Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand: Hoosiers Spend an Estimated $1.8 Billion a Year on Cannabis
SANTA MONICA, California, April 30 (TNSrep) -- Rand issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Hoosiers Spend an Estimated $1.8 Billion a Year on Cannabis
New RAND Studies Examine Cannabis Landscape and Policy Options for Indiana
*
Indiana residents spend an estimated $1.8 billion per year on cannabis, despite the state maintaining some of the strictest cannabis laws in the country, according to new RAND research that maps Indiana's cannabis landscape and policies.
The research, comprising two studies--Indiana's Cannabis Landscape and Considering the Consequences of Changing
... Show Full Article
SANTA MONICA, California, April 30 (TNSrep) -- Rand issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Hoosiers Spend an Estimated $1.8 Billion a Year on Cannabis
New RAND Studies Examine Cannabis Landscape and Policy Options for Indiana
*
Indiana residents spend an estimated $1.8 billion per year on cannabis, despite the state maintaining some of the strictest cannabis laws in the country, according to new RAND research that maps Indiana's cannabis landscape and policies.
The research, comprising two studies--Indiana's Cannabis Landscape and Considering the Consequences of ChangingCannabis Policy in Indiana (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4439-2.html) --examines cannabis use, spending, enforcement and policy options in one of the few states where cannabis remains fully illegal, even for medical purposes.
"The policy landscape around cannabis in Indiana is complex and dynamic," said Beau Kilmer, lead author of both reports and codirector of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. "While cannabis remains illegal, intoxicating hemp products with delta-9 THC or delta-8 THC are widely available, and Indiana residents have relatively easy access to legal cannabis in three neighboring states. This creates challenges for projecting the consequences of changing cannabis supply laws in the state."
More than 40% of Indiana residents live within 50 miles of a licensed cannabis dispensary in either Illinois, Michigan or Ohio, and nearly all reside within a 100-mile drive, according to the landscape study.
The first study also finds that approximately 1.3 million Indiana residents ages 12 and older reported using cannabis in the past year, with nearly one-third reporting daily or near-daily use. These frequent users account for most spending on cannabis in Indiana each year. The best estimate of annual spending is $1.8 billion, but the researchers noted some uncertainty and spending likely ranges from $1.2 billion to $2.6 billion.
While adult cannabis use in Indiana has risen steadily, the Indiana Youth Survey found that past-month use among high school seniors dropped by nearly half from 2016 to 2024.
On the enforcement side, Indiana recorded more than 13,000 cannabis-related arrests in 2024, and the per capita arrest rate for Black residents was nearly four times higher than that for White residents, according to the study.
The second study examines what could happen if Indiana changes its approach to cannabis. Researchers outline a range of policy options, ranging from reducing penalties for cannabis possession to regulating and licensing supply and sales to adults.
Under one scenario, the state could generate annual tax revenue of approximately $180 million five years after legalization. But under different assumptions about tax rates and other factors, that figure could range from $100 million to $270 million annually. At the same time, legalization would likely reduce, though not eliminate, the estimated $10 to $20 million the state currently spends on cannabis-related criminal justice costs.
The study does not make policy recommendations for Indiana, but notes that the state is not limited to the for-profit approach to legalization implemented in other states. For example, the state could sell cannabis through government stores, as some states do with liquor. And compared to other states, Indiana could choose to spend more on regulation, testing, and enforcement if it prioritizes product safety and reducing the size of the illegal market.
The report also includes a comprehensive review of the evidence on adult-use cannabis legalization. However, the authors note that uncertainty exists about the extent to which the existing evidence would apply to Indiana. "Almost all the existing research is based on states that allowed medical cannabis before legalizing adult use, an important difference in the case of Indiana", said Rosanna Smart, a coauthor on both reports and codirector of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. "Further, most studies do not account for the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products, which may affect the inferences made in these studies."
If Indiana decides to change its approach, the researchers note that the state could follow a gradual path that builds in flexibility. For example, the state could initially limit the types of products or THC levels allowed. It could also incorporate a sunset provision, giving lawmakers an opportunity to revisit the policy if outcomes fall short of expectations.
Support for this research was provided by the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation. Other authors include Gregory Midgette, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Roland Neil, Ben Senator, Wendy Hawkins, Anna Newell and Ellie Wadsworth.
The RAND Drug Policy Research Center conducts research and analysis to help decisionmakers in the United States and throughout the world address issues involving alcohol, cannabis, and other drugs.
* * *
About RAND
RAND is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2026/04/hoosiers-spend-an-estimated-18-billion-a-year-on-cannabis.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Job Cuts Intensify in Germany (April 2026)
MUNICH, Germany, April 30 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Job Cuts Intensify in Germany (April 2026)
Plans to cut jobs at companies in Germany have further intensified. The ifo Employment Barometer fell to 91.3 points in April, down from 93.4 points in March, the lowest level since May 2020. "Geopolitical uncertainty is spilling over into companies' personnel planning," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "More jobs are being cut than created."
The labor market situation in industry remains tense. The barometer has deteriorated, with hardly
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, April 30 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Job Cuts Intensify in Germany (April 2026)
Plans to cut jobs at companies in Germany have further intensified. The ifo Employment Barometer fell to 91.3 points in April, down from 93.4 points in March, the lowest level since May 2020. "Geopolitical uncertainty is spilling over into companies' personnel planning," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "More jobs are being cut than created."
The labor market situation in industry remains tense. The barometer has deteriorated, with hardlyany sector not affected by job cuts.
The same applies to wholesale and retail. Among service providers, the indicator has plummeted and is at its lowest level since the start of the coronavirus crisis. In logistics, the rising costs are now also reflected in personnel planning.
The tourism industry is likewise affected by job cuts. "Sustained easing of tension on the labor market can only be expected once uncertainty significantly subsides," says Wohlrabe.
* * *
More information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-04-29/job-cuts-intensify-germany-april-2026)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-04-29/job-cuts-intensify-germany-april-2026
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for American Progress: Congress Is Considering Legislation That Could Strip Protections From Franchise Workers
WASHINGTON, April 30 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Congress Is Considering Legislation That Could Strip Protections From Franchise Workers
A new Center for American Progress analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-american-franchise-act-would-harm-workers-and-small-businesses/) examines the proposed American Franchise Act in Congress, legislation that would allow large corporations to dictate how millions of Americans work while avoiding responsibility when workers are illegally underpaid or mistreated.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 30 (TNSrep) -- The Center for American Progress issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Congress Is Considering Legislation That Could Strip Protections From Franchise Workers
A new Center for American Progress analysis (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-american-franchise-act-would-harm-workers-and-small-businesses/) examines the proposed American Franchise Act in Congress, legislation that would allow large corporations to dictate how millions of Americans work while avoiding responsibility when workers are illegally underpaid or mistreated.The bill would strip key protections from nearly 9 million franchise workers and shift legal and financial risk onto small business owners.
The legislation would narrow when corporations can be held responsible for workplace conditions at franchise locations. In practice, it would allow franchisors to influence hiring, staffing, and workplace policies while avoiding liability. This would make it much harder to hold large corporations accountable for wage theft, violations of workers' rights, or child labor laws, even when their policies create those outcomes.
"Without strong joint-employer protections, workers will be vulnerable to wage theft and violations of their rights, and small business owners will have less control over decisions affecting their businesses," said Karla Walter, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of the analysis. "Congress should not be creating new ways for corporations to avoid responsibility while workers and small businesses are left holding the bag."
The analysis highlights several key findings:
* The bill would strip protections from millions of workers. The American Franchise Act would weaken joint-employer standards that currently protect nearly 9 million franchise workers nationwide, leaving them more vulnerable to wage theft and labor violations.
* Small businesses would bear the full legal burden. The owners of more than 800,000 franchise locations could be held solely liable for workplace violations, even when corporate franchisors hold significant control over operations and employment conditions.
* Corporations could control workplaces without accountability. The legislation would allow franchisors to influence hiring, staffing levels, and workplace policies while avoiding legal responsibility for labor law violations.
* Weak enforcement would enable labor abuses. Without strong joint-employer standards, likely only the most blatant violations would be penalized, allowing systemic issues such as wage theft and union busting to persist.
* Evidence shows risks are real and growing. Research cited in the report finds that wage theft among fast-food workers in Los Angeles tripled between 2009 and 2024, costing workers tens of millions of dollars annually.
Joint-employer protections have existed for more than 90 years and are embedded across federal labor laws governing wages, workplace safety, antidiscrimination, and collective bargaining. These protections reflect the reality that large corporations often hold significant control over working conditions even when they are not the direct employer. Without accountability, workers will be vulnerable to wage theft and violations of their rights, and small business owners will have less control over decisions affecting their businesses.
Read the analysis: "The American Franchise Act Would Harm Workers and Small Businesses" (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-american-franchise-act-would-harm-workers-and-small-businesses/) by Karla Walter.
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at cunkenholz@americanprogress.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-congress-is-considering-legislation-that-could-strip-protections-from-franchise-workers/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Southern Poverty Law Center Suddenly Shoves Lesson Plans for School Children Down the Memory Hole
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on April 29, 2026, by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla:
* * *
Southern Poverty Law Center suddenly shoves lesson plans for school children down the memory hole
The supposed charity has been criminally accused of using illegal means to fund the very hate they are supposed to be fighting. Now a public school teacher has discovered that they're also hiding what they used to promote as K-12 education.
*
One of the plot elements of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four was the "memory hole," a chute
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on April 29, 2026, by senior fellow Kali Fontanilla:
* * *
Southern Poverty Law Center suddenly shoves lesson plans for school children down the memory hole
The supposed charity has been criminally accused of using illegal means to fund the very hate they are supposed to be fighting. Now a public school teacher has discovered that they're also hiding what they used to promote as K-12 education.
*
One of the plot elements of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four was the "memory hole," a chuteleading to an incinerator, down which the regime's Ministry of Truth would dump embarrassing news stories that had been rewritten to cover up official misdeeds and humiliations.
Click over to the Southern Poverty Law Center's classroom resources page and you will get a 404 error. Next, try the archive lesson plan builder, where teachers can build themed units based on the SPLC's lesson plans. Same thing, error code, and access is denied. Hundreds of lessons that were freely available to teachers last month, lessons that made their way into public school classrooms across the country, are now locked away or scrubbed entirely.
The SPLC's memory hole sure has been getting a lot of use recently.
Last week the SPLC was indicted on federal charges of fraud, money-laundering and making false statements. They are accused of essentially promoting the same groups whose alleged bigotry and racism SPLC was claiming to fight against.
And alongside this their lesson plans disappear? Are they hiding? We need some accountability for an organization that operated in the dark for decades.
I spent fifteen years as a public school teacher in California. I know how those lessons ended up in front of kids. These SPLC-produced lessons were even included in the official curriculum for English Learners in my district. Learning for Justice is SPLC's educational arm, formerly called Teaching Tolerance. I believe they abandoned that original name because these lessons were no longer about "teaching tolerance" but building resistance movements in our public schools.
The SPLC distribution model was simple. Teachers are exhausted and always looking for free, ready-made material. The SPLC provided it. In 2021 alone, more than half a million educational resources were downloaded from the site. Six hundred thousand copies of its magazine went out to teachers and districts nationwide.
What their lessons actually contained is what I wrote about three years ago: ready-made lessons for teaching radicalism in public schools. To be clear, for those who already have direct links to SPLC's previous lessons, like me, they can still access them. But with the central lesson plan pages removed, the general public wouldn't be able to find them easily.
A lesson named "Digital Activism Remixed: Hashtags for Voice, Visibility and Visions of Social Justice" teaches students to build social justice hashtag campaigns. "The Color of Law: Developing the White Middle Class" tells children that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a myth and the American Dream is a lie, or only for white American males. Lessons are built on the premise that the color of your skin determines your destiny in this country.
I saw these messages poison students. The SPLC called this educational material. I call it indoctrination, and it was funded by a nearly billion-dollar nonprofit.
The SPLC is a tragic example of what happens when a nonprofit is allowed to operate in the dark for too long. For decades, researchers at Capital Research Center documented the SPLC's Civil Rights fundraising machine built on purposely exaggerated narratives of widespread (and possibly manufactured) racism.
Considering the SPLC's many controversies, their accumulated wealth had no business sitting in a supposed charity's bank account. Its most recent publicly available IRS Form 990 for 2024 showed $786.7 million in net assets. CharityWatch rated it an "F," the lowest grade, because SPLC was hoarding enough assets to operate for more than five years without raising another penny. (This didn't prevent the SPLC from sending out urgent "emergency" donation appeals to small-dollar donors.)
The SPLC's notorious Hate Map lumped actual neo-Nazis alongside pediatricians who raised concerns about gender surgeries on children, mainstream Christian legal organizations, and conservative policy groups. The map wasn't a public service, but rather a target list and a fundraising tool. More "hate groups" on the map meant more urgent appeals, more alarmed donors, more cash. Meanwhile, the SPLC was funneling millions offshore with documented transfers to the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
That sounds a lot like the same kind of fat-cat billionaire behavior these leftist orgs pretend to oppose, all while presenting SPLC to donors as a lean, scrappy defender of the vulnerable.
Big donors never asked hard questions. JPMorgan Chase, George Soros's Open Society Foundations, and George Clooney's foundation all wrote checks, many of them after the 2017 Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally that sent SPLC donations surging from $51.8 million to $133.4 million in a single year. At the time, nobody outside of SPLC's leadership knew where the money was really going.
A potential answer arrived on April 21, 2026, when the SPLC was indicted on 11 counts of wire and bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Prosecutors allege the organization secretly funneled more than $3 million to leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, and the National Alliance. These are the very groups SPLC was publicly raising money to dismantle.
Perhaps most jaw-dropping: one SPLC informant, paid $270,000 over eight years, was allegedly a member of the leadership group that planned the Charlottesville rally. This is the same rally that triggered the flood of celebrity and corporate donations to the SPLC. Spending a quarter million to boost donations by tens of millions is quite a nice return on investment.
The SPLC calls the prosecution politically motivated. Maybe. As with all criminal defendants, they are innocent until proven guilty.
But the following facts are not political.
The SPLC's own IRS filing reveals that the group with "poverty" right there in the name has banked away $787 million in net assets. It has done so by repeatedly hitting up donors for "emergency" cash yet paid its president nearly half a million a year in salary. And now, just as the spotlight started shining hot on what they really might have been doing with the loot--potentially funding their own racist boogeymen for financial gain--they scrub the lessons they have been feeding to schoolkids for years.
What else is hiding in their memory hole?
* * *
Kali Fontanilla
Kali is serving as CRC's Senior fellow, particularly focusing on topics related to K-12 public education.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/southern-poverty-law-center-suddenly-shoves-lesson-plans-for-school-children-down-the-memory-hole/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: How Open-Source, Real-Time Data Can Defeat China at the Edge of Its Influence
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 29, 2026, by Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence, National Security and Technology Program and vice president of the CSIS Defense and Security Department:
* * *
How Open-Source, Real-Time Data Can Defeat China at the Edge of Its Influence
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." --David Hackworth
*
The game of global influence has changed. China has undertaken a concerted effort over the last two decades to establish a web of interlocking
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on April 29, 2026, by Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence, National Security and Technology Program and vice president of the CSIS Defense and Security Department:
* * *
How Open-Source, Real-Time Data Can Defeat China at the Edge of Its Influence
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." --David Hackworth
*
The game of global influence has changed. China has undertaken a concerted effort over the last two decades to establish a web of interlockinginfluence structures, including economic power, media influence, health diplomacy, and digital investments. These efforts have intentionally focused down to the local level, where relatively small investments can win over allies hungry for resources.
A talented cadre of thought leaders spent the last year working on creative solutions to adapt U.S. strategy to this new era through a CSIS-hosted discussion series entitled "25 Gamechangers for 2025." The series was originally intended to include 25 leading thinkers working together to solve this wicked problem, but the number of participants grew to 58, encompassing experts in national security, special operations, technology, public influence campaigns, and counternarcotics. The group sought to think differently about pushing back on China at the local level, in particular, playing to U.S. strengths and seeking the cracks in Chinese messaging.
Discussions among these Gamechangers led to key insights on countering China and reasserting U.S. leadership globally. These ideas centered on harnessing technology, fully engaging in the information warfare space, and planning for a possible contingency where competition expands to economic warfare. The three sections below explore each concept.
The U.S. Government Should Better Harness Technology
China's advantages include central planning and financing of large-scale projects and copious human resources to throw at a problem. Centralization plus people means Chinese influence efforts have scope and depth. To counter this, the United States should lean into its own strengths of innovation and a belief that humans know themselves and their needs better than any outside force. The United States can use technology to empower policymakers in Washington and people residing far from national capitals, at the edge of China's influence, to chart their own course, rather than put up with China's restrictions and exploitation. Participants had the following ideas around technology:
* Tech can provide real-time monitoring of complex networks. Soon, tools may be able to identify vulnerable nodes as they emerge and alert policymakers that urgent action will yield outsized results. For example, in the fight against fentanyl, illuminating transit and distribution networks will provide insights into vulnerable nodes and processes. Networks can be disrupted if the information about them is up-to-date and actionable.
* Tech can smooth the gaps between U.S. policymakers. U.S. policy is slow in part because interagency coordination is stilted and inefficient. Better real-time data sharing across a common operating picture would improve rapid reaction, limit needless meetings, and ensure parties walk into a meeting with the same, up-to-date information.
* Modern technology is leading to a revolution in open-source intelligence (OSINT). New, powerful insights can come from untapped, unclassified data sources, and that data is far easier to share with countries that touch the supply chain, like China. The United States should lean into OSINT to provide evidence to drive Chinese action on bilateral issues like fentanyl.
Competing with China in the Information Space
The Gamechangers also emphasized that the United States needed to strengthen its messaging and counter-messaging. Many ideas centered on improving U.S. tactical knowledge to outcompete China at the local level and emphasized focus, innovation, and playing to the U.S. strength of amplifying authentic voices:
* The United States should always be sure to clarify the objectives of the engagement. Then, it should seek out rapid feedback on what messages and counter-messages are most effective for communicating with the population about the main objective. Adjust rapidly and iterate. Critical to this effort is granular and real-time data on population opinions.
* Resist temptation to be everywhere all at once. Rather, empower local, organic voices as a force multiplier and maximally effective resonance. The number of like-minded parties will help reach parity with opposing voices. For example, the United States should invest in local newspapers featuring fresh, rising journalists.
* Amplify true stories of real Chinese policy failures and false promises. In particular, remember that Chinese public diplomacy efforts have two audiences, and the primary one is Beijing. This leads to missteps in messaging. Further, Chinese Communist Party representatives often falter in unscripted moments, revealing true intentions. These moments can provide fodder for messaging campaigns.
Prepare for Contingencies: Plan for Extreme Economic Warfare
As participants developed policy options for pushing back against China, researchers asked them to also brainstorm "break glass" proposals--ideas so extreme they should only be deployed in a dire situation, like an imminent conflict with China. They came up with the following extraordinary measures in the economic realm:
* Invest heavily in a specific sector (e.g., batteries) to outcompete China. Use their own subsidy tactics against them to prove that the United States could engage in these practices as well.
* Fund investors to buy out key nodes of supply chains, like critical minerals mines. Develop long-term economic and defense options for protecting those assets in case of conflict.
* Signal to countries worldwide that they must pick a side economically--either fully decouple from China or align with the United States. Implement export controls, sanctions, and secondary tariffs, and signal to other countries the need to decouple from China.
* Use hybrid warfare tactics to sabotage Chinese supply chains, including hacking Chinese ports, embedding ransomware in companies to cause shipment delays, or conducting offensive supply-chain disruption tactics, like inserting defective elements to create disruption.
Of course, no participant wanted the United States' relationship with China to deteriorate to the extent that policymakers should consider such extreme options. But failing to plan for extreme situations does not prevent them from happening.
This group of extraordinary leaders aimed to help the United States compete without shifting into conflict. Competing effectively will demonstrate to Beijing that Washington is not in decline--far from it. Rather, the United States provides a far more attractive ally, compelling vision for a peaceful future, and long-term economic success for its partners than China could. The U.S. government has the tools to harness technology and compete in the information space, and, if necessary, to outcompete China economically. Perhaps more importantly, it has innovative leaders who are thinking ahead about how to defeat China at the edge.
CSIS thanks Vannevar Labs for their generous support of this effort.
* * *
Emily Harding is director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program and vice president of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-open-source-real-time-data-can-defeat-china-edge-its-influence
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute: El Cajon Sues California Attorney General Over Illegal Immigration Law
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
El Cajon Sues California Attorney General Over Illegal Immigration Law
EL CAJON, CA-- The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed suit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of the City of El Cajon, challenging California's Sanctuary State Policy in federal court. The charge: Sacramento has turned a blind eye to criminal illegal aliens, handcuffed local law enforcement, and put the safety of California's families at risk--all in defiance of federal law.
California
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
El Cajon Sues California Attorney General Over Illegal Immigration Law
EL CAJON, CA-- The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed suit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of the City of El Cajon, challenging California's Sanctuary State Policy in federal court. The charge: Sacramento has turned a blind eye to criminal illegal aliens, handcuffed local law enforcement, and put the safety of California's families at risk--all in defiance of federal law.
Californiacreated this problem and has refused to resolve it. The conflict this case addresses is that if El Cajon police follow state sanctuary law, they risk federal prosecution. If they follow federal law, they risk state sanctions. That is not a legal gray area--it is a trap Sacramento built on purpose, and El Cajon's police officers have been left to navigate it alone.
Federal law makes it a federal felony to encourage or induce someone to reside in the United States unlawfully and California designed their law to do exactly that. The Supremacy Clause is clear: when state and federal law conflict, federal law wins.
The cost of that trap became undeniable when an El Cajon city councilmember asked the Attorney General's office a simple question: could city officers conduct a wellness check on a child who may have been a victim of human trafficking, using location information from federal authorities? The answer from Sacramento: probably not. Not a deportation. Not an arrest. A wellness check on a child--and California said police would likely be in violation of state law.
AFPI vice chair of litigation Richard Lawson highlighted California's hypocrisy:
"California wrote these laws to defeat federal enforcement, and their own legislators admitted it. When that strategy ends with a police officer being told he can't check on a potentially trafficked child, it's a legal and moral emergency, and it's time for a court to settle it."
Chairman of AFPI's America First California chapter Mike Garcia stated:
"This lawsuit represents AFPI's commitment to supporting law enforcement who should not have to choose between abiding by federal law or state laws when they are just trying to do what is right for their citizens. Extreme policies from Sacramento put police officers' careers in jeopardy and compromise the safety of all our communities."
California's legislature didn't hide what it was doing. The author of SB 54 stated that the bill was needed because federal deportation enforcement "will have a significant effect on California's economy." Sacramento built a business model on illegal immigration, and it is our desire that the courts restore the rule of law.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/el-cajon-mayor-sues-california-attorney-general-over-illegal-immigration-law
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory for Equal Protection in Redistricting
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 29, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory for Equal Protection in Redistricting
America First Policy Institute (AFPI) chair for Election Integrity, Kenneth J. Blackwell, issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais:
"Advocates of the redistricting effort said the map would protect minority voting rights. In reality, it would have transformed the Voting Rights Act into a tool for partisan gerrymandering, forcing states to engineer
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 30 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 29, 2026:
* * *
AFPI Celebrates Supreme Court Victory for Equal Protection in Redistricting
America First Policy Institute (AFPI) chair for Election Integrity, Kenneth J. Blackwell, issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais:
"Advocates of the redistricting effort said the map would protect minority voting rights. In reality, it would have transformed the Voting Rights Act into a tool for partisan gerrymandering, forcing states to engineerpartisan districts under the guise of racial equity."
The Court ended years of racist practices and reinforced a foundational principle: every American must be treated equally under the law, and the government cannot divide citizens based on race.
* * *
Original text here; https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-celebrates-supreme-court-victory-for-equal-protection-in-redistricting
[Category: ThinkTank]
