civil

Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a California attorney who radically reshaped the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to focus on political issues important to President Trump — including by targeting transgender rights and launching a nationwide hunt for alleged voter fraud by noncitizens — resigned her post Thursday.

In a resignation letter and in a post to X — where she routinely lambasted liberal policy and touted her office’s legal work to dismantle it — Dhillon said serving as the division’s chief was an honor.

“We ushered in the downfall of illegal DEI, we fought to protect women and girls’ sports, and so much more,” she wrote on X. “I want to thank President Trump for giving me this opportunity. I look forward to what’s next!”

Critics of Dhillon — including prominent civil rights leaders who had opposed her confirmation to the post — cheered her departure, saying she had flipped the storied Civil Rights Division on its head by attacking pillars of its past work, such as affirmative action policies, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights.

“Is Harmeet running from a sinking ship? Trying to avoid actual oversight? Or getting pushed out by DOJ leadership?” Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under President Obama, said in a text message. “Maybe it’s all of the above but regardless, she used the Civil Rights Division against the very communities and values it was founded to protect and that will be her legacy.”

Another part of her legacy, Gupta said, will be that she “oversaw the decimation of the Division’s incredible career workforce.” Many career civil rights attorneys left the department after she took over and demanded an ideological shift in the work.

Dhillon’s departure comes two days after a midterm election in which Republicans suffered sweeping losses, and amid widespread speculation as to how Trump and other leaders in his administration would respond — and who among them, if any, would leave or be unceremoniously ousted. Turnover after such an electoral drubbing is not uncommon.

In her resignation letter, Dhillon said she initially resigned in October, but that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles asked her to stay on until after the midterms. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that Dhillon did “a fantastic job … boldly protecting Americans’ civil liberties.”

Dhillon also touted what she called “historic victories for the American people” under her leadership, and specifically cited her work ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, suing states including California over their policies for transgender students and athletes and for their voter rolls, defending gun rights and fighting anti-Semitism.

Dhillon’s success in those initiatives was middling at best — and in some areas disastrous. Out of dozens of lawsuits demanding states turn over their voter rolls, for instance, she had zero wins.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on X, wrote that Dhillon “has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor,” and that the department “is grateful for her dedicated public service” and wished her “every success in her future endeavors.”

A spokesperson for Dhillon said she was returning to her firm, the Dhillon Law Group.

Mark Trammell, the chief executive of the conservative Center for American Liberty — which Dhillon founded — praised her work in the Justice Department as “advancing civil rights for all Americans.”

Others expressed stridently different feelings about her tenure.

Stacey Young, executive director of Justice Connection, a nonprofit organization of former Justice Department employees that advocates for a non-politicized department, blasted Dhillon’s tenure in the department and cheered her departure.

“Harmeet Dhillon has been the most destructive, lawless, and hateful head of the Civil Rights Division in DOJ history,” Young said in a statement. “After she upended the division’s mission-critical work, the civil servants who dedicated their careers to protecting vulnerable communities were instead told to target them — and more than three-quarters of the division’s lawyers left.”

Dhillon turned away from the division’s traditional role of investigating problematic police departments and rebuffed calls for federal civil rights investigations into the killing by immigration agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. She later relented amid intense public pressure to launch an investigation into Pretti’s killing, but was criticized for assigning inexperienced staff and not taking the inquiry seriously.

Dhillon also helped dismantle long-standing firewalls between the Justice Department and the White House, acknowledging that she saw her mission as pursuing civil rights in line with Trump’s executive orders.

She focused on targeting universities accused of discriminating against white and Asian students, attacking policies protecting transgender students and athletes in California and elsewhere, and launching her failed nationwide effort to obtain state voter rolls in order to root out alleged noncitizen voters.

She also took a leading role in threatening election workers processing ballots in the midterms.

As of Thursday morning, Dhillon still had pinned to the top of her X account a post from July, in which she discussed sending letters to elections officials in all 50 states warning them that it is a crime to knowingly process ballots from noncitizens.

“Every state and local election official is on notice — knowingly encouraging noncitizens to vote or conspiring to fraudulently register noncitizens is a federal crime,” she wrote.

Before being appointed to the Justice Department, Dhillon had made a name for herself in California by attacking transgender rights and challenging COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and voting rights initiatives.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, asked about Dhillon’s departure, said, “Good riddance.”

“Few people have done more to undermine U.S. DOJ’s civil rights legacy than Harmeet Dhillon — undermining free and fair elections, subverting anti-discrimination laws, and targeting marginalized communities,” Bonta said — efforts he said his office helped thwart in court.

Brian Levin, a professor emeritus of Cal State San Bernardino and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, said Dhillon’s tenure atop the Civil Rights Division “was nothing short of an unmitigated catastrophe” compared with the division’s work under past Republican and Democratic administrations.

Levin said Dhillon ignored data showing discrimination against “the very vulnerable communities for whom the Civil Rights Division” was created to help to instead focus on things like “anti-white discrimination” and gun rights — overseeing “a complete abdication of protecting voting rights, housing and a slew of other projects that have been the foundation of what the division was founded to do.”

Levin said that “among these vulnerable communities that need the help the most that she has turned her back on have been the gay community, the trans community, immigrants, racial minorities, as well as the disabled,” and accused Dhillon of having “butchered” the division’s career staff and replaced it with people who “were vastly underqualified.”

“She was horrible, and anyone who cares about the preservation of civil rights, … and those who are the most vulnerable in our society, while not rejoicing today, can at least take some solace that the hemorrhaging will at least temporarily stop,” Levin said.

Young, of the Justice Connection, called on the next Senate — which will have a Democratic majority thanks to Tuesday’s elections — to exercise its confirmation powers to ensure Dhillon’s successor atop the Civil Rights Division fulfills its “congressional mandate to enforce all Americans’ civil rights diligently and fairly.”

New Democratic Congress expected to probe Trump Justice Department civil rights office’s handling of Epstein files and ICE killings.

As President Donald Trump’s administration prepares for a flurry of congressional investigations into shootings by immigration agents and the Jeffrey Epstein files, the top official in charge of the United States Department of Justice’s civil rights division has resigned.

US Attorney General Todd Blanche on Thursday confirmed Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s departure in a post on social media.

“Today, I accepted the resignation of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon,” Blanche wrote on X. “She has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor.”

A top Trump ally, Dhillon was confirmed to her role in April 2025 and has overseen a dramatic overhaul of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which is tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Hundreds of former Justice Department officials penned a letter last December decrying the “destruction” of the agency division under Trump.

Dhillon is the first high-ranking official to resign from the Trump administration since US Democrats swept both chambers of the US Congress in the country’s pivotal midterm elections on Tuesday.

Democratic congressman Robert Garcia, who will likely become the new chair of the powerful House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, pledged on Wednesday to take on four major investigations, including abuses of power by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and the Epstein files.

Dhillon reportedly told her staff earlier this year that her office, which has typically been charged with investigating law enforcement killings by police officers, would not be looking into the fatal shootings of two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – who were gunned down by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

In May, Garcia accused the administration of continuing to shield Trump from scrutiny related to unreleased documents tied to the Epstein investigation

During a closed-door hearing in which Blanche’s predecessor, Pam Bondi, was asked by lawmakers about the case, the California Democrat Garcia alleged Dhillon repeatedly intervened to block questions about the president’s connection to the release of the files.

The Justice Department referred Al Jazeera to Blanche’s social media post when asked when Dhillon submitted her resignation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Khalil returned to Columbia University to discuss memoir detailing his arrest and detention by ICE agents.

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil says campus advocacy has shifted public perception and encouraged a generation of leaders to question their views on Israel, speaking as he returned to Columbia University for the first time since his arrest.

The 31-year-old Columbia graduate, who became a figurehead of the campus movement that swept the United States in 2024, returned to campus on Tuesday to discuss his new memoir, No Land to Stand On: Notes from Detention, marking his first visit since his arrest on March 8, 2025.

“The American public is finally changing, is finally looking at the Palestinian as an equal human,” he told the AFP news agency in an interview.

While Khalil described the event, attended by about 100 people, as a “victory”, he accused university leadership of seeking “to erase me, to erase any Palestinian voices on campus”.

Some Jewish groups on social media opposed his return to campus. In response, a Columbia spokesperson said the university is “committed to rigorous debate, inquiry, and respectful dialogue across differing perspectives”.

“Columbia supports the right of faculty members to organize academic events,” the statement carried by US media read. “An invitation to speak does not signify university endorsement of a speaker’s views.”

Khalil helped lead student demonstrations at Columbia in 2024, which became the epicentre of nationwide campus protests against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. He was later arrested by immigration authorities at the height of a federal crackdown on foreign student activists and held for three months without criminal charge, despite holding permanent US residency.

He has repeatedly slammed the university for its handling of the demonstrations, which included authorising the New York Police Department to clear protesters from the Manhattan campus.

“They chose brutality. They chose repression,” Khalil told AFP.

Columbia maintained at the time that the demonstrations presented a safety threat. Khalil also accused the university of failing to protect him from harassment prior to his detention.

Despite the personal toll, Khalil credited Palestinian student advocacy with driving broader political shifts in the United States, pointing to gains by progressive candidates.

“Also, we can see on the ground that we have more progressive candidates being elected into US Congress and positions of power,” he said, citing candidates like Dr Abdul El-Sayed, running for the US Senate in Michigan, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Khalil was released from immigration custody on June 20, 2025, though the Trump administration continues to seek his deportation.

“A big part of my fight is like fighting for normalcy,” he said. “To go back to being the young father who would go to the park with his son and wife, and no one would bother them.”

Despite the ongoing legal battle, he expressed resolve over his public role.

“My fight is not only about whether I get to stay in this country,” Khalil said. “It is about whether, you know, people in this country can speak their minds.”

Lander says dozens remain in Israeli custody after being detained while helping Palestinian farmers harvest olives.

United States Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander says he has been released from Israeli military custody with a warning after being detained alongside dozens of volunteers helping Palestinian farmers harvest olives in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday.

But several dozen others, including rabbis and international volunteers, remain in detention, according to Lander, who called them to be released immediately.

“I’ve been released from IDF custody with a ‘warning,’ apparently because of my public profile,” Lander wrote on X. “I told them I wasn’t even a congressmember yet, just a nominee.”

Lander, a former New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate, was among approximately 80 volunteers detained by Israeli soldiers and police near the village of Nahalin, outside Bethlehem, according to the Israeli organisation Rabbis for Human Rights.

The group, which included American, Israeli, Palestinian, British and Canadian volunteers, had been accompanying Palestinian farmers for about two hours when Israeli forces arrived and informed them that they were in a closed military zone.

The volunteers were then taken to a police station, according to Rabbis for Human Rights.

The Israeli government has not responded to a request for comment.

This autumn, the Supreme Court will consider a question with potentially far-reaching consequences for civil rights in the United States: Who gets to enforce them? On November 30, the justices will hear a case over whether employees of federally funded universities can sue under Title IX over alleged workplace sex discrimination. The Trump administration has urged the court to rule that they cannot, arguing that Congress never gave university employees a private right to bring such claims.

The dispute is the latest front in a broader legal push to restrict the ability of individuals and advocacy groups to take rights violations to court themselves. In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a federal appeals court ruling that barred Arkansas United, an immigrant advocacy organisation, from suing to enforce protections for voters who need assistance at the polls. Across a growing number of cases, Republican-led states and the Trump administration are advancing the same basic principle: Unless Congress has clearly authorised private citizens to sue, enforcement should largely be left to the government.

That may sound like an arcane legal argument, but its implications are anything but. If individuals and civil rights groups cannot go to court when laws protecting them are violated, the power to decide which rights are actually enforced increasingly rests with the very government that may be violating, ignoring or choosing not to enforce them.

A private right of action allows individuals, or groups acting on their behalf, to file lawsuits to enforce rights protected by law. These lawsuits can seek compliance with the law or compensation for past violations. Private rights of action are not automatic under US federal and state law. Congress and state legislatures sometimes explicitly authorise private lawsuits. Where they have not, courts have had to determine whether a law implicitly allows individuals or groups to sue, or whether enforcement rests solely with government authorities.

In practice, private litigation has been an essential part of enforcing rights throughout much of US history. As University of Virginia School of Law Professor George Rutherglen writes in a 2015 law review article (PDF):

“The long history of civil rights, dating back to Reconstruction, makes them quintessentially private rights, whose exercise and enforcement should depend primarily on the initiative of the individuals who bear those rights. Public enforcement no doubt remains necessary, and it has an equally long and distinguished pedigree in civil rights law, but it cannot entirely displace individual control over individual rights.”

Proponents of private rights of action, such as AARP, consider them an effective tool for vulnerable individuals and groups to protect their rights when government agencies are unwilling or unable to act. Critics, such as the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, however, argue that private lawsuits can encourage frivolous litigation.

These critics, often from the political right, have attempted to restrict private litigation through legal arguments against private causes of action. An example is the 2001 Alexander v Sandoval decision, in which a Supreme Court majority led by Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that Title VI did not provide a private right of action to enforce regulations prohibiting policies or practices with a disparate impact on protected groups – discrimination that can occur without clear evidence of intent.

The legal push against private rights of action has intensified in recent years. Republican-led states have increasingly challenged the doctrine of implied private rights of action, arguing that courts should reject private suits to enforce various types of rights. The Trump administration has also adopted this stance. When the court decided a 2021 voting rights case, Justice Neil Gorsuch submitted a one-paragraph concurrence, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, questioning whether “the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action,” despite that issue not being raised in the case itself.

The conservative push to restrict private rights of action has extended to a variety of areas. In June, the Supreme Court ruled against Falun Gong practitioners who accused Cisco Systems of helping the Chinese government develop surveillance technology used to facilitate their persecution, concluding that they could not pursue those aiding-and-abetting claims under the federal laws they had invoked.

One of the most consequential implications of restricting private rights of action is the threat to voting rights. In the Arkansas United case, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the immigrant advocacy organisation did not have the right to sue on behalf of non-native English speakers over the right to have language assistance in the voting booth. The ruling concerned Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But it extended a much broader argument already adopted by the Eighth Circuit: that private individuals and advocacy organisations cannot sue to enforce key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court’s refusal in June to hear Arkansas United left that ruling in place.

This argument has also been pushed by Republican-led governments in two redistricting and vote-dilution cases: Board of Election Commissioners v NAACP in Mississippi and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe in North Dakota. In May, the Supreme Court vacated judgments in both cases and sent them back for reconsideration in light of its ruling in Louisiana v Callais, without resolving the private-enforcement question. That decision sharply raised the bar for some racial vote-dilution claims, endangering the voting power of Black, Hispanic and Native American communities across the US. At the same time, conservative-controlled governments are attempting to deny members and advocates for these communities the right to even bring some of these cases before the courts, arguing that only the Department of Justice can initiate action over such voting rights violations.

The broader danger is that, as private rights of action are curtailed, enforcement of federal law increasingly depends on decisions made by the executive branch.

The Trump administration is now pursuing a different means of restricting private enforcement. The Clean Air Act explicitly gives private citizens the right to bring certain lawsuits, yet the Justice Department has sought to intervene and dismiss a case brought against xAI over allegations that gas turbines at its power facility in Southaven, Mississippi, are violating federal environmental law and polluting surrounding communities. The facility powers xAI’s Colossus 2 data centre in nearby Memphis. In September, the Justice Department appealed to the Fifth Circuit and sought to halt the case. The department has argued that allowing the suit to proceed would threaten national security and the US pursuit of global leadership in AI. Here, the issue is not whether Congress created a private right to sue – it did – but whether the executive branch can nevertheless step in to stop such a case when it conflicts with its priorities.

Relying solely on the Justice Department to pursue such cases at the federal level is a particularly dubious proposition under the current administration. The department has also been weaponised to target political foes of President Trump. Its Civil Rights Division has been steered away from defending the rights of racial and ethnic minorities and refocused on cases brought by white plaintiffs alleging so-called “reverse discrimination”.

The Justice Department’s current politicisation may be reversed under a future administration. But even then, the erosion of private rights of action would leave the enforcement of civil and political rights increasingly dependent on a federal agency with limited resources and subject to political direction. For example, as Democracy Docket noted in 2024, of the 216 active voting rights and redistricting cases it was tracking at the time, only five were cases brought by the Justice Department. As Professor Rutherglen noted in his article, to rely primarily on government actors to enforce rights “is to transform the nature of those rights: from private to public, from individuals to groups, from legal control by plaintiffs to political control by administrators.”

Private rights of action are now being eroded, case by case. Politicians, civil liberties advocates and organisations must challenge this trend before more avenues for enforcement are closed off. Otherwise, protections won over decades may become increasingly dependent on the willingness of government authorities to uphold them, leaving those whose rights are violated with fewer ways to seek redress.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The immigration agency has rejected a report from a government watchdog, making suggestions for improved body camera policy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a United States agency that has taken a central role in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, has rejected a government report calling for its agents to wear body cameras that automatically activate.

On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides research to Congress, released a report recommending an update to ICE guidelines for camera usage.

It suggested that “automated camera activation” would be helpful in situations where “unexpected and unplanned incidents, unrelated to sensitive operations, result in use of force by or against personnel”.

“Given the important role of body-worn cameras in law enforcement activities, we maintain that additional controls are needed to help ensure that ICE personnel capture footage in accordance with policy,” the report said.

Automatic activation, it added, would address difficulties ICE agents face in manually turning on their cameras during enforcement operations.

But ICE has rejected the recommendation for automatic activation, which could be triggered by an agent pulling a gun or turning on a car siren. The agency cited privacy concerns.

But the Trump administration faces public pressure to improve transparency during its immigration raids.

Agents from ICE and other agencies such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have faced accusations of excessive force and civil liberties violations.

In January, two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – were shot to death in separate shootings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during immigration operations.

The New York Times estimated in July that immigration agents had opened fire on at least 25 people since the start of Trump’s second term. A CBS News review updated this week counts at least 30 shootings, with nine people killed and 13 others wounded.

ICE has often blamed such incidents on aggression against its agents, and it has argued that its officers have opened fire to defend themselves from danger.

But in several cases, that rationale has come under scrutiny.

Critics argued that video footage in Good’s fatal shooting disproved government statements alleging that she had weaponised her vehicle against agents. Her car, according to observers, appeared to be turning away from agents, not towards them.

In another case, ICE agent Christian Castro was accused of making false statements about a shooting that resulted in injury to Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan man living in Minneapolis.

Castro faces federal charges for allegedly lying about being attacked with a snow shovel and broom before the shooting, after video footage contradicted his account. Castro pleaded not guilty last month.

More recently, on October 8, immigration agents shot a man named Oscar Belgal in New York City while his five-year-old son was in the backseat of his car. ICE stated that Belgal appeared to be “going towards officers” in his car when they opened fire.

On Tuesday, a judge rejected the government’s effort to have Belgal deported.

Activists say better recording procedures for body camera footage could help clarify what happened in such incidents.

But the Trump administration has largely refused to implement reforms to ICE protocol.

Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress delayed funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, on the basis that significant changes needed to be made to reduce incidents of excessive force.

The department said on Wednesday that automatically recording cameras could result in “the unauthorised recording of sensitive interactions with informants or victims”.

The agency added that all ICE offices had received body cameras as of August 5, but that training in their use was still ongoing and would be finished “soon”.