When Congress returns to work in June, both the House and Senate are expected to vote on resolutions that would force Trump to stop military strikes against Iran, what’s known as a “war powers” resolution.
House GOP leaders postponed a vote on that before Memorial Day — worried that Republicans would lose that vote for a first time.
(May 29, 2026)
The Department of Homeland Security said that about six demonstrators were arrested for assaulting law enforcement officers as activists clashed with armed federal immigration officers outside of the facility Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.
(…)
Sherrill, although serving as the leader of the Garden State, does not have the legal right to enter the facility.
That being said, no New Jersey official or congressional representative has the legal authority to shut down Delaney Hall.
(May 28, 2026)
“I’m hearing from advocates and families on the ground reports of ICE pepper spraying and beating detainees inside Delaney Hall. I have seen the horrific conditions and spoken to those inside about the disgusting food, lack of medical care, and violent and unsanitary conditions as recently as this week. With demoted former USCBP Commander Greg Bovino’s announcement that he is coming to Newark today and his threats online to tear gas our community, I have even more concern that he will only escalate the chaos at Delaney,” said McIver. “More ICE violence has never made a situation safer. The only solution to stop the abuse at Delaney Hall and quell this terror nationwide is to shut down the facility and abolish ICE. We will keep standing up to this administration’s terror campaign and we will keep fighting for justice.”
On Monday, McIver made her fourth visit to Delaney Hall. The chaos created by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during McIver’s first visit to Delaney Hall, led to the Trump administration bringing baseless charges against her for conducting oversight. Her second visit came on the heels of the death of Jean Wilson Brutus in ICE custody. Her third visit was following the release of the S.O.S. letter signed by 300 detainees.
(May 28, 2026)
“The New Jersey Department of Health today sought to conduct a health inspection of Delaney Hall, but it was denied full access and was allowed to inspect only a limited part of the facility. We will review and share the Department’s findings from the limited portion it was allowed to inspect, and we will continue to pursue all appropriate avenues for demanding transparency and ensuring humane conditions for the individuals being held at the facility.
“As I’ve said repeatedly, refusing to provide full access raises serious questions about what ICE is trying to hide from public view.
“New Jersey believes in the rule of law, will uphold the Constitution, and Delaney Hall should be closed down. I am calling for ICE to immediately de-escalate the situation as I continue working to keep New Jersey residents safe.”
(May 26, 2026)
After her visit, Sherrill said in a statement that her request to access the facility was formally denied earlier in the day “raising serious questions about what they are trying to hide from public view.” She added that she visited the site to hear from advocates and the families of those detained.
“What I heard from them was heartbreaking,” she said in the statement. “I will continue to hold ICE accountable, and I remain grateful for the work of our federal delegation.”
The governor expressed concerns about Delaney Hall in a previous statement issued Sunday, calling reports of “unsafe, inhumane, and unconstitutional living conditions…completely unacceptable.”
(May 22, 2026)
NEWARK — Roughly 300 people detained at migrant jail Delaney Hall began a hunger and labor strike to bring attention to what they call the detrimental conditions and treatment they say they face behind bars.
For two hours near a tent outside the Doremus Avenue detention center Friday morning, people shared their stories of loved ones who are detained inside. Gabriela Soto translated calls from prisoners, including one from her husband, Martin, who has been held there since February.
(…)
Shortly after their calls with advocates, guards cut access to phones and tablets inside.
(May 12, 2026)
We feel vulnerable and, in a way, kidnapped —detained without justification— not to mention that we are being tortured physically and psychologically due to the poor food resources provided in these detention centers. We see with deep helplessness and frustration that our due process, rights, and defense have been violated, disregarding benefits granted under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Families are being destroyed and separated, where there are children, nieces, and minors who are suffering a very strong psychological impact because they do not understand the situation, and in some cases they have witnessed the arrests of their relatives, who have been struck by tragedy and the economic burden, since in most cases we are heads of household.
Yes, Tom Steyer is a billionaire. But it matters what he is doing with that power: pushing for taxes on the wealthy, expanding universal programs, and dismantling corporate influence in our politics.
This is also about winning.
In a high-stakes race where Republicans could take the top spot, consolidating behind a candidate who is both values-aligned and building momentum is essential. Our organizers on the ground in California are seeing real energy around Steyer for Governor — and that grassroots engagement helped drive this decision.
(April 20, 2026)
SAN FRANCISCO – Today, Our Revolution, America’s largest grassroots independent political organizing group, announced its endorsement of Tom Steyer for Governor of California, joining a surge of prominent endorsers getting behind Steyer’s campaign as early voting approaches. Our Revolution was founded as a continuation of Bernie Sanders’s historic 2016 presidential campaign and works to mobilize voters and elect progressive candidates across the country. In the coming months, it will mobilize its more than one million Californian members to organize and volunteer in support of Steyer’s candidacy.
It is painful that the one person who has spent the past decades aggressively supporting democracy, fighting for immigrant rights, fighting the tendency toward oligarchy in our politics, and challenging the fossil fuel industry is himself a billionaire. But the facts are that Tom Steyer will not veto the billionaire’s tax, has pledged to support closing the Water’s Edge Tax loophole, and has pledged to not take fossil fuel money.
(May 21, 2026)
„Let’s be clear: Republicans pulled this vote because they knew they were going to lose it. They know this war is a political and strategic disaster. They know that as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend paying over 4.50 a gallon at the pump, they cannot go home and explain they voted to keep this war going. So instead of casting that vote, they ran from it.
„This is not over. When the House returns, Republicans will have no choice but to take this vote. Democrats will not stop fighting until Congress reasserts its constitutional authority and this war is brought to an end.“
(May 18, 2026)
Democratic lawmakers are on the verge of passing a resolution to end President Trump’s war with Iran — with some help from a steadily growing group of Republicans.
In the House and Senate, resolutions under the 1973 War Powers Act this past week saw more members of Trump’s party crossing the aisle to vote in favor of the so-far failed measures, with others voicing their support for a future resolution.
Gasoline accounts for a shrinking share of household budgets, but its political power can still make or break a presidency.
(May 11, 2026)
Members of Congress must now decide whether they will honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution, or hand all power without accountability to the executive branch, effectively sanctioning an imperial presidency. The stakes are as high as ever, and not only limited to the current war with Iran, but also the future of democratic governance in the United States.
(search entries)
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restore the constitutional balance in decisions to commit the United States to armed conflict. Its central provision — a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution — was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Court’s subsequent embrace of functionalism in separation-of-powers cases has left it incoherent as precedent. As the United States drifts deeply into a congressionally unauthorized war with Iran, the case for overruling Chadha, or at minimum limiting it to its facts, has never been stronger.
Guido Reichstadter spoke from atop the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge after disrupting peak-hour traffic, telling NewsNation he was calling for “an immediate end to the Trump regime’s illegal war on Iran” through mass nonviolent action.
(search entries)
(April 28, 2026)
The emerging discussions mark the clearest sign yet that Democrats, repeatedly blocked in their attempts to restrain the war through floor votes, are searching for new ways to force a constitutional reckoning over who decides when America goes to war.
(…)
While it’s unclear how Republicans will ultimately vote, Schiff urged caution about relying on the courts. “The Supreme Court has been very selective about offering Congress standing to any litigation,” he says. “It‘s not a strategy I would want to rely on…
(April 23, 2026)
The Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling declaring the 1973 War Powers Resolution (often called the War Powers Act) constitutional or unconstitutional; instead, the Court and lower federal courts have repeatedly avoided resolving the central constitutional clash between Congress and the President over war-making authority by invoking justiciability doctrines such as standing and the political‑question doctrine [1] [2].
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Joe Gruters praised the ruling in a statement provided to Fox News Digital, describing it as a „win for fairness, the rule of law, and anyone who opposes racial gerrymandering.“
„The American people don’t want to see Americans segregated by race in their congressional maps, which is exactly what was happening in Louisiana,“ he added. „Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle: the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race when drawing congressional maps.
DNC Chair Ken Martin, meanwhile, lamented the ruling as a „dark day for America,“ adding that the „Supreme Court just rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement.“
The Supreme Court just struck down a Louisiana map that fairly represents Black voters, gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision was the latest, and presumably final, chapter in a long-running dispute arising from Louisiana’s efforts to adopt a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. The first map that the state adopted, in 2022, had one majority-Black district out of the six allotted to the state. A group of Black voters – who comprise roughly one-third of the state’s population – went to federal court, where they alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits discrimination in voting.
A federal judge agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling. It instructed Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024 or risk having the court adopt one for it.
The map that Louisiana drew in 2024 created a second majority-Black district, leading to the election in November of that year of Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s.
The map also prompted the lawsuit leading to Wednesday’s opinion. It was filed by a group of “non-African American” voters who contended that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by sorting voters based on race.
(April 24, 2026)
Background
The Supreme Court last weighed in on the digital Fourth Amendment in 2017. In Carpenter v. United States, the court addressed whether the police had to get a warrant before accessing a certain kind of digital location data, cell-site location information. Cell phones generate CSLI anytime they are on by scanning for the nearest cell tower with strong service. When a cell phone connects to a tower, that tower then records that connection in CSLI logs. A phone’s location can be tracked across time and space by reviewing those logs.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts’ Carpenter opinion held that the police must get a warrant before reviewing seven or more days of CSLI for a person’s phone. (…)
Enter: geofence data
Among these unsettled questions is whether police need a warrant to access geofence data, another kind of digital location data. Geofence data generally refers to location information collected by cellphone apps. If you have encountered a prompt on your phone that asks you whether you’d like to allow an app to use your location, you’re likely generating the kind of data at issue in Chatrie. Chatrie specifically involved data generated by a Google service called Location History. In Google’s case, this location information was created by combining information from cell towers but also on GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals.
(search entries)