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.

Maria Archuleta, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
The
American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit charging that former Attorney
General John Ashcroft is personally responsible for the wrongful
detention of an innocent American, Abdullah al-Kidd, can go forward,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today. The ruling
denies Ashcroft's request that his appeal be heard by the entire court
and upheld the court's September 2009 decision that the federal
material witness law cannot be used to detain or investigate suspects
where no probable cause exists for criminal charges. The ruling also
held that Ashcroft does not have immunity in this case and can be held
personally liable for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd.
"In this country, we don't believe
in arresting and imprisoning people who haven't been charged with any
crime," said ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project Deputy Director Lee
Gelernt. "Former Attorney General Ashcroft deliberately distorted the
federal material witness law to allow the detention of innocent people.
As the primary architect and overseer of this policy that so clearly
circumvented the Constitution, he should be held personally liable."
Prior to 9/11, the federal material
witness law was used sparingly - especially with U.S. citizens - to
ensure that witnesses would be available to testify in criminal cases.
Arrests under the statute took place in rare cases to secure testimony
where there was hard evidence that an individual had material
information but would not testify voluntarily. After 9/11, Ashcroft
retooled the law into an investigative detention statute, allowing the
government to arrest and detain individuals for whom the government
lacked probable cause to charge with criminal violations.
Today's ruling affirms the court's
September 2009 ruling that found that the material witness law may only
be used when an individual is genuinely sought as a witness and where
there is a real risk of flight. The court ruled that the law does not
allow an end-run around the constitutional requirements for arresting
someone suspected of a crime. Ashcroft had appealed the ruling.
Al-Kidd, a U.S.-born American
citizen, was on his way to Saudi Arabia to study when he was unlawfully
detained and arrested in Washington's Dulles Airport on March 16, 2003
as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. For 16
days, al-Kidd was held in heightened-security units of various jails
and shackled whenever moved. He was eventually released under onerous
conditions that included confining his travel to four states,
surrendering his passport and reporting to probation officers. Al-Kidd
was held for more than 13 months under these conditions without ever
being charged with any crime or asked to testify.
At the time of his arrest, al-Kidd
had already shown that he was not a flight risk and would cooperate as
a witness. He had voluntarily met with the FBI repeatedly, never
missing a scheduled appointment. For six months prior to his arrest,
al-Kidd had not been contacted by the FBI, and he had never been told
that he was prohibited from traveling abroad to pursue his studies.
The ACLU lawsuit names Ashcroft,
the United States and several federal agents as defendants. Local,
state and federal officials in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho already
settled claims against these parties.
Organizations and individuals who
have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the ACLU in the
case include former federal prosecutors, former presidents of the
American Bar Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers and Human Rights Watch.
Attorneys on the case are Gelernt,
Lucas Guttentag, Farrin Anello and Tanaz Moghadam from the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project; Cynthia Woolley of the Law Offices of
Cynthia J. Woolley, PLLC; R. Keith Roark of the Roark Law Firm, LLP;
and Michael J. Wishnie of Yale Law School, who is cooperating counsel
for the ACLU.
The court's ruling is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/abdullah-al-kidd-v-john-ashcroft-et-al-order-denying-petition-rehearing-en-banc
More information about the case, al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, including the ACLU's complaint, the court's September 2009 ruling and other legal documents are online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/40511res20051118.html
Witness to Abuse, the 2005 report on the misuse of the material witness statute, is online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/17616prs20050627.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"Between yesterday’s historic verdict in New Mexico and today’s ruling in California, it is clear that Big Tech’s free rein to addict and harm children is over," said one campaigner.
A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google acted negligently by harming a child user with their social media platforms' addictive design features in a landmark verdict that came on the heels of Tuesday's $375 million fine imposed on Meta by New Mexico jurors.
The California jury—which deliberated for 40 hours over nine days—ordered the companies to pay $3 million in compensatory civil damages to a now-20-year-old woman, known in court as Kaley G.M., for pain and suffering and other damages.
Meta—the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—must pay 70%, while Google, the Alphabet subsidiary that bought YouTube, will pay the rest.
The jury also found the companies acted fraudulently and with malice, and will impose an additional fine.
Kaley's legal team successfully argued that the social media companies designed products that are as addictive as cigarettes or online casinos, and that site features like infinite scrolling and algorithmic recommendations caused her anxiety and depression. Attorneys said Kaley began viewing YouTube videos when she was 6 years old and started using Instagram at age 9.
Attorney Mark Lanier called YouTube Kaley's "gateway" to social media addiction. Later, features like Instagram's "beauty filters" made her feel "fat" and unattractive.
Still, Kaley was hooked, testifying in court last month: “Every single day I was on it, all day long. I just can’t be without it.”
Kaley's lawyers submitted evidence including internal communications in which officials at the two companies privately acknowledged their products' addictiveness.
"If we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens," one YouTube strategy memo states.
A communication from an Instagram employee says: “We’re basically pushers... We’re causing reward deficit disorder, because people are binging on Instagram so much they can’t feel the reward.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says, “Kids under 13 aren’t allowed on our services.” That's a lie. 2015: Internal review found 4 million kids on Instagram.2017: Meta employees, we're "going after <13 year olds” – Zuckerberg had been talking about this “for a while.”
[image or embed]
— Tech Oversight Project (@techoversight.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 10:18 AM
Kaley's attorneys said in a statement following Wednesday's verdict: "For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum—from a jury, to an entire industry—on that accountability.”
One of those attorneys, Joseph VanZandt, told The New York Times that “this is the first time in history a jury has heard testimony by executives and seen internal documents that we believe prove these companies chose profits over children."
As Courthouse News Service reported:
Kaley is the first of nearly 2,500 plaintiffs in a consolidated case in Southern California suing four tech companies—Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap—who say their social media and streaming platforms were designed in ways that caused or worsened depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia in minors.
TikTok and Snap settled with Kaley in the weeks before her bellwether trial but remain defendants in the broader consolidated litigation. The trial’s outcome could help spur a global settlement, though eight more bellwether trials are being prepared, with the next one scheduled to start this summer.
A Meta spokesperson told Courthouse News Service that “we respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO and co-founder, insisted during the trial that Instagram is “a good thing that has value in people’s lives.”
Appeals by the companies could drag on for years, and, as Fox Business correspondent Susan Li noted on X, "if it’s just money that they have to pay, in the end it’s just a speeding ticket as they have deep pockets of cash."
Wednesday's verdict comes amid numerous pending lawsuits against social media companies and follows Tuesday's $375 million penalty imposed on Meta by a New Mexico jury, which found that the company violated the state's Unfair Practices Act by misleading users and exposing children to harm on its platforms.
Child welfare and digital rights advocates hailed Wednesday's verdict, which The Tech Oversight Project, an advocacy group, called "an earthquake for Big Tech."
"After years of gaslighting from companies like Google and Meta, new evidence and testimony have pulled back the curtain and validated the harms young people and parents have been telling the world about for years," the group's president, Sacha Haworth, said in a statement.
"These products were purposefully designed to harm [and] addict millions of young people, and lead to lifelong mental health consequences," Haworth added. "This trial was proof that if you put CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg on the stand before a judge and jury of their peers, the tech industry’s wanton disregard for people will be on full display."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, said, “Today’s verdict is a victory for young people, their families, and all Americans, marking a critical turning point in the fight to hold Big Tech accountable."
"The message is clear: The industry cannot continue to treat the youngest generation as its guinea pigs without consequences," he continued. "The trial process exposed how these platforms are designed, how risks to young users are understood internally, and how those risks have too often been outweighed by the pursuit of growth and profit."
"Today’s verdict builds on that truth. It affirms that young people are not test subjects for unproven products that prioritize profit at all cost," Fraser added. “No other industry enjoys the level of legal protection tech companies have relied on. This verdict begins to crack that shield and move us closer to a system where accountability is the norm, not the exception."
Josh Golin, executive director of the children's advocacy group Fairplay, said, “We are so pleased that a jury has confirmed what Fairplay and the survivor parents we work with have been saying for years: Social media companies like Meta and YouTube deliberately design their products to addict kids."
"Between yesterday’s historic verdict in New Mexico and today’s ruling in California, it is clear that Big Tech’s free rein to addict and harm children is over," he added.
JB Branch, the artificial intelligence and technology policy counsel at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the parallels to Big Tobacco litigation are becoming harder to ignore."
"Like tobacco companies before them, social media firms built massive business models around dependency, denied or minimized mounting evidence of harm, and resisted meaningful safeguards while millions of young people were exposed to escalating risks," Branch explained. "Infinite scroll, push notifications, algorithmic amplification, and behavioral targeting were commercial design choices built to maximize attention, addiction, and revenue."
“Now more than ever, it’s time for Congress and federal regulators to establish enforceable safeguards for youth online while preserving the right of states to adopt stronger standards, including stronger product safety requirements, transparency obligations, limits on manipulative design practices, and accountability mechanisms for platforms whose business models depend on prolonged youth engagement," Branch added.
While many campaigners are urging congressional lawmakers to pass the Senate version of the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups including the ACLU argue that KOSA is overbroad and poses serious risks of censorship of free speech.
"Each day we delay increases the risk of deeper US involvement and more lives lost," said one progressive policy adviser. "Failing to act now means owning what comes next."
Democratic Party leaders are under fire after it was reported that they plan to wait until mid-April to hold a vote to rein in President Donald Trump's powers to wage war with Iran.
Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday that US House lawmakers had abandoned plans to hold a vote this week on a war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
With a two-week recess beginning next week, postponing the vote means the earliest Democrats could force it again is April 13.
A previous war powers resolution, which came to the floor just days after the US and Israel launched the war at the end of February, failed by a razor-thin margin when four pro-war Democrats—Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.)—joined the bulk of Republicans to kill it.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there are “ongoing conversations” about passing a war powers resolution “sooner rather than later." He said, “When we present something on the floor, it’s our determination to win.”
But Democrats would likely be in a position to "win" the vote if it were held this week. Andrew Solender reported on Tuesday for Axios that following intense criticism from the grassroots base and pressure from party leadership, "most, if not all, of the four defectors are expected to flip and vote for the measure this time."
Solender later reported that Meeks was undecided about the measure. While the New York Democrat confirmed to Axios that the party had gotten defectors on board, he said he "hasn’t decided whether to force a vote on his war powers resolution this week or in mid-April."
Democratic leadership has already been accused of attempting to sabotage a previous resolution introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in late February by waiting to vote on it until after Trump launched the war.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez, who reported on these stall tactics in February, noted that Meeks "previously tried to delay a vote by warning 40 Democrats could oppose it. In the end, just four did."
"Now Meeks is saying he may not hold the vote because one member could vote no," Chávez wrote on social media. "If Democrats are unified, this Iran war powers resolution could actually pass... That makes Democratic leadership’s refusal to force a vote ASAP even more indefensible."
The decision to punt yet another resolution for nearly three weeks has ignited even more outrage and suspicion among progressives, especially amid reports that Trump is sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East and is mulling a ground invasion of Iran.
"It would be extremely alarming for Reps. Jeffries and Meeks to waver now on forcing a war powers vote," said Cavan Kharrazian, the senior policy adviser for Demand Progress. "Delaying a war powers vote now effectively gives Trump two more weeks to continue and escalate the war in Iran."
Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, went further, accusing Meeks of backing off the resolution precisely "because it now may have the votes to pass." He contended that "Democrats secretly want this war to continue because it hurts Trump."
The war is indeed highly unpopular, with 59% of Americans saying it has "gone too far," according to an Associated Press-NORC poll published Wednesday. Its cascading effects throughout the economy—particularly the sharp increases in gas prices across the US—also have the potential to harm Trump, who has shed support for failing to address the high cost of living.
Andrei Vasilescu, the director of communications for Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Common Dreams that Meeks was "whipping a vote precisely so it passes, and any accusations to the contrary are absurd."
He said many members of the House are not currently in DC and that passing the resolution would require all of the "yes" votes to be present.
"Ranking Member Meeks could not be clearer about his opposition to the war, and is working through this resolution and all other available tools to hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," he added.
He noted that Meeks also introduced a motion on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to testify about the war.
According to the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA), a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,443 civilians, including 217 children, have been killed by US and Israeli strikes since the war began on February 28. Lebanon's Ministry of Health reported last week that more than 1,000 civilians have been killed by Israeli attacks as it expanded its military campaign there in early March.
"This war is a disaster, it’s unpopular, and civilians across the region are dying," Kharrazian of Demand Progress said. "This is a moment for anti-war leadership, not hesitation. The House should be on the record now, especially when reporting suggests the votes are there to pass a war powers resolution."
"Each day we delay increases the risk of deeper US involvement and more lives lost," he added. "Failing to act now means owning what comes next."
"Billionaires are on track to break their $1 billion midterm spending record," said Americans for Tax Fairness.
Just 50 billionaire families in the United States have already dumped more than $430 million into the 2026 midterms, with the vast majority of the money flowing to Republican candidates and right-wing organizations such as MAGA Inc.—a super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump.
The progressive advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) released an analysis on Wednesday examining the most recent Federal Election Commission data, which underscores increasingly aggressive billionaire efforts to use their immense wealth to secure their favored political outcomes. In the 2024 federal elections, billionaires accounted for nearly 20% of all donations.
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, tops the list of 2026 campaign spenders so far, donating roughly $71 million—including $10 million in support of a pro-Trump candidate running to succeed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Behind Musk is businessman Jeff Yass, a relatively low-profile billionaire who has spent millions in recent years promoting school privatization. Yass has so far spent $55 million in the 2026 midterm cycle, $16 million of which went to MAGA Inc.—the largest recipient of the billionaire's donations.
Combined, the 50 top-spending billionaire families—which ATF describes as "modern-day royalty"—have poured $433 million into the 2026 midterms to date.
"Billionaires are on track to break their $1 billion midterm spending record," ATF noted on social media, referring to the 2022 midterms. "The spending is projected to grow exponentially as November approaches."

ATF published its analysis days ahead of the latest round of nationwide "No Kings" protests against the Trump administration this coming Saturday, March 28.
“The American people reject kings, political or financial,” David Kass, executive director of ATF, said in a statement on Wednesday. “Whether it’s an out-of-control chief executive in the White House or a billionaire wielding his huge fortune to influence elections, anti-democratic behavior is anathema to the American public."
"As we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence from the British monarchy," Kass added, "it’s more important than ever that we reform our campaign-finance and tax laws so that no billionaire can purchase a crown.”
ATF found that nearly 80% of top billionaire families' 2026 midterm spending—$344.3 million of the $433 million total—has gone to Republicans and GOP organizations, with the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. super PAC receiving $89 million, far more than any other group.
Four of the top five recipients of midterm cash from the nation's richest billionaire are pro-Republican PACs.
"Republicans and conservatives receive the lion’s share of billionaire financial support because it is the nation’s right-wing that works to ensure the wealthiest families get to keep and expand their fortunes, such as through the GOP tax-and-spending law enacted last year," ATF noted.