The Garza Examiner

The Real News

  • United Nations Human Rights Petition

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    This petition, documents what it characterizes as systematic human rights violations by U.S. immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, spanning arbitrary detention, family separation, racial profiling, excessive force, and suppression of free expression.

    Why it matters:

    The core argument is that these aren’t isolated incidents but a pattern — backed by government oversight reports, federal court rulings, NGO documentation, and investigative journalism. With 73,000+ people in ICE detention (a record high), at least 30 deaths in custody in 2025 alone, and specific cases like a 10-year-old detained with her mother and a man whose skull was fractured in eight places during an arrest, the human cost is concrete and ongoing.

    Why activists should engage the UN and NGOs:

    Domestic remedies have largely failed. Courts have pushed back on some policies, but enforcement continues and internal oversight bodies have been dismantled. International mechanisms — UN Special Rapporteurs, the Universal Periodic Review, and organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International — represent pressure points outside the domestic legal system that can spotlight violations, embarrass governments diplomatically, and build public accountability when national institutions fall short.

    Attached is the petition submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council by The Garza Examiner.

    UN Human Rights PetitionDownload

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • DOJ Indicts Telehealth Company in $100 Million Adderall Scheme, Exposing Regulatory Failures in Digital Medicine

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    A federal grand jury in San Francisco has indicted a California-based telehealth company and a Florida medical practice for allegedly orchestrating a massive scheme to illegally distribute Adderall, commit health care fraud, and obstruct justice—an indictment that highlights growing failures in telehealth oversight.

    According to the Department of Justice, Done Global Inc.—which marketed itself as a “digital health company”—used a subscription-based model to unlawfully distribute more than 40 million pills of Adderall and other stimulants, generating over $100 million in revenue. A Florida practice, Mindful Mental Wellness P.A., was allegedly created to help continue the scheme after pharmacies began refusing Done-affiliated prescriptions.

    Federal prosecutors say Done Global exploited telehealth loopholes to bypass basic medical safeguards, instructing prescribers to issue stimulant prescriptions without legitimate medical purpose.

    “Done Global used lies and deceit to carry out a sophisticated and wide-ranging telehealth fraud scheme,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti.

    Telehealth as a Distribution Pipeline

    Court documents allege prescriptions were routinely issued without in-person examinations, without established doctor-patient relationships, and in some cases without any video or audio interaction at all. Patients allegedly did not meet DSM-V criteria for ADHD, posed diversion risks, or were prescribed dosages and combinations far outside accepted medical practice.

    Instead of using technology to expand access to care, prosecutors allege Done Global weaponized telehealth to maximize profit.

    “Controlled substances are not commodities to be marketed through memberships,” said DEA Assistant Administrator Cheri Oz.

    The indictment alleges Done Global and its partners offered few treatment options beyond stimulants—turning medical care into a pharmaceutical pipeline.

    Defrauding Federal Programs and Obstructing Justice

    Prosecutors further allege Done Global submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers, disguising unlawful prescriptions to obtain reimbursement. When pharmacies began blocking Done-affiliated providers in 2023, the company allegedly incorporated the Florida practice to circumvent restrictions.

    The indictment also charges Done Global with conspiracy to obstruct justice, alleging executives altered, destroyed, or concealed records after receiving a grand jury subpoena.

    “Running a sham operation to exploit federal programs is a blatant abuse,” said HHS-OIG Deputy Inspector General Christian Schrank.

    Regulatory Failure with Real Consequences

    The case exposes a broader regulatory failure: telehealth expanded rapidly during COVID-era emergency policies, but enforcement lagged behind. As this indictment shows, inadequate oversight allowed controlled substances to be prescribed at industrial scale—placing patient safety and public health at risk.

    Done Global’s founder Ruthia He and former clinical president David Brody were previously convicted of controlled-substance and health care fraud conspiracies, underscoring the alleged criminal nature of the operation.

    Charges and Accountability

    Done Global faces charges including conspiracy to illegally distribute Adderall, health care fraud, and obstruction of justice. If convicted, the company faces penalties of up to twice the gross profits or losses tied to the scheme. Mindful Mental Wellness faces similar exposure.

    Federal officials emphasized that telehealth remains a legitimate tool—but warned that abuse of digital medicine undermines trust in the health care system.

    An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • OP-ED: James Talarico Is the Best Candidate to Replace John Cornyn

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    Texas politics is at an inflection point. For over two decades, John Cornyn has represented the state in the U.S. Senate, becoming a fixture of the Republican establishment. But with a shifting electorate, growing generational divides, and rising discontent with politics as usual, Texans are looking for leaders who reflect the future, not the past. That is where James Talarico comes in.

    Talarico, at just 36, embodies a generational shift. Unlike Cornyn, who has spent much of his career entrenched in Washington’s insider politics, Talarico brings an educator’s perspective, a millennial’s lived experience, and a reformer’s urgency. He has already distinguished himself in the Texas Legislature as a pragmatic Democrat who can build coalitions without compromising principle.

    At a time when younger voters are disengaged from politics, Talarico offers someone who speaks their language, not just rhetorically, but in substance. Issues like affordable healthcare, student debt, climate resilience, and modernizing the economy are not abstractions to him; they are lived realities. He brings both policy expertise and personal understanding to the table.

    Cornyn’s career has been marked by loyalty to the party line, even when it conflicts with Texans’ best interests. Talarico, by contrast, has shown a willingness to call out hypocrisy, defend democratic norms, and stand firm on core values. His legislative record demonstrates independence, refusing to bow to special interests and instead focusing on tangible reforms that affect everyday Texans.

    Texas is not the same state it was when Cornyn first took office. It is younger, more diverse, more urban, and more dynamic. Talarico’s policy vision reflects this reality:

    • Healthcare: Advocating for affordable, accessible healthcare for all Texans.
    • Education: Bringing an educator’s perspective, he understands that investing in schools is investing in the state’s future prosperity.
    • Economy: Supporting small businesses, job training, and innovation rather than prioritizing corporate donors.
    • Democracy: Standing against voter suppression and defending the right of every Texan to participate in the democratic process.

    These priorities resonate with a modern Texas electorate, one that is less interested in ideological battles and more concerned with whether their leaders can solve problems.

    Critics will argue that Texas is still a Republican stronghold, but the numbers tell a different story. Beto O’Rourke came within striking distance in 2018. Suburban counties are trending blue. Younger, first-time voters are entering the rolls every cycle. With the right candidate, Democrats have a viable path to victory statewide, and Talarico has the authenticity and relatability to galvanize this coalition.

    Unlike establishment Democrats who carry baggage from years in politics, Talarico presents himself as an authentic outsider – someone who didn’t come up through the donor class, but through the classroom. That distinction matters.

    The question Texans must ask is simple: do we want another six years of John Cornyn’s predictable politics, or do we want someone who actually represents the Texas of today and tomorrow?

    James Talarico offers not just a new face, but a new vision-rooted in integrity, shaped by lived experience, and focused on the future. If Democrats are serious about flipping a Senate seat in Texas, and if Texans are serious about securing leadership that reflects their values, James Talarico is the strongest choice to replace John Cornyn.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • Mendez v. Westminster: The Forgotten Precursor to Brown v. Board of Education

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    Mendez v. Westminster: The Forgotten Precursor to Brown v. Board of Education

    In 1946, nearly a decade before Brown v. Board of Education reshaped American civil rights law, a quiet but groundbreaking case in California took on racial segregation in public schools—and won. Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County became the first federal court case to rule that school segregation based on national origin was unconstitutional. Though not as widely known as Brown, Mendez laid the legal and moral groundwork for ending racial segregation in American education.

    The case began in 1945, when Sylvia Mendez, a nine-year-old U.S. citizen of Mexican descent, was denied enrollment in an all-white elementary school in the Westminster School District. Though her family was considered legally “white” under U.S. law—thanks to the classification system created by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848—Sylvia was rejected due to her darker complexion, Mexican ancestry, and limited English proficiency. This practice was not unique to Westminster. Throughout California, roughly 80% of school districts had created separate “Mexican schools” by the 1930s, often under pressure from white parents.

    Five Mexican-American families—led by Gonzalo Mendez, Sylvia’s father—sued four school districts in Orange County. They argued that the segregation of their children was discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The districts attempted to justify the policy by citing supposed intellectual and moral inferiority among Mexican-American students. One superintendent, James Kent, went so far as to claim that people of Mexican descent were “intellectually, culturally, and morally inferior to European Americans.”

    The federal district court disagreed. On February 18, 1946, Judge Paul McCormick issued a scathing ruling against the school districts, writing, “The clear purpose of the segregation by the school districts was to discriminate against pupils of Mexican descent.” He added, “We conclude by holding that the allegations of the complaint (petition) have been established sufficiently to justify injunctive relief against all defendants, restraining further discriminatory practices.”

    The court found that separating children based on ancestry, language, or appearance constituted a denial of equal protection under the law. Roughly 5,000 Mexican-American students were affected by the decision, which applied across the four defendant school districts in Orange County.

    The importance of Mendez v. Westminster extended beyond California. The decision inspired a broader legal strategy among civil rights lawyers, including Thurgood Marshall, who submitted an amicus brief in support of the Mendez family on behalf of the NAACP. Just eight years later, Marshall would successfully argue Brown v. Board of Education before the U.S. Supreme Court, which relied heavily on the equal protection logic laid out in Mendez.

    The Mendez case did not appear in a vacuum. It followed a pattern of legal discrimination against Latinos in California. In People v. Zamora (1944)—also known as the Sleepy Lagoon trial—seventeen Mexican-American youths were convicted in the largest mass trial in California history. The prosecutor’s arguments hinged not just on evidence but on stereotypes tied to appearance, clothing, and perceived cultural traits. Over 600 Mexican-American youths were detained during that case, foreshadowing the broader racial profiling and bias that would also be at play in the Mendez litigation.

    A timeline of key events underscores the deep roots of institutional bias:

    • 1848 – The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War, classifying Mexican-Americans as legally “white” in U.S. records.
    • 1910–1920 – The Mexican Revolution spurred widespread migration to the United States, including California.
    • 1930s – Public schools across California began creating segregated institutions for Mexican-American children under the guise of language or ability.
    • October 4, 1944 – People v. Zamora results in the conviction of seventeen Latino youths, with cultural bias central to the prosecution’s argument.
    • July 1945 – Mendez and four other families file suit in federal court against four segregated school districts.
    • February 18, 1946 – Judge McCormick declares the segregation of Mexican students unconstitutional.

    Though often overshadowed in mainstream historical narratives, Mendez v. Westminster remains a critical case in American legal history. It not only provided a successful legal challenge to segregation years before Brown, but also demonstrated the power of Latino civil rights advocacy. Sylvia Mendez would later receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her role in the case, symbolizing its lasting impact on the pursuit of educational equity in the United States.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • 1973: San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    “In sum, to the extent that the Texas system of school financing results in unequal expenditures between children who happen to reside in different districts, we cannot say that such disparities are the product of a system that is so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory.”

    —Justice Lewis Powell

    The 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision in San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez (1973) ruled no constitutional right to an equal education, held no violation of rights in Texas’ school system, and reserved jurisdiction and management of Texas’ public school finance system to the state.

    On July 10, 1968, Demitrio Rodriguez and a group of San Antonio parents filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of minority students from low-income school districts. Their attorney, Arthur Gochman, denounced Texas’ inequitable public school finance system, and showed that the Edgewood district, with a predominantly Mexican-American population, and one of the highest tax rates in the Bexar Country, received $37 per pupil, while the more affluent and Anglo students in Alamo Heights got $413 per pupil.

    A three-judge federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs finding Texas’ public school finance system discriminatory based on wealth. They argued this inequity was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Additionally, they ruled that education is a “fundamental” right. The State of Texas appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    On March 21, 1973, Justice Powell delivered the Supreme Court decision stating that the “Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality of precisely equal advantages”. Furthermore, the court ruled that the State of Texas had not “deprived” any student access to education, an entity not protected by the 14th Amendment. They also found no occurring discrimination on the basis of wealth, and retained management of school funding methods to the state and its representatives.

    In 1984, Rodriguez v. San Antonio ISD (1973) led to another U.S. Supreme Court landmark case: Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby (1992), where Demitrio Rodriguez, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and parent associations challenged Texas’ school funding system again. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held Texas’ school financing system unconstitutional.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • BRIEF: Defending Birthright Citizenship: Why Trump v. CASA Must Be Rejected

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    Defending Birthright Citizenship

    The Supreme Court’s consideration of Trump v. CASA threatens to upend a foundational principle of American constitutional law: the guarantee of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument advanced by former President Trump and his allies—to exclude the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants from citizenship—is not only legally untenable but historically, economically, and jurisprudentially dangerous. Based on the clear constitutional text, historical precedent, and the weight of legal scholarship and judicial reasoning, this Court must reject Trump v. CASA. The doctrine it seeks to overturn is not “egregiously wrong,” has not caused negative consequences, and its reversal would severely disrupt the nation’s reliance on settled law.

    I. The Fourteenth Amendment Is Clear: Birth on U.S. Soil Grants Citizenship

    The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The plain text offers no ambiguity. As reaffirmed by the U.S. District Court in Coughenour’s Order (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. (2025), and repeatedly emphasized in the USCA Plaintiff States’ Answering Brief and the SCOTUS Syllabus, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes only those immune from U.S. law, such as foreign diplomats—not immigrants, whether documented or not (Supreme Court of the United States, 2025; United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2025).

    The historical context reinforces this interpretation. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants—then ineligible for naturalization—was a citizen. This controlling precedent binds the Court today. The Trump administration’s attempt to redefine “jurisdiction” contravenes both precedent and original intent, as amicus briefs from the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and several legal historians (see Pro Congress Amicus 2025 (Weinberg et al., 2025), Pro Dickson Amicus 2024) show in compelling detail.

    II. Trump v. CASA Fails All Three Tests for Overruling Precedent

    1. The Precedent Is Not Grievously Wrong

    The standard for overturning precedent is not mere disagreement but egregious error. Wong Kim Ark and its progeny are not only doctrinally correct but essential to constitutional coherence. The Meese Amicus Brief claims that the original meaning of “jurisdiction” supports the Trump administration’s view, but their reading collapses under historical scrutiny (Meese, 2025). Congress’s own arguments (Pro Congress Amicus 2025) demonstrate how both Reconstruction-era lawmakers and early courts understood “jurisdiction” to include nearly all persons physically present on U.S. soil. There is no grievous error to correct (Members of Congress, 2024).

    The legal coherence of the Wong Kim Ark precedent is further reinforced by its alignment with long-standing principles of Anglo-American common law, which historically granted citizenship based on jus soli—the right of the soil. As the Plaintiff States Answering Brief underscores, the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intentionally chose this inclusive approach to ensure that all those born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, excluding only narrowly defined categories like diplomats, would receive equal protection and status under the law (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2025a). Attempts to now carve out exceptions based on parental immigration status would not only rewrite this intent but distort the very structure of constitutional interpretation. No new historical evidence or legal evolution has emerged that renders the Wong Kim Ark framework obsolete or deeply flawed. On the contrary, its continuing application proves its durability and correctness. Thus, the precedent stands not as a grievous error, but as a cornerstone of America’s constitutional promise.

    2. No Significant Negative Jurisprudential or Real-World Consequences

    The precedent has generated negative effects—not at all. The decades of continuity of citizenship for all U.S.-born kids have generated legal continuity, social harmony, and a knowable rule of law. The BAMN and Chin amicus briefs (CON) (Chin et al., 2025) bemoan illegal immigration and social expense, but these are congressional policy arguments, not constitutional re-readings for the Court. And the economic contributions of U.S.-born kids of immigrants are staggering. Studies referenced in the Plaintiff States Answering Brief illustrate that these individuals are more likely to pay taxes, work, and graduate, thus making the economy stronger, not weaker (American Immigration Council, 2024).

    Also, as Executive Order 14160 (2025) confirms, birthright citizenship supports integration and not exclusion (Executive Office of the President, 2025). Limiting citizenship would create a permanent underclass and cause stateless children to arise and violate international human rights norms, as defined in the Local Government Amicus Brief (CON) against Trump’s position in spite of being under “CON” (Public Rights Project, 2025).

    3. Overruling Would Unduly Upset Reliance Interests

    American governments, institutions, and families have functioned for more than a century under the presumption that birth within U.S. territory is equivalent to citizenship. Turning this around would not alter the law—it would retroactively denationalize millions of individuals. As the Iowa SCOTUS Amicus Brief 2025 describes, dependence on this doctrine is pervasive, from state departments granting driving licenses to schools admitting students as citizens (Bird & Wessan, 2025). Betrayal of that trust would cause monumental bureaucratic disruption, psychic trauma, and civic destabilization.

    Children and families have built lives, careers, and communities based on the certainty of their constitutional status. To remove that certainty now, as Trump v. CASA seeks to do, would violate the very rule-of-law values that the Court purports to uphold.

    III. Immigration Law and Racial Preference: A Dark History Not to Be Repeated

    The Trump administration’s selective reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment echoes past immigration laws that favored white European immigrants. The United States has a shameful history of racially motivated immigration restrictions—such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and national origin quotas—which the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to counterbalance (United States Constitution Annotated, 2004). Amicus briefs like the Pro CCJ Amicus Brief 2025 warn that Trump v. CASA would reinstate a racialized citizenship policy in all but name, undermining a century of progress toward equality under the law (The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, 2025).

    Rather than correcting a constitutional wrong, Trump’s legal strategy imposes one. It punishes children—born under American laws, within American borders—for the status of their parents. This is neither constitutionally justified nor morally defensible.

    Conclusion: Uphold the Constitution, Reject Trump v. CASA

    The case for maintaining birthright citizenship is legally sound, historically grounded, and morally just. Trump v. CASA fails every test for reversing precedent. The controlling law is not egregiously wrong, it has not produced harmful consequences, and millions of people have rightly relied on it. To overturn this doctrine would not restore constitutional fidelity; it would betray it.

    The Court should affirm the district and appellate courts’ rulings and reject the dangerous revisionism at the heart of Trump v. CASA. Birthright citizenship is not a loophole. It is a promise—a constitutional commitment to equality and inclusion—that must be kept.

    References

    American Immigration Council. (2024, October). Fact sheet: Debunking the myth of immigrants and crime. https://www.publicrightsproject.org/immigrants-crime-fact-sheet

    B.A.M.N. (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary). (2025, April 29). Brief amicus curiae of B.A.M.N. in support of respondents, Trump v. CASA, Inc., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (U.S. Supreme Court).

    B.A.M.N. (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary). (2025, April 29). Brief amicus curiae of B.A.M.N. in support of respondents, Trump v. CASA, Inc., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (U.S. Supreme Court).

    Bird, B., & Wessan, E. (2025). Brief of Iowa and 19 other States as amici curiae in support of applicants, Donald J. Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al.; Donald J. Trump, et al. v. State of Washington, et al.; Donald J. Trump, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al. Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886. Supreme Court of the United States.

    Chin, G. J., Lee, E., & Finkelman, P. (2025). Brief for Professors Gabriel J. Chin, Erika Lee, and Paul Finkelman as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886, Supreme Court of the United States.

    Dickson, W. T. (2024). Brief of William T. Dickson as amicus curiae in support of applications for stay, Donald J. Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (U.S.). Supreme Court of the United States.

    Executive Office of the President. (2025, January 29). Executive Order 14160: Protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. Federal Register. https://federalregister.gov/d/2025-02007

    Meese, E. III. (2025). Brief of Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III as amicus curiae in support of applications for stay, Donald J. Trump, et al., Applicants, v. CASA, Inc., et al.; Washington, et al.; New Jersey, et al. (Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886). Supreme Court of the United States.

    Members of Congress. (2024). Brief of Members of Congress as Amici Curiae in support of applications for stays, Donald J. Trump et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (U.S. Supreme Court).

    Public Rights Project. (2025). Brief of Amici Curiae Local Governments and Local Government Officials in Support of Respondents, Donald J. Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (U.S. July 2025). Supreme Court of the United States.

    Supreme Court of the United States. (2025, June 27). Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al., 24A884.

    The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. (2025). Brief of amicus curiae the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of applicants, Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886. Supreme Court of the United States.

    Trump v. CASA, Inc., et al., No. 24A (U.S. Supreme Court, Application for Partial Stay of Injunction, filed Jan. 20, 2025).

    United States Constitution Annotated. (2004). Fourteenth Amendment: Rights guaranteed—Privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process and equal protection (pp. 1671–1959). U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2004/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2004.pdf

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (2025). Brief for Appellants, State of Washington, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 25-807 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025).

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (2025a, April 4). Plaintiff States’ Answering Brief, States of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon v. Donald Trump et al., No. 25-807 (9th Cir.).

    United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. (2025, February 6). Order granting preliminary injunction, State of Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

    Weinberg, J., Jensen, D., Bass, M., & Chan, L. (2025). Brief of Members of the U.S. Congress as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents. Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886, Supreme Court of the United States.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • 1943: Zoot Suit Riots

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    In 1942, the People v. Zamora trial, officially People v. Zammora due to a court reporter’s error; set off a wave of tension and violence in wartime Los Angeles. The case revolved around the murder of José Gallardo Díaz, whose body was found at the Sleepy Lagoon reservoir on August 2, 1942. Authorities swiftly targeted Hispanic youth, associating their distinctive “zoot suit” attire with gang affiliation and criminality. Zoot suits, characterized by exaggeratedly high-waisted trousers and oversized jackets, became symbols of defiance and cultural identity for many young Hispanics, Blacks, and Filipinos.

    In the aftermath of Díaz’s death, police apprehended hundreds of young Latinos, ultimately charging 22 youths with murder and assault. The highly publicized trial spotlighted racial bias and prejudice. The defendants’ zoot suit style and “Pachuco” hairstyles were inaccurately portrayed as evidence of criminal tendencies, significantly influencing public opinion and judicial proceedings. On January 13, 1943, three defendants were convicted of first-degree murder, nine received second-degree murder convictions, and the rest were acquitted.

    The convictions fueled an atmosphere of intense racial animosity. Service members stationed in Southern California during World War II viewed the zoot suits as unpatriotic, wasteful, and defiant of wartime rationing measures. This tension erupted into violent confrontations known as the Zoot Suit Riots between June 3 and June 8, 1943. Military personnel, aided by civilians, targeted zoot-suit-clad youths, leading to widespread assaults, arrests, and public disturbances. These riots highlighted deeper racial and cultural divisions in wartime America.

    Ultimately, the convictions from the People v. Zamora trial were overturned by the California Court of Appeals in October 1944, acknowledging significant procedural errors and biases during the original trial. Nonetheless, the Zoot Suit Riots and the Sleepy Lagoon trial left an enduring mark on American history, exposing the deep-rooted prejudices faced by minority communities and prompting a broader reflection on civil rights, racial justice, and cultural identity.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • Hernandez v. Texas

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    In 1954, the landmark Supreme Court case Hernandez v. Texas significantly expanded the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, establishing a critical legal precedent against discrimination based on ancestry or national origin. This historic ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, affirmed unequivocally that excluding eligible individuals from jury service solely due to their ethnic background constituted unconstitutional discrimination.

    The case arose from a tragic event in 1951, when Pete Hernandez, a Mexican-American cotton picker from Edna, Texas, was accused of murdering Joe Espinoza. Hernandez faced trial before an exclusively Anglo-Saxon jury, despite Mexican-Americans comprising 14% of the local population. Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, Hernandez became the focal point of a broader struggle against systemic discrimination and racial injustice.

    Determined to challenge this glaring inequality, Mexican-American civil rights attorneys Gus Garcia, Carlos Cadena, and James de Anda took Hernandez’s case to the United States Supreme Court. Arguing that Hernandez’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause had been violated, the legal team emphasized that no Mexican-American had served as a jury commissioner, petit juror, or grand juror in Jackson County or more than 50 other predominantly Mexican-American counties in Texas since 1926.

    Initially, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld Hernandez’s conviction, asserting that Mexican-Americans fell within the “two-class theory,” which categorized them as a subgroup of the white race, thus exempting them from protection against discrimination. Rejecting this reasoning, Garcia, Cadena, and de Anda, supported by funds raised by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Pan American Union, the American G.I. Forum, and local communities, succeeded in having their case heard by the Supreme Court.

    On May 2, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower courts’ rulings, declaring Mexican-Americans a distinct group deserving protection from discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Warren’s ruling explicitly noted, “The exclusion of otherwise eligible persons from jury service solely because of their ancestry or national origin is discrimination prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Although Pete Hernandez was ultimately retried, pleaded guilty, and received a reduced twenty-year sentence, the broader impact of the case was immense. Hernandez v. Texas significantly advanced civil rights by recognizing Mexican-Americans as a distinct class protected by the Constitution, setting a pivotal legal foundation for future anti-discrimination cases.

    The historical significance of Hernandez v. Texas resonates profoundly, illustrating the long struggle for civil rights and equal protection in America and highlighting the vital role of judicial decisions in confronting racial and ethnic discrimination.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • OP-ED: Loomer’s Alligator Tweet Is Not Surprising In Trump’s America

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    Laura Loomer, far-right political activist and commentator made a tweet suggesting to feed the alligators undocumented immigrants. The the makeshift Florida immigration detention center, coined “Alligator Alcatraz“, that was recently toured by the Trump Administration is located in the Florida Everglades – which home to over 200,000 alligators.

    There is not 65 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, according to Pew Research Center – the number is closer to 12 million. There is however, around 65 million Hispanics living in the United States. Loomers Tweet was later taken down by the “X” platform for “violent speech”. Loomer claimed that her Tweet was merely a joke.

    Fundamentally, the content of Loomers Tweet isn’t just about a Tweet. It has nothing to do with Loomer, its the fact that the United States government is being influenced and led by people who believe in violence and bigotry. If the Trump Administration truly cared about America, they would publish real – unfiltered data, discuss important political issues with facts, and condemn fake news and extremism.

    American populism has opened the floodgates to allow extremists and radicals to gain political power. When the Trump Administration first gained power, he moved to empower an overlooked demographic within the Republican Party – the extremists, the theorists, the racists, and ignorant. The mass use of misinformation is widely successful, primarily because American voters do not fact check content. They prefer to believe a lie that aligns with their views rather than researching the topics they believe are important.

    So long as the Trump Administration continues to promote extremism and misinformation, President Trump is only manipulating the bottom denominator of Americans to further his own political agenda.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza

  • ANALYSIS: Trump v. CASA

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    Advertisements

    The Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. significantly reshaped the boundaries of federal courts’ equitable authority by restricting the availability and scope of universal injunctions. Historically, these injunctions have empowered district courts to block executive policies and actions on a national scale, effectively extending relief far beyond the immediate parties involved in litigation. This controversial case emerged from President Trump’s issuance of Executive Order No. 14160, which aimed to limit the scope of birthright citizenship in specific circumstances. Plaintiffs challenged the order as a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the Nationality Act of 1940.

    Critically, the Supreme Court’s majority decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, chose not to address the substantive legality of the executive order itself. Instead, the Court focused on the propriety of the sweeping remedies previously granted by lower federal courts. Justice Barrett grounded her analysis deeply in historical practice and statutory interpretation, particularly emphasizing the original scope of equity powers as delineated by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the equity jurisprudence in England at the time of America’s founding.

    The majority opinion held firmly that federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act must reflect remedies historically recognized by English equity courts during the foundational era. Upon careful examination, the Court found that universal injunctions have no direct historical parallel in traditional equity jurisprudence, neither in English nor early American legal tradition. As Justice Barrett noted, equity traditionally limited injunctions to specific plaintiffs and defendants, rather than broadly encompassing groups or individuals not directly party to litigation. The Court identified clear historical precedents, such as the 1897 Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Donald, which consistently affirmed a narrow, party-specific understanding of equitable relief. This approach sharply contrasts with the expansive reach that modern universal injunctions have increasingly adopted.

    The plaintiffs attempted to justify the universal scope of injunctions based on the principle of providing complete relief. While the Court acknowledged the historical legitimacy of granting complete relief, it firmly rejected the plaintiffs’ expansive interpretation, emphasizing that complete relief must remain inherently limited to parties actually engaged in the case. The Court distinguished between incidental benefits that might accrue to nonparties through tailored injunctions and deliberate efforts to universally extend relief beyond those directly affected. In doing so, the majority decisively rejected any statutory or historical support for intentionally granting nationwide injunctions.

    The opinion also engaged extensively with practical considerations, highlighting significant issues associated with the modern proliferation of universal injunctions. Justice Barrett underscored that universal injunctions have increasingly become strategic tools that encourage litigants to engage in forum shopping, a practice that undermines judicial consistency and predictability. She explained that these injunctions create asymmetric burdens: while plaintiffs need only win one legal challenge to secure nationwide relief, the government must successfully defend its policies in every jurisdiction to maintain their implementation. This uneven playing field, the Court suggested, places undue burdens on government functions and enforcement, raising broader systemic concerns regarding the separation of powers and the appropriate balance between judicial and executive branches.

    In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson vigorously defended the use of universal injunctions as essential judicial tools to swiftly and effectively prevent widespread harm caused by potentially unlawful government actions. They argued that restricting courts’ equitable powers could significantly weaken the judiciary’s capacity to serve as a check on executive authority, potentially allowing executive overreach and legal violations to persist unchecked. These dissenting voices warned that the majority’s decision could create fragmented enforcement scenarios and increase burdens on both the judiciary and plaintiffs by forcing repeated litigation of the same legal questions across multiple jurisdictions.

    Justice Jackson, in her separate dissent, expanded on these themes by articulating a more fundamental critique of the majority’s approach to judicial authority. She contended that courts inherently possess the duty to ensure universal adherence to constitutional and statutory mandates, not merely provide targeted relief to specific litigants. From her perspective, constraining equitable remedies in such a significant manner risks undermining the broader role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional governance. She described the Court’s decision as potentially weakening the overall structural integrity of checks and balances.

    Despite these robust dissenting views, the majority firmly maintained its commitment to historical analysis and statutory interpretation. Justice Barrett emphasized that any significant expansion of equitable remedies, including universal injunctions, should properly be the domain of legislative action, rather than judicial innovation. In essence, the majority underscored the importance of adhering closely to historical precedent and statutory limits to prevent undue judicial activism.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA therefore has profound implications for the future of federal litigation. By substantially limiting the scope of equitable relief, the decision effectively channels litigants toward utilizing class-action procedures established under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This shift aims to provide broad relief where appropriate while ensuring procedural safeguards are upheld for all affected parties. Thus, the ruling not only clarifies the historical and statutory boundaries of federal courts’ equitable powers but also signals a broader jurisprudential trend toward heightened judicial restraint and legislative clarity in the area of equitable remedies.

    +

    Advertisements

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    +

    1,642 hits

    Ibrahim Garza