On April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, a case challenging President Trump’s third and latest ban on travel for nationals of several predominantly Muslim countries. The Court’s decision will most immediately impact the individuals who are barred indefinitely from coming to the United States, as well as their family members and extended communities here in the United States. But more broadly, the outcome in this case will have important repercussions for the ongoing meaningfulness of the First Amendment’s most basic protection against religious discrimination.
Immigration Advocates Raise Concerns on 5 Judicial Nominees
Read MoreOur Work
-
Judicial Selection
Every day, federal judges protect the Constitution, place a check on overzealous legislatures, and help Americans find justice.
-
Bolder Advocacy
Demystifying and decoding advocacy by equipping organizations with knowledge and tools.
-
Access to Justice
Over the past several decades, a conservative-led campaign has eviscerated the ability of Americans to have their day in court.
-
Supreme Court
We fight to hold the court to the highest ethical standards, and we fight for a court that upholds the rights of everyday Americans.
Blog
-
-
Judicial Nominee Allen Winsor’s Record Warrants Scrutiny
On April 10, 2018, President Trump nominated Allen Winsor to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Winsor, a current justice on Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, previously served as Solicitor General of Florida from 2013 to 2016, under Attorney General Pam Bondi. In that capacity, he defended several troubling laws, including repeated efforts in Florida to dilute the vote of persons of color and make it harder for Floridians to vote. He also advanced efforts to erode reproductive rights and marriage equality, as well as supported questionable practices as the state carried out the death penalty.
AFJ in the News
-
Senate committee advances judicial nominees who won’t comment on Brown v. Board
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance three judicial nominees who would not tell senators they believed Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided. Now, the full Senate will vote on whether to confirm them. The committee advanced the controversial nominees, Michael Truncale, Wendy Vitter, and Andrew Oldham.
-
Pruitt’s ‘dear friend’ headed toward confirmation as judge
A friend and former colleague of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt could be headed to the federal bench in the coming weeks. President Trump last month nominated Patrick Wyrick to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. He’ll face senators tomorrow at his confirmation hearing.
Press Releases
-
AFJ Blasts Decision to Move Forward on Vitter, Oldham Nominations
Today’s votes are one more step in President Trump’s attempts to makeover the federal judiciary with nominees who march in such ideological lockstep with the ultra-right that they seem unable to articulate the most basic support for racial equity in our society.
-
Immigration Advocates Raise Concerns on 5 Judicial Nominees
Alliance for Justice, the Center for American Progress, and the National Immigration Law Center, joined by over 70 organizations, sent a letter today to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer raising serious concerns about five nominees for lifetime seats in the federal judiciary who have dangerous records on immigrants’ rights.
Featured Resource
Some Consequences of Deciding that Trump Cannot be Prosecuted in Office
Once again, Rudy Giuliani has filled the headlines with loose talk of his conversations with Mueller and his staff. He now reports that a member of Robert Mueller’s team confirmed that Mueller will not indict President Trump. Giuliani has demonstrated that there is little reason to take him at his word in his representation of Trump. Giuliani’s statement, however, reflects the consensus view that Mueller will adhere to Justice Department legal policy, which precludes indictment of a sitting president (though Mueller and Rod Rosenstein retain authority to surprise the experts). Whether Mueller or an assistant informed Giuliani that he would not indict Trump will remain unknown for now, but it is worthwhile to review some consequences of a decision that indictment is not an option.
