Database of Court Filings Shows ‘Startling Pattern of Abuse’ by Federal Agents Against Citizens in Minnesota

Spread the love

Original article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

US Border Patrol agents detain an unidentified man of Somali descent in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 8, 2026. (Photo by Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images)

A new database of sworn affidavits filed by the ACLU shows masked agents detaining citizens based on race without warrants, ignoring IDs, and pointing weapons at them.

Federal agents deployed to Minnesota by the Trump administration are systematically violating the rights of US citizens and lawful residents, according to more than two dozen sworn affidavits made available this week as part of a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.

The suit was filed last month by the ACLU of Minnesota and partnered law firms, which said that as part of President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge, “masked federal agents in the thousands are violently stopping and arresting countless Minnesotans based on nothing more than their race and perceived ethnicity, irrespective of their citizenship or immigration status, or their personal circumstances.”

RECOMMENDED…

Trump Vows 'Reckoning and Retribution is Coming' to Minnesota as ICE Brutality Mounts

Trump Vows ‘Reckoning and Retribution is Coming’ to Minnesota as ICE Brutality Mounts

Federal Agents Descend On Minneapolis For Immigration Enforcement Operations

Trump’s DHS Sued to End Lawless Stops and Arrests in Minnesota

The case was launched by three plaintiffs, which include 20-year-old Mubashir Khalif Hussein, a Somali-born US citizen whose brutal arrest and detention was caught on video in December. He was placed into a headlock by masked agents and brought to an ICE office, where he said he was left in shackles for an hour and a half before being released miles from his home in the freezing cold.

The plaintiffs called it just one example of a “startling pattern of abuse spearheaded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that is fundamentally altering civic life in the Twin Cities and the state of Minnesota.”

On Thursday, the online legal policy journal Just Security published a searchable database of the 29 sworn declarations filed so far as part of the case. Nearly all of them were filed by US citizens, while a few others were permanent legal residents or had pending legal status.

The statements detail numerous allegations that agents violated their basic constitutional rights, including by detaining them without showing a warrant; targeting Somali and Latino individuals based on their appearances; ignoring identifying documents that could prove their legal residency or citizenship; restraining them violently; and pointing weapons at them during searches.

Last year, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration’s claim that when deciding whether to stop someone as part of “roving patrols,” agents had the right to consider certain factors, including “the type of work one does,” a person’s use of Spanish or accented English, or their “apparent race or ethnicity.”

While critics described it as an invitation to blatant and unconstitutional racial profiling and invasions of privacy, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that the practice should not prove burdensome to those legally in the US: “If the person is a US citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter,” he said.

Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and the co-editor-in-chief of Just Security,said that the “sworn affidavits show how, on the ground, this is simply not how ICE operates.”

“They did not identify themselves, and they did not present a warrant. They just opened my car door and started yanking me out of the car. I kept saying over and over that I was a US citizen.”

One 33-year-old Latino citizen who was born in the US was driving to Menards on January 10 when he suddenly found himself boxed in by two cars at a stoplight. Before he knew it, he said agents were banging aggressively on his windows and one had started pointing a gun at him. When he put his vehicle in park, he said the doors opened automatically.

“When the doors unlocked, the agents did not ask me anything, they did not identify themselves, and they did not present a warrant. They just opened my car door and started yanking me out of the car,” he said. “I kept saying over and over that I was a US citizen.”

“Once they did get my seatbelt off and finally [pulled] me out of the car, they threw me to the ground and pinned me,” he continued. “They were pulling on my arms so tight to put on the handcuffs. They ripped my jacket, and it was torn up. My wallet fell on the ground. I was still repeating that I am a US citizen. I repeated it over and over. They never asked for or looked at my identification.”

The agents hauled the man into their car and began driving him around and interrogating him for about 20 minutes. He said the first question they asked him was his name.

“It seemed if they were going to violently arrest me before even looking at my identification, that they should have known who I was,” the victim said.

Agents eventually realized they’d been searching for another person with the same name and birthdate. They drove their captive behind a warehouse, where nobody could see, and released him. But another agent had taken his car from the intersection. An agent said he’d only give it back if the agent could scan his face, which he did.

“I felt traumatized. My arm hurt, I had bruises from the handcuffs. They were so tight that half of my hand was numb for a few days. I guess it stopped the circulation to my hands while I was handcuffed. I had cuts on my face and hands,” the victim said. “Since this happened to me, I have to pass through that spot every time I drive to work. I keep going back to it and reliving it in my mind.”

According to the database, at least five other US citizens, lawful residents, or legal asylum seekers also claimed in court that they’d had weapons pointed at them by agents during their stops.

Two other US citizens and one lawful permanent resident detailed being subject to physical force during stops.

One 53-year-old Somali man, a US citizen since 2008, said he was physically grabbed and dragged from his car, handcuffed, and pinned against the vehicle by masked agents.

“One officer pressed his knee into my back,” he said. When I screamed out in pain, another officer put his elbow into my neck, and one of the officers yelled at me, ‘Shut the fuck up, son of a bitch!’ One of the officers responded, ‘Why don’t you go back to your country?’“

“I believe that I was stopped solely because of the color of my skin and our appearance, including wearing a hijab.”

One 22-year-old Somali-American citizen who was born in Minnesota said that on January 21, five agents hopped out of their car with multiple guns drawn as she was on her way to work.

She said they demanded to see proof of her citizenship, but rejected her valid ID, claiming it was fake. They demanded to see her passport, which US citizens are not required to carry under US law. The agents told her they did not believe she was a US citizen because of her “accent.”

“I believe that I was stopped solely because of the color of my skin and our appearance, including wearing a hijab,” she said. “It was clear that the ICE agents did not know who I was when they stopped me. I had not violated any traffic laws, and the vehicle I was driving was registered to my mother, who is a United States citizen.”

It’s one of at least five cases in the database in which agents dismissed proof of a citizen or legal resident’s status.

There have also been many other documented instances, including some caught on video, in which agents have detained a citizen or legal resident or refused to let them go because they believed the person’s “accent” did not sound American.

All 29 of those who filed affidavits in the case have alleged unconstitutional racial profiling.

One 25-year-old Somali man, a US citizen born in Atlanta, said a group of masked agents accosted him and his mother while he was shoveling snow.

He said they were joined by a pair of unmasked men who appeared to be livestreaming and helped the agents to box him in. He later identified one of them as a right-wing YouTube influencer named Ben Bergquam.

Even though the vast majority of Somalis living in the US are citizens, he said the agents and the streamers were laughing and referring to him and his mother as “illegal aliens.”

“I was unsure if I was going to be seriously injured or killed.”

At least 12 people in the lawsuit have filed sworn testimony stating that agents forced them to stop while they were driving.

In one case, a Hispanic US citizen said that after following him for a few blocks, agents put on their lights and “rammed” his car off the road.

“An agent came up to my window, asking if I was a citizen. I was furious. I told them I was a citizen and they damaged my car,” he said. “Instead of apologizing, they demanded that I produce documents to prove I was a US citizen. I was too angry. I told them again that I was a US citizen and I didn’t have to prove it to them.”

He said the episode lasted 45-60 minutes, with agents repeatedly demanding his ID, name, and place of birth. Eventually, he says, they confirmed his citizenship by taking photos and videos of him and scanning his license plate.

He said agents told him they would pay for the damages to his car, but that they drove away without providing any insurance information.

“Even though I am a United States citizen and I was carrying proof of my citizenship with me, ICE agents didn’t believe me,” he said. “I felt intense fear and shock. I was unsure if I was going to be seriously injured or killed.”

The affidavits were filed as part of the case Hussen v. Noem, which claims that agents have violated Minnesotans’ rights to equal protection and against unreasonable searches and seizures. A hearing is scheduled to take place later this month.

“The government can’t stop and arrest people based on the color of their skin, or arrest people with no probable cause,” said Kate Huddleston, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “These kinds of police-state tactics are contrary to the basic principles of liberty and equality that remain a bedrock of our legal system and our country.”

Original article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn't bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.

Continue ReadingDatabase of Court Filings Shows ‘Startling Pattern of Abuse’ by Federal Agents Against Citizens in Minnesota

Trump’s Cruelty Puts the Community Where Our Children Find Healing Under Threat

Spread the love

Original article by Sarah Zogby republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

A protester holds a placard outside of the Pennsylvania Capitol during a #50501 protest on Wednesday, February 5, 2025.
 (Photo by Paul Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

If anyone celebrating this attack against transgender people were to spend time with the parents, children, and doctors affected, their feelings might change.

President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting any hospital that receives federal funds from practicing gender-affirming care callously disregards the needs of children who are both gender and neurodiverse, putting them and their families at risk. If anyone celebrating this order were to spend time with the parents, children, and doctors affected, their feelings might change. They should meet Pearl who before receiving treatment was failing out of high school, contemplating suicide, and rarely left the house, and is now attending community college, teaching herself another language, and has developed deep friendships. Or the mathematically-gifted Ellen who after two deep depressive episodes in the last three years, finds safety, companionship, and stability in her gender support group. Or Jacob, a role model to all that meet him, who is attending college out of state and just performed in a concert on campus.

For three years my husband and I have been part of a support group with the parents of these children, who range in age from 14 to 25. Many are now scrambling for information to determine how far the order extends; where one can continue to receive care; what care, if any, the doctors they’ve trusted, relied on, and put faith in for years can still provide. Parents are counting prescription refills, checking if pharmacies will still honor them, searching for providers not impacted by the order, and compiling a list of states they could afford to travel to if other options don’t materialize. Some fear the order will destroy their children’s delicate mental health. Others fear it is a death sentence.

Our “community” includes some of the most thoughtful and loving caregivers I have ever known. Our children, who all have autism spectrum disorder (ASD), see and experience the world through a different yet remarkable lens. While some focus on their deficits, we see their creativity, honesty, strong sense of justice, loyalty, and enhanced focus as superpowers. But none of us deny that what makes them unique also presents challenges, including struggling with social interactions, poor executive functioning skills, or developmental delays. One challenge they all share is dealing with their gender diversity.

These are parents not boogeymen. These children are lovingly cared for and listened to, not abused.

Those with ASD are three to six times more likely than the general population to be gender diverse1—the umbrella term that includes non-binary and transgender. On top of their social, developmental, or communication issues, the added stress of feeling uncomfortable in their own bodies deeply impacts their well-being. We often talk about their “dark periods” when they’ve experienced debilitating depression, suicidal ideation, and elevated anxiety. Like any good parent, we sought advice from trusted medical professionals who provide the standard of care supported by leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Our children see a multidisciplinary team of fully licensed, board-certified, highly trained pediatric specialists at a world-renowned hospital. These neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, gynecologists, and social workers coordinate care plans tailored to each child, considering their unique developmental, mental, and emotional health needs. Every child is evaluated regularly over extended periods of time. The medical care they receive may include mental health treatment, executive functioning courses, and in-person or online groups where they play games like D&D and socialize with like-minded youth. Some children who are past puberty receive hormone therapy after an extensive evaluation process. No child under the age of 18 is provided with gender-affirming surgery.

Parents in our group run the gamut. Some struggled to accept their child’s gender diversity or ASD diagnosis. Some oppose using hormone therapy, despite their child’s repeated demands, because they believe their child couldn’t handle the responsibility. Some have once needed to hospitalize their suicidal children, but have watched them flourish since starting them on hormone therapy. All struggling and questioning. But no care decisions are made without extensive consultation with their doctors, whose paramount concern is that our children are happy, healthy, productive, and thriving.

My child does not receive hormone therapy or other treatments outlined in the order. I do not, cannot, fully understand the magnitude of their pain. All I can do is stand witness to this action’s cruelty. These are parents not boogeymen. These children are lovingly cared for and listened to, not abused. These doctors have dedicated their lives to improving the mental and physical health of some of the most vulnerable among us. They are saving them, not experimenting on them. We are all good, intelligent, informed, and, now, scared people, whose greatest concern is the welfare of our children.

Editor’s Note: To protect privacy all names and identifying details of those mentioned in this piece have been changed.

Original article by Sarah Zogby republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversity
Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversity
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.

dizzy: I have somehow managed to post this to the non-current version of this site. There are 2 versions atm because I have changed my web host and DNS needs to propogate so that it all points to my new web host.

Continue ReadingTrump’s Cruelty Puts the Community Where Our Children Find Healing Under Threat

100,000 protest in Brussels against Arizona coalition’s austerity and attacks on rights

Spread the love

Original article by Ana Vračar from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Trade union youth bloc during protest against austerity and cuts. Source: MPLP-GVHV/Facebook

A mass protest filled the streets of Brussels, rejecting the Arizona coalition’s plans to attack social and labor rights

100,000 people, led by trade unions, took to the streets of Brussels on Thursday, February 13, to protest the anti-worker policies of the newly appointed Arizona coalition government. The demonstrators demanded respect for labor rights, including pension policies that ensure dignified lives, as well as the protection of the right to protest. They called for a society built on solidarity, peace, and social progress, rejecting the “every-man-for-himself” mentality promoted by the government.

Workers who joined the protest expressed their fears of losing their livelihoods under the new administration but also spoke of the inspiration they felt in standing together. “It’s incredible to see so many people—firefighters, soldiers, childcare workers, warehouse workers,” an Industeel worker told the Workers’ Party of Belgium (PTB-PVDA) during the protest. “I even ran into one of my old teachers who is now retired. I hadn’t seen him in years.”

If implemented, the government’s program is expected to deal serious blows to the working class. Planned changes to the pension system would force many to work longer, including in physically demanding sectors like construction and healthcare, where exhaustion takes an early toll. At the same time, protections in the workplace would be reduced, including through the liberalization of night work and overtime, while social services crucial to workers’ well-being would face severe cuts.

Read more: Belgium’s Arizona coalition threatens more austerity and attacks on civil rights

According to a brief published by Medics for the People (MPLP-GVHV), healthcare services are projected to suffer half a billion euros in losses compared to earlier plans—and approximately 1.5 billion euros less than what is actually needed. This is despite claims from the governing majority that healthcare funding will remain stable or increase. The cuts will undoubtedly impact both workers and patients. Healthcare staff, already stretched to their limits, will face further strain, while patients will experience declining service quality and accessibility. Similar repercussions are expected across other sectors, while the wealthiest will remain unaffected.

Another major shift outlined by the Arizona government targets trade unions. Under the pretense of ensuring accountability for trade union actions—framed as preventing “economic damage” by the administration—the government seeks to weaken organized labor. “The aim is for trade unions to be held liable for any economic impact arising from their actions, forcing them into costly and time-consuming legal battles,” the PTB-PVDA stated in its analysis. “This way, unions will have less money and time to engage with workers.”

These attacks on labor rights come as no surprise, given the widespread opposition workers across Belgium have already voiced against Bart De Wever’s cabinet. The protests have been supported by collectives of health and education workers, international solidarity groups, civil society organizations, and youth networks—all of whom expect to bear the burden of the reforms. The administration is also planning to limit public dissent. “To push through its plan for social destruction, the Arizona government is launching an unprecedented attack on democratic rights in Belgium,” PTB-PVDA warned. “The objective is clear: to weaken and silence any opposition.”

However, social movements are ready to fight back. Following this week’s protest, they have already announced new actions, including mobilizations on March 8, International Working Women’s Day, and a general strike on March 31.

Original article by Ana Vračar from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue Reading100,000 protest in Brussels against Arizona coalition’s austerity and attacks on rights

Trump Spokesperson Affirms Day 1 Plans for Nation’s ‘Largest Mass Deportation Operation’

Spread the love

Original article by Olivia Rosane republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

A Mexican migrant holds her daughter while being apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border protection officers after crossing over into the U.S. on June 26, 2024 in Ruby, Arizona. (Photo: Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

“As always, we will go to court to challenge illegal policies, but it is equally essential that the public push back, as it did with family separation,” one rights advocate said.

President-elect Donald Trump is set to begin his promised mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as soon as he takes office on January 20, 2025, even as rights groups are mobilizing to stop him.

Trump national press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Wednesday morning that “the American people delivered a resounding victory for President Trump.”

“It gives him a mandate to govern as he campaigned, to deliver on the promises that he made, which include, on Day 1, launching the largest mass deportation operation of illegal immigrants that Kamala Harris has allowed into this country,” Leavitt said.

“We have a simple message for President-elect Trump or his deputies if they decide to make good on their despicable plans: We will see you in court.”

Trump has pledged to conduct the largest deportation in U.S. history, with running mate and now Vice President-elect JD Vance promising 1 million deportations each year. The plan would likely rely on mobilizing federal agencies, the military, diplomats, and Republican-led states while using federal funds to pressure uncooperative states and cities into complying.

The stocks of private prison companies like GEOGroup and Core Civic rose significantly after Trump’s win, and private contractors had already been discussing ahead of the election how to build enough detention space to accommodate Trump’s plans.

A study released by the American Immigration Council in October found that a massive, one-time deportation program of the estimated 13.3 million migrants in the country without legal status would cost the government at least $315 billion while a 1-million-a-year approach would cost $88 billion a year for a total of $967.9 billion. It would also shrink the nation’s gross domestic product by between 4.2 and 6.8%, not to mention the massive human cost to immigrant families, as around 5.1 million children who are U.S. citizens live with an undocumented family member.

The council also warned that such a program would likely threaten the well-being of all immigrants and increase vigilantism and hate crimes.

“As bad as the first Trump administration was for immigrants, we anticipate it will be much worse this time and are particularly concerned about the use of the military to round up immigrants,” Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who fought the first Trump administration on family separation and other policies, told The Washington Post. “As always, we will go to court to challenge illegal policies, but it is equally essential that the public push back, as it did with family separation.”

Exit polls show that 56% of U.S. voters favor offering immigrants already in the U.S. a pathway to citizenship, while Data for Progress found that survey respondents did not favor deportation for 7 out of 9 categories of people who might be caught up in a mass deportation scheme.

The ACLU has urged cities and states to take steps to protect their undocumented residents ahead of January 20.

“They should prepare for mass deportations because those will wreak havoc on the communities,” Noreen Shah, director of government affairs at the ACLU’s equality division, told Newsweek. “It will mean kids who go to school and their parents are gone and not there to pick them up at the end of the day.”

In particular, legal groups are gearing up for Trump to potentially evoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the country to deport noncitizens of a hostile nation. It has only been used three times, most recently to detain Japanese Americans during World War II.

“Many fear that a second Trump administration would seek to use this law to justify indefinite detention and remove people from the country swiftly and without judicial review,” Shah told Reuters.

The Brennan Center for Justice has called on Congress to repeal the act.

“This law was shameful and dangerous back when it was created 200 years ago,” the center’s Marcelo Agudo wrote in October. “It’s even more so today. It must be repealed or overturned.”

Several other organizations pledged to continue defending immigrants and refugees after Trump declared victory.

“We have a simple message for President-elect Trump or his deputies if they decide to make good on their despicable plans: We will see you in court,” Karen Tumlin, founder and director of Justice Action Center, said in a statement. “And, we have a message of love to immigrant communities, we see you, we are you, and we will stand with you.”

Calling Trump’s win “one of the most dangerous moments in our country’s history, National Immigration Law Center president Kica Matos said the organization had led a “movement-wide effort to plan for this moment.”

“Trump and his allies told us what he plans to do: mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, ending the right to public education for immigrant children, internment camps, and using the military to hunt down immigrants. We should take him at his word,” Matos said.

She continued: “One thing is certain: we cannot and will not retreat. For more than 40 years, NILC has been steadfast in our fight to defend the rights of low-income immigrants and their loved ones. We successfully fought Donald Trump before, and we will do it again.”

The American Immigrant Lawyers Association (AILA) pledged to continue working for its clients.

“If implemented, the anti-immigrant policies avowed by candidate Trump will inflict lasting damage to the American economy, communities, and character,” AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson said in a statement. “AILA and its more than 16,000 members will continue to defend the Constitution and stand against laws and policies that violate due process, undermine civil rights, or denigrate the contributions of immigrants. Our future prosperity depends on not giving up. We must stand together and work towards a brighter future.”

Refugees International also promised to continue with its “shared commitment to rights and refuge for people forced from their homes.”

“Amid historic levels of global displacement, the incoming Trump administration plans to enact an anti-refugee, anti-asylum agenda that will endanger millions of people—both those threatened by crises overseas and those who have been welcomed as neighbors into communities across the United States,” the group’s president, Jeremy Konyndyk, said in a message to supporters. “Yet we hold on to hope, even as we are clear-eyed about the daunting struggles ahead.”

Knowndyk added: “As we do under any presidential administration, we will work tirelessly with all of you to defend and advance the rights, protection, and well-being of all people forced to flee their homes.”

United We Dream, the largest U.S. organization led by immigrant youth, committed to building the “largest pro-immigrant movement this country has ever seen.”

“Immigrant young people of United We Dream declare ourselves hopeful and clear eyed about the fight ahead,” said the group’s executive director Greisa Martínez Rosas. “With Trump pledging to carry out the largest deportation effort in our country’s history—activating the military to raid our communities, schools, hospitals, and more in order to round up our people into concentration camps—young, Black, brown, and queer leaders who have been at the vanguard of our movement and of creating meaningful change are ready move mountains to protect our communities.”

Original article by Olivia Rosane republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingTrump Spokesperson Affirms Day 1 Plans for Nation’s ‘Largest Mass Deportation Operation’

Supreme Court Hears Koch-Backed Cases Designed to Unleash Deregulatory Bonanza

Spread the love

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch attends an event in Hagerstown, Maryland on March 11, 2022.  (Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a pair of cases taking direct aim at a critical precedent that, if overturned, would gut federal agencies’ ability to set and enforce regulations—a potentially massive blow to the climate, civil rights, public health, and more.

Central to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce is the so-called Chevron doctrine, which stems from a 1984 Supreme Court opinion that said judges should defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed the issue.

The precedent has long been a target of the fossil fuel industry and right-wing groups that are backing the plaintiffs in Loper and Relentless, both of which involve herring fishermen who challenged federal rules requiring them to pay for onboard compliance monitors.

Organizations that have received millions of dollars from the oil-soaked Koch network are supporting the effort to overturn the Chevron doctrine. In Loper, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are “working pro bono and belong to a public-interest law firm, Cause of Action, that discloses no donors and reports having no employees,” The New York Timesreported Tuesday.

“However,” the Times added, “court records show that the lawyers work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by [Charles] Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.”

Relentless plaintiffs are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a right-wing group that has received millions from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement Wednesday that “the special interests who spent big to stack the court may get their way if the Supreme Court weakens the government’s ability to hold industry accountable when they pollute for profit.”

“Everything from the climate to consumer safety could be worse off thanks to this potential decision and the corporate lobbyists who brought us to this point,” Ciccone added.

Earlier this week, Accountable.US urged right-wing Justice Neil Gorsuch—who has criticized the Chevron doctrine—to recuse from Loper, citing his ties to a billionaire oil tycoon who is positioned to benefit from a ruling that scraps the decades-old precedent. Justice Clarence Thomas also faced calls to recuse over his ties to the Koch network.

Neither agreed to step away from the case.

At the start of the Supreme Court’s hearing Wednesday, liberal Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern that gutting Chevron would give judges who lack subject-matter expertise power over policy decisions previously made by agencies staffed with scientists and other experts.

“You think that the court should determine whether a new product is a dietary supplement or a drug, without giving deference to the agency where it is not clear from the text of the statute or from using any traditional methods of statutory interpretation whether in fact the new product is a dietary supplement or a drug?” Kagan asked Roman Martinez, an attorney for the plaintiffs in Relentless. “You want the courts to decide that?”

The U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, has recently shown a willingness to curb federal agencies’ power to enforce key laws. In its 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court’s conservative supermajority limited the EPA’s authority to regulate power plants under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

But environmentalists and others warned that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in Loper and Relentless would strike a far more sweeping and devastating blow.

“The consequences of this case will be serious for fishery management, yes,” said Meredith Moore, director of Ocean Conservancy’s fish conservation program. “But it also puts at risk all of the environmental and social programs that keep our air and water clean, our homes and workplaces safe, and ourselves and our children healthy.”

“If the Supreme Court eradicates Chevron deference, it will overturn 40 years of foundational administrative and environmental law that has provided stable public resource management,” Moore added. “It will allow science-based management and agency expertise to be replaced with the inexpert policy and ideological preferences of unelected judges, potentially resulting in dramatically different interpretations of law across the country.”

Tishan Weerasooriya, senior associate of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, echoed those concerns, saying in a statement that “if the MAGA justices of the court overturn another decades-old precedent, it will greatly reduce the ability of scientists and experts at government agencies to defend every Americans’ right to clean water and air, worker protections, healthcare, and more.”

“Billionaires and elite corporations have been gunning to overturn this precedent for years, hoping to increase their profits even further if experts and scientists are no longer setting safety standards,” said Weerasooriya. “If the Roberts court overturns Chevron, it will continue to erode our fundamental freedoms and safety in deference to the wealthy and corporations.”

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Hears Koch-Backed Cases Designed to Unleash Deregulatory Bonanza