사법 · Civil rights enforcementTrump’s Civil Rights Division Changes Course as Courts Reject Its Cases작성 2026년 10월 11일 오후 11:03 UTC시청방송 전문0:09A federal judge dismissed the government's anti-Semitism complaint against Harvard.0:13Across the Civil Rights Division, officials describe dozens of investigations and0:17court interventions being dropped as hundreds of lawyers leave.0:20Those decisions affect people seeking federal protection from discrimination.0:24The unresolved question is whose complaints still receive that protection and whose0:28have lost it.0:28Harmeet Dylan says the division enforces civil rights laws equally.0:32She directs that work under President Donald Trump.0:35But current and former division officials describe a retreat from investigations and0:38court participation, and the Justice Department disputes how they describe the0:42effects.0:43Protecting gun owners and fighting illegal immigration were among Dylan's priorities0:47described in September.0:48Those priorities help explain the changed agenda, though.0:51Individual sections handle different work.0:53Officials also say hiring practices changed as ideological allies replace departing0:58staff.0:59The department denies changing its hiring practices.1:01That dispute hasn't been resolved and the specific selection procedures haven't been1:05explained.1:06Current and former officials estimate about 300 attorneys left after Trump returned1:10to office.1:11The department says it hired about 130 replacements.1:14Officials also put staff departures during the exit wave at up to 80 percent.1:18Those figures count different groups.1:20The figures don't tell us how many people work there now or which enforcement1:24sections retained experienced lawyers.1:26A May 2025 estimate put the share of division lawyers leaving at 70%.1:30That earlier lawyer-only estimate covers a different population from the later staff1:34figure.1:34Former attorneys Christy Lopez and Dina Robinson are among those discussing1:38departures, institutional knowledge, hiring, and enforcement.1:41Four current and former officials describe dozens of cases affected by dropped1:45investigations or withdrawn statements of interest.1:48A statement of interest lets the federal government present its legal position in1:52someone else's case.1:53Withdrawing it leaves the underlying proceeding to continue.1:56Ending an investigation stops that federal inquiry.1:59Withdrawing a legal position removes the government's participation in that form.2:02A judge dismissing a lawsuit has a different consequence again.2:06For someone seeking protection, those decisions determine whether federal2:09investigators keep working and whether the government brings its legal authority2:12into court.2:13Judges have reportedly dismissed more than two dozen Justice Department lawsuits2:17demanding voter information from states.2:19That puts a concrete setback alongside the division's changed priorities.2:23The reasons for those dismissals aren't clear case by case.2:26Each ruling would have to be examined to understand what authority the government2:29invoked and why its lawsuit failed.2:31The reported count alone can't show whether judges reached the same legal2:34conclusion.2:35The Harvard complaint provides a more specific example of an enforcement effort2:39rejected in court.2:40The government sued Harvard on March 20 under Title VI, the federal civil rights law2:45governing discrimination in federally funded programs.2:47On August 13th, Judge Richard G.2:50Stearns granted Harvard's dismissal motion because the government's complaint failed2:53to state a claim.2:54Stearns described the cited anti-Semitic incidents as too isolated and episodic to2:59show the violation alleged he assessed whether the complaint made a legally3:02sufficient case before trial.3:04His ruling concerned the government's own enforcement action.3:07Harvard's challenge to federal funding cuts is a separate lawsuit.3:10The dismissal settled the sufficiency of this complaint, leaving the broader3:14disputes over Harvard and anti-Semitism beyond that decision.3:17The government also pursued a disability access case against Uber.3:21It alleges passengers using service animals or mobility devices, including stowable3:26wheelchairs, were routinely refused rides.3:28The complaint also alleges impermissible charges and policies that Uber failed to3:32reasonably change to prevent disability discrimination.3:35The government brought those allegations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.3:39Uber's liability hasn't been decided.3:42An older lawsuit filed in November 2021 challenged disability-related wait time3:47fees.3:47It concerned passengers who needed more than two minutes to enter a vehicle,3:51including time to dismantle and store a wheelchair or walker.3:54The newer case addresses ride access and the conduct alleged in that complaint.3:58The newer suit was filed September 11th, 2025, in Northern California.4:02The department defended it against dismissal on February 6th, with Dillon listed as4:07its civil rights chief.4:08The court denied Uber's motion.4:10Another filing followed on August 11th.4:13Its precise status now isn't clear.4:14Some housing enforcement has continued too, but those continuing matters don't4:19measure the division's overall workload.4:21Federal protection still reaches some disability and housing claims.4:24While officials describe other work being abandoned, a complete case-by-case4:29accounting of the withdrawals is still missing, leaving their consequences for4:32affected people unclear.기사 읽기스토리 타임라인HeyDex짧은 영상 ↗
