# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Articles

# data[].attributes.body
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported from the United States to El Salvador, where he has been held in prison ever since. Despite efforts to ensure his return, the Trump administration has said no, claiming that since he is affiliated with the MS-13 gang there is nothing they can do to bring him back. These allegations, however, were never presented in a proper court of law, and Abrego Garcia was not given the opportunity to defend himself against them. In fact, earlier court proceedings had already reviewed his history extensively, and the government at that time chose not to challenge the decision that allowed him to remain in the country. By deporting him without due process, the administration denied him the constitutional protections that should be guaranteed to all residents. Even after evidence surfaced that he was wrongly accused, he was still not afforded a fair hearing to clear his name.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Let’s have a real court case’: Attorney for deported man on the refusals to return him

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more than a month, Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been in prison in El Salvador after the Trump administration deported the Maryland resident along with hundreds of others. Thursday, his family and the world saw photos of Abrego Garcia and heard a first-hand report of his condition after Sen. Chris Van Hollen met with him. William Brangham discussed the latest with attorney Rina Gandhi.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Federal employees can pray and preach in the workplace under new Trump rules

# data[].attributes.body
Trump just made it so that federal employees are allowed to show their religion during work, including prayer. This may not seem bad, but different parties have different views on this issue. A similar memo can be traced back to Bill Clinton. President Trump even told employees to report each other for anti-Christian bias, as highlighted in this other article: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/state-report-anti-christian-bias-033535

One side of the argument says, “I have no problem with it whatsoever. To me, that’s simply reaffirming the First Amendment, that has proper caveats if you’re not engaging in harassing behavior. I think this is just reiterating basic principles of the First Amendment.” - (Andrew Walker) They also said, “Federal employees should never have to choose between their faith and their career.” - (Scott Kupor)

On the contrary, the other side points out that this could create a hostile workspace, “If your supervisor decides to sit down and make it very clear that it’s important to her or him, that you accept this weaponized version of the gospel of Jesus Christ, what do you think your chances are for advancement?" - (Mikey Weinstein)

One side fully supports this idea, but the other points out what could happen if not addressed correctly.

This article talks about the First Amendment and freedom of religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal employees can pray and preach in the workplace under new Trump rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The White House noted that similar language was issued under President Clinton.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how the supreme court issued two important rulings, both violating the eighth amendment. In the first case, Clarence Hill argued lethal injection caused unnecessary pain, violating the Eighth Amendment. The Court allowed Hill to bring his case to a lower court but did not rule on the lethal injection itself. In the second case, the Court allowed Tennessee inmate Paul Gregory House (who was on death row) to present new DNA evidence that pointed to another suspect. The rulings reflect ongoing debates about the fairness of the death penalty, particularly regarding execution methods and how we need more research before making these big decisions like the death penalty. As we've said before this argument about what is cruel and what's not could go on forever because everyone has different opinions on it. Some may argue lethal injections are a fair punishment for murder while others will say it is to cruel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Court Allows Lethal Injection, DNA Evidence Challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that death row inmates may file last-resort challenges to lethal injections, citing them as cruel and unusual punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
In Mississippi, 19 judges are arguing over whether stripping felons of their voting rights is considered a violation of the 8th amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. Mississippi wants to take away the rights of voting for who committed 1 of 10 certain crimes, including ones that were non-violent, and to get their voting rights restored they had to get a pardon from the governor. Some judges argued that it was up to the legislature to decide whether voting rights should be taken, other judges said it was cruel because everyone should have the right to vote and voting wasn't related to the crime in question. Other judges mentioned that there was no difference between a rapist and a thief, they were all criminals, and if they broke the laws, they shouldn't be allowed to vote for the laws. However the case is still on going and there was no final ruling. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/can-mississippi-strip-felons-of-voting-rights-federal-judges-hear-the-case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Whether permanently stripping voting rights from some Mississippi felons amounts to unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment is being weighed by 19 federal appellate judges, some of whom said during a hearing Tuesday that it should be decided by lawmakers, not a court.

At issue before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans was Mississippi's prohibition on voting for those convicted of any of a list of various felonies, including nonviolent ones such as forgery or timber theft. The outcome could affect voting rights for tens of thousands.

Criminal justice advocates won a major victory in August when a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that the ban violates the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. But the full 17-member circuit court vacated that ruling weeks later and scheduled Tuesday's hearing.

Judge Kyle Duncan was among 5th Circuit judges who suggested during questioning that the Legislature, not judges, should prescribe punishment for a crime. "There is no judicial calculus to tell the difference between a rapist, and an armed robber and a car thief - and a timber thief, for that matter," Duncan told attorney Jon Youngwood, who was arguing against disenfranchisement.
WATCH: Families in disbelief after hundreds of bodies found buried behind Mississippi jail
Judge Stephen Higginson appeared to be more sympathetic to Youngwood's argument, noting that Mississippi is unusual in permanently disenfranchising people for lesser felonies. And he pushed back against Mississippi attorney Scott Stewart's contention that the voting ban is not a criminal punishment, but a regulation regarding fitness to vote.

Permanently disenfranchising someone, Higginson said, "sounds punitive."

The court's 17 full-time active judges heard arguments, along with two senior-status, part-time judges who sat on the panel that ruled against the ban in August. They gave no indication when they would rule.

Under the Mississippi Constitution, people convicted of 10 specific felonies, including bribery, theft and arson, lose the right to vote. Under a previous state attorney general, the list was expanded to 22 crimes, including timber larceny - felling and stealing trees from someone else's property - and carjacking.

To have their voting rights restored, people convicted of any of the crimes must get a pardon from the governor or persuade lawmakers to pass individual bills just for them with two-thirds approval. Lawmakers in recent years have passed few of those bills, and they passed none in 2023.

"Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear and consistent trend in our Nation against permanent disenfranchisement," Senior Judge James Dennis wrote in the August opinion, joined by Senior Judge Carolyn Dineen King. Both judges were nominated to the court by Democratic presidents - King by Jimmy Carter and Dennis by Bill Clinton.

Also on the panel was Judge Edith Jones, still on full-time status nearly 40 years after she was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan. In a dissent to the August ruling, Jones cited a previous Supreme Court ruling regarding felons' disenfranchisement, saying it is up to legislatures to decide such matters.

Tuesday's hearing will include Jones and 16 other full-time members of the court. King and Dennis will also take part because they were members of the original ruling panel. The 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative circuit appeals courts, with 12 of its full-time posts filled by nominees of Republican presidents. Duncan was nominated by former President Donald Trump, Higginson by former President Barack Obama.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Mississippi strip felons of voting rights? Federal judges hear the case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The outcome of the case at the center of Tuesday's hearing in New Orleans will likely determine whether tens of thousands of people win back the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it details how our president is trying to get rid of undocumented immigrants without a fair trial even trying to pay people to self deport. As well he stated, "I don't know. It seems — it seems — it might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.". in response to a comment on how the fifth amendment states the right to due process . In the due process clause of the fifth amendment it states, "no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" by the federal government." The supreme court has previously stated that this includes individuals here who are out of status or undocumented. Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University states, "The answer is due process. Due process is what allows the government to take extreme actions against us, with the faith that we are who the government says we are, with the faith that we actually fall into the category of people who can be arrested, who can be deported, who can be imprisoned. Without due process, then we're not living under the rule of law. We're living under the arbitrary whims of one person."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the last few days, President Trump has repeatedly questioned the right to due process, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that protects people against arbitrary government actions.
Amna Nawaz:
The president's attacks come as the courts increasingly warn that the president is exceeding the scope of his authority.

Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, has this report.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
At an event today announcing Washington, D.C., as the host city for the 2027 NFL draft, President Trump again doubted the need for due process under the Constitution.

Donald Trump, President of the United States: It's a very difficult thing with the courts, because the courts have all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they said, maybe you have to have trials, trials. We're going to have five million trials? It doesn't work. It doesn't work. You wouldn't have a country left.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Ramping up its pressure campaign today to get undocumented immigrants to flee the U.S., the Homeland Security Department said they will pay people $1,000 if they self-deport to their home country voluntarily.
Donald Trump:
What we thought we'd do is a self-deport, where we're going to pay each one a certain amount of money. And we're going to get them a beautiful flight back to where they came from. And they have a period of time. And if they make it, we're going to work with them so that maybe someday with a little work they can come back in, if they're good people.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
The administration said it will also pay for travel assistance and de-prioritize removal by ICE for those who use the CBP Home app to say they are leaving.

On Sunday, in an interview on "Meet the Press" with Kristen Welker, the president questioned whether he had to uphold the Constitution.

Kristen Welker, Moderator, "Meet the Press": Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and noncitizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?
Donald Trump:
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.
Kristen Welker:
Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.
Donald Trump:
I don't know. It seems - it seems - it might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.
Kristen Welker:
But, even given those numbers that you're talking about, don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?
Donald Trump:
I don't know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Welker also asked the president if he was OK with a recession in the short term to reach his goals.
Donald Trump:
Look, yes, everything's OK. What we are - I said, this is a transition period. I think we're going to do fantastically.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
Trump posted a slew of social media posts over the weekend, from an A.I.-generated image of himself as the pope to directing the Federal Bureau of Prisons to reopen and expand Alcatraz.

Another new idea, a 100 percent tariff on movies that aren't produced in the United States. It's unclear which films this could apply to. And, today, the White House said no final decisions have been made.

Meanwhile, Democrats are zeroing in on Trump's economic policy.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY):
Donald Trump and House Republicans are crashing the economy in real time. I think we were promised, what, a golden age in the United States of America, not a recession.
Laura Barron-Lopez:
On the president's agenda tonight, a fund-raiser celebrating cryptocurrency as his family rakes in billions from crypto products. The event costs $1.5 million per person and will benefit the MAGA Inc. pro-Trump super PAC.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.
Amna Nawaz:
For more on how the Trump administration is approaching due process and other rights granted under the Constitution, I'm joined now by Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.

Steve, great to see you. Thanks for joining us.

Let me ask you about the part of the interview in which President Trump is asked if he should uphold the Constitution. In the first part of his answer, he says, "I don't know."

What do you make of that response? Is it the duty of the presidency to uphold the Constitution, or is that open to interpretation?
Steve Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center:
It's not open to interpretation, Amna.

I mean, the president has taken the same oath twice, once in 2017 and once just 3.5 months ago. It's only 35 words. I suspect he probably knows some of it. And it ends with him saying that he will affirm, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's his job.

And maybe there are questions that can be debated in the courts, but whether the due process clause protects people is not a question. It literally says that it does. The Supreme Court has said it applies to anyone in the United States for more than 100 years now.
Amna Nawaz:
Let me ask you about the argument being made by the White House, because, on this issue of due process, the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, posted this online today.
He wrote:
"The right of due process is to protect citizens from their government, not to protect foreign trespassers from removal. Due process guarantees the rights of a criminal defendant facing prosecution, not an illegal alien facing deportation."

So, Steve, does the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment extend to citizens and noncitizens alike?
Steve Vladeck:
So it does. I mean, again, the text says, no person, not no citizen.

The Supreme Court has been clear for decades that that includes individuals who are here out of status who are undocumented. And, Amna, I mean, the other point is, even if you accept the premise of what Stephen Miller is saying, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that undocumented immigrants are not protected by the due process clause, how do we know that individuals the federal government points the finger at and says, oh, they're an undocumented immigrant actually is?

The answer is due process. Due process is what allows the government to take extreme actions against us, with the faith that we are who the government says we are, with the faith that we actually fall into the category of people who can be arrested, who can be deported, who can be imprisoned. Without due process, then we're not living under the rule of law. We're living under the arbitrary whims of one person.
Amna Nawaz:
A lot of the due process questions center on the case of a man we have talked about a lot, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador.

The president was asked if he is defying Supreme Court orders to facilitate Garcia's return. And the president said that his attorney general, his Department of Justice, they don't view it that way at all. So, Steve, if his lawyers are telling him that what he's doing is fine and defensible and legal, why shouldn't the president listen to them?
Steve Vladeck:
Well, I think there are two different things going on here. I mean, the first is, I'm not sure that his lawyers are actually telling him what the courts are telling them.

We're seeing both in the hearing in the Abrego Garcia case and in the case of the other individual who a different federal judge in Maryland has ordered to be returned, we're seeing the courts say, hey, we want you, government, to tell us what steps you have taken. Meanwhile, we have President Trump in public interviews saying he hasn't even been asked by the lawyers to request from President Bukele that someone like Abrego Garcia be returned.

So, Amna, part of what's happening here is a shell game, where the president's saying one set of things publicly, where government lawyers are saying something else in court, and where there's some disconnect in between. And what gets lost in the process is that there are not just these two folks who are still in detention and El Salvador, but upwards of 150 to 175 who were removed from the country back in March under the Alien Enemy act, which now we have multiple lower courts saying the government didn't have the power to do.

So we have this tension between a president saying, I have done everything I'm supposed to do, and federal court saying, no, you haven't. And I think we're still in the middle of this story. We're still going to have to see, when this goes back to the Supreme Court, which seems inevitable, are the justices going to require more than just these sort of ambiguous steps toward facilitating the release of these individuals from El Salvador?
Amna Nawaz:
So, Steve, the president mentioned deferring to his lawyers. He mentioned not being a lawyer himself five separate times in this latest interview on NBC.

What does all of this tell you, in the minute or so we have left, about the role of the White House counsel, the attorney general, the Department of Justice in this administration?
Steve Vladeck:
I think part of what we're seeing now is something that looks like this, where the president's saying, I'm not a lawyer, and where the lawyers are saying, we just work for the president. It's an effort, I think, on the part of both of these sets of individuals to deflect accountability.

And, at the end of the day, Amna, if the government's going to rely upon this idea that the president is the unitary head of the executive branch, that everyone and everything is supposed to be working for him, that the Justice Department is not our lawyers, they're the president's lawyers, it seems like he can't, in the same breath, deny responsibility, defer accountability, when a government in his name, when lawyers representing him are breaking the law.

And I think that's what we're going to see develop in the federal courts in the days and weeks to come. At some point, the rubber's going to hit the road. And I think the president's not going to be able to play so fast and loose with his responsibilities going forward.
Amna Nawaz:
Steve Vladeck of Georgetown University, thank you so much for your time. Always good to speak with you.
Steve Vladeck:
You too. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the Constitution says about noncitizens' rights as Trump doubts need for due process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last few days, President Trump has repeatedly questioned the constitutional right to due process. His attacks come as the courts warn that the administration is exceeding the scope of his authority. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López reports on the latest and Amna Nawaz discusses how the Trump administration is approaching due process with Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how on September 10th, 2025, Florida’s gun open carry ban was struck down by the state's 1st order of appeal, with Attorney General James Uthemeier declaring residents of the state of Florida free to openly carry guns, as the ban was considered unconstitutional, ending a nearly 40 year old prohibition on open carry guns. This was fully supported by Ron DeSantis, mayor of Florida. The conditions being that the firearm belongs to a law abiding citizen and must be legally possessed under both Florida and federal law. The places that are exceptions to this are schools, college campuses, establishments primarily serving alcohol, federal buildings, polling places during elections, private property, and airports. The state attorney general also advised that law enforcers should refrain from prosecuting law abiding citizens carrying visible firearms. However, the Pinellas County sheriff, Bob Gualteri said that this does not apply statewide, showing that he does not stand for this in an attempt to keep it in place where he could control. The 2nd amendment is involved because, although Florida’s ban on openly carrying guns violates the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” It also increases public safety risks and the potential for misuse, with a big impact on vulnerable people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Florida attorney general declares open carry of guns ‘law of the state’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
James Uthmeier made his pronouncement amid a back-and-forth among various law enforcement agencies as to how they would handle open-carry incidents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal employees can pray and preach in the workplace under new Trump rules 

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal employees can pray and preach in the workplace under new Trump rules 

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows a new work guideline on praying and preaching for federal employees. Under a new rule issued by the Trump administration, federal employees can now pray and preach in their workplace. The guidelines, which were outlined by the Office of Personnel Management, stated that public employees could now freely pray, discuss religion, and encourage others to adopt their certain religion. Supervisors and managers are also encouraged to allow employees to express their religion in the workplace. This new guideline doesn’t endorse a specific religion, though.

In this article, the first amendment is involved, but some people are saying it violates the first amendment while others are saying the new guideline is reaffirming it. Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation states that this new rule conflicts with the Constitution. He said, “If your supervisor decides to sit down and make it very clear that it’s important to her or him, that you accept this weaponized version of the gospel of Jesus Christ, what do you think your chances are for advancement?” Weinstein makes a good point, saying that if your supervisor pressures you into joining a specific religion and you don’t comply, it would be nearly impossible for you to be promoted. It would create a hostile work environment, which would not be great for the federal government.

On the other hand, Andrew Walker, an associate dean at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says this guideline that the Trump Administration implemented is just a basic example of the First Amendment. “To me, that’s simply reaffirming the First Amendment, that has proper caveats if you’re not engaging in harassing behavior. I think this is just reiterating basic principles of the First Amendment,” he says. He believes that this regulation actually is a reaffirmation of the First Amendment: freedom of religion. Walker also thinks this guideline “resets things back to neutrality”. He sees the policy as simply restoring the neutral stance, rather than taking an active side.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal employees can pray and preach in the workplace under new Trump rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The White House noted that similar language was issued under President Clinton.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-los-angeles-immigration.html

The Supreme Court ruled that police officers can freely pull over people they suspect of being illegal immigrants and question them as they please. This was put in place to support President Trump‘s effort to ramp up immigrant arrests. This ruling pertains to the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Many incidents involving police being unreasonably violent towards suspected immigrants have been caught on video and retold by victims. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says that this ruling is plainly racist and that it is not a good enough reason to pull someone over just because they speak Spanish, look Mexican, or work a low-age job. Supreme Court Justice Brent kavanaugh said that the ruling was made because 10% of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States, meaning about 2 million illegal immigrants out of the total population of 20 million.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how there have been many more arrests due to a recent law enforcement surge in Washington D.C. One of many of these such arrests was Mr. Riley, who was arrested for possession of two handguns in his bag at Trader Joes. Mr. Riley's case has been under much dispute as many prosecutors concluded that he was unlawfully searched by the police which violates his Fourth Amendment rights. Before the surge the case would likely have been dismissed. Some people in Ms. Pirro's office, the Washington D.C attorney, said that she pushed to charge the case. A statement made by Ms. Pirro about the case was, "My job is to prosecute crime in what was one of the most violent cities in the world. In so doing, I will always act with integrity and responsibility. Under my watch prosecutors will be aggressive in getting guns off the street and arguing cases to judges, who make final determinations, but they will do so consistent with the law and the facts." But on the other side, concerns for dropping the case are that in consequence it will be harder to search people on the street. This could affect crime fighting for years to come.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article the writer talks about the assassination Charlie Kirk. In the beginning of the article he talks about how Trump is using Kirks death to win over his political opponents. His administration is using his death to push forward there ideas and concepts. The writer also talks about the people that celebrated this killing, and what they think about free speech. As the writer states, "they have rejected free speech so thoroughly that they were happy to see a bullet stop a conversation". Another key point in this article is how this event now connects to earlier in American history. Of course its Fredrick Douglass. Douglass was an abolitionist who fought for racial equality. He gave many speeches and he had the right to, but even so people did not think so. So he talked about freedom of speech, and advocated for it. As you can may guess there are two sides of this freedom to speech right. Theres the pro-free speech advocates, and theres the opposite of that which is advocating for limited free speech. Pro-free advocates think that offensive or hateful speech must stay protected. The reason is to preserve a just and free society, and enables progress for a better country. On the other side of things limited free of speech believers think that certain ideas of speech shouldn't be aloud (mostly hate speech). They want to keep a more civil place, and rules college campuses for no harmful speak. This type of thinking of no hate speech is particularly in todays world. Which could lead to more violence, and things could repeat themselves like we've seen happen already.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump has commented in an interview that he doesn't know if US citizens or non-citizens deserve due process rights. In the example of the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, where the El Salvadorean man w as mistakenly deported and imprisoned. A Supreme Court order has been issued to the Trump administration to work to bring Abrego Garcia back. The amendment involved in this case is the fifth amendment. People believe Abrego Garcia's fifth amendment rights were violated because he was deported without a trial. However, Trump doesn't think he deserved the rights, or if the fifth amendment should be a right to people in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump says he doesn’t know if he backs constitutional due process rights in new interview

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump is circumspect about his duties to uphold due process rights laid out in the Constitution, saying in a new interview that he does not know whether U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike deserve that guarantee.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the 2nd Amendment, which is the Right To Bear Arms. In 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear a set of cases challenging Illinois’ ban on certain semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. The court also said it would not take on 2 more cases on gun violence. After New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Brue n, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts cannot regulate guns because of “preventing crime” but must prove that there is a historical parallel to when the amendment was written. One side argues that guns are protected by the second amendment, while others believe there should be restrictions on them. Especially when they are assault weapons.

Illinois passed a law banning high powered weapons, after a mass shooting that killed seven and injured 30. On the 4th of July parade in 2022, a shooter walked into Highland Park and started shooting his AR-15. He was not firing a pistol, but a weapon which can fire many rounds per minute. Illinois defended their decision by saying their goal was to prevent further shootings. According to a statement, the governor said most shootings occur with high powered weapons, which people have no daily use for.

The law was passed so long ago, so the context in which this amendment applies is heavily debated. Many people have been pressuring saying that the second amendment applies forever, but now more than ever we need to see if it is legal. Many people say that it is a true right, however restrictions need to be imposed, as we do not have a militia on a day to day basis.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/supreme-court-gun-rights-00166397

# data[].attributes.body
Florida Attorney James Uthmeier announced that state residents now have the right to openly carry guns following a recent appeals court decision that eradicated Florida’s 40 year old ban. During the ban, Stan McDaniels was arrested for bearing a firearm despite having a defensible weapon permit. He appealed his case to the 1st District Court Appeal, which ordered in his favor, reasoning that the state had  misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment allowing who carries weapons.

The 2nd amendment,” The Right to Bear Arms,” is involved in this article. Well-behaved citizens can openly or concealed bear firearms. The court ruled that Florida’s 40 year old ban was unconstitutional. The Second Amendment grants rights that are not absolute and are limited. High-risk or densely populated areas are put at lower risk, by reinstating and maintaining bans. Modern gun rights need reinterpretation from current actualities. This supports stricter gun laws or looks at the amendment’s relevance in modern law. Courts must balance individual rights especially with social impact including law enforcement concerns and crime. This can support compromises such as allowing open carry, but requiring permits or safety training. The Republicans typically emphasize individual rights, self defense and minimal government inference, a strong support for open carry. While, the democrats prioritize gun control, background checks, and public safety concerns, more likely to oppose open carry. Governors such as Uthmeire often act from their party’s stance.

# data[].attributes.body
Florida Attorney James Uthmeier announced that state residents now have the right to openly carry guns following a recent appeals court decision that eradicated Florida’s 40 year old ban. During the ban, the state arrested Stan McDaniels for bearing a firearm despite having a defensible weapon authorization. He appealed his case to the 1st District Court Appeal, which ordered in his favor, reasoning that the state had  misinterpreted the historic law regulating who is allowed to carry weapons.

The 2nd amendment,” The Right to Bear Arms,” is involved in this article. Well-behaved citizens can openly or concealed bear firearms. The court ruled that Florida’s 40 year old ban was unconstitutional. The Second Amendment grants rights that are not absolute and are limited. High-risk or densely populated areas are put at lower risk, by reinstating and maintaining bans. Modern gun rights need reinterpretation from current actualities. This supports stricter gun laws or looks at the amendment’s relevance in modern law. Courts must protect individual’s rights such with social impact including law enforcement concerns and crime. This can support compromises such as allowing open carry, but requiring permits or safety training. The Republicans typically emphasize individual rights, self defense and minimal government inference, a strong support for open carry. While, the democrats prioritize gun control, background checks, and public safety concerns, more likely to oppose open carry. Governors such as Uthmeire often act from their party’s stance.

# data[].attributes.body
ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Off Air for Charlie Kirk Comments After F.C.C. Pressure, by John Koblin, Michael Grynbaum, and Brooks Barnes

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html

The ‘Manosphere’ Reacts to the Jimmy Kimmel News, by Benjamin Hoffman

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/style/the-manosphere-reacts-to-the-jimmy-kimmel-news.html

What to Know About Jimmy Kimmel’s Show Being Suspended, by Kailyn Rhone

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/business/jimmy-kimmel-show-abc-kirk-fcc.html

In Pressuring ABC Over Kimmel, Trump May Have Crossed a Constitutional Line, by Adam Liptak

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/supreme-court-jimmy-kimmel-free-speech.html

The Conservative Principle Behind the Kimmel Suspension, by Ross Douthat

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/opinion/jimmy-kimmel-conservative-principle-trump.html

On Wednesday, September 17, late night show host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended indefinitely by the network ABC. His suspension came after social media backlash over remarks he made two days before regarding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, where he described "the MAGA gang" as "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it." (Koblin et al.) Many conservative activists said this was inaccurate and offensive. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission that regulates communications in the US, weighed in; during his appearance on a right-wing podcast he said that "these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead." That Wednesday, Nexstar (which owns many ABC affiliate stations and is in the midst of a bid to acquire a rival company that would require FCC approval) announced that it would preempt Kimmel's program due to his remarks over Kirk's death, a decision that Carr praised on social media, and ABC made the decision to suspend Kimmel.

This was met with a variety of reactions. While ABC is a private entity not limited by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is a violation of the First Amendment for a government official to "use the power of the state to punish or suppress disfavored expression" (Adam Liptak). Some believe the events leading up to Kimmel's suspension were not in violation of the First Amendment and that ABC acted independently. Others believe that Carr's remarks invoked the power of the FCC and unduly pressured ABC. Right-wingers such as President Trump and Steve Bannon praised the suspension, while Kimmel's fellow late night show host David Letterman criticized ABC's decision "as an attempt to appease an 'authoritarian' administration" (Kailyn Rhone).

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/us/politics/what-to-know-hate-speech.html

Charlie Kirk, a famous liberal known for his debates, was shot and killed for his opinions and controversial views. Many are claiming that he died voicing his thoughts and that the first amendment, which is freedom of speech, failed to protect that. This article dives deeper into what hate speech is and the consequences for it if caught. There’s an interesting part where it ties hate speech to freedom of speech, and how if people are allowed to freely express how they feel, where would hate speech fall into the category? Looking back at the situation with Charlie Kirk, the first and second amendment is involved. The first amendment is freedom of speech and the second amendment is the right to bear arms, which is firearms/guns. Online, there’s a lot of speculation online about the shooting and many people have reached out to have their say. An attorney said, “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.” and “we will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

In the article, it talks about what defines hate speech and whether or not the first amendment prevents or encourages that. Although it’s vague, there’s definitely a fine line between hate speech and active threats. Inciting violence or advocating for terrorism isn’t enough to get the law involved but “the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away.” A while back, the Supreme Court realized that there should be certain exceptions to this, so a law was enforced. In 2023, directly issuing threats to people online would be a crime but that ​​”prosecutors must prove that the speakers had acted at least recklessly.” The article pretty much summarizes that and it really asks the question. Should the first amendment go through some changes considering how the first amendment can be so flexible?

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Trump says that he will be making new guidelines on the right to prayer in public schools. Trump claims in the article that “For most of our country’s history, the Bible was found in every classroom in the nation, yet in many schools today students are instead indoctrinated with anti-religious propaganda and some are punished for their religious beliefs. Very, very strongly punished” While students are allowed to practice their own religion, the Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that state-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the First Amendment. Trump didn't go into detail of what the new guidance will include, but during the 2024 campaign he promised to “bring back prayer” to public schools. This is related to the amendment of being able to practice religion because Trump is saying he will make new rules for kids being allowed to practice religion, despite this never being an issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump says he’ll direct Education Department to protect praying in public school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trump reiterated plans to protect religious freedom in schools, a promise he made throughout the 2024 campaign.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Are We Still Strip-Searching Prisoners?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Are We Still Strip-Searching Prisoners?

# data[].attributes.body
Why are we still strip searching people in prison. This is a practice that has been happening for a long time and it is the cause of a lot of trauma when said person is released from jail. In the article they say "After Ms. McCarter was released from jail, the trauma caused by strip searches followed her, and she experienced flashbacks when she saw anyone in uniform." which is very traumatic considering that she was already a sexual assault survivor. This connects to the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights saying that it protects people from being searched without a probable cause. This is a example of people getting searched without a strong cause.

Two sides of this story is of the prosecutor thinand of the person that is dealing with the consequences of the punishments. Sexual assault is catorgarized in many different terms and strip searching is one of them.

# data[].attributes.body
This article speaks on several Supreme Court rulings, all of which surround the Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

The first case surrounds the subject of death penalty brought up by a Louisiana court case, sentencing 43-year old Patrick Kennedy to death for the rape of his 8-year old stepdaughter. The final ruling, with a 5-4 vote, overturned the death penalty for being a violation of the Eighth Amendment as the rape was not accompanied by the death of the victim. Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion states that "...death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." And that the decisions made today do not affect the imposition of the death penalty on non-murder crimes, such as treason or espionage. Justice Samuel Alito writes in dissent that "It is the judgement of the...[states lawmakers]...that these harms justify the death penalty." and that the trauma caused to the victims of these situations is severally grave.

The second case covers the decision of the punitive damages amount of $2.5 billion for victims in the Exxon spill, an oil spill covering 1,200 miles of the Alaskan coastline. Exxon had asked the court to reject punitive damages as it had already paid $3.4 billion in response to the accident. In the vote of 5-3, the amount was cut from $2.5 billion to $500 million, with Justice David Souter stating that "...punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court Rejects Executions for Child Rape, Reduces Damages Against Exxon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child and reduced the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.