Neither federal judges nor presidents have the authority to impose degrading conditions as punishment.  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  
Donate
Brennan Center for Justice
 
FireflyLight/Getty
The framers created the Emoluments Clauses to prevent the president and other officials from selling influence or favors. The Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the Emoluments Clauses, but robust enforcement wasn’t needed in the past because presidents and other high-level officials voluntarily complied. President Trump’s actions — from cryptocurrency ventures to accepting a luxury jet from Qatar — show why Congress must pass legislation to give these anticorruption safeguards real effect.
President Biden commuted the death sentences of 37 people to life in prison. Now the new administration is trying to undermine that action by imprisoning the men in “conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes.” The Justice Department plans to transfer them to a notorious federal supermax prison normally reserved for people who are especially violent while incarcerated. But a lawsuit alleges that the move violates the Eighth Amendment, prohibits the imposition of harsh prison conditions as retribution.
New Brennan Center research shows that eligible citizens who had their effort to vote blocked by a restrictive law were less likely to vote in subsequent elections. The analysis is based on a 2021 Texas law that made it harder to vote by mail. We found, for example, that people whose mail ballot applications were rejected in the 2022 primary turned out to vote in that year's general election at a rate 16 points lower than would be expected had S.B. 1 not been enacted. The findings show that the consequences of encountering a disenfranchising policy can linger for years.
The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal armed forces from acting as domestic police. Yet the law is full of gaps, including in relation to National Guard deployment. This ambiguity leaves open the possibility of an aggressive interpretation by the Trump administration that could have National Guard members carrying out exactly the type of law enforcement that the statute is meant to prevent. There are legislative solutions, but such congressional action would involve clearing many political hurdles.
A federal appeals court decided this month that citizens and groups can no longer fight discriminatory voting laws by suing under the Voting Rights Act. The ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals defies decades of precedent, not to mention Congress’s clear intent. The decision will especially hurt Native American voters in the affected states. It’s wrong on the law and wrong on history, and it must be overturned.

 
PODCAST: The Risks of Government by AI
In our latest podcast episode, a panel of experts discusses the Trump administration’s approach to artificial intelligence and the controversies surrounding AI use in the federal government. Panelists include Vittoria Elliott, platforms and power reporter at Wired; Faiza Patel, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program; Suresh Venkatasubramanian, professor of data science and computer science at Brown University; and Kareem Crayton, vice president for the Brennan Center’s Washington, DC, office. Watch on YouTube, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or your favorite podcast platform.

 
BRENNAN CENTER ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Michael Waldman joined Brennan Center senior fellow and former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance for a Substack Live talk about presidential self-enrichment and the Emoluments Clause. Covering the Qatari jet gift, the Trump family’s cryptocurrency operation, and more, they discuss this administration’s unprecedented efforts to funnel funds to the president and his family. Watch on Substack Live >>

 
Virtual Event
 
The Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship
Thursday, June 12, 12:30–1:30 p.m. ET
On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order purporting to strip U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants. The order directly conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which states that “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.” It also defies more than a century of case law.
 
The executive order was met with a wave of court rulings blocking its enforcement, and the Supreme Court has already heard arguments on the issue. What historical currents led to the ratification of the amendment’s Citizenship Clause? How did courts interpret its guarantees in the decades following? And how do today’s attacks on birthright citizenship relate to historical attempts to deny citizenship to people born and living in the United States?
 
Join the Brennan Center virtually for a discussion with leading experts on the historical and legal dimensions of the attack on birthright citizenship. RSVP today
 
Produced in partnership with the Organization of American Historians

 
 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here to update your preferences.
BlueSky Facebook threads Instagram TikTok LinkedIn YouTube Twitter Website