In 1934, the act was amended to:

• Exclude parental abductions of their own minor children from federal jurisdiction Wikipedia.
• Expand penalties to include the death penalty in cases where the victim was not released unharmed Wikipedia.

These changes reflected a balance between preventing federal overreach in family-related cases and maintaining the law’s deterrent effect against interstate kidnapping.

Legal Purpose

The Lindbergh Law’s core provision (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) criminalizes transporting a kidnapped person in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the victim was alive at the time of crossing. It also created a 24-hour rebuttable presumption that if a victim is not released within 24 hours of abduction, they have likely been transported across state lines Crime Museum.

Significance

The 1934 amendments reinforced the law’s role as a national tool against interstate kidnapping, ensuring that kidnappers could not simply vanish across state lines. The death penalty provision was intended to deter the most heinous kidnappings, especially those resulting in death Wikipedia+1.

In short, the Lindbergh Act of 1934 was a legislative refinement of the 1932 Federal Kidnapping Act, tightening jurisdictional limits and expanding penalties to address the public’s outrage over the Lindbergh kidnapping and to strengthen federal law enforcement’s ability to combat interstate crime.

The ABA council voted to pause enforcement of Standard 206 — the rule requiring accredited law schools to show a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This suspension was explicitly linked to the Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI and pressure from 21 Republican attorneys general.

The council voted to remove the DEI requirement from accreditation, citing political pressure, legal uncertainty, and threats to the ABA’s status as the national accreditor. This is the closest thing to “tossing DEI out.” However, the change is not final until the ABA House of Delegates reviews it — likely in 2027.

This affects accreditation — not all ABA DEI activity

The vote eliminates one specific rule tied to accreditation. It does not ban DEI programs within the ABA, law schools, or the legal profession. It does, however, remove the only mandatory DEI requirement law schools faced from the accreditor.

Why this happened

Sources consistently cite:

• Federal pressure from the Trump administration
• State pressure (TX, FL, AL decertifying the ABA)
• Legal challenges after the Supreme Court’s affirmative‑action ruling
• Internal fear that keeping the rule would cost the ABA its accrediting authority

What this means … in practice

~ Law schools will no longer risk accreditation for failing to meet DEI benchmarks.

~ Diversity efforts will become optional rather than required.

~ States hostile to DEI are already using this to weaken ABA authority.

~ The legal profession, already one of the least diverse, may see slowed progress in representation.

Bottom line: This is the part people often skip: DEI rules were never about ability. They were about counteracting barriers. Removing those rules doesn’t make anyone less capable — it just removes oversight guardrails that forced institutions to confront bias, access gaps, and exclusion.

Sources: The Blaze, Inside Higher Ed, AI

DEI came close to changing opportunities, but it only really helped some white women. The pre-disposed biases of the past are now an ugly reminder and often wicked thing, coming back… that DEI and Affirmative Action were always about race and gender, and that people of color and some white women needed help getting a job, not about that, pointing to the facts that the good ole’boys club systematically existed and served only them ~ Nativegrl77

1954 – The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled for school integration in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. The ruling declared that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal.

May 17, 1954 – In Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregation of public schools “solely on the basis of race” denies black children “equal educational opportunity” even though “physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may have been equal.

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Thurgood Marshall had argued the case before the Court. He went on to become the first African American appointed to the Supreme Court.

source: history.com and youtube.com

In politics and governance, Douglass worked for the U.S’ diplomacy efforts abroad—particularly in the Caribbean. He was often in some leadership or ambassador role that made use of his speaking, diplomacy and writing abilities.

Taking different government postings worked for Douglass since they often weren’t dramatically different from each other.  He could also engage in public speaking when he felt. The one role that was very different from the others was the time he spent as U.S. Marshall.

It should also be noted that this was a time when Black people were put in civil service positions very often by a Republican controlled government. Black civil servants were met with mixed reactions from the Black community.

Many roles were vital to getting Black politicians in a position of power. This allowed them to impact policy to help in the betterment of Black life. However, there were roles that were perceived as placeholders or feel good roles for Republicans.

ROLE AS RECORDER OF DEEDS

His posting as Recorder of Deeds went through the Senate 47-8 on May 17, 1881. It was something of a departure from the more active positions he’d taken before. In some ways, it was similar to another posting he’d taken four years earlier as U.S. Marshall.

The nature Frederick Douglass’ role as Recorder of Deeds is documented, but not really discussed for two main reasons. It isn’t a role that heralds great deeds since tasks were similar to those of a county clerk. Also, Douglass had a tendency to stay at a post for a short period before being given another. This role put him in direct contact with those he wanted to help the most. Douglass would step down as Recorder of Deeds in 1886 to resume speaking full time.

SOURCE:
https://ordinaryphilosophy.com/2016/08/

To commemorate the historic occasion, Color Of Change is proud to present a special episode of our Black History Now Live Series in partnership with the National Education Association. Join us on Friday, May 17, 2024, for the premiere of “Educating for Equity: Brown v Board of Education 70 Years Later,” a virtual commemoration, as we delve into the legacy of this groundbreaking case and its relevance to present-day challenges facing our public education system.

The episode will feature interviews with esteemed intergenerational thought leaders, including:

• Rashad Robinson, president of Color Of Change
• Rebecca S. “Becky” Pringle, president of the National Education Association
• Marley Dias, student activist, author, NEA ambassador and founder of #1000BlackGirlBooks
• George “Conscious” Lee, educator, content creator and host of the “Black History, For Real” podcast
• Alice O’Brien, general counsel of the National Education Association
• Erin Freeman, a public school educator based in Florida

The episode explores the critical intersections of race, and education, how the end of affirmative action is impacting education and how we can continue to advocate for the protection of public education and the inclusion of Black history in our classrooms.

Tune into Color Of Change’s YouTube and Facebook channels on Friday, May, 17, at noon EDT/9 a.m. PDT to watch the premiere of “Educating for Equity: Brown v Board of Education 70 Years Later” as we honor the legacy of the landmark decision and look at what’s ahead.

Together, through our ongoing partnerships with organizations like the
National Education Association, Color Of Change has demonstrated our commitment
to defending Black history and education and trained 1,100 local leaders across
the country in the last seven months.

Working together, we can build power to make positive changes in our education
system that our communities want and our children deserve.

Until Justice Is Real,
The Color Of Change Team