[MUSIC]
The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to let it limit male and
“balladning for any election that starts today.”
>> Election officials say a new postal service system the administration wants is not ready or legal could eligible voters end up without a ballot.
>> I'm Steven Skip with Michelle Martin, and this is up first from NPR News.
[MUSIC] >> University professors are promising to fight an IRS plan to revoke tax exempt status for schools with diversity programs. >> AUP is not going to stand by and watch President Trump. Once again, attempt to destroy the greatest system of higher education in the world.
>> An ICE officer is charged with lying about a Minneapolis shooting earlier this year after a video concert ticket is account. It's a rare prosecution of an immigration officer under President Trump. Stay with us, we'll give you a new year's need to start today. [MUSIC]
>> This week on the NPR politics podcast, Democratic Socialists are having a moment. What's their goal? >> The goal being to eventually relive the Democratic Party to perhaps someday develop an independent party, but we recognize that in the United States they're just as a two-party system. >> How Democratic Socialists are staking out political territory.
This week on the NPR politics podcast. >> Hey, you know that nagging voice in your head the one telling you to put the phone down and stop doomsgrowing while it's time. Look up, take a daily curiosity break with shortwave and pair a science podcast. Let your mind wander to the edges of outer space or wonder about what's lurking in the
depths of the sea floor all in under 15 minutes. Shortwave, your daily mental recent, listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> Instead of scrolling mindlessly, engage mindfully with the NPR app with a mix of on-demand news stories from the station and your favorite podcast, you can relax without shutting off your brain down low the NPR app today.
>> The Trump administration is back at the Supreme Court to push for restrictions to mail and voting. >> The administration wants the postal service to check mail and ballots instead of just delivering them. Lower courts so far have blocked this effort, but the administration is still trying to
apply it to the mid-term election for which mail and voting begins today. And pair as Hansi Lowong is back to break this all down Good Morning, Hansi. >> Good morning, Michelle. >> So this all goes back to an executive order that President Trump signed in March.
“But didn't the Supreme Court already rule on that order?”
>> Yes, they did just last week, but that ruling was on a procedural question about one of the lawsuits over Trump's order and now the administration is back to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of the postal services plan to follow that order and I should
note USPS is a financial support of NPR and basically the question before the court this
time does USPS have the legal authority to refuse to deliver ballots to voters if state election officials don't turn over to USPS, lists of mail voters, names and addresses, and if officials don't have certain barcodes on the ballot envelopes. >> Okay, so those are the requirements that the postal service under the direction of the Trump administration wants states to follow are any states doing all of that right now?
>> No, and a federal judge in Boston has found those requirements for mail ballots are likely illegal because USPS has no authority to control voting by mail. So the judge blocked USPS from imposing those requirements and that's the block the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to live right now. >> And what's the Trump administration's argument for that?
>> The Justice Department is arguing that these new mail ballots require the postal service wants to impose on states just away for USPS to regulate mail and that this is not regulating federal elections, which the Constitution says are controlled by states and Congress.
“But the fact is Congress has passed laws that require USPS to deliver the mail and exceptions”
to that mandate do not include mail ballots that are addressed to real voters and have the right postage. >> So that's the legal debate playing out in the courts, but the election is playing out too. It's the state of mail invoiting for the midterms today. >> Well for now, there's still a block when key parts of the postal service plan.
So mail invoiting is still available to all voters or eligible for it in their states. And USPS is expected to deliver ballots as usual. In fact, North Carolina State Law requires election officials there to begin mailing
out absentee ballots today, which means today is the first official day of voting for
the general election and other states are gearing up to get their mail in ballots out later this month. So, and I should know some states are trying to comply with these new ballot requirements, but they can't follow all of them because USPS is not finished setting up the online portal system.
They need to do that. >> And at this point, can this postal service plan at the direction of President Trump even be carried out? >> Yeah, that's a key question. And many election officials say no, that it's too late.
Remember, we had a whistleblower report earlier this week claiming that the o...
system has not been properly tested, and it's set up in a way this whistleblower claims
that could lead to many eligible voters not getting their ballots in time or at all. And just yesterday, USPS confirmed in the core filing, the agency still does not have a firm launch date for that online portal. It said it would be ready, quote, sometime next week.
“>> Before you let you go, how are mail invoitors and elections officials dealing with this uncertainty?”
>> Yeah, there's a lot of concern that if the Supreme Court allows this plan to move ahead, it could cause major disruptions to the midterms. There are some places in the country that vote only by mail. And many election officials in those places are trying to come up with backup plans. And for voters who do have other ways of casting their ballot besides mailing it in,
there are certainly voters who are thinking through alternative plans. I talked to an overseas voter and a military spouse voting at a state who have considered
booking a flight so they can vote at the polls in person.
But again, right now, key parts of the USPS plan are blocked and it's possible it will remain blocked. We'll just have to see what the Supreme Court decides and when. >> That is, and PR's Homsi Loan, Homsi, thank you. >> You're welcome, Michelle.
[MUSIC] >> The IRS says it wants to revoke the tax exempt status of private schools and universities with programs designed to help racial minority students. >> The Trump administration defines helping minorities as racial discrimination and the move by tax authorities is their latest strike on diversity initiatives.
>> And PR's Adrian Flodillo covers race and he's covering this story. Good morning. >> Good morning, Michelle.
“>> What kinds of schools would be affected by this?”
>> Well, any private school, elementary high schools, universities, trade schools with any kind of program designed to benefit students on the basis of their race. A lot of schools have programs to support black or Latino students, for example, who
may be the first in their families to go to college, some schools have scholarships or
other initiatives that are aimed at promoting a more diverse student body. And the IRS is saying it's going to penalize schools for these types of programs by revoking their tax exempt status starting next spring. >> And why is the administration saying it wants to do this? >> Well, the administration is arguing that these sorts of programs are racially discriminatory.
Treasury Secretary Scott Besett, who oversees the IRS, said an statement that, quote, "racial discrimination has no place in American education." This is a huge shift, Michelle. Historically, the IRS has not penalized tax exempt institutions for race-based programs, or considered them discriminatory as long as these programs are trying to advance racial equity
or address the effects of societal discrimination. But now the government is saying that programs that consider race even for that purpose are themselves discriminating. >> And what kind of impact would this have? >> Well, it would be a huge impact on schools.
The administration is trying to pressure them to end these programs by squeezing them financially. Having non-profit tax exempt status frees these schools from paying federal income taxes, but it's also a very important fundraising tool because people who donate to schools like alumni get a tax deduction.
“As you should say, Michelle, it's not clear exactly how the IRS will identify schools that”
have race-based programs. It does not like, but the agency says that up to 18,000 private schools that could be affected by this rule change. Can they really do this though? Well, they're no doubt going to face legal challenges.
I spoke with Todd Wolffson, president of the American Association of University Professors, the AUP, which has been fighting a lot of President Trump's recent attacks on higher education. AUP is not going to stand by and watch President Trump once again attempt to destroy the greatest system of higher education in the world that gives opportunity to a diverse set of students for a diverse country.
So, yes, emphatically, yes, we are going to fight this. >> There's legal gray area here, Michelle, as to whether the IRS can do this, unilaterally redefine racial discrimination and revoke tax exempt status because of that. The fight over this experts think could delay this change from taking effect next May as the administration wants or possibly ever.
>> So, Adrian, before we let you go, what does the administration think should be done about patterns of racial discrimination which have historically benefited white people, which have been intended to benefit white people at the expense of other groups? >> Well, the administration does not believe that the government or private institutions should play any role in addressing the effects of his direct discrimination.
It's said so, in fact, in the guidelines that published on this rule change yesterday, the administration is trying through policy changes like this at many agencies to enshrine what it says is a color blind approach to government, something that conservatives have said for a long time that they want to see. >> That is, and Pierre's agent of Florida, Adrian, thank you.
>> Thank you, Michelle.
[ Music ]
>> An ice officer is facing federal charges in connection with the shooting of a Venezuelan
man in Minneapolis. >> This incident took place in January during Operation Metro Surge that was the Trump Administration's Immigration Enforcement Crackdown in Minnesota. >> And Pierre Justice correspondent Ryan Lucas is covering this and he's with us now to tell us more about the morning.
>> Good morning.
“>> So, who is this officer and what is he charged with?”
>> Well, the defendant here is Christian Castro. He was, as you said, an officer with ice, he's facing six counts of making false statements. So, in other words, of lying to investigators about a shooting in January in Minnesota, and the circumstances that led up to that shooting. That is according to a person's familiar with the matter who spoke with me on condition
of anonymity in order to discuss an ongoing investigation.
I am also told that Castro turned himself in to federal authorities yesterday in Texas, so he is now in custody. Now, Castro's name may ring a bell for you, and that's because he has been in the news. We've talked about him on this program. He's the same ice officer who's been at the center of a legal fight between Minnesota in Texas.
That legal battle revolved around a separate set of criminal charges that local prosecutors in Minnesota had brought against him connected to the same shooting. Castro was in Texas. Minnesota wanted Texas to extradite him.
“Texas's governor refused to do so, and Castro in the end was released from a Texas jail last”
week. Of course, he's facing these new separate federal charges, brought by the Justice Department. What is it that he allegedly lied about? Well, the charges are still under seal, so we don't have all the details yet, but back in January when the shooting happened, DHS said two Venezuelan men had ambushed in a tack Castro
with a snow shovel in a broomstick after a targeted traffic stop, and it said that Castro had opened fire and self defense. Federal prosecutors even brought assault charges against the two Venezuelan men, including the one who was shot in the leg in the incident, but soon after that prosecutors dropped those charges because video evidence had emerged that contradicted Castro's claims about
the shooting. DHS then had to climb down from its perch, it said Castro and another ice officer appeared to have made untruthful statements in sworn testimony about the shooting. The two ice officers were put on administrative leave, and since then, Minnesota authorities have said that Castro actually fired his gun through a closed door.
“And then let me point out that the person who was shot did survive.”
He did. So this seems like a rare instance in the Trump administration in which a federal immigration officer is potentially being held accountable for alleged misconduct. How significant is this? Well, it is certainly rare.
I will say though that the attorney for the Venezuelan man who was shot by Castro says this doesn't go far enough. She says the Justice Department has grossly undercharged this case, and that Castro should be facing more severe civil rights charges. It's also worth noting that no one has been charged for the killings of two American citizens
were in a good and Alex-Pretty who were shot and killed by federal immigration officers during the same major enforcement operation in Minneapolis earlier this year by the Trump administration. And shootings involving immigration officers are not uncommon. If they do keep happening, there have been more than 20 such shootings under this administration,
the second Trump administration, including two fatal ones in July, one in Texas, and
the other in May. That is. NPR is my Lucas Ryan. Thank you. Thank you.
And that's up first for Friday, September 4th. I'm Michelle Martin. And I'm Steve Innscape. Today's up first was edited by Megan Pratt's Jennifer Portman. Anna, you can not off.
Muhammad al-Bardisi and Alice Wolfling, it was produced by Ziyat Bach, and Nia Dumas, our director is Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support for Misha Highness and Patrick Murray. He doesn't say his name that way. Our technical director is Callie Strange, Carly Strange.
He also doesn't say her name that way. Our executive producer is Jay Shay and our director is again Monday. Artificial intelligence is everywhere, and the public backlash is growing. This week on Here In Now Any Time, Arizona's attorney general, on light she is reviewing the state's policy on AI-powered cameras from flock.
And New York City Public Schools is banning AI for kids until they enter high school. Can you really keep AI out of the ABCs? Find out on Here In Now Any Time. On the NPR app or anywhere you listen to podcasts. Don't miss our full conversation and the rest of our games, listen to the way
