Voting by mail has improved voter participation in US elections.
The US Supreme Court handed Asian American voting rights advocates a major victory on Sept 14, blocking an administration attempt to restrict mail-in ballots ahead of upcoming elections. In a 7-2 decision, the high court left a lower-court injunction in place, preventing sweeping new rules that advocates warned would cause mass confusion.
“You don’t change the rules after the game has started – especially if it means voters will lose. With this ruling, voters won, and the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration yet another loss,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus.
“Millions of people who rely on mail-in ballots – many of whom would otherwise have a difficult time voting – will receive their ballots and be able to confidently return them.," Kohli added. "We made our opposition clear because no eligible voter should lose their voice because of a bureaucratic mistake they had no power to prevent. Today, that threat is off the table for this election. Americans can move forward with confidence."
Only Justices Samuel Alita and Clarence Thomas, Trump loyalists, dissented. In a rare action, the other four conservative justices, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with their colleagues and joined the liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagen and Ketanji Brown Jackson to issue the ruling.
The decision means that all 50 states can continue to use their existing processes for mail voting, which have proven for decades to be safe, secure, and reliable.
Hundreds of thousands of mail ballots are already being delivered to eligible voters, with millions more to follow this month. Many Americans rely on mail voting because disability, distance, or work or caregiving schedules make it difficult or impossible to get to their polling site in person.
With the injunction in place, USPS cannot refuse to deliver mail ballots for the November election. Nor can it require states to upload personal voter information into its new and untested online portal.
The USPS rule that has been blocked by the courts would have put into effect Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order to restrict mail voting.
FYI: For local election guidance, sample ballots, and deadlines, check the National Association of Secretaries of State portal. To verify registration guidelines or look up specific regional election board contacts, you can navigate directly to the U.S. Vote Foundation.
"For Asian Americans and other voters who disproportionately rely on mail voting—including voters with disabilities and voters with limited English proficiency—this ruling was absolutely critical for securing their ability to vote,” said Ronak Patel, a staff attorney with AALDEF. “We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized the importance of protecting access to the ballot from the blatant attempts by the Trump Administration to restrict it."
They argued that proposed changes would disproportionately harm naturalized citizens, voters with disabilities, and individuals with limited English proficiency. Community leaders emphasized that Asian Americans rely heavily on vote-by-mail options to safely and accurately review their ballots at home.
View from the edge
Poll after poll indicate that the Republicans are likely to lose control of Congress in November's midterm election.
The attempt to restrict voting by mail is just one of several GOP strategies to make voting harder for minorities and immigrant communities because they tend to lean towards the Democrats.
The concern was particularly acute in the eight states where voters cast ballots almost entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington.
The "decision is a relief for the millions of voters who count on the mail to make their voices heard including naturalized citizens, voters with disabilities, and limited English proficient voters but it should never have come to this,” said Murtaza Khwaja, executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta.
“This administration keeps manufacturing uncertainty and chaos, testing how far it can go to rig the system against voters. The Supreme Court got this right: states run their own elections, not the White House. We will keep fighting alongside our partners to make sure every eligible voter can cast a ballot and trust that it counts.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.
If you thought 2025 was crazy, 2026 will not offer any relief for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.
As the radical conservative US Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments the question of brithright citizeshp (iTrump v. Barbara) by summer 2026, the potential end of birthright citizenship isn't just a legal debate; it's an existential threat to the Asian American community—the very community that fought for and won this right over a century ago.
This new attack on birthright citizenship repeats our country’s history of targeting and excluding Asians,” said Bethany Li, executive director of Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund,“We already won this fight more than a century ago. But no matter the gains, unfortunately being Asian in America means constantly having to fight for our right to be here. Asian Americans are coming together once again to defend our right to citizenship and to call this country home."
For those of us keeping watch from the edge, the current assault on birthright citizenship isn't just another headline—it’s a direct hit on a legacy our community fought to build. In 2026, the battle over Executive Order 14160 has reached the Supreme Court, and for Asian Americans, the stakes feel like a dangerous echo of the past.
”The administration’s push rests on a narrow, radical rewrite of the 14th Amendment. They’re zeroing in on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," claiming it requires political allegiance that temporary visa holders or undocumented parents supposedly don’t have, says Li.
Behind the legal jargon is a clear political goal: to end what they call "birth tourism" and strip automatic citizenship from children born to those without "lawful permanent" status. While lower courts initially blocked the order, a 2025 Supreme Court ruling against nationwide injunctions has left us with a confusing "patchwork" of rights across different states.
If the Court tosses out the 14th Amendment’s "bedrock" principle, the children of US citizens and immigrants, even those with the proper documents, will be vulnerable.
Here is who stands to lose:
Children of Legal visa holders
While much of the political rhetoric targets undocumented immigrants, Trump''s 2025 executive order explicitly targets legal immigrants on temporary visas.
H-1B and F-1 Families: Asian Americans dominate high-skill work and student visa categories. Under current proposals, children born to parents on H-1B (work) or F-1 (student) visas would no longer be recognized as US citizens at birth.
A "Stateless" Generation: For many Indian and Chinese families facing decades-long green card backlogs, their US-born children could become "stateless"—lacking citizenship in the only home they’ve ever known while potentially ineligible for their parents' home-country citizenship.
Future Political Power: Asian American advocacy groups like Stop AAPI Hate warn that ending birthright citizenship is a direct attack on the future political power of our community.
Second-Class Status: Without citizenship, these children would be denied the right to vote, run for office, or serve on juries.
Access Denied: These newborns could be blocked from essential lifelines, including Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC, creating a permanent "underclass" within the AAPI community.
Think you're safe because you're already a citizen? Think again.
If birth certificates are no longer enough to prove citizenship, every parent—regardless of status—will face new, expensive hurdles to prove their child belongs.
We’ve seen this movie before. Any system that questions citizenship at birth invites racial profiling against those perceived as "perpetual foreigners."
What’s powering the DOJ's challenge?
For the AANHPI community, this isn't a new fight; it's a hundred-year-old wound that's been ripped oopen again.
We must remember Wong Kim Ark, the son of Chinese immigrants who, in 1898, took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and won birthright citizenship for all. Today, organizations like AALDEF, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Asian Law Caucus are back in the trenches, filing amicus curie and joining lawsuits to ensure that this historically radicaly SCOTUS doesn't erase over 150 years of progress.
y empowering government officials to question people’s citizenship status, the order opens the door to discriminatory and arbitrary government interference in people’s daily lives, opines the Brennan Center for Justice. "This problem won’t just be limited to the children denied citizenship under the order: Under the new legal regime the order would create, everyone would be vulnerable to having their citizenship questioned."
The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause grants birthright citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," establishing that nearly anyone born on US soil, regardless of parents' status (even undocumented immigrants), automatically becomes a citizen, a principle reaffirmed by Supreme Court cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
This amendment was crucial for giving citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, overturning the Dred Scott decision, and ensures equal protection under the law, though limited exceptions exist for children of diplomats or enemy forces
The administration’s push rests on a narrow, radical rewrite of the 14th Amendment. They’re zeroing in on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," claiming it requires political allegiance that temporary visa holders or undocumented parents supposedly don’t have.
Behind the legal jargon is a clear political goal: to end what they call "birth tourism" and strip automatic citizenship from children born to those without "lawful permanent" status. While lower courts initially blocked the order, a 2025 Supreme Court ruling against nationwide injunctions has left us with a confusing "patchwork" of rights across different states.
In plain, everyday language, the push to end birthright citizenship is just another battlefront in the Trump administration's overall to fight the myth of "white displacement" by keeping Whites in the majority that carries with it, power and privilege.
A host of legal scholars and civil rights groups, including the ACLU and several states, believe the Court will likely strike down the executive order. Today, organizations like AALDEF, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Asian Law Caucus are back in the trenches, filing amicus curie and lawsuits to ensure that SCOTUS doesn't erase over 150 years of progress.
I hope they're right but I'm not holding my breath. This radical activist Supreme Court with its six conservative Justices led by Chief Justice John Roberts has astounded legal experts by showing that they are not against overruling precedents in order to "legalize" the far-right agenda of Donald Trump.
Critics of the Supreme Court argue it's increasingly politicized, too conservative, lacks transparency, suffers from legitimacy issues due to ethics concerns, and oversteps its bounds, leading to a perception that law is just "politics by other means" and undermining its role as an impartial arbiter, with concerns about judicial overreach, lack of accountability, and profound disagreement on key issues like abortion and presidential power.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, the decision “will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular—i.e., those who may not have the wherewithal to lawyer up and will all too often find themselves beholden to the Executive’s whims.”
SCOTUS will hear arguments in the Spring and a ruling is expected by the summer of 2026 will decide if America remains a place where, as one advocate put it, "no matter where you come from ... within a generation you belong."
EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge.
Zohran Mamdani had the the overwhelming support of South Asian communities.
Concerns about the economy and the prospect of electing an Asian American for mayor sparked renewed enthusiasm among New York City's Asian American voters.
The numbers are in from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) and they're talking loud and clear! The days of taking the Asian American vote for granted are officially over in New York City. The AALDEF, working with the Asian American Federation (AAF), has just dropped the results of their massive multilingual exit poll, and the findings are historic
First up: Zohran Mamdani is your new mayor, and the Asian American community played a huge part. Nearly half (49.1%) of the 1,298 Asian American voters they surveyed backed Mamdani. That's a significant chunk of the electorate, and it clearly shows that candidates who reach out in-language and focus on specific community issues get results!
“The results of the exit poll show that Asian American voters in New York City are not a monolith — they are discerning, issue-driven, and deeply engaged in shaping the city’s future,” said Catherine Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Asian American Federation. “When half of our community names the economy as their top concern, and at a time when SNAP benefits are being taken away, it’s a reminder that elected leaders must engage with us not only during election season but in shaping policies that secure opportunity and fairness year-round.”
And get this: the economy was the number one issue on voters' minds. It's no surprise, with the cost-of-living crisis hitting many families hard. Mamdani's platform, which included a rent freeze and universal child care, clearly resonated.
But it gets more interesting.
The poll reveals some fascinating cross-currents. While 58.1% of those polled disapproved of Trump's immigration policies, about one in five who voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election still pulled the lever for Mamdani in this mayoral race. That tells you Asian American voters aren't a monolith; they're savvy and willing to split their tickets based on local issues and candidates who speak to their needs.
Also, a new generation is getting involved. Twenty percent of younger voters (ages 18 to 29) were first-time voters in this election. This youth surge, likely driven by issues like affordability and representation, is a powerful new force in NYC politics.
Key findings of the NYC Asian AmericanExit Poll
Asian American voters favored Mamdani for Mayor, including 20% of 2024 Trump Voters
About half (49.1%) of Asian American voters who participated in the exit poll voted for Mamdani and roughly one-third (33.8%) voted for Cuomo. Notably, an overwhelming 87.2% of South Asian voters cast their ballots for Mamdani, while 9.6% voted for Cuomo.
Who respondents voted for in the 2024 presidential election made a difference in their choices for mayor. Nearly three-quarters of those who voted for Harris in 2024 cast their ballot on Election Day 2025 for Mamdani, while 65% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 voted for Cuomo. However, significantly, 20% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 voted for Mamdani.
In some neighborhoods, such as parts of southern Brooklyn with large South Asian and immigrant populations, Mamdani's local appeal and positions on specific issues drew support, sometimes even from those who had previously voted for Trump for different reasons, such as a desire for an end to foreign conflicts or lower prices.
South Asians are reliably Democratic, says Karthick Ramakrishnan, executive director of AAPI data at the University of California, Berkeley in a CNN interview. “They identify more with Democrats, and then, over time, they support the policies of the Democratic Party that go beyond, you know, race and religion.”
“This victory marks a powerful moment for our city and for immigrant communities across New York who have long deserved to see themselves represented in leadership,” Michelle Amor, president of the Filipino American Democratic Club of New York, told Inquirer.net USA.
Key platforms and policies that resonated with Asian American and immigrant communities included:
Affordable Housing: A central pillar was a proposal to freeze the rent for one million New Yorkers in rent-controlled apartments and to build 200,000 new affordable housing units over a decade. Polling data indicated that a majority of AAPI adults in the city supported rent freezes.
Affordable Transportation: Mamdani advocated for making public buses free for riders in New York City, a policy with a pilot program initiated during his time as a State Assembly member. This resonated with working-class individuals, including many immigrant taxi drivers with whom he had previously organized a hunger strike for debt relief.
Affordable Childcare: He proposed making childcare free for children between six weeks and five years old and providing "baby baskets" of necessities to new parents.
Immigrant Rights: As a naturalized citizen himself, Mamdani advocated for strengthening sanctuary city laws and increasing legal support for immigrants facing targeted actions from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Economic Relief: Other proposals included creating city-run grocery stores to lower food costs, increasing taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers and corporations to fund social programs, and making CUNY tuition-free.
Culturally Specific Outreach: The campaign produced materials and videos in various South Asian languages (Hindi/Urdu, Bengali, etc.) and worked with community-based organizations like DRUM (Desis Rising Up and Moving) and CAAAV (Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence) to engage voters on material issues affecting their daily lives.
This approach, focusing on universal, working-class issues, helped to dramatically increase voter turnout among South Asians and draw support from other Asian American communities.
The message here is crystal clear for any politician with their eyes on City Hall or beyond: Ignore Asian American voters at your peril. Our communities are a major force, and we're only getting stronger.
“Asian American communities are a force in New York City elections—that is undeniable,” said Bethany Li, executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “Our communities have too often been ignored by those in power, but elected officials and political candidates can no longer afford to overlook our voices or our priorities. ... Our city’s leaders should take note.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge.
The great grandson of Wong Kim Ark protests the SCOTUS ruling.
"The legal upshot of the Supreme Court’s monumentally disastrous decision in Trump v. CASA (more commonly known as 'the birthright citizenship case') is chaos," reads the lede of the Nation's coverage of Friday's ruling by the activist jurists of SCOTUS.
"Utter legal chaos. In its ruling on Friday, the court’s usual six monarchists granted Donald Trump’s request to reexamine various nationwide injunctions preventing Trump and Stephen Miller from implementing their plans to revoke birthright citizenship to any American who doesn’t happen to be white."
I couldn't say it any better. Asian American legal advocates agree.
“Because of (the) 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions, we now live in a country where some children would get citizenship and otherswouldn’t, largely depending onwhich circuit court they live near," says Niji Jain, legal director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF).
"Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the US Constitution, yet the administration is now empowered to continue its campaign to strip that right. Despite the unanimous response from all federal courts who have heard this issue to enterinjunctions preserving birthright citizenship,some children born in this country are now at risk of becoming stateless.”
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded her conservative peers to read the Constitution again. It clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
She recognizes that this decision opens the door the court to a Trump-ordered elimination of birthright citizenship.
Even more ominous is that the ruling could be applied to other Trump orders, even if they are against the law. The power of the courts to curb actions of the executive branch has been significantly diluted.
“This Court endorses the radical proposition that the President is harmed, irreparably, whenever he cannot do something he wants to do, even if what he wants to do is break the law,” Sotomayor writes.
The Trump administration’s malicious attack on birthright citizenship continues to spread fear, anger, and confusion across immigrant communities. That includes the 3.6 million Asian Americans who are either undocumented, seeking asylum, or are in the US on student and work visas (e.g., H-1Bs).
The High Court's ruling means lower courts will have to determine to what extent, if any, the administration’s blatantly unconstitutional executive orders, including the one about birthright citizenship, can go into effect on a case-by-case basis.
FYI: A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.
The decision took issue with the scope of the interim relief but did not disturb the fact that three District Courts concluded that the executive order is likely unlawful.
“Let me be clear: this case was never about the merits of the birthright citizenship executive order, it remains unconstitutional” explained John C. Yang, president and executive director of Advancing Justice | AAJC. “Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our constitution. The administration knows they have little chance of winning on this issue. Instead, they used the lives of millions of immigrants as a poker chip in an effort to curtail nationwide injunctions, which have been one of the best tools we have to hold this administration accountable for unlawful actions,” Yang said.
With the Administration refusing to challenge the opinions of three different courts on the blatant unconstitutionality of this executive order, the Court today allows them to continue to try to sidestep these three court orders blocking a ban to birthright citizenship. The executive order represents an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of executive authority. It is a fundamental attack on the principles that have defined America for over two centuries.
“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this President’s anti-democratic agenda,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Within 24 hours of the SCOTUS ruling Bonta joined a coalition of 19 other state Attorneys General suing Donald Trump.
In their lawsuit, the Attorneys General argue that the Trump's attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and should be immediately blocked from going into effect while litigation proceeds. In its decision, the Supreme Court announced a new standard for nationwide injunctions, sending consideration of the scope of the injunction back to the lower courts. The decision states that the executive order cannot go into effect for 30 days.
“The Supreme Court’s decision allows the lower courts to further consider the scope of the district court's nationwide injunction — which we believe is clearly necessary to provide full relief to the states," said Bonta. "We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented.
“This decision potentially leaves many families unprotected against the Administration’s unlawful attack on birthright citizenship,” said Thu Nguyen, Executive Director of OCA. “Ever since the landmark case of the US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Asian American community has been at the frontlines of the legal fight to affirm birthright citizenship. Despite this setback, we will not stop,” says Nguyen.
The SCOTUS decision makes it easier for the court, now acting as the Trump administration's enabler, to continue its ultimate quest to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, grants citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This principle was affirmed in the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the US to Chinese immigrants was a citizen.
In essence, birthright citizenship, as established by the 14th Amendment and upheld in the Wong Kim Ark case, ensures that individuals born in the US, including those of Asian descent, are granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
However, Trump's Department of Justice attorneys argue that the 14th Amendment applies only to children of slaves and shouldn't be granted to generations of children born in the US to parents of immigrants from around the world.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented the SCOTUS ruling.
Sotomayor warns that the decision by the conservative Justices will have an impact beyond the birthright citizenship debate.
“The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” she writes.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
What the ruling has done was essentially create two Americas, the 22 states which abide by the three lower court injunctions and those to which they don't apply.
“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other,” Sotomayor writes in her dissent. “It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge. Now on BlueSky.
Three Filipino nurses won a major settlement with four health care companies to rescind the “stay or pay” provisions in employment contract.
“I feel relieved that the settlement will enable immigrant nurses like me to leave onerous working conditions. Eliminating breach of contract fees gives us the freedom to seek better opportunities while ensuring we’re treated with the dignity and respect we deserve. This fosters a more inclusive and fairer workplace where nurses can focus more on providing quality care without the looming threat of financial penalties,” said Kathleen Landazabal, one of the nurses who filed charges against Premier, her former employer.
The other plaintiffs are Gerarlyn Sept Docot and Edmon Calizon.
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) along with co-counsel Murphy Anderson PLLC, on July 22 announced the settlement with four health care companies to rescind the “stay or pay” provisions in employment contracts for current and former employees, including three Filipino immigrant nurses who resigned citing unsafe working conditions.
In May, the nurses filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), resulting in the settlement with Premier Members, LLC, a New York-based company with health care facilities in Pennsylvania, Priority Healthcare Group, LLC, a health care staffing company, the Gardens at West Shore, and the Gardens at Wyoming Valley. On Friday, the NLRB approved the settlement.
In the settlement, Premier agreed to communicate to staff that illegal work rules have been rescinded and agreed to institute a training for managers and other staff who have any responsibility for nurses recruited outside the United States to ensure employment practices conform to the National Labor Relations Act.
”’Stay or pay’ contracts and other training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs) are coercive tactics that employers use to take advantage of the vulnerable workers they recruit outside the country,” said Elizabeth Koo, Senior Counsel at AALDEF. “We will continue to fight for other immigrant nurses subjected to similarly poor working conditions and illegal contracts.”
The Philippines has been a major source of health care professionals, especially nurses, because their education ad training is similar to Western standards. Filipino nurses are in demand around the world but especially in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the US because they are fluent in English.
There is a shortage of nurses in the United States because of the retirement of baby boomers and the burnout factor caused by the demands of the healthcare systems that employ them. The Philippine-trained nurses are issued special work visas that bypass traditional immigration quotas.
Because of their non-citizen status, they are vulnerable to become victims of exploitation amid threats of deportation.
“Stay or pay” provisions are repayment agreement provisions that penalize workers for leaving their jobs. Last year, five Filipino immigrant nurses filed charges with the NLRB against their former employer, CommuniCare Family of Companies, to challenge the company’s use of “stay or pay” provisions in the nurses’ employment contracts. These nurses similarly resigned from their jobs, citing intolerable working conditions.
“Immigrants are often too terrified to voice concerns even when facing unsafe working conditions. This settlement is proof that suffering in silence is not an option, but resisting is. We are fighting back, not just for our own, but also for those who cannot speak for themselves. Through this settlement, we could finally regain our dignity and be treated with respect,” said Docot, another nurse and former employee of Premier.
EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X or at the blog Views From the Edge.
Demonstrations broke out after the Supreme Court rendered its decision on affirmative action.
In its dogged determination to send the US back to the 1950s, the US Supreme Court's ruling Thursday against affirmative action in college admissions drew sharp and angry criticism from the AANHPI leaders, from Vice President Kamala Harris and civil rights advocates to the students on campus.
"The highest court in our land just made a decision today on affirmative action and I feel compelled to speak about it," said Harris, whose mother is from India.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a denial of opportunity. It’s not about being colorblind. It’s about being blind to history, blind to empirical evidence about disparities, and blind to the strength that diversity brings to classrooms, to boardrooms,” Harris said on Twitter.
The Republican appointees of the Court struck a deep blow to students and racial equity in education by holding that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's affirmative action programs violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Affirmative action policies have helped colleges and universities across our country cultivate more diverse student bodies. These commonsense policies recognize that diversity on campuses benefits all students, and help to advance racial equity. But once again, this extreme Supreme Court has taken our country backwards," said Senator Mazie Hirono, D-HI.
"Given our country’s long history of racial discrimination and the stark racial inequality that continues to this day, for Justices to focus on whether the benefits of diversity can be measured precisely is shortsighted and detached from reality. Diversity of every kind makes us stronger," said Hirono.
Asian American Legal Education Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice were two of many groups who filed friends of the court briefs supporting the admission policies of both schools.
“The Supreme Court has rolled back progress in the fight for racial justice by undermining affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC. By pitting communities of color against each other, the Court’s decision discounts broad Asian American support for race-conscious admissions and the importance of ensuring diversity in our classrooms. Together with other communities of color, we will continue to ensure that the pathways to opportunity and leadership are open to all,” said Margaret Fung, executive director of AALDEF.
“It makes me angry to see the Supreme Court wield the history of the Equal Protection Clause and the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education in a way that is antithetical to its purpose," said Bethany Li, legal director of AALDEF. "Brown helped desegregate our schools and give students of color a fighting chance at a good education.
"The decision today uses the false myth of color blindness to undermine an important tool for correcting these disparities. When you purport to be color blind, you're saying you don't see race. But if you don't see race, you don't see the disparities in education, in health, in jobs, and in society at large that racial minorities including Asian Americans have historically faced and continue to face today,”
“We are outraged that the Supreme Court has chosen to ignore long-standing legal precedent in favor of supporting racial inequity that harms all people of color, including Asian Americans,” said John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Advancing Justice – AAJC. “But we are more committed than ever to ensuring equal opportunity for our children – and for all children in this country. We will not let this court decision keep us from pushing colleges and universities, Congress, and others to keep today’s ruling from undermining the progress made toward educating future multiracial, talented leaders who deserve every opportunity to reach their highest potential on campuses that reflect the diversity of America.”
““Racism and anti-Blackness are inescapable in our country, and race-conscious admissions are a crucial tool in expanding opportunities for students of color that reckons with those realities," said Aarti Kohli, Executive Director of Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus.
"For Asian Americans, this ruling will particularly harm Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, and Southeast Asian communities who continue to face significant barriers to higher education. At a moment when our country is increasingly segregated and there are significant gaps in resources for majority minority schools, we call on Congress, our local elected leaders, and universities to do everything in their power to implement solutions we really need for economic equity and racial justice in our nation.”
“For Asian American students and all others, racially diverse student bodies both enhance their learning and foster understanding of each student’s lived experience,” said Connie Chung Joe, CEO of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. “In our ever-changing global economy and platform, we must continue to give all students the opportunity to fulfill their potential and shape a future built strong on our biggest asset – our diversity.”
“We unequivocally condemn the ruling by the Supreme Court to reverse these affirmative action policies, thus ensuring that systemic racism continues to be embedded in higher education,” said Grace Pai, Executive Director of Advancing Justice – Chicago. “As Asian Americans, we will not allow our communities to be used as a prop by the conservative movement to advance a white supremacist agenda.”
“Declaring these race conscious policies unconstitutional is a barely disguised tool to once again remove students of color from our nation’s campuses and perpetuate the historical legacy of institutionalized racism in education that continues, especially in the south,” said Phi Nguyen, Executive Director of Advancing Justice – Atlanta. “We will continue to fight for racial justice and ensure that everyone has access to a quality education.”
“Affirmative action is not only beneficial for Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI), but for all students and society as a whole” said OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates President Linda Ng. “By preventing holistic affirmative action policies from being implemented, the Supreme Court has ignored the reality of persistent institutional bias, racial discrimination, and inequality in our country - undermining the efforts of educators and advocates to create more equitable and diverse learning environments.”
“Today’s decision is an absolute gut punch to our country’s efforts in creating a more inclusive society for all. Affirmative action policies have been the victim of years of a well-funded intentionally dishonest misinformation campaign. Because of today’s ruling, we will see less diverse student bodies, a less prepared workforce, and ultimately a less competitive economy,” said OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates VP of Public Affairs Kendall Kosai. “Our nation’s future depends on racial equity and diversity in higher education to achieve a thriving, multiracial democracy. We must all continue to work together to achieve that goal, no matter the decision of the Supreme Court.”
Some responses, including members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) hinted what might happen in order to make up for the absence of affirmative action.
CAPAC Whip Rep. Ted Lieu, D-CA urged that colleges use other strategies to maintain campus diversity.
“I strongly oppose the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College," said Lieu. "The majority opinion, however, contains a critical exception that I urge all colleges and universities to utilize: ‘nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.’ Many colleges and universities already employ this type of holistic admissions policy to achieve diversity on their student body mix and I urge them to continue to do so. When colleges reflect the diversity of America, all our communities are strengthened.”
Some members of Congress want to expand the Supreme Court's decision to include other traditional school admission practices that give preferences to White applicants.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to end the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is a significant setback in our effort to eliminate disparities in access to higher education and ensure diverse learning environments for all students," said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, who is the ranking member f the House Education and Workforce Committee.
"It is now imperative that we review other facets in college admissions that research shows are racially discriminatory and have a disparate impact and determine if they too need to be eliminated, given today’s ruling," said Scott, whose ancestors include Filipino immigrants.
"Race-conscious admissions policies provided a counterbalance to these discriminatory factors—such as inequitable K-12 schools, racially biased admissions tests, and developmental and legacy admissions—that all marginalize students of color. Now that the Court has invalidated that balance, I call on the Attorney General to start filing cases now against any current school practices that violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because they have discriminatory impact.”
A lawsuit filed yesterday, May 22, against Florida's new questionable law restricting land purchases by Chinese citizens was not unexpected.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law May 8 citing security concerns. “Florida is taking action to stand against the United States’ greatest geopolitical threat – the Chinese Communist party,” said DeSantis, who is expected to announce his candidacy for the GOP nomination for US President.
“Xenophobic policies and rhetoric toward China stoke racial bias,” said Bethany Li, AALDEF legal director. “We have repeatedly seen how policies in the name of national security have harmed Asian Americans — from immigration restrictions, to the WWII incarceration of Japanese Americans in camps, and post-9/11 surveillance. Failing to call out the discriminatory impacts means our community will continue to experience racism, violence, and the erosion of rights.”
The plaintiffs include Chinese Floridians Yifan Shen, Zhiming Xu, Xinxi Wang and Yongxin Liu, all citizens of China who are lawfully living in Florida. They are joined by Multi-Choice Realty, LLC, a state real estate brokerage firm with a large Chinese clientele.
FYI: Download a copy of the complaint in Shen v. Simpson here.
Filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the lawsuit alleges they "will be forced to cancel purchases of new homes, register their existing properties with the State under threat of severe penalties and face the loss of significant business."
The legislation, due to go into effect on July 1, unfairly restricts most Chinese citizens — and most citizens of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea — from purchasing homes in the state.
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, DeHeng Law Offices PC, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), in coordination with the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA).
The lawsuit argues that SB 264 will codify and expand housing discrimination against people of Asian descent in violation of the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. It will also cast an undue burden of suspicion on anyone seeking to buy property whose name sounds remotely Asian, Russian, Iranian, Cuban, Venezuelan, or Syrian.
DeSantis has argued that this law is necessary to protect Florida from the Chinese Communist Party and its activities. But this misguided rationale unfairly equates Chinese people with the actions of their government, and there is no evidence of national security harm resulting from real estate ownership by Chinese people in Florida.
Florida’s dangerous new law recalls similar efforts over the past century to weaponize false claims of “national security” against Asian immigrants and other marginalized communities. In the early 1900s, politicians across the country used similar justifications to pass “alien land laws” prohibiting Chinese and Japanese immigrants from becoming landowners.
These racist policies not only hurt immigrants financially, but also severely exacerbated violence and discrimination against Asian communities living in the United States. Over time, these laws were struck down by the courts or were repealed by state legislatures because they violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.
“All Asian Americans will feel the stigma and the chilling effect created by this Florida law, just like the discriminatory laws did to our ancestors more than a hundred years ago,” said Clay Zhu, attorney with DeHeng Law Offices PC and co-founder of CALDA. “We shall not go back.”
Over a dozen state legislatures have recently introduced similar legislation, and many of these bills likewise target people from China. Florida’s bill was the first of this wave of legislation to be enacted into law.
“Asian immigrants are part of Florida’s fabric. For hundreds of years, they have contributed to our communities and have made this state their home,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director for the ACLU of Florida. “The discriminatory policies pushed by the DeSantis administration will not go unchecked. The Constitution protects us all.”
“Florida’s discriminatory property law is unfair, unjustified, and unconstitutional,” said Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Everyone in the United States is entitled to equal protection under our laws, including citizens of other countries. If SB 264 goes into effect, it will profoundly harm our clients and countless other immigrants in Florida.”
Jerry Vattamala of AALDEF announces the lawsuit protesting the redrawn NYC council districts.
Residents of an Asian American neighborhood in Queens, New York say the newly drawn districts for city council dilutes their community influence and takes away their voice in city matters.
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) filed a lawsuit Friday against the New York City Districting Commission, the New York City Board of Elections, and the New York State Board of Elections over the city’s adoption of the city council districting map that denies the Asian American community of Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park in Queens any reasonable chance of fair and effective representation.
Despite the protections of the NYC Charter and our warnings throughout the redistricting process, the council map carved up the community and muffled their voices, continuing our city’s painful history of dividing, marginalizing, and disenfranchising communities of color," said said Jerry Vattamala, Democracy Program Director of AALDEF.
“As one of the fastest growing populations in the city, Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park has a thriving Asian American community made up of immigrant and native-born New Yorkers of Guyanese, Punjabi, Trinidadian, Surinamese, and Bengali descent," he said.
"This is an important community whose members contribute to our city every day, and they deserve a reasonable opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.”
AALDEF is suing to defend the rights of the Asian American community in Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park, to enforce the clear and important protections of the New York City Charter, and delay petitioning for the upcoming city council primary election until a district plan is put in place that complies with the Charter and ensures the fair and effective representation of this community.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of 18 individual petitioners who are all residents of Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park, as well as one community organization, D.R.U.M. (Desis Rising Up and Moving) that has members who reside in Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park.
Historically, this Asian American neighborhood in Queens has been divided up and prevented from electing candidates of their choice by the redistricting process at multiple levels of government, splitting the area into seven state assembly districts and three city council districts.
The plaintiffs say the area’s South Asian and Indo-Caribbean communities have historically been divided among several districts at the local, state and federal levels. This past redistricting, they said, spreads the community across three separate districts
"Last year, the New York City Districting Commission divided Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park among three city council Districts. This action was done in violation of the New York City Charter’s mandate that the Districting Commission “ensures the fair and effective representation of racial and language minority groups” to “the maximum extent practicable,” the lawsuit alleges.
“Throughout the redistricting process, we and our neighbors have showed up to urge the Commission to keep our community whole and to preserve Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park as one district," says Jagpreet Singh, Political Director of Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM).
"The council map continues the historic oppression and silencing of our community — but we won’t be quiet. We demand the representation we deserve. We belong here as much as anyone else and should be allowed to take part in the decision making of the city we give so much to,” says Singh.
The plaintiffs said the area’s South Asian and Indo-Caribbean communities have historically been divided among several districts at the local, state and federal levels. This past redistricting, they said, spreads the community across three separate districts.
They’re asking the judge for emergency relief to delay petitioning for the upcoming City Council races, due to start next Tuesday, Feb. 28, until a revised redistricting plan that “complies with the Charter” is enacted. Vattamala said he expects to hear from the court before Tuesday, Feb. 28.
“As one of the fastest growing populations in the city, Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park has a thriving Asian American community made up of immigrant and native-born New Yorkers of Guyanese, Punjabi, Trinidadian, Surinamese, and Bengali descent,” Vattamala said.
“Yet despite the protections of the NYC Charter and our warnings throughout the redistricting process, the council map carved up the community and muffled their voices, continuing our city’s painful history of dividing, marginalizing, and disenfranchising communities of color,” he added.
EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.
.jpg)
