GET THE APP
Monday, February 23, 2026

Tag: ACLU
August 18, 2025
Election Integrity
Politics

Court Blocks GOP Redistricting Reforms to Preserve Black ‘Voting Power.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Judges for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Louisiana’s request to enforce a congressional redistricting map, alleging it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Louisiana’s Republican-majority legislature, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other plaintiffs.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued recently, and the case centers on Louisiana’s congressional map drawn after the 2020 census.

💬KEY QUOTE: “There is no legal basis for this proposition, and the state offers no evidence that conditions in Louisiana have changed,” the court stated.

🎯IMPACT: The ruling is a temporary win for the ACLU and plaintiffs, with the Supreme Court expected to issue the final decision.

IN FULL

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Louisiana‘s request to enforce its congressional redistricting map, initially passed by the Republican-majority legislature in 2022. Judges ruled the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of black residents through practices described as “packing” and “cracking” black voters, undermining their voting power.

Notably, 83 percent of black voters nationwide backed Democrat candidate Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

The court rejected Louisiana’s argument that race-based remedies are no longer necessary, stating, “There is no legal basis for this proposition, and the state offers no evidence that conditions in Louisiana have changed.” One judge issued a stay before the decision could take effect, though the Supreme Court had already stayed the map earlier in the year.

The Supreme Court is also currently reviewing the case in Louisiana v. Callais and has requested additional arguments from both sides. The focus remains on whether Louisiana’s redistricting efforts were narrowly tailored to meet constitutional requirements. Justices are expected to weigh in further during the fall term.

The litigation comes amid broader redistricting battles across the country, with both Republican- and Democrat-led states revising their maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. States like Texas and California are engaged in legal and political fights over their congressional maps, and the outcomes of these disputes could significantly impact the balance of power in Congress during the next election cycle.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 22, 2025
Lawfare
Politics

Federal Judge Blocks State DEI Ban.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against a Mississippi law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from public schools and universities.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate, the Mississippi Association of Educators, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Mississippi Center for Justice.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The restraining order was issued on Sunday, pausing the law’s implementation for at least 14 days. The law, House Bill 1193, took effect on July 1 in Mississippi.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Suppressing constitutional speech through vague prohibitions and the specter of financial retribution does not serve the public good—it undermines it,” Judge Wingate claimed.

🎯IMPACT: The law’s enforcement is paused, and institutions are temporarily shielded from penalties tied to its provisions while further hearings are scheduled.

IN FULL

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate, appointed by Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order on Sunday against a Mississippi law that bans diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from public schools and universities. The law, House Bill 1193, had taken effect on July 1 after being approved in April. The 78-year-old judge’s order halts its implementation for at least 14 days.

The plaintiffs and their representatives include the Mississippi Association of Educators, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Mississippi Center for Justice—a Democrat-aligned lawfare group funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). They argued that the law’s allegedly vague language and punitive measures, such as the withdrawal of state funding, created a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. Judge Wingate agreed, citing examples of how the law had already impacted faculty and institutions.

“Suppressing constitutional speech through vague prohibitions and the specter of financial retribution does not serve the public good—it undermines it,” the federal judge wrote in his order, adding: “An over-broad, constitutionally borderless law should be the target of a well-aimed injunction to promote, rather than impair, the interests of Mississippi citizens, the integrity of its institutions, and the constitutional principles on which this republic stands.”

The Mississippi law prohibits DEI offices, programs, and trainings, as well as courses promoting so-called “divisive concepts,” including the idea that one race or sex is superior to another. It also bans concepts tied to transgender ideology, gender-neutral pronouns, and related topics. Institutions found in violation risk losing state funding or facing other penalties.

Judge Wingate highlighted affidavits from school officials that described partnerships and programs being abruptly canceled due to fear of violating the law. Wingate concluded that the evidence showed a “clear and ongoing deprivation of constitutional rights” and warranted injunctive relief. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday to determine whether to extend the restraining order further.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 11, 2025
William Upton
Immigration
Lawfare

Biden Judge Halts Illegal Immigration Raids Across Southern California.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A far-left federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden is set to impose an order effectively ending Trump administration immigration enforcement actions across southern California, including in Los Angeles.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Trump administration, Southern California businesses, and illegal immigrants.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The tentative order comes after a hearing on Thursday, July 10, in Los Angeles.

🎯IMPACT: The tentative order appears far-reaching and will effectively end most federal immigration enforcement actions across seven counties in southern California.

IN FULL

A radical, far-left federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden is set to impose an order that would bar the Trump administration from conducting most illegal immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles and the surrounding area. U.S. District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong has reportedly written a tentative order that would largely prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting raids at L.A.-area Home Depots, car washes, warehouses, and other commercial facilities without demonstrating probable cause to do so.

The order stems from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which contends that ICE is conducting what it characterizes as “deportation dragnets” in Los Angeles. According to the ACLU, the ICE raids are only predicated on the race and language of the targets, essentially constituting illegal profiling and discrimination. However, the Trump administration contends that the ICE raids are in accordance with federal law and are based on intelligence gathered by federal law enforcement, including the location of business establishments where illegal immigrants are known to have been hired.

Judge Frimpong’s order effectively restricts federal immigration officials from using race, the presence of Spanish speakers, and the type of business establishment to determine where to conduct raids. In addition, ICE agents will be barred from detaining suspected illegal immigrants unless they can show a reasonable cause of belief that an individual has broken U.S. immigration laws.

The ruling impacts the entire jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which includes seven southern California counties.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
May 13, 2025
William Upton
Election Integrity
Lawfare

Democrat Lawfare Guru Marc Elias Sues State Over Law Preventing Noncitizen Voting.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Far-left Democrat election attorney Marc Elias is suing the State of Wyoming to make it easier for noncitizens to cast ballots in state and federal elections.

👥 Who’s Involved: The State of Wyoming, Marc Elias, the Equality State Policy Center, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray.

📍 Where & When: The lawsuit was filed on Friday, May 9, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “The far-left’s lawsuit is a meritless attempt to undermine the common-sense election integrity measures Wyomingites want. Proof of citizenship and proof of residency are common-sense measures pivotal to election integrity,” said Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray in response to the court filing.

⚠️ Impact: Wyoming’s proof of citizenship requirement was passed into law in March. If Elias’s lawsuit is successful, it would mean that noncitizens would only need to assert they are legally allowed to vote in order to cast a ballot in elections held in the state.

IN FULL:

Democrat lawfare operative and elections attorney Marc Elias has filed a lawsuit against the State of Wyoming to make it easier for noncitizens to vote in the state’s elections. Elias’s lawsuit targets a new state law that will soon take effect and requires those registering to vote to provide election officials with documented proof of citizenship. These documents can include a U.S. passport, naturalization papers, a birth certificate, and other official government forms of identification only available to citizens.

“When HB 156 becomes effective, it will impose new, burdensome, and entirely unnecessary requirements that will make it harder for eligible citizens to vote,” the lawsuit, filed by Elias, along with the Equality State Policy Center and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), reads. “Women—as well as Hispanic, young, and low-income voters—are less likely to have acceptable documentation and, in many cases, face greater hurdles to obtaining it,” it claims.

Notably, the Elias lawsuit raises one of the Democratic Party’s newest anti-election integrity talking points, which claims Voter I.D. and measures ensuring only citizens vote discriminate against married women. The lawsuit contends that women who have taken their husbands’ last names are more likely to be turned away from polling places, despite little evidence of this actually occurring.

The lawsuit also contends that the new law is duplicative, as Wyoming and the U.S. federal government already require voters to attest to their eligibility to vote with a sworn statement. Proponents of the document requirements counter that the provision adds an extra layer of security by requiring evidence that a voter is a citizen beyond their mere word.

Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray has pledged to defend the document requirement in court. He blasted Elias and his co-filers, stating: “The far-left’s lawsuit is a meritless attempt to undermine the common-sense election integrity measures Wyomingites want. Proof of citizenship and proof of residency are common-sense measures pivotal to election integrity.”

Image by Jewish Democratic Council of America.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
May 1, 2025
Immigration
Lawfare

Court Blocks Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act Against Venezuelan Migrants in Texas.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain or deport a group of Venezuelan illegal immigrants from a Texas facility.

👥 Who’s Involved: U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez, the Trump administration, Venezuelan illegal immigrants alleged to be part of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang.

📍 Where & When: Southern Texas, with the ruling issued on Thursday, May 1.

💬 Key Quote: Judge Rodriguez claims the president’s invocation of the AEA through proclamation “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”

⚠️ Impact: The administration is barred from using the AEA and Trump’s proclamation to detain or remove the migrants, but removal proceedings can still proceed under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

IN FULL:

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald J. Trump‘s March 15 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to expedite the deportation of illegal immigrants residing in the United States exceeds the statutory authority laid out in the law. U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez—appointed to the bench in 2018 during Trump’s first term in office—issued the decision on Thursday, determining that the America First leader cannot use the AEA as a legal justification for holding or deporting illegal immigrants either residing or detained in the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Texas.

“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote in his ruling. He continued: “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”

“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States… The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the president can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of TdA,” the judge continued, concluding: “As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the president’s invocation of the AEA through the proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”

Notably, Tren de Aragua has been officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization, and the FBI reportedly has evidence that the Venezuelan government is aiding its infiltration of the U.S.

The lawsuit, initially filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the subsequent ruling come as a blow to the Trump White House’s push to swiftly deport dangerous, criminal illegal immigrants. Should the administration appeal Judge Rodriguez’s decision, the conservative-dominated 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, would hear the case. However, the 5th Circuit has shown a penchant in the past to rule against actions it sees as constitutional overreach by the Executive Branch, especially on the issue of immigration. Previously, the appellate court ruled against measures enacted by former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama aimed at allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

Notably, Judge Rodriguez took over the case from James Boasberg, who serves as the chief judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The change in venue and judge occurred after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that legal challenges to President Trump’s deportations can only be filed in the court district where the deported person resides or is detained. In addition, the Supreme Court determined that lower court rulings on the matter only apply to the judge’s respective judicial district.

While still presiding over the case earlier this year, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary halt to the deportation of illegal Venezuelan immigrants under the AEA in a bizarre order that demanded the Trump administration recall two planes that were over international waters carrying deportees to El Salvador.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
April 9, 2025
Immigration
Lawfare

ACLU Launches Fresh Lawfare Attack on Alien Enemies Act After Trump SCOTUS Win.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).

👥 Who’s Involved: The ACLU, the Trump administration, two Venezuelan migrants, and the Supreme Court.

📍 Where & When: The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in New York after a related Supreme Court decision on Monday.

💬 Key Quote: “The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war… It cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war,” the ACLU claims.

⚠️ Impact: The lawsuit challenges the use of presidential powers to deport designated “alien enemies,” potentially affecting over 130 illegals already removed from the U.S.

IN FULL:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) initiated a new lawsuit against the Trump administration on Tuesday, seeking to halt the deportation of two Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the litigation follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Monday that lifted a restraining order issued by Judge James Boasberg that prevented President Donald J. Trump from using the act to remove members of Tren de Aragua from the country. In addition, the Supreme Court determined that future challenges to deportation under the act must be filed with the lower court in the jurisdiction in which the migrant was detained.

In the filing, which asks U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein to block the deportation of two Venezuelan illegal immigrants, the ACLU argues that the Alien Enemies Act has historically only been deployed during wartime and not against foreign nationals from countries with which the United States is at peace. “The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions: it cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States,” the filing contends.

Additionally, the ACLU accuses the Trump administration of violating the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling, which requires federal officials to provide those detained under the Alien Enemies Act with notice before they are deported. “Respondents seek to move Petitioners in secret, without due process, to a prison in El Salvador known for dire conditions, torture, and other forms of physical abuse—possibly for life,” the filing states, adding: “This has already borne out for over 130 individuals on March 15 who have lost all contact with their attorneys, family, and the world.”

The Trump White House has utilized the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the expulsion of illegal immigrants shown to be affiliated with violent criminal organizations and gangs like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and El Salvador’s MS-13. Those detained and deported under the law are sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).

Previously, Judge Hellerstein—presiding over the case—twice rejected President Trump’s attempts last year to move Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s so-called hush money prosecution against him to federal court.

Image by Billy Wilson.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
February 21, 2025
Immigration
Lawfare

Venezuelans Sue Trump Admin Over Move to Revoke Temporary Protected Status.

A group of Venezuelan nationals are suing the Trump administration’s Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, claiming the decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 600,000 Venezuelans in the United States was illegally motivated by race. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, is being brought by the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, California, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network on behalf of the Venezuelan TPS designees.

TPS offers protection from deportation and work permits for individuals from countries deemed unsafe to return to, including Venezuela. The former Biden government, under DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, had extended TPS for Venezuela, along with El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine, for an additional 18 months towards the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

According to the lawsuit, around 350,000 Venezuelan TPS designees may lose their protected status and work authorization in April, with another 257,000 being impacted in September. The lawsuit criticizes Secretary Noem for comments made during the decision announcement, alleging they express racial animus, violating the Fifth Amendment.

“The Secretary’s decisions also were motivated at least in part by racial animus, in contravention of the Fifth Amendment,” the lawsuit claims, continuing: “That is clear from statements the Secretary made when announcing the decisions themselves, labeling Venezuelan TPS holders as ‘dirtbags’—an expression of racism made by the official decisionmaker as part of her explanation for the decision.”

The Venezuelans and their legal representatives are asking the court to intervene and order the Trump administration to reverse its decision to revoke TPS status and restore the Biden government’s extension. The National Pulse reported on Thursday that Sec. Noem is also moving to end the TPS designation for Haitian nationals.

show less
A group of Venezuelan nationals are suing the Trump administration's Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, claiming the decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 600,000 Venezuelans in the United States was illegally motivated by race. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, is being brought by the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, California, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network on behalf of the Venezuelan TPS designees. show more
December 30, 2024
Jack Montgomery
SCOTUS
TECH

Leftist ACLU Partners With Libertarians In Opposing TikTok Ban.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear TikTok’s appeal against a ban that will go into effect on January 19, Democrat and libertarian lawmakers and civil liberties organizations, including the leftist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed amicus briefs backing the platform, owned by China’s ByteDance.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rand Paul (R-KY), alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), want an emergency injunction against the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which requires ByteDance to divest from TikTok if it is to continue operating in the U.S.

The lawmakers insist a ban would infringe on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans. They claim the federal government’s goal of preventing content manipulation by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which has strong ties to ByteDance, can be addressed through less stringent regulations.

The ACLU, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation have also filed a brief alleging there is insufficient evidence that TikTok threatens “ongoing or imminent harm.”

“This social media platform has allowed people around the world to tell their own stories in key moments of social upheaval, war, and natural disaster while reaching immense global audiences,” argues ACLU National Security Project Deputy Director Patrick Toomey, calling the divestment demand “extraordinary and unprecedented.”

TRUMP’S STANCE.

Lawyers representing President-elect Donald J. Trump, while taking “no position on the underlying merits of this dispute,” are also requesting the high court pause the ban, to afford the incoming administration “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case.”

Trump found success on TikTok during the presidential race and has a “warm spot” for the platform.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was upheld by a federal appeals court earlier this month, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

show less
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear TikTok's appeal against a ban that will go into effect on January 19, Democrat and libertarian lawmakers and civil liberties organizations, including the leftist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed amicus briefs backing the platform, owned by China's ByteDance. show more
September 12, 2024
Jack Montgomery
Election 2024
Immigration

‘New Way Forward’ – Kamala’s Plans to Defund ICE, Hand Citizenship to 11 Million+ Illegals.

During her run for the Democratic Party’s 2020 nomination, Kamala Harris told the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that she is committed to many far-left policies. In addition to supporting taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for illegal aliens in prison, raised by Donald Trump during the recent presidential debate, she also backed massive cutbacks to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding, an end to ICE detainers, and citizenship for 11 million illegals.

“Throughout my career, I have made it clear that law enforcement should use their time and resources to keep communities safe, not act as federal immigration agents,” she wrote on an ACLU questionnaire, which asked if she would “commit to ending the use of ICE detainers,” in 2019.

She boasted that, as California‘s Attorney General, she “issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012, informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers”—a sanctuary measure that results in foreign criminal suspects and convicts wanted by ICE being released among the public after leaving jail or prison, instead of being handed over for deportation.

Harris further committed to making ICE “end the use of detainers” generally as President.

DEFUNDING ICE.

In addition to removing ICE’s detainer powers, Harris told the ACLU she would starve the agency of resources, boasting: “I was one of the first Senators after President Trump was elected to advocate for a decrease in funding to ICE.”

Referring to legislation she introduced to Congress as a Senator, she added, “As President, I will fight to pass my DONE (Detention Oversight Not Expansion) Act into law which would increase oversight of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement detention facilities, slash detention by at least 50 percent, and halt funding for the construction or expansion of new facilities.”

She also said she would “close private immigration detention centers” and “fight to pass immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million plus” illegal aliens “living in our communities and contributing to our economy.”

She reiterated this promise in several places throughout the questionnaire, stressing: “I will prioritize immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million plus” illegal aliens in America.

Other policy commitments included making Washington, D.C., a state, using presidential pardon and clemency powers to free drug convicts, and giving the vote to convicted felons: “Restoring voting rights for every American who has completed their prison sentence will be my priority as President,” she wrote.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

show less
During her run for the Democratic Party's 2020 nomination, Kamala Harris told the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that she is committed to many far-left policies. In addition to supporting taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for illegal aliens in prison, raised by Donald Trump during the recent presidential debate, she also backed massive cutbacks to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding, an end to ICE detainers, and citizenship for 11 million illegals. show more
September 9, 2024
William Upton
Election 2024

Kamala Wanted YOU to Fund Illegal Migrant Gender Surgeries.

Kamala Harris states on a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) candidate questionnaire that she supports taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for illegal immigrants held in detainment facilities and other federal prisoners. In addition, the 2024 Democratic Party’s presidential nominee said she supports radical cuts to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding as well as severely restricting the agency’s ability to operate and detain illegal immigrants.

“Our immigrant detention system is out of control, and I believe we must end the unfair incarceration of thousands of individuals, families and children,” Harris wrote responding to the questionnaire. She added: “I was one of the first Senators after President Trump was elected to advocate for a decrease in funding to ICE.”

On the campaign trail, Harris has attempted to dodge her prior radical positions, claiming she’s evolved but offering no further explanation. Among the other far-left policies endorsed by Harris in the ALCU questionnaire include support for the federal decriminalization of drugs. Oregon recently reversed its drug decriminalization law after the policy wreaked havoc on the state. Additionally, Harris signed on to the organization’s broad pledge, committing candidates to end the detention of illegal immigrants.

Despite claiming to have ‘evolved’ politically since the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Harris stressed during her only interview since becoming the party’s 2024 nominee that her “values have not changed.” Kamal Harris’s tenure in the U.S. Senate and her ‘over-before-it-began’ 2020 primary campaign is rife with moments where the California Democrat has peddled left-wing talking points to gain favor with progressive voters.

The National Pulse previously reported that Harris likened ICE to the KKK during the 2018 Senate hearing. Meanwhile, during the 2020 primary, Harris called former President Donald J. Trump’s border wall a “vanity project.”

show less
Kamala Harris states on a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) candidate questionnaire that she supports taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for illegal immigrants held in detainment facilities and other federal prisoners. In addition, the 2024 Democratic Party's presidential nominee said she supports radical cuts to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding as well as severely restricting the agency's ability to operate and detain illegal immigrants. show more