

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

James Freedland, (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
The
American Civil Liberties Union today asked a federal appeals court to
reinstate a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan for its
role in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program. The U.S. government
continues to misuse the "state secrets" privilege to avoid legal
scrutiny of the unlawful program. It has become increasingly clear in
recent months that other governments do not share the Bush
administration's conviction that the program must remain shrouded in
false claims of state secrets.
"The U.S. government continues to
use false claims of national security to dodge judicial scrutiny of
extraordinary rendition, even as other countries are openly examining
the unlawful program," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU
National Security Project. "The threat to our nation isn't from the
ACLU's lawsuit; the threat is from the government's continued
insistence on covering up an illegal and secret program that involves
flying innocent people to countries where they will probably be
tortured."
Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen
was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly
transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies
overseas where they were interrogated under torture. On August 21,
Britain's High Court of Justice ruled that one of the men, Binyam
Mohamed, is entitled to receive documents from the British government
relating to his rendition, detention and interrogation, including
documents confirming the cooperation between the U.S. and U.K.
governments in those events. Last week another of the men, Ahmed Agiza,
received a $450,000 settlement from the Swedish government for its role
in his rendition to Egypt.
"Governments around the world are
coming clean about their participation in the rendition program by
handing over relevant documents and even paying restitution to the
victims. The U.S. government truly stands alone when insisting on
hiding behind false claims of state secrets," said Steven Watt, staff
attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "The extraordinary
rendition program is well known throughout the world. The only place
it's not being discussed is where it most cries out for examination -
in a U.S. court of law."
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed
in support of the ACLU, several former U.S. diplomats charge that the
extraordinary rendition program has already harmed the United States'
standing in the world. According to the brief, immunizing illegal
government conduct from judicial scrutiny "would send a message that
the courts of the United States cannot be relied upon to provide even a
possibility of redress for those who allege flagrant abuses of both
domestic and international law in the course of counter-terrorism
operations," and "would signal that the United States does not respect
the rule of law in relation to such operations, and reinforce the
concerns that already impede international cooperation."
The ACLU's lawsuit charges that
Jeppesen knowingly aided the extraordinary rendition program by
providing flight planning and logistical support services for aircraft
and crews used by the CIA. The case was dismissed in February after the
government intervened, inappropriately invoking the "state secrets"
privilege to have it thrown out. However, the lawsuit cites abundant
evidence that is already in the public domain, including a sworn
affidavit by a former Jeppesen employee and flight records confirming
the company's involvement.
The ACLU is appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In addition to Wizner and Watt,
attorneys in the lawsuit are Steven Shapiro and Jameel Jaffer of the
national ACLU, Ann Brick of the ACLU of Northern California, Paul
Hoffman of the law firm Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman
LLP and Hope Metcalf of the Yale Law School Lowenstein Clinic. In
addition, Margaret L. Satterthwaite and Amna Akbar of the International
Human Rights Clinic of New York University School of Law and Clive
Stafford-Smith and Zachary Katznelson represent plaintiffs in this case.
The ACLU's brief is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/36933lgl20080925.html
Other documents related to the lawsuit, including press releases, legal documents and background information, are at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/rendition.html
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"The First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public."
Since President Donald Trump returned to power and unleashed Immigration and Customs Enforcement on US cities, members of the National Coalition Against Censorship have periodically reminded Americans that "yes, you have the right to film ICE." The NCAC did so again on Tuesday, as videos emerge of agents telling observers to stop recording.
"We join together as nonprofit civil rights and free expression advocates to condemn the Trump administration's statements that it is illegal to record videos of ICE agents. These claims are incorrect as a matter of law, directly contrary to our First Amendment values, and deeply troubling for democratic governance," NCAC said in a statement.
"The ability to hold the government accountable is at the very core of our democracy. To preserve that ability, the First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public. This explicitly includes law enforcement officers engaged in their public duties," the coalition continued, citing decisions from all federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue.
In a Wednesday appearance on KQED's podcast Close All Tabs, CJ Ciaramella, a criminal justice reporter at Reason, similarly highlighted that while the US Supreme Court "actually hasn't put out a ruling saying there's an unambiguous First Amendment right to film the police," the circuit courts "that have considered the issue have pretty much said there is a First Amendment right to record the police and observe the police, and they've all decided that pretty unambiguously."
"And this ranges from, you know, the 9th Circuit, which is traditionally a pretty liberal leaning court, to the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as a more conservative circuit court," Ciaramella explained. "The 5th Circuit looked at it and said, you know, based on the First Amendment tradition, the Supreme Court precedents, this seems pretty unambiguous to us."
"So it's not a completely like black and white issue, but it's also not... a thorny or divisive First Amendment question. Every court that's looked at it has said, yeah, based on our long First Amendment traditions. And in America, you have a right to record the police," he added. "Now, Minnesota is in one of the circuits that hasn't yet ruled on this."
The NCAC statement comes amid a flurry of videos of violent and otherwise problematic ICE actions, especially in Minneapolis, where Trump has sent thousands of troops and ICE officer Johnathan Ross fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in the head last week. Ross was recording on his phone, and amid mounting calls for his arrest and prosecution, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out a "propaganda" video defending the actions of ICE agents.
Journalists and other critics of Good's killing have debunked DHS claims in part by pointing to bystanders' footage from the scene.
While the NCAC statement doesn't point to any specific incidents with agents, it does sound the alarm about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's suggestion last July that videotaping ICE operations is "violence" and anyone "doxing" agents will be prosecuted.
After playing a clip of Noem's remarks on Close All Tabs, host Morgan Sung said: "Notice the use of the word doxing here. That's the act of posting private information about someone to target and harass them, usually like their home address or personal phone number. The Trump administration has equated identifying and publicly naming ICE agents to doxing."
NCAC argued that "statements such as Secretary Noem's misinform the public about their First Amendment rights and chill constitutionally protected speech. As a policy matter, threats to punish those who monitor law enforcement increase the likelihood that people will be intimidated out of exercising their constitutional rights and lead to precisely the outcome such oversight is intended to prevent—law enforcement agents who act with impunity as transparency is demonized by political leaders."
Like ICE, agents with Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, have been sent to various cities and recorded behaving violently in recent months, often while donning masks. After Ross killed Good, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino—who is currently in Minnesota—sent a "legal refresher" to agents in the field stating that taking photos and recordings is protected activity under the First Amendment.
The coalition said that "regardless of one's views on immigration policy, the increased budget and enforcement operations of ICE were a core campaign issue in the presidential election, and are a widespread topic of conversation and concern."
"Recordings of law enforcement directly inform the public, shape policy discussions, and even serve as the catalyst for large-scale political movements across the political spectrum. They have helped to expose horrific and illegal acts by the government," NCAC pointed out. "At the same time, they also protect law enforcement officers. If an officer is acting within the bounds of the law, a recording will help prove as much."
"We stand behind the public's well-established right to record public officials, law enforcement, and ICE agents engaged in their public duties. We jointly condemn this administration's refusal to recognize the First Amendment right to record officers in public. And we call on this administration to recognize that constitutional rights are a feature, not a bug, of democratic governance," the coalition concluded. "For our constitutional rights to be real, our public officials must uphold them—as they have sworn to do."
The groups that signed on to the statement are the ACLU, Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for Protest Law & Litigation at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Government Information Watch, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Tully Center for Free Speech, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
Joining them as individuals are writer and historian Pat McNees, and three experts from Yale Law School: David A. Schulz, Stacy Livingston, and Tobin Raju.
"We are asking every single person, every family member, every teacher, every bus driver, every childcare worker, to come together, to be in community, to stand with one another."
A broad coalition of Minneapolis labor unions and community organizations is calling for a general strike to take place next week with the goal of forcing federal immigration agents to leave their city.
According to a report by Workday Magazine, the groups announced their plans on Tuesday to create a day of "no work, no school, no shopping" on Friday, January 23.
JaNaé Bates Imari, representative of the church Camphor Memorial UMC, said that next Friday would be "a day when every single Minnesotan who loves this state—who loves the idea of truth and freedom—will refuse to work, shop, and go to school."
"We are asking every single person, every family member, every teacher, every bus driver, every childcare worker, to come together, to be in community, to stand with one another," Bates Imari added.
This is what it takes. It is time for the people to stand and take back our power. We need a general strike!
Love and solidarity to our family in Minneapolis who are refusing to go along with a status quo that blocks regular people out while ICE kidnaps and guns them down. More… pic.twitter.com/2dAjVopyjK
— Charles Booker (@Booker4KY) January 14, 2026
Abdikarim Khasim, a Minnesota rideshare driver, said the strike was necessary because "we are facing a tsunami of hate from our own federal government," while also vowing that "we are going to overcome this."
As reported by Payday Report on Tuesday, several local Minneapolis unions—including Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1005, SEIU Local 26, UNITE HERE Local 17, CWA Local 7250, and St. Paul Federation of Educators Local 28—have lent their support to the strike.
Workday Magazine editor Sarah Lazare subsequently reported in a post on X that the Minneapolis Federation of Educators had also signed onto the effort.
In addition to the labor organizations, faith-based social justice group Faith in Minnesota has declared its support for the strike.
Charles Booker, a Democratic candidate for the US Senate in Kentucky, praised the organizations for showing solidarity in the face of a crackdown by federal agents.
"This is what it takes," he wrote in a social media post. "It is time for the people to stand and take back our power. We need a general strike! Love and solidarity to our family in Minneapolis who are refusing to go along with a status quo... More of this!"
Thousands of demonstrators hit the streets to protest last weekend after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Minneapolis resident Renee Good.
In the days since Good's killing, federal agents have been repeatedly captured on video brutally detaining anti-ICE demonstrators and assorted bystanders, including some who have been confirmed as US citizens.
"Governments know fossil fuels are the cause of climate breakdown, yet they keep stalling on the transition."
Increasing fossil fuel extraction helped make 2025 the third-hottest year on record and marked the third straight year of “extraordinary global temperatures,” according to a major new report on the climate crisis.
On Wednesday, the European Union's Copernicus climate agency published a report based on data from climate-monitoring organizations, including NASA and the World Meteorological Organization.
Based on billions of weather readings from satellites, ships, aircraft, and weather stations, the report found that, for the first time in recorded history, global temperatures over a three-year period have exceeded the critical threshold of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
At current rates of heating, the report found, the Earth could surpass the Paris Climate Accord’s target of 1.5°C on a long-term basis by 2030, more than a decade sooner than scientists' projection when nations negotiated the pledge to reduce emissions back in 2015.
“Atmospheric data from 2025 paints a clear picture: Human activity remains the dominant driver of the exceptional temperatures we are observing,” said Laurence Rouil, the director of Copernicus’ Atmosphere Monitoring Service. “Atmospheric greenhouse gases have steadily increased over the last 10 years.”

As with previous years, 2025 was marked by a series of disasters fueled by rising temperatures: From a historic heatwaves that killed an estimated 24,000 people in Europe, to typhoons across Asia that displaced millions, to the wildfires that ravaged the Los Angeles area roughly a year ago and were one of a record 23 disasters in the US that exceeded more than a billion dollars in damage.
The Copernicus report was released as Australia suffered what DW News called possibly its "first megafire of the climate change age" in Victoria, which had charred over 350,000 hectares (more than 864,000 acres) of land as of Sunday and forced thousands to flee their homes.
(Video: Sky News Australia)
"Extreme weather isn’t rare anymore—it’s driving up food prices, insurance premiums, water shortages, and upending daily life across the globe," said Savio Carvalho, the managing director for campaigns and networks for the climate activist group 350. "Governments know fossil fuels are the cause of climate breakdown, yet they keep stalling on the transition. We don’t have the luxury of wasting time or taking side paths—we are running out of time."
The past year was marked by yet more disappointment for those hoping to see collective global action to reduce carbon emissions.
The most glaring setbacks occurred in the United States—the globe's largest historic polluter—where President Donald Trump has virtually halted renewable energy expansion, pushed to crank up fossil fuel extraction, and sought to end the "endangerment finding" that allows carbon emissions to be regulated on the basis of their harm to the climate.
But even in the absence of Trump, the past year's global climate summit in Brazil, COP30, once again fell well short of a cohesive international action plan, ending with no global agreement to wind down the use of oil, gas, and coal. Eighty nations failed to submit global emissions pledges, and many of those that did failed to make commitments that would likely bend the global temperature curve in a favorable direction.
Where scientists once urged nations to take swift action in the hope of passing the 1.5°C tipping point, Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, said following Wednesday's report that "we are bound to pass it."
He said, "The choice we now have is how to best manage the inevitable overshoot and its consequences on societies and natural systems."
But an overshoot is intolerable to many on the front lines of the crisis.
"In the Pacific, climate disasters are costing us billions of dollars in recovery and rebuilding," said Fenton Lutunatabua, 350's program manager for the Pacific and Caribbean. "A world beyond 1.5°C would devastate our resources even more."
"Entire villages in Fiji are being uprooted and relocated, losing connection to traditional lands and fishing grounds," he added. "Atoll nations like Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands are grappling with both adaptation and addressing the reality of potential forced migration. To give up on 1.5°C is to say that any of these realities is acceptable."
In Indonesia, where unprecedented flash floods in November killed 1,100 people, Suriadi Darmoko, an activist in Bali who is suing his government following an International Court of Justice ruling allowing states to be held legally accountable over climate harms, agreed that complacency is not an option.
“Entire communities are still buried in mud. Thousands of families are still grieving and struggling to have their basic needs met. We refuse to be treated as mere climate disaster victims," he said. "Our leaders have kept the world hooked on fossil fuels even as they knew decades ago it would lead to such tragedies."
Carvalho, too, rejected the notion that extreme warming is something the Earth must accept. Despite setbacks to collective action, 2025 also saw certain actors on the global stage make great strides toward a renewable future.
In large part due to massive investments by China, renewable sources generated more power worldwide than coal for the first time, and solar energy generation grew by 31% in the first half of the year, outpacing demand growth.
"We need to do what’s right now: a global phase out of fossil fuels is urgent," said Carvalho. "We already have the renewable energy solutions we need—what’s missing is the political will. We can prevent the worst if we act now."