill

Montana has one of the largest outdoor recreation economies in the country. And I think that's part of what makes Montana an interesting stage for this lawsuit, because it also has the largest coal reserves in the country. Can you talk about those opposite forces of industry?

Amanda Eggert

Yeah. And that tension is very top of mind for me, having just come out of the legislative session where lawmakers passed some significant reforms to coal permitting and litigation challenging coal permits.

We have a Republican in the governor's seat. We have a supermajority in the legislature of Republicans and they are a little more old school in terms of their support for what I would call a quote-unquote "traditional industry" such as logging and mining and agriculture. And that definitely is reflected in the laws that are passed at the Capitol.

Jonquilyn Hill

I want to talk about the potential impact on Montana if the judge rules in the plaintiffs' favor. What could this potentially change for Montana?

Amanda Eggert

That's a really good question. And the way it's been explained to me by one of the attorneys working for the plaintiffs is that it's kind of like marriage equality, where initially they're just asking the courts to recognize that the current law is out of accordance with the Constitution.

And so it would very broadly establish that these harms are occurring, that they are not supposed to be occurring according to Montana's constitution, and to establish this overarching principle that we're going to kind of change the way that we do things.

Generally speaking, that would look like asking the state to bring its energy permitting practices in alignment with the constitution and the protections for a clean and healthful environment.

What that would look like in practice would be established through many iterations of policy, I would think.

Jonquilyn Hill

Can you talk a bit about the potential jobs and economic impact if these changes are made?

Amanda Eggert

One of the practices that's central to plaintiffs' claims involves coal mining and coal combustion. And coal mining jobs are high-paying jobs relative to the median income in Montana. I think they're about 30 percent higher than Montana's median income. In addition to coal mining and power plants, there are communities that are entirely dependent upon coal. They've been described as a one-horse town kind of a situation where if you don't have the power plant and you don't have the mine, then all of a sudden you have tumbling property values, you don't have a tax base to support your school at the same level, maybe some of your local retailers go under, that kind of a thing.

Jonquilyn Hill

Is it realistic to think that if the plaintiffs win in this case, Montana will make the switch to green energy?

Amanda Eggert

A lot of people are really curious about that. And I think there are a couple things at play. One is that even clean energy boosters will recognize that there are not as many wind energy jobs as there are for mining coal and burning it.

And the other thing that they recognize is that they don't tend to pay as well as the coal jobs. So that's one component of it. You would potentially be looking at fewer jobs, maybe, though that's probably debatable, that would pay a little less.

The other piece of this conversation that I think is relevant is there's this kind of cultural divide in Montana regarding fossil fuel jobs and clean energy jobs. So I think it might be a little bit difficult for someone working at a coal-fired power plant or a boilermaker to sign on to maintain wind turbines, for example.

Jonquilyn Hill

As this trial starts, what will you be watching for?

Amanda Eggert

So the state is making the argument that climate change is not a result of human activity, that it's representative of natural variability. So I will be very interested to see how it makes those claims. They have an expert who will be testifying to that effect.

And I'll also be interested in getting this both broad and deep look at the permitting process for energy projects. I'm kind of an energy nerd these days, and I'll really be interested to see how the plaintiffs lay out the specific policies that have favored the fossil fuel industry.

Jonquilyn Hill

Do we have a sense of the timeline? Do we know about how long this trial will take and when we can expect a ruling from the judge?

Amanda Eggert

The trial is scheduled to take place over a two-week period, so it'll wrap up by the end of June, and oh, man, I don't have a crystal ball for when a ruling will come. I have talked to people who think that a ruling will come quickly.

Evidently, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs is confident that Judge Seeley will rule in the plaintiffs' favor.

I think there's no question that there will be an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, no matter which way it goes. So I think we're looking at several years before it's finally decided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These kids sued over climate change - and won

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unprecedented ruling in Montana could signal a changing tide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Using the Constitution to Fight Climate Change 

# data[].attributes.subject
Using the Constitution to Fight Climate Change 

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Suing the federal government for climate change--"Life, Liberty, and Property"

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Suing the federal government for climate change--"Life, Liberty, and Property"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez: What is Juliana vs. The United States of America?

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Survivors of School Shootings Fight for Protections

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Survivors of School Shootings Fight for Protections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Parkland Students Are Taking on Politicians in the Gun Control Battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These students promise to vote out the old if they don’t listen to the young

# data[].attributes.headline
The Second Amendment and Mass Shootings 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Second Amendment and Mass Shootings 

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Taking Back the Right to Abortion Overturned by the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Taking Back the Right to Abortion Overturned by the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) | Center for Reproductive Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHPA is U.S. federal legislation to protect the right to access abortion care nationwide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Tuesday's Election and Reproductive Rights Wins

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Tuesday's Election and Reproductive Rights Wins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a Nonpartisan Approach to Organizing Abortion Ballot Measures Could Help in the 2024 Election

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Sunday, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented immigrants should be immediately returned "from where they came" with "no Judges or Court Cases."

This, along with the administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy and the recent spike in family separations at the border - a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order - has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.

What rights do undocumented immigrants have to a court hearing, to an attorney or to free speech? What rights do their children have to education?

How those rights play out in practice is more complex.

To answer those questions, we must start with a more basic question-does the U.S. Constitution apply to undocumented immigrants?

"Yes, without question," said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. "Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States."

Many parts of the Constitution use the term "people" or "person" rather than "citizen." Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.

As a result, many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and noncitizens. How those rights play out in practice is more complex.

Right to due process

What the law says: The Fifth Amendment states that "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The issue of due process is at the heart of many immigration cases, including Reno v. Flores, the 1993 Supreme Court case that has returned to the spotlight with the surge in family separations. The case led to an agreement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days.

In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote "it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings."

How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, "courts of law run the gamut."

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president's tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of "expedited removal," which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

"Just because you don't see a judge doesn't mean you aren't receiving due process," Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.

Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.

"In immigration court, you have very few rights," said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.

Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.

"In the majority of cases, it's a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally," Gihon said.

The right to legal counsel

What the law says: The Sixth Amendment states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall...have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1963 case Gideon v Wainwright that if a person is too poor to hire an attorney, the government must appoint one.

How it works in practice: Because most deportation proceedings are civil rather than criminal cases, the right to legal counsel often doesn't apply.

The Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy now requires most illegal border crossings to be tried as criminal cases, the exception being parents who cross the border illegally with children. After public outcry about separating families, the head of Customs and Border Protection said Monday the agency has stopped referring parents for prosecution. Other immigrants will still be charged with a crime.

Under the law, anyone facing a criminal charge has the right to counsel. However, the government is only required to provide counsel if the person is accused of a felony. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

In recent weeks, people have donated millions of dollars to nonprofit groups to pay for immigrants' legal fees.

The Trump administration's decision to criminally charge immigrants has overwhelmed the courts, as demonstrated last month by a leaked photo of a trial in Pecos, Texas.

The image shows dozens of men in orange jumpsuits being tried en masse. In such proceedings, reports the Intercept, which originally published the photo, trials can last only minutes per defendant.

The right to be with your family

What the law says: Critics of family separation have pointed to the legal right to "family integrity." This right is not spelled out in the Constitution but was established through court rulings in the early 20th century, Rodriguez said.

"People have a right to be with and commune with their family. It's a very basic principle," she said.

The government can split up families in extraordinary circumstances, such as in the case of child abuse, but it cannot do so without going through a legal process.

How it works in practice: Before Trump signed the executive order Wednesday, the administration had divided families as a matter of course, without considering the individual cases. The ACLU sued, arguing the policy was unconstitutional.

The court has not issued a final ruling, and the president's executive order could change the case. But a judge did rule earlier this month that the case could proceed, saying immigrants have a right to "familial association" under the Constitution.

Right to vote or hold office

What the law says: The Constitution does not prohibit anyone from voting. Instead, it spells out who cannot be denied the right to vote. The 14th Amendment says men who are U.S. citizens and over the age of 21 must be allowed to vote, unless they have committed a crime. The 15th Amendment prohibits anyone from denying the right to vote based on skin color and the 19th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex (aka being a woman).

It wasn't until 1926 that all states passed laws barring noncitizens from voting. Congress passed a law 70 years later prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting "for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner."

How it works in practice: If you are not a U.S. citizen, voting in a federal election could land you in prison for up to three years or lead to deportation. States can impose their own, sometimes harsher, penalties for breaking the law.

However, because elections are largely a local affair, some states allow local governments to decide whether noncitizens can vote in local elections.

In fact, noncitizens in Chicago have been allowed to vote for school board since 1989. New Yorkers who were not citizens were given the same right from 1969 until 2003, when local school boards were abolished there. Now San Francisco and Maryland are also giving noncitizens the right to vote in some local elections.

The right to education

What the law says: There is no "right to education" in the Constitution but two other sections do come into play when considering whether undocumented migrant children should have access to education.

First, in the case Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that if children who are citizens have access to a free, public education, so should undocumented immigrant children. That is because the 14th Amendment says the government cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What it means in practice: The court case means undocumented children cannot be prohibited from enrolling in a public school.

But what if a child is being detained and, therefore, does not have access to a public school. That is where, once again, the Flores settlement comes into play.

The settlement requires that facilities where children are kept must meet minimum requirements for providing health care, education, recreation and other child care services.

Right against unreasonable search and seizure

What the law says: The Fourth Amendment establishes the right "against unreasonable searches and seizures."

What it means in practice: While this law would generally apply to both citizens and noncitizens, there is a key caveat known as the "border search exception."

This exception dates back to the very first Congress, which passed a law allowing searchers at the border as a means to collecting duties.

As a result, courts have long upheld that searches at the border are not considered "unreasonable" for the very fact that they occur at the border.

The question courts have grappled with since is what constitutes the border. Searches at airports and other ports of entry for example are often considered legal. The Justice Department has also established a 100-mile wide "extended border" where Border Patrol agents can conduct searches if they meet certain criteria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy and the recent surge in family separations at the border -- a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order -- has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pros and Cons of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st American State

# data[].attributes.subject
Pros and Cons of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st American State

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Puerto Rico Statehood: Pros and Cons | Puerto Rico 51st

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The advantages of statehood for Puerto Rico are obvious: The sometimes bizarre legal inequalities between Puerto Rico and the states would end, immediately helping Puerto Rico’s economy. For example, Puerto Rico would be eligible for D-SNAP, the special food stamp program for disaster victims. No on…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every American should enjoy equal rights without discrimination based on race. It's critical that we understand the laws, court system, and the judges that determine those rights. Learn about the bedrock laws and structures that shape our everyday lives.

Voting rights

Voting is fundamental to U.S. democracy, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a bedrock law protecting every American's right to register to vote and cast their ballot. The Voting Rights Act remains one of the hardest-fought safeguards for Black Americans and other minority groups. Yet today, threats to fair, safe elections persist. Attempts to restore the Act to its fullest protections include the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, introduced in early 2019.

We've repeatedly seen attempts to delegitimize democracy by trying to disenfranchise voters, specifically Black voters. Once again, if the NAACP must intervene to protect our community, we will do so swiftly and assuredly.
- Derrick Johnson, NAACP President and CEO

The 411 on the Five-O

While we must support effective law enforcement, we must also exercise our constitutional rights to ensure law enforcement works as it should - to protect all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity. This guide offers helpful suggestions on how to interact with law enforcement to reduce the probability of conflict.

If you are approached by the police...

1. Do ask for a lawyer immediately upon being arrested or being placed into custody.

2. Do stay calm and keep your emotions from getting the best of you. Be courteous even if the police officer is not. You will only give the officers more ammunition against you if you begin yelling, arguing or refusing reasonable directives.

3. Do carry identification at all times and be prepared to produce it.

4. Do keep your hands where the police officer can see them.

5. Do take photographs, if you are injured, and seek medical attention as soon as possible.

6. Do remember the officer's name and badge number as well as any witness information. Write down everything you remember about the encounter as soon as possible.

7. Don't run.

8. Don't touch the police officer.

9. Don't make any statements about the incident without first having spoken to an attorney. Reiterate your right to remain silent, if necessary.

If you're in your car...

1. Upon request, present your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.

2. If you are suspected of drunk driving, and refuse to take a sobriety test the police may seize your driver's license.

3. You have the right not to consent to a search of your vehicle.

4. If the police state they have probable cause, they may begin to search your car without your consent. Do not interfere but clearly state your lack of consent.

5. If you are given a ticket, sign it. You can always fight the case in court later.

If you're on the street...

1. A police officer may briefly stop you to ask identifying questions.

2. You are not required to answer any questions but failing to truthfully answer simple ones will make the police suspicious.

3. If requested, show your identification.

4. You are not required to consent to a search of yourself or your property.

5. If police have reasonable suspicion that you have a weapon or illegal substance, they may do a "pat-down" to check. Don't resist.

6. If you feel you have been unlawfully detained, remember the officer's badge number and all identifying information. Use your cell phone or other technology to record/photograph the interaction, if you can do so safely.

If you're in your home...

1. Absent a warrant or emergency circumstances, the police do not have the right to enter your home. If the police knock at your door, you have the right to deny them entrance.

2. If the police say they have a warrant, ask to see it before letting them enter your home.

3. If you are arrested in your home, the police can search you and the area around you, which usually means the room.

If you are arrested...

1. Immediately CLEARLY state your refusal to speak to the police and make a request for an attorney. Do not make any statements other than giving your name and address. You have the right to a court appointed attorney if you cannot afford one.

2. If you are under 18 years old, ask for your parents to be contacted immediately.

3. After you are arrested, you must be given the opportunity to make a local phone call. Know beforehand who you will call in a situation like this and contact them. The police may not listen in on this phone call.

4. You must be taken before a judge or magistrate within a day after being arrested.

5. If you are required to post bail after being arrested, you may request to have your bail lowered.

6. Do not make any decisions until you have spoken with your attorney. Do not allow the police to trick you into saying anything. Remember, the police can lie to get you to confess to a crime.

More on federal courts

Voting is fundamental to U.S. democracy, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a bedrock law protecting every American's right to register to vote and cast their ballot. The Voting Rights Act remains one of the hardest-fought safeguards for Black Americans and other minority groups. Yet today, threats to fair, safe elections persist. Attempts to restore the Act to its fullest protections include the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, introduced in early 2019.

We've repeatedly seen attempts to delegitimize democracy by trying to disenfranchise voters, specifically Black voters. Once again, if the NAACP must intervene to protect our community, we will do so swiftly and assuredly.
- Derrick Johnson, NAACP President and CEO

The 411 on the Five-O

While we must support effective law enforcement, we must also exercise our constitutional rights to ensure law enforcement works as it should - to protect all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity. This guide offers helpful suggestions on how to interact with law enforcement to reduce the probability of conflict.

If you are approached by the police...

1. Do ask for a lawyer immediately upon being arrested or being placed into custody.

2. Do stay calm and keep your emotions from getting the best of you. Be courteous even if the police officer is not. You will only give the officers more ammunition against you if you begin yelling, arguing or refusing reasonable directives.

3. Do carry identification at all times and be prepared to produce it.

4. Do keep your hands where the police officer can see them.

5. Do take photographs, if you are injured, and seek medical attention as soon as possible.

6. Do remember the officer's name and badge number as well as any witness information. Write down everything you remember about the encounter as soon as possible.

7. Don't touch the police officer.

8. Don't make any statements about the incident without first having spoken to an attorney. Reiterate your right to remain silent, if necessary.

If you're in your car...

1. Upon request, present your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.

2. If you are suspected of drunk driving, and refuse to take a sobriety test the police may seize your driver's license.

3. You have the right not to consent to a search of your vehicle.

4. If the police state they have probable cause, they may begin to search your car without your consent. Do not interfere but clearly state your lack of consent.

5. If you are given a ticket, sign it. You can always fight the case in court later.

If you're on the street...

1. A police officer may briefly stop you to ask identifying questions.

2. You are not required to answer any questions but failing to truthfully answer simple ones will make the police suspicious.

3. If requested, show your identification.

4. You are not required to consent to a search of yourself or your property.

5. If police have reasonable suspicion that you have a weapon or illegal substance, they may do a "pat-down" to check. Don't resist.

6. If you feel you have been unlawfully detained, remember the officer's badge number and all identifying information. Use your cell phone or other technology to record/photograph the interaction, if you can do so safely.

If you're in your home...

1. Absent a warrant or emergency circumstances, the police do not have the right to enter your home. If the police knock at your door, you have the right to deny them entrance.

2. If the police say they have a warrant, ask to see it before letting them enter your home.

3. If you are arrested in your home, the police can search you and the area around you, which usually means the room.

If you are arrested...

1. Immediately CLEARLY state your refusal to speak to the police and make a request for an attorney. Do not make any statements other than giving your name and address. You have the right to a court appointed attorney if you cannot afford one.

2. If you are under 18 years old, ask for your parents to be contacted immediately.

3. After you are arrested, you must be given the opportunity to make a local phone call. Know beforehand who you will call in a situation like this and contact them. The police may not listen in on this phone call.

4. You must be taken before a judge or magistrate within a day after being arrested.

5. If you are required to post bail after being arrested, you may request to have your bail lowered.

6. Do not make any decisions until you have spoken with your attorney. Do not allow the police to trick you into saying anything. Remember, the police can lie to get you to confess to a crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every American should enjoy equal rights without discrimination based on race. It's critical that we understand the laws, court system, and the judges that determine those rights. Learn about the bedrock laws and structures that shape our everyday lives. To address systemic racism, first you have to understand the system.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: What Rights Do Students Have at School? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: What Rights Do Students Have at School? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Mini Documentary: Why Can't the US Stop Mass Shootings? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Mini Documentary: Why Can't the US Stop Mass Shootings? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The battle over voting rights in the US is a drama that's playing out in the Congress and state legislatures across the country.

In Philadelphia on Tuesday, Joe Biden gave a fiery speech, warning that American democracy is facing its greatest threat since the Civil War.

"There's an unfolding assault taking place in America today, an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote and fair and free elections," the president said.

Biden condemned recent efforts in 17 Republican-controlled states to pass laws curtailing when and where their citizens can vote - laws conservatives have framed as a response to allegations of voting fraud repeatedly made by Donald Trump in the months after his presidential defeat.

Many Republicans now believe the election was stolen from Trump - an assertion Biden called "the big lie" and one that has not been substantiated by concrete evidence.

Meanwhile, in Texas the fight over voting changes has led to drastic measures, as Democratic legislators have temporarily blocked passage of voting legislation by flying to Washington, DC. There, they are pressuring congressional Democrats to enact new federal rules for conducting elections that would supersede any state actions.

At the centre of this national debate is a question of what is the greatest threat to American democracy. Is it the security of an election process that in 2020 relied heavily on early and mail-in voting?

Or is it a system, corrupted by the influence of big donors and powerful interests, that makes voting more difficult than necessary, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups?

Democrats make their move

The Democratic effort at a national voting law centres around passage of the "For the People Act". It represents one of the most expansive federal reforms of the US election system in a generation.

The bill would guarantee that voters can receive a mail-in ballot if requested, mandate a minimum of 15 days of early voting before every federal election, require paper ballots and set standards for voting machines.

It would prohibit states from disenfranchising felons who have completed their sentences and enact new restrictions on undisclosed so-called "dark money" political contributions.

Many new voters would be automatically registered under the legislation, which also requires technology companies to disclose information about political advertising, create new government support for small donor-funded candidates and seek to end the practice of "gerrymandering" voting maps for partisan advantage.

In March the US House of Representatives approved the bill by a nearly party line vote, with one Democrat - Bennie Thompson of Mississippi - opposing because of concerns that the redistricting provision would disadvantage black voters.

Three months later, Republicans in the US Senate blocked passage of the For the People Act by use of the filibuster, a parliamentary procedure that requires 60 votes to pass major legislation. The bill only received 50 votes - all from Democrats in the evenly divided 100-seat chamber.

Democrats have since turned their focus to updating the Voting Rights Act, a 1960s-era law that has been curtailed by the US Supreme Court over the past decade.

Republicans dig in

As evidenced by the two congressional votes, Republican opposition to the Democratic legislation has been near complete.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the bill an "unparalleled political grab" that would consolidate Democratic power.

"What this is really about is an effort for the federal government to take over the way we conduct elections in this country," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said shortly before his chamber blocked the bill. "It is a solution in search of a problem."

Former Vice-President Mike Pence, in one of his first public statements since being forced to evacuate the US Capitol after it was attacked by pro-Trump rioters, wrote in an opinion column that the Democratic proposal would "increase opportunities for election fraud, trample the First Amendment, further erode confidence in our elections and forever dilute the votes of legally qualified eligible voters".

Read more from Anthony

A Trump-inspired state-level push

Behind the Democratic urgency in Congress to pass voting reforms is the reality that they're in a race with dozens of state legislatures enacting measures that curtail the same voting processes and systems that the For the People Act seeks to mandate.

Georgia, for instance, passed a law curtailing the use of drop boxes for ballot returns, requiring photo identification to vote by mail, and making it illegal to provide food and water to people waiting in line to vote.

The move prompted protests and boycotts of the state, including the decision to move the Major League Baseball's July All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver, Colorado.

Other key political battlegrounds, including Florida, Arizona and Iowa, have enacted similar legislation.

In Texas, Democrats in the legislature left the state in July to deny Republicans a quorum and at least temporarily prevent passage of new voting measures that would limit mail-in balloting and curtail in-person voting hours and locations.

Republicans frame their laws as common-sense measures to protect against fraud and ensure that Americans have faith in the electoral process. Democrats counter that the confidence of the public has been damaged by the unsubstantiated allegations made by Trump and others after November's balloting.

A high-stakes fight

When it comes to a showdown between states and federal government over the rules of the election game, the US Constitution says the latter wins. That won't prevent a spate of lawsuits challenging the legality of the federal legislation if the congressional Democrats succeed in getting their bill passed by the Senate.

Just last month, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona ban on the collection of mail-in ballots by third parties - an issue that would be directly addressed by the For the People Act.

Washington is no stranger to high-stakes political battles. Most sessions of Congress, particularly early in a new presidential administration, feature more than a few legislative showdowns touted for their potential long-term implications.

This one is a fight over how elections are conducted and - consequently - who is around to participate in all the other political battles to come.

The stakes don't get much higher than that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting rights: How the battle is unfolding across the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats push expansive federal reforms while Republicans plan sweeping changes in US states.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: "A mockery of democracy': US supreme court in question after abortion ruling"

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: "A mockery of democracy': US supreme court in question after abortion ruling"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Striding from the US supreme court to the nearby US Capitol, holding aloft a sign that said "My body my choice" and "Women's right to choose", Taylor Treacy was struggling to fathom how she had fewer constitutional rights now than when she awoke that morning.

"It's heartbreaking," said the 28-year-old, who works in sports marketing. "The people who have legally gotten abortions in the United States are mostly Black and brown women, yet the five justices able to have the final word were four powerful men and one white woman. We're allowing more access to guns yet we're taking away the rights of women. It just seems like we're going backwards."

Millions of women had just lost access to abortion on Friday after America's highest court overturned a near-50-year-old ruling and other precedents enshrining that right. The conservative justice Samuel Alitowrote in the court's majority opinion that Roe v Wade was "egregiously wrong and deeply damaging", and that states should decide whether to limit or criminalise the procedure.

Fury from protesters in US after Roe v Wade overturned - video

The court's liberal minority responded: "With sorrow - for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection - we dissent." The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states, although the timing of those laws taking effect varies.

The decision, though widely expected a draft opinion leaked last month, was nevertheless a stunning aftershock of Donald Trump's presidency and sure to enflame America's divisions. It also cemented the supreme court's emergence an alternative centre of power that threatens to rupture the delicate governing balance of executive, legislature and judiciary.

Just 24 hours earlier, the justices had struck down New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns in public, potentially opening the way to fresh legal challenges to other state-level gun laws despite recent mass shootings in California, New York and Texas. It was a triumph for the gun lobby and a blow to Joe Biden's efforts to curb violence.

Simon Schama, a leading historian, tweeted on Friday: "American democracy is in deep trouble. It can't survive in its present form if the constitution is manipulated to impose minority rule."

The back-to-back decisions were the fruit of a long campaign by conservatives to shift the judiciary to the right, powered by influential groups such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. The Republican presidents George HW Bush and George W Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, John Roberts (now chief justice) and Alito to the supreme court.

Donald Trump's three supreme court choices: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who all voted to lift limits on carrying guns and strip away the right to an abortion. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/AFP/Getty Images

A democratic deficit opened when Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama's last nominee for the court, Merrick Garland, on the spurious grounds that it was an election year. Then Trump, a one-term president who had lost the national popular vote by 3m, appointed three justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It has proven his most significant legacy.

The court struck down Roe v Wade against the wishes of a Democratic president, Democratic-controlled Congress and the citizenry. The majority of Americans (61%) believed that Roe should remain the law of the land, and only 36% supported overturning it, according to the Public Religion Research Institute thinktank. Even most religious Americans wanted to see Roe upheld.

Edward Fallone, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said: "I'm afraid it's extremely undemocratic. You now have the least democratic branch of the federal government on an ideological agenda to roll back liberties that are extremely popular with the general public in America.

"It is a recipe for potential unrest, certainly demonstrations and political turmoil, as they seem intent on a course of action that will run counter to the will of the public."

The surge of judicial activism has knocked both the White House and Congress back on their heels. In Washington abortion rights protesters crowded outside the fenced-off supreme court on Friday, opposite the gleaming dome of the US Capitol, where their elected representatives vented frustration at the demise of Roe but were powerless to intervene.

This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law

Two miles away at the White House, even the president seemed politically impotent. A solemn group of female staff, including domestic policy adviser Susan Rice and press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, gathered beneath a staircase in the cross-hall to watch Biden deliver a response. Portraits of Bill Clinton and George W Bush, presidents in an era when Roe seemed sacrosanct, looked on from opposing walls.

Calling it "a sad day for the court and the country", Biden said: "It was three justices named by one president - Donald Trump - who were the core of today's decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.

"Make no mistake: this decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It's a realisation of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the supreme court, in my view."

He added: "With this decision, the conservative majority of the supreme court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country. They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world."

The president admitted that he cannot take executive action to secure a woman's right to choose. The only hope is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v Wade as federal law, which in turns depends on Democrats winning the midterm elections. "This fall, Roe is on the ballot," he said. "Personal freedoms are on the ballot."

Joe Biden is powerless to restore a woman's right to choose but urged voters to cast their ballots on the issue in the midterm elections. Photograph: Oliver Contreras/EPA

Others argue that there is another solution to offset minority rule: expanding the supreme court beyond its current total of nine justices. The pressure group Demand Justice pointed to this week's rulings on guns and abortion as proof that reform is needed.

Christopher Kang, its co-founder and chief counsel, said: "This is part of the decades-long Republican agenda to accomplish through the supreme court what they cannot through the democratically elected branches of Congress. We've seen in the last couple of days decisions making it harder for lawmakers to combat gun violence in the wake of some of the worst mass shootings in our country's history. We've seen, now, overturning the right to an abortion.

"These are things that are supported by 70 to 80% of the American people and I think we'll see it again next week in a big case concerning whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to take action to fight climate change, another thing supported by 70 to 80% of the American people. This is a further example of what Republicans are doing through our unaccountable courts that they couldn't do through Congress or the White House."

Americans' faith in the supreme court has dropped to a historic low, with only 25% saying saying have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in it, down from 36% a year ago, according to a Gallup poll. Kang believes that rebuilding trust is crucial to the health of America's increasingly fragile democracy.

"Today's ruling shows that the supreme court is the problem and so any solution has to address the supreme court," he added. "There are other things that the president can do or Congress, with greater majorities, could do but fundamentally we have to fix the court if we have any hope of addressing these problems."

This isn't the end, this is the opening salvo, and they made that clear in their decision

Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez

The calls take on even greater urgency because of what might be to come. Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion on Friday that the supreme court should reconsider other legal precedents protecting same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraception. Biden warned: "This is an extreme and dangerous path this court is taking us on."

Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez, president of NextGen America, an organisation that works to engage young voters, said: "It is the takeover of an extreme rightwing minority that seeks to roll back the gains for the LGBTQ community, for women, for people of colour.

"This isn't the end, this is the opening salvo, and they made that clear in their decision. You had Clarence Thomas state they are going to take a look at how they can change the fundamental rights that the LGBTQ community has recently won in this country. "

Ramirez added: "We didn't defeat fascism in 2020; we beat it back. But to kill fascism in this country is going to require a lot more than one election cycle."

Map of state by state abortion restrictions in US

Friday's decision is set to create a patchwork of laws from state to state. Twenty-six are certain or likelyto immediately ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute thinktank. In Alabama, the state's three abortion clinics stopped performing the procedure for fear providers would now be prosecuted under a law dating to 1951; women in the waiting room on Friday morning were suddenly turned away. Democratic state governors, however, promised to strengthen protections.

Back at the supreme court, the sun was shining but the mood was one of sombre defiance as hundreds of people waved placards, chanted slogans such as "the supreme court is illegitimate" and contemplated a leap into the unknown after half a century.

At 43, Tracy Tolk, a climate change and energy policy advocate, had known nothing but Roe her entire life. "I'm absolutely devastated," she said. "I thought it would hurt less because we had a preview but it hurt more than I expected. It's gut-wrenching. People marched on the Capitol for less than this."

Millions of women will die. It's the beginning of the end of many things, as Clarence Thomas said

Virginia Shadron

Virginia Shadron, 71, a retired academic administrator from Stone Mountain, Georgia, was wearing a badge with the face of late liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death in 2020 allowed Trump to rush through the appointment of Barrett even with a presidential election already under way.

She said: "Millions of women will die. It sets back women and it's only the beginning. It's the beginning of the end of many things, as Clarence Thomas said. Next, they'll take on contraception. Reasonable people can feel strongly and differently about abortion. I'm glad for myself, I never had to make the choice, but if I had needed to, I would have wanted a safe, legal procedure."

There was sadness in the eyes of Maureen John, 67, who warned that the decision to overturn Roe would lead to an increase in illegal and unsafe abortions. "I'm a nurse and I've seen many unnecessary deaths because of the abortions done illegally," she said.

John was born in Guyana, moved to the US in 1976 and lives in Atlanta, Georgia. "I'm from the Caribbean and I came here and I became an American citizen because of democracy which wasn't available in my country at that time. I loved it. I love being American and now I'm being disappointed at what's happening."

"They're making a mockery of democracy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'A mockery of democracy': US supreme court in question after abortion ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In scrapping the right to terminate a pregnancy the court went against the popular will - only 25% of Americans now have confidence in the institution

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: 7 Things you can do right now to protect abortion 

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: 7 Things you can do right now to protect abortion 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Things You Can Do Right Now For Abortion Rights | Center for Reproductive Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken away the constitutional right to abortion. Here’s how you can help.