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.
Jim Erickson
University of Michigan
ericksn [at] umich [dot] edu
+1-734-647-1842
Benjamin Greenberg
Physicians for Human Rights
bgreenberg [at] phrusa [dot] org
+1-617-510-3417
Environmental health scientists from the University of Michigan find
that a sample of Guatemalans who live near a controversial gold and
silver mine in the country's western highlands have higher levels of
potentially toxic heavy metals in their urine and blood than a sample
of residents who live farther from the mine.
Looking at environmental impacts, the scientists also find
significant differences in the quality of water samples taken from
creeks just downstream from the mine, as compared to a site upstream
and a river farther downstream. The scientists warn that metals
exposure caused by the mine is likely to increase over time, and could
last for decades.
"Little is known about the cumulative and combined health impacts on
humans -- especially children -- following chronic exposure to complex,
real-world mixtures," said Dr. Howard Hu of the U-M School of Public
Health, co-author of the Marlin Mine report with Niladri Basu,
assistant professor of environmental sciences in the School of Public
Health.
"That's why it is imperative that large-scale, long-term
epidemiological and ecological follow-up studies be conducted," Basu
said.
The scientist's study, which was coordinated and published today by
Physicians for Human Rights, examines the health and environmental
impacts of the Marlin Mine, owned by Canada's Goldcorp company through
its Guatemalan subsidiary, Montana Exploradora, Inc. The study finds
that a sample of residents living near the mine have higher levels of
mercury, copper, arsenic and zinc in their urine, and of lead in their
blood, than a sample of persons living seven kilometers away.
A delegation, including the study's lead scientist, presented the
findings to villagers in Guatemala today, some of whom had concerns
that a range of physical ailments were caused by the mine.
The study cautions, however, that it is "not clear if the current
magnitude of these elevations pose a significant threat to health."
Although each metal tested is toxic at high enough levels, none of the
levels in the samples exceed those considered acceptable by the U.S.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention and by widely recognized
scientific standards.
The Marlin Mine opened in 2005 and is expected to remain in operation for most of this decade.
The study recommends that follow-up health and environmental studies
be overseen by an independent panel. "This panel would allow for a
forum that is transparent and inclusive, and it would facilitate
dialogue amongst the stakeholders," the report says.
In releasing this study, Physicians for Human Rights noted that the
report implicitly delivered a message to the government of Guatemala
regarding its obligations to its citizens. "The State is responsible
not only to protect citizens from harms to their health from possible
environmental contamination; it also has positive obligations to
prevent new future health risks that may be caused by this mine and
other mines," said Susannah Sirkin, deputy director for Physicians for
Human Rights.
The authors caution that the study, based on biological samples
drawn from 23 individuals during a one-week visit to the vicinity of
the mine in August 2009, cannot be viewed as definitive, but rather as
a preliminary baseline study. Still, the results show "qualitative and
generalized trends that enable conclusions to be drawn."
Samples from creeks near the mine have significantly higher levels
of pH (a measure of acidity), conductivity and temperature, as well as
aluminum, manganese, cobalt and, in one creek, arsenic. Researchers
also compare a sample of mine workers to a sample of non-mine workers,
finding no significant difference between the levels of heavy metals in
their urine and blood. Because the mine workers have access to a better
diet and to medical services provided by the mine, they consider
themselves to be in better general health.
The study does not find any significant association between levels
of heavy metals and the severe skin rashes and respiratory illness
reported by some persons living near the mine, especially children and
the elderly. However, the study took no urine or blood samples from
children, because of the informed consent protocol approved by the
university's Institutional Review Board. Nor did it take samples from
the persons who had complained. Skin rashes and respiratory effects,
the study notes, are consistent with exposure to cyanide, which is used
at the mine, but was not analyzed in the study.
The research was conducted at the request of the Independent
International Panel on the Human Rights Impacts of the Marlin Mine, a
four member panel composed of three academics from the Center for Civil
and Human Rights of Notre Dame Law School and a lawyer from Oxfam
Americas. The Panel will draw on the study as one component of its
analysis. Funding for the study was provided by the Due Process of Law
Foundation, based in Washington, DC.
The panel engaged Physicians for Human Rights and the University of
Michigan team to conduct an independent and impartial analysis of the
mine's health and environmental impacts. Physicians for Human Rights
mobilizes the health professions to advance the health and dignity of
all people by protecting human rights. The group shared the 1997 Nobel
Peace Prize.The Marlin Mine is located about 185 miles northwest of
Guatemala City. It consists of two open pits and one underground mine.
A cyanide leaching process is used to extract gold and silver from
crushed ore.
Goldcorp is actively prospecting dozens of other sites in the region near the Marlin Mine.
PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical duties, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human rights violations and work to stop them. PHR mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and promotes the right to health for all.
“The Trump administration knowingly and unlawfully locked up an innocent person for four months in a concentration camp-like prison," said one attorney for the plaintiff.
A Utah law firm said Tuesday that it plans to sue the US government for its allegedly unlawful detention and deportation of a Venezuelan immigrant who was sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador known for its torture and abuse of inmates.
“Our client is a young Venezuelan man who came into the US legally to escape threats of violence by the Venezuelan government against his family for their opposition to the Maduro regime," said Brent Ward, an attorney at Parker & McConkie, referring to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was kidnapped by US forces during a January invasion of his country.
Ward said that the client—identified by the pseudonym "Johnny Hernandez"—is seeking $56 million in damages and "has no criminal record either in the US or in Venezuela."
A man entered the U.S. legally, had no criminal record, and was still sent to one of the world's most dangerous prisons for four months. Parker & McConkie is pursuing $56 million in justice on his behalf.www.parkerandmcconkie.com/blog/parker-...#CivilRights #JusticeForJohnny #Immigration #CECOT
[image or embed]
— Parker & McConkie | Personal Injury Law (@parkermcconkie.bsky.social) March 31, 2026 at 2:40 PM
Hernandez was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and subsequently deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in Tecoluca, central El Salvador, where he allegedly suffered torture and other abuse.
“The Trump administration knowingly and unlawfully locked up an innocent person for four months in a concentration camp-like prison where he suffered torture, shooting, beatings, and solitary confinement," Ward stated. "When the US government knowingly and purposefully violates the law by detaining and deporting innocent individuals on false charges and is not held responsible, the individual rights of not just legal immigrants but all Americans are placed in jeopardy."
"Our client suffered catastrophic injuries in CECOT from which he will never fully recover," the lawyer said. "Failing to demand accountability now places all Americans in jeopardy in the future.”
The impending lawsuit comes as ICE proposes to literally warehouse up to 10,000 arrested immigrants in a "megacenter" in Salt Lake City, Utah. Opponents have compared the 833,000-square foot facility to a concentration camp akin to the Topaz War Relocation Center, a harsh, desolate desert prison where Japanese Americans and Japanese people living in the Western US were forcibly interned during World War II.
The case also follows last week's filing of a lawsuit by Neiyerver Adrián León Rengel, one of the Venezuelans sent to CECOT. Like Hernandez, León Rengel—who is seeking $1.3 million in damages—was in the US legally when he was arrested by federal immigration authorities.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently said on the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation of Salvadorans, Venezuelans, and others that, of the 9,000 Salvadorans expelled from the US since the beginning of last year, “only 10.5% had a conviction in the United States for a violent or potentially violent crime.”
The Salvadoran investigative journalism outlet El Faro—which, along with its staff, has been the target of sweeping government persecution—last year published a report on CECOT, citing one former prisoner who said that inmates are “committing suicide out of desperation.”
At least one deported Salvadoran—longtime Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García—was wrongfully expelled due to what the Trump administration called an “administrative error.”
The Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelans to CECOT under a multimillion-dollar agreement between the Trump administration and the government of Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.
While Trump claimed—often without evidence—that the Venezuelan deportees were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, only about 3% of them had violent criminal convictions in the United States, and Department of Homeland Security records show that the Trump administration knew it.
In July 2025, El Salvador released 252 Venezuelans imprisoned at CECOT and sent them to Venezuela in a prisoner swap that saw Maduro's government free 10 US citizens and permanent residents whom it jailed. Many of the repatriated Venezuelans said they suffered torture, sexual assault, severe beatings, and other abuse at CECOT.
Last December, Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration broke the law by deporting the Venezuelans without due process.
"This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power," said Sen. Alex Padilla. "Make no mistake: Trump's attacks on our elections are a clear and present threat to our democracy."
Just days after the GOP-controlled Senate skipped town once they failed to send a voter suppression bill to President Donald Trump's desk, the Republican on Tuesday signed an executive order to create a nationwide list of US voters and crack down on voting by mail—which is how he voted in Florida's most recent election.
The order, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, was first reported by the Daily Caller, a right-wing outlet. It requires the secretary of Homeland Security to establish a "citizenship list" of verified eligible voters in each state, using Social Security Administration records and other federal databases.
Trump—who has repeatedly spread lies about election fraud, including his unfounded claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election from him, which led to his supporters storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021—also directed the postmaster general to craft rules for absentee ballots sent through the US Postal Service.
Legal experts expect the order will be swiftly challenged in court as unconstitutional. David Becker, a former US Department of Justice lawyer who now leads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Democracy Docket that "it's obvious the president didn't learn anything from his first failed executive order."
"This is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution clearly gives the president no power over elections," he said. "I expect that this will be blocked by multiple federal courts in a very short period of time and have no legal effect whatsoever."
Becker also noted that "after the Department of Justice has been telling courts they're not creating a national voter list, this appears to confirm exactly what courts were concerned about."
Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket and a longtime election lawyer for Democrats, similarly said that "this is a massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail."
"We know where this will go—the targeting of Democrats for mass disenfranchisement," he added. "We will sue and we will win."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) shared a message for the administration on social media: "See you in court. You will lose."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and California's former secretary of state, said in a statement that "instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and healthcare, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November."
The order was issued just over seven months away from the midterm elections that could hand control of Congress back to the Democrats—which could, in term, lead to a historic third impeachment for Trump.
"This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power," Padilla declared. "The president and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024. A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution."
"Make no mistake: Trump's attacks on our elections are a clear and present threat to our democracy. In the middle of an unauthorized war abroad and an escalating authoritarian crackdown by ICE here at home, Trump is attempting another illegal power grab," he added, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "I will use every tool I can to stop him, and I expect immediate legal challenges in order to protect our free and fair elections."
After signing the order, Trump signaled that he, too, expects a court battle. While holding up the order, he said that "I don't know how it can be challenged," but critics will "probably challenge it" and "find a rogue judge."
There are "a lot of rogue judges. Very bad, bad people. Very bad judges," he added. "But that's the only way that can be changed, and hopefully we'll win on appeal if it is. But I don't see how anybody can challenge it."
Trump signed the order after unsuccessfully trying to convince the GOP-controlled Senate to pass the SAVE America Act—already approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives—before the current recess.
The bill would require US voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo identification to participate in federal elections. Trump has been pushing for amendments to restrict mail-in voting as well as more attacks on transgender Americans.
While Trump and other supporters of the bill have claimed it is needed to stop noncitizens from voting, that is already illegal and, according to research, incredibly rare. Critics warn that the SAVE America Act would disenfranchise eligible voters who don't have access to citizenship documents, including people who have lost paperwork, can't afford replacements, or have changed their names.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said the new law "raises serious concerns about due process violations, is deeply discriminatory, and must be promptly repealed.”
The top United Nations human rights official was among those who on Tuesday urged Israel to repeal legislation it passed the previous day legalizing the hanging of Palestinians convicted of terrorism-related killing of Israelis—a law critics contend will not apply to Israelis who commit similar crimes.
The law passed by the Israeli Knesset states that Palestinians must be hanged within 90 days if convicted of nationalistic killings in a military court. While the legislation does not allow pardons, it gives judges discretionary power when it comes to sentencing Israeli citizens convicted of similar crimes, and observers say it's highly unlikely that any jIsraeli would ever be hanged under the law.
Experts argue the 90-day provision and lack of appellate process are violations of international humanitarian law.
“It is deeply disappointing that this bill has been approved by the Knesset,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said Tuesday. “It is patently inconsistent with Israel’s international law obligations, including in relation to the right to life. It raises serious concerns about due process violations, is deeply discriminatory, and must be promptly repealed.”
“The death penalty is profoundly difficult to reconcile with human dignity, and it raises the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people,” he added. “Its application in a discriminatory manner would constitute an additional, particularly egregious violation of international law. Its application to residents of the occupied Palestinian territory would constitute a war crime.”
While proponents of the law—some of whom, like Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated its passage—say they believe it will deter Palestinians from killing Israelis, studies in the United States, the only Western democracy that actively executes people, have repeatedly shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.
Palestinians and their defenders have also warned that the law could open the door to mass executions, including of anyone found to have killed Israelis during the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, for which Israel retaliated with an ongoing assault and siege that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing.
“Trials for crimes related to October 7 are supremely important, but they must not be anchored in discrimination," said Türk. "All victims are entitled to equal protection of the law, and all perpetrators must be held accountable without discrimination.”
Other human rights defenders also condemned the new Israeli law and called for its repeal.
"The Israeli parliament's adoption of a racist law authorizing the hanging of Palestinian prisoners is the very definition of apartheid," the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement Tuesday. "Even the South African apartheid government never adopted a death penalty law so explicitly racist."
Taking aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—CAIR continued, "The Netanyahu regime is completely out of control because our nation continues to bankroll its crimes, from the de facto annexation of the West Bank to the genocide in Gaza, to the ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon, to the occupation of Syria, to the illegal war with Iran that it triggered, to the closure of Christian and Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem."
“Congress is not just failing to act, it is actively advancing more military support while treating that US taxpayer funding as automatic, even as these abuses escalate," the group added. "Every member of Congress—especially Democratic leaders of the House and Senate—must condemn these crimes, including the racist execution law, and announce their opposition to any further military funding for the Israeli apartheid regime."
A 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague—where Israel is also facing a genocide case brought by South Africa in response to the US-backed war on Gaza—affirmed that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is an illegal form of apartheid that must be ended.
More than 9,500 Palestinians are currently locked up in Israeli prisons, including 350 children and 73 women, according to advocacy groups. Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders say detainees face torture, starvation, and medical neglect behind bars, causing many deaths.
Former prisoners as well as Israeli staff and medical personnel say they have witnessed torture at prisons including Sde Teiman, the most infamous of Israel's lockups, with victims ranging from children to the elderly.
Israeli physicians who worked at Sde Teiman described widespread serious injuries caused by 24-hour shackling of hands and feet that sometimes required amputations. Palestinians taken by Israeli forces recounted rapes and sexually assaults by male and female soldiers, electrocution, maulings by dogs, denial of food and water, sleep deprivation, and other torture.