

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.

Baach Robinson & Lewis PLLC and the Center for Constitutional Rights today filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of four British citizens who were tortured and subjected to religious humiliation at Guantanamo. The petition marks the second time in the last year that the British citizens have asked the Supreme Court to review their case.
The four former detainees - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith - were held from 2002 to 2004 at Guantanamo before being sent home to England without being charged with any offense. They filed their case in 2004 seeking damages from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and senior American military officers for violation of their constitutional rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits infringement of religion by the U.S. government against any person. Their claims were dismissed in 2008 by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals when that court held that detainees have no rights under the Constitution and do not count as "persons" for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Last year, the Supreme Court granted the men's first petition, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and ordered the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which held that Guantanamo is de facto U.S. territory, that detainees have a Constitutional right to habeas corpus and that detainees have fundamental constitutional rights.
On remand, the D.C. Circuit reiterated its view that the Constitution does not prohibit torture of detainees at Guantanamo and that detainees still are not "persons" protected from religious abuse. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that, in any event, the government officials involved are immune from liability.
The petition filed today pointed out that the Court of Appeals decision stands in conflict with all of the Supreme Court's recent precedent on Guantanamo:
This case presents a unique and compelling opportunity for this Court to affirm that torture at Guantanamo was a violation of fundamental rights as well as to make clear to inferior courts that its constitutional jurisprudence regarding Guantanamo must be taken seriously. Left in place, the Court of Appeals' decision will be a final assertion of judicial indifference in the face of calculated torture and humiliation of Muslims in their religion. The decision cannot stand.
The petition also attacked the notion that the prohibitions against torture and religious abuse were not clearly established in 2002 when the petitioners were imprisoned. It notes that the defendants wrote and received memoranda and reports that expressly acknowledged the longstanding laws prohibiting abuse and torture of prisoners. As the petition noted, Guantanamo appears to have been selected as the incarceration center for these prisoners "in a cynical attempt to avoid accountability for conduct that had long been held unconstitutional when it occurred in U.S. prisons."
Eric Lewis, lead counsel for the Petitioners, commented, "There must be accountability for these violations of core American ideals. The Supreme Court has been a bulwark in establishing the rule of law at Guantanamo and it is imperative that the Court strongly affirms that the judiciary will not stand silent in the face of officially sanctioned torture."
Bill Quigley, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "This is a moment of truth for the Obama administration. Will it support a decision that says detainees have no right to be free of torture and that government officials who order torture should not be held accountable for their actions? To be true to the principles on which this administration was elected, the Justice Department should support a strong judicial affirmation of the prohibition against torture."
CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last six years - sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA "ghost detainee" there. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation. In addition, CCR has been working to resettle the approximately 60 men who remain at Guantanamo because they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and torture.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people."
Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that President Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas' Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.
In a speech before cheering supporters, Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people" whom he credited with putting his campaign over the top.
This win goes to everyday, working people.
I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW
— Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026
Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.
“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”
Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reacted somberly to the news of Rehmet's victory, warning in a social media post that the result was "a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas."
"Our voters cannot take anything for granted," Patrick emphasized.
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico, on the other hand, cheered Rehmet's victory, which he hinted was a sign of things to come in the Lone Star State in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Trump won this district by 17 points," he wrote. "Democrat Taylor Rehmet just flipped it—despite Big Money outspending him 10:1. Something is happening in Texas."
Steven Monacelli, special correspondent for the Texas Observer, described Rehmet's victory as "an earthquake of Biblical proportions."
"Tarrant County is the largest red county in the nation," Monacelli explained. "I cannot emphasize enough how big this is."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of polling firm Zenith Research, noted that Rehmet's victory was truly remarkable given the district's past voting record.
"The recent high water mark for Dems in the district was 43.6% (Beto 2018)," he wrote, referring to Democrat Beto O'Rourke's failed 2018 US Senate campaign. "Rehmet’s likely to exceed 55%. The heavily Latino parts of the district shifted sharply to the left from 2024."
Polling analyst Lakshya Jain said that the big upset in Texas makes more sense when considering recent polling data on voter enthusiasm.
"Our last poll's generic ballot was D+4," he explained. "Among the most enthusiastic voters (a.k.a., those who said they would 'definitely' vote in 2026)? D+12. Foreseeable and horrible for the GOP."
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, argued that Rehmet's victory shows that "Democrats can win almost anywhere in Texas" in 2026.
Kennedy also credited Rehmet with having "the perfect résumé for a District 9 Democrat" as "a Lockheed Martin leader running against a Republican who had lost suburban public school voters, particularly in staunch-red Republican north Fort Worth."
In an interview with the New York Times, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey described "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is warning that the Trump administration has crossed a "terrifying line" with its use of federal immigration enforcement agents to brutalize and abduct people in his city.
In an interview with the New York Times published Saturday, Frey described operations that have taken place in his city as "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up," likening it to a military "invasion."
During the interview, Frey was asked what he made of Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent offer to withdraw immigration enforcement forces from his city if Minnesota handed over its voter registration records to the federal government.
"That is wildly unconstitutional," Frey replied. "We should all be standing up and saying that’s not OK. Literally, listen to what they’re saying. Active threats like, Turn over the voter rolls or else, or we will continue to do what we’re doing. That’s something you can do in America now."
Frey was also asked about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's comments from earlier in the week where he likened the administration's invasion of Minneapolis to the first battle that took place during the US Civil War in Fort Sumter.
"I don’t think he’s saying that the Civil War is going to happen," said Frey. "I think what he’s saying is that a significant and terrifying line is being crossed. And I would agree with that."
As Frey issued warnings about the federal government's actions in Minneapolis, more horror stories have emerged involving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minnesota.
The Associated Press reported on Saturday that staff at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis have been raising red flags over ICE agents' claims about Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, a Mexican immigrant whom they treated after he suffered a shattered skull earlier this month.
ICE agents who brought Castañeda Mondragón to the hospital told staffers that he had injured himself after he "purposefully ran headfirst into a brick wall" while trying to escape their custody.
Nurses who treated Castañeda Mondragón, however, said that there is no way that running headfirst into a wall could produce the sheer number of skull fractures he suffered, let alone the internal bleeding found throughout his brain.
“It was laughable, if there was something to laugh about," one nurse at the hospital told the Associated Press. “There was no way this person ran headfirst into a wall."
According to a Saturday report in the New York Times, concern over ICE's brutality has grown to such an extent that many Minnesota residents, including both documented immigrants and US citizens, have started wearing passports around their necks to avoid being potentially targeted.
Joua Tsu Thao, a 75-year-old US citizen who came to the country after aiding the American military during the Vietnam War, said the aggressive actions of immigration officers have left him with little choice but to display his passport whenever he walks outside his house.
"We need to be ready before they point a gun to us," Thao explained to the Times.
CNN on Friday reported that ICE has been rounding up refugees living in Minnesota who were allowed to enter the US after undergoing "a rigorous, years-long vetting process," and sending them to a facility in Texas where they are being prepared for deportation.
Lawyers representing the abducted refugees told CNN that their clients have been "forced to recount painful asylum claims with limited or no contact with family members or attorneys."
Some of the refugees taken to Texas have been released from custody. But instead of being flown back home, they were released in Texas "without money, identification, or phones," CNN reported.
Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for US legal programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, told CNN that government agents abducting refugees who had previously been allowed into the US is part of "a campaign of terror" that "is designed to scare people."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," said one critic.
Critics have weighed in on Amazon MGM Studios' documentary about first lady Melania Trump, and their verdicts are overwhelmingly negative.
According to review aggregation website Metacritic, Melania—which Amazon paid $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market—so far has received a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, which indicates "overwhelming dislike."
Similarly, Melania scores a mere 6% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomameter," indicating that 94% of reviews for the movie so far have been negative.
One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as "a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness" who leads a "vulgar, gilded lifestyle."
Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as "a striking artifact... of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly."
The Guardian's Xan Brooks delivered a similarly scathing assessment, declaring the film "dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," Brooks elaborated. "I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne."
Donald Clarke of the Irish Times also discussed the film's failure as a piece of propaganda, and he compared it unfavorably to the work of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
"Melania... appears keener on inducing narcolepsy in its viewers than energizing them into massed marching," he wrote. "Triumph of the Dull, perhaps."
Variety's Owen Gleiberman argued that the Melania documentary is utterly devoid of anything approaching dramatic stakes, which results in the film suffering from "staggering inertia."
"Mostly it’s inert," Gleiberman wrote of the film. "It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called 'Day of the Living Tradwife.'"
Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter found that the movie mostly exposes Melania Trump is an empty vessel without a single original thought or insight, instead deploying "an endless number of inspirational phrases seemingly cribbed from self-help books."
Kevin Fallon of the Daily Beast described Melania as "an unbelievable abomination of filmmaking" that reaches "a level of insipid propaganda that almost resists review."
"It's so expected," Fallon added, "and utterly pointless."