This Day in Legal History: Cuba Suspended from OAS
On January 22, 1962, the Organization of American States (OAS) took the historic step of suspending Cuba from its membership. This decision followed the Cuban Revolution, which saw Fidel Castro's government align itself with communist ideologies and the Soviet Union, marking a stark departure from the democratic and anti-communist principles upheld by the OAS. The suspension, supported by 14 member states against six dissenting votes, highlighted Cold War tensions and the fear of communist influence spreading across the Americas. It marked the first time the OAS had taken such a measure against a member nation, emphasizing the geopolitical divide between the United States and Soviet-aligned nations.
The resolution to suspend Cuba was rooted in Article 8 of the OAS Charter, which mandated respect for representative democracy as a condition of membership. Cuba’s embrace of communism and its growing ties with the USSR, particularly during events like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis, deepened the rift with its neighbors. The suspension effectively isolated Cuba from multilateral political cooperation within the Americas but did little to curtail its growing influence among leftist movements globally.
Efforts to reintegrate Cuba into the OAS came decades later. On June 3, 2009, the OAS voted to lift the suspension, acknowledging changing political landscapes and calls for normalization. However, Cuba immediately rejected the offer, citing its disinterest in rejoining the organization. The Cuban government viewed the OAS as a tool of U.S. hegemony and incompatible with its principles. The 1962 suspension remains a critical moment in the history of inter-American relations, illustrating the enduring complexities of ideology and diplomacy during the Cold War.
Twenty-two Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco filed lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The lawsuits, filed in federal courts in Boston, Seattle, and Maryland, argue that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
The lawsuits emphasize the constitutional foundation of birthright citizenship, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which upheld citizenship rights for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents. Plaintiffs assert that Trump’s order represents an unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority and an attempt to bypass established constitutional and legal principles.
If implemented, the order would leave over 150,000 children born annually without citizenship, rendering them stateless and depriving them of rights such as voting, working lawfully, and accessing federal benefits like Medicaid. States also face increased financial and administrative burdens, including the loss of federal funding for healthcare and education programs that are tied to citizenship status.
Among the plaintiffs are civil rights groups, immigrant advocacy organizations, and an expectant mother with temporary protected status. The lawsuits seek declaratory and injunctive relief, aiming to prevent the enforcement of what they call a flagrantly unconstitutional policy. Early hearings on temporary restraining orders are scheduled in some jurisdictions, marking this as one of the first major legal battles of Trump’s administration​.
22 Democratic-led states sue over Trump's birthright citizenship order | Reuters
President Donald Trump’s executive order delaying enforcement of a bipartisan law banning TikTok has plunged the platform into legal uncertainty. The law, passed with overwhelming support in Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, required TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the platform by January 19. It also imposed heavy penalties—$5,000 per user—on service providers like Apple and Google for noncompliance.
Trump’s order pauses enforcement for 75 days and directs the Justice Department to assure service providers that they won’t face liability during this period. However, legal experts argue the order offers limited assurance. Executive orders cannot override duly enacted laws, and courts generally do not view such directives as binding. Moreover, the president retains the authority to alter the order or enforce the law selectively, adding to the uncertainty.
This action marks a rare instance of a president attempting to circumvent a law passed by both houses of Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal analysts note that while Congress could sue to enforce the law, courts might dismiss such a case as a political question or national security issue. Meanwhile, service providers are exposed to billions in potential penalties and shareholder lawsuits if they defy the law based on Trump’s directive.
Despite the pause, TikTok remains unavailable on major U.S. app stores, reflecting the precarious legal and financial risks for service providers caught between compliance with federal law and Trump’s temporary reprieve. This legal limbo underscores tensions between the executive branch, Congress, and the tech industry over the regulation of foreign-owned platforms.
Trump executive order leaves TikTok in legal limbo, for now | Reuters
President Donald Trump issued an executive order revoking the authority of the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to enforce diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives among federal contractors. The OFCCP, which oversees compliance with anti-discrimination laws for companies receiving federal funds, had required contractors to develop affirmative action programs and address workforce disparities based on gender, race, and other protected characteristics.
Trump's order mandates the OFCCP immediately stop promoting affirmative action or workforce diversity measures. It also requires contractors to certify within 90 days that they are not implementing DEI programs deemed discriminatory under federal civil rights law. Additionally, the order redefines DEI initiatives as a potential form of illegal discrimination and encourages private companies to abandon such programs.
The president’s actions rescinded Executive Order 11246, a landmark 1965 order that established the OFCCP’s affirmative action enforcement framework. Trump also repealed EO 13672, which protected federal contractor employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—protections that were later recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court under Title VII.
This move is part of Trump’s broader rollback of DEI policies, including prior executive orders eliminating diversity programs in federal agencies and restricting the legal definition of gender. Critics argue these changes undermine civil rights protections, while supporters claim they prevent reverse discrimination. The order creates significant uncertainty for federal contractors navigating compliance and DEI program implementation.
Trump Guts Contractor Watchdog’s Anti-Discrimination Power (1)
In my column for Bloomberg this week, a discussion of religious exemptions for unemployment taxes.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address a pivotal question of tax policy and religious exemptions in a case involving Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). The organization, affiliated with the Catholic Church, argues it should be exempt from paying unemployment taxes because of its religious connection, despite providing social services that are fundamentally secular, such as job placement for individuals with disabilities and daily living assistance.Â
This case raises concerns about fairness in the nonprofit sector. Granting CCB a tax exemption would create an uneven playing field, where secular organizations performing identical services face higher tax burdens. Such an outcome risks distorting the marketplace of charitable organizations and undermines the principle of equal obligations for entities engaging in similar work.Â
The implications extend far beyond this case. A ruling in favor of CCB could incentivize other religiously affiliated organizations to seek similar exemptions, potentially leading to widespread abuse of the tax system. Hospitals, schools, and social service agencies with religious ties might claim exemptions for services indistinguishable from those provided by secular counterparts, further eroding tax equity and integrity.
The core of the issue lies in the distinction between genuinely religious activities and secular services provided under religious affiliation. Exempting organizations like CCB shifts the financial burden of public goods, such as unemployment insurance, onto other employers, including secular nonprofits, weakening their ability to serve the public effectively. Additionally, it blurs the boundary between secular and religious activities, making tax exemptions a potential tool for avoidance rather than a recognition of genuine religious exercise.
This case also highlights the challenge of determining what qualifies for a religious exemption. While proponents argue that no organization should have to prove its religiosity, some oversight is necessary to prevent abuse and maintain fairness. Without such standards, exemptions could devolve into unchecked privileges for organizations with tenuous religious affiliations.
Ultimately, the Court must balance respecting religious liberty with upholding public responsibilities. Preserving the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling against CCB would protect the integrity of the tax system, ensure fairness among nonprofits, and maintain a clear distinction between secular and religious activities while reinforcing the shared obligations of all public-serving entities.
Share this post