August, 04 2016, 12:15pm EDT
Lawsuits Filed Over Donald Trump's Privatization of Pennsylvania Avenue, "America's Main Street"
Civil Rights Group Challenges Buffer Zone that Restricts Free Speech at New Trump International Hotel
Defending the right to protest, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has gone to court regarding the "deals" reached by federal and District of Columbia officials with the Trump Organization that appear to privatize portions of Pennsylvania Avenue, one of the country's most historically significant sites for free speech and public assembly.
A section of Pennsylvania Avenue, a National Historic Site that runs from the White House to the Capitol, will be turned over for the use of the Trump Organization along with the large (7,000 square foot) previously public plaza that features an 1889 Benjamin Franklin statue and that abuts the soon-to-open Trump International Hotel at the Old Post Office, as well as a portion of the sidewalk space abutting the Avenue.
The turnover of these spaces creates a "buffer zone" that appears to suppress or extinguish free speech in proximity to the building leased by Trump, restricting access to priority or exclusive use of the Trump Organization.
For over five months, through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, the PCJF has sought disclosure of information regarding negotiations, agreements, and the terms and conditions of restrictions on, or exclusions of, free speech activities and public access to these spaces. The PCJF has issued public records requests to the General Services Administration, the National Park Service/Department of the Interior, and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department and Mayor's Office seeking communications, emails, requests, applications and agreements, as well as any evaluations of the effect of imposed restrictions on public access to public space and the exercise of First Amendment rights. The agencies and entities in whose possession this information remains have refused to produce requested information despite a legal obligation to make such information public.
Faced with stonewalling by these government agencies, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has now filed two lawsuits against both the D.C. and federal governments for violating Freedom of Information Act statutes by their failure to turn over requested documents and communications, and seeking disgorgement of the withheld materials. The lawsuits have been filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Superior Court.
In addition to its impact on the public's ability to engage in First Amendment activities and assembly, the loss of this public space will dramatically affect signature local events, such as the Cherry Blossom Festival and other festivals that take place annually and impact the cultural life of the city.
PCJF Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard said: "The public spaces of Pennsylvania Avenue, including the sidewalks and plaza abutting the Trump Hotel, belong to the American people not to Donald Trump. Pennsylvania Avenue is one of the most significant places in the United States for the exercise of free speech rights. It is critical to democracy to challenge Trump's land grab of America's Main Street. Allowing Trump to privatize public space on Pennsylvania Avenue also puts all similar public space in jeopardy. These public spaces have been consecrated by the expressions of democracy and dissent. That ground may now be pulled out from underneath the feet of those who wish to engage in protest in proximity to the Trump International Hotel, owned by a presidential candidate whose expression of openly racist and sexist views has been accompanied by an extraordinary hostility to the First Amendment. From his calls to have protestors beaten to his revocation of press credentials for any unfavorable coverage, the threat he poses to free speech has been made evident."
PCJF Legal Director Carl Messineo said: "The new Trump International Hotel is a beacon for protest. Trump's marriage of capital interests, political views, presidential ambitions and reality TV showmanship invites protest, free speech and assembly on the public spaces in proximity to the Trump Hotel. In 1965, Pennsylvania Avenue was declared a National Historic Site because of its unique role in the Nation's history for the great parades, protests, national celebrations, and expressions of free speech and dissent that have historically occurred on its venerated public spaces. Trump may not choose to set up shop on Pennsylvania Avenue and then build a wall or insulate himself from public assembly and protest. These spaces belong to the people and they intend to exercise their rights there."
To read the lawsuit against federal government agencies, click here.
To read the lawsuit against the District of Columbia, click here.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund is a public interest legal organization that brings a unique and cutting edge approach dedicated to the defense of human and civil rights secured by law, the protection of free speech and dissent, and the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. Among the PCJF cases are constitutional law, civil rights, women's rights, economic justice matters and Freedom of Information Act cases.
(202) 232-1180LATEST NEWS
'What a Racket': CBO Finds Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Shrink US Economy
"The looting has begun," said one Democrat. "Far from unleashing record-breaking growth, the next Trump tax scam will make hardworking families worse off, shrink our economy, and blow a $4.6 trillion hole in the deficit."
Dec 05, 2024
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday that extending provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law that are set to expire at the end of next year would shrink the U.S. economy over the long run, a finding that came as Republicans planned to move ahead with another round of regressive tax cuts within the first 100 days of the new Congress.
In its new analysis, the CBO found that allowing provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to expire as scheduled in 2025 would have a positive long-term effect on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth compared to permanently extending the provisions.
"Expiration increases the long-term growth of potential GDP by about 6 basis points," the CBO said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said in response to the CBO's findings that "the looting has begun."
"Far from unleashing record-breaking growth, the next Trump tax scam will make hardworking families worse off, shrink our economy, and blow a $4.6 trillion hole in the deficit," said Whitehouse. "What a racket, to push for trillions in tax cuts so billionaires keep paying lower rates than nurses and plumbers, and then cite deficit concerns to rob families needing things like home heating or childcare."
"Looting the treasury for megadonors is a rotten trick," the senator added, "and no amount of budgetary smoke and mirrors will hide it."
The CBO report was published as congressional Republicans continued to map out their legislative agenda before taking control of both chambers in January. The Associated Pressreported earlier this week that "in preparation for Trump's return, Republicans in Congress have been meeting privately for months and with the president-elect to go over proposals to extend and enhance those tax breaks, some of which would otherwise expire in 2025."
"It's always been about further enriching political and economic elites even at the cost of our economic future."
During the 2024 campaign, Trump pledged to sustain individual tax breaks enacted by the 2017 law—which disproportionately benefited the rich—and further reduce the statutory tax rate for U.S. corporations.
"The last time Republicans spent this much money for no apparent gain was the war in Iraq," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday. "Trump's political donors want a return on their investment, and Republicans are going to give it to them, even at the cost of shrinking our economy and destroying jobs."
To offset the massive projected cost of extending the 2017 law and enacting new corporate tax cuts, Republicans are planning to pursue deep cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other programs that help low-income Americans meet basic needs.
"President-elect Trump campaigned as a champion of the working class but his first act will be tanking the economy and throwing workers under the bus to line the pockets of his wealthy friends," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative. "The Trump tax scam is back for its second act, and Americans should brace for impact."
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, called the latest CBO analysis of the Republican Party's tax policies "even more damning than previous iterations."
"Using the country's credit card to give away trillions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans and big corporations would be disastrous for our economy and the average American," Kass said Wednesday. "The Trump Tax Scam bill has never been about economic growth or improving the lives of working and middle-class Americans. It's always been about further enriching political and economic elites even at the cost of our economic future."
"Moving forward," Kass added, "the incoming administration and congressional Republicans must answer why they plan to make hardworking Americans worse off, shrink our economy, and increase the deficit by $4.6 trillion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Signals It Will Uphold 'State-Sanctioned Discrimination' in Transgender Care Case
"We the people means all the people," said the ACLU. "There is no 'transgender' exception to the U.S. Constitution."
Dec 04, 2024
Attorneys who argued against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming healthcare at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed hope that the court's nine justices will take "the opportunity to affirm the essential freedom and equality of all people before the law," while reports indicated that the right-wing majority is inclined to uphold the ban.
"Every day this law inflicts further pain, injustice, and discrimination on families in Tennessee and prevents them from receiving the medical care they need," said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, which represented three families and a physician. "We ask the Supreme Court to commit to upholding the promises of the U.S. Constitution for all people by putting an end to Tennessee's state-sanctioned discrimination against trans youth and their families."
The law, S.B. 1, which was passed in March 2023, bars medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medications, other hormonal treatment, and surgical procedures to transgender minors and youths with gender dysphoria.
The Supreme Court case, United States v. Skrmetti, applies only to the ban on puberty blockers and hormonal therapy for minors; a lower court found the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and a law firm were joined by the Biden administration in arguing that Tennessee allows doctors to prescribe puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for youths with congenital defects, early puberty, diseases, or physical injuries.
As such, said the plaintiffs, Tennessee's ban for transgender and nonbinary youths violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives."
The court's three liberal justices—Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all indicated they believed Tennessee has tried to classify people according to sex or gender with the law.
"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. "Sounds to me like, 'We want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,' and that's an important purpose behind the law."
Matthew Rice, the lawyer representing Tennessee in the case, claimed the state simply wants to prevent "regret" among minors, and the court's six conservative justices signaled they were inclined to allow Tennessee to ban the treatments—which are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other top medical associations.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the nine justices should not overrule the decision made by lawmakers representing Tennessee residents, considering there is debate over the issue, and pointed to changes some European countries have made to their gender-affirming care protocols for minors.
Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that there has been debate about gender-affirming care in the U.S. and abroad, but pointed out that countries including the U.K. and Sweden have not outright banned treatment.
"I think that's because of the recognition that this care can provide critical, sometimes lifesaving benefits for individuals with severe gender dysphoria," she said.
Following the arguments, plaintiff Brian Williams, who has a 16-year-old daughter in need of gender-affirming care, addressed supporters who had assembled outside the Supreme Court.
"Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care is an active threat to the future my daughter deserves," said Williams. "It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family's love for her. We are not expecting everyone to understand everything about our family or the needs of transgender young people like our daughter. What we are asking for is for her freedom to be herself without fear. We are asking for her to be able to access the care she needs and enter adulthood knowing nothing is holding her back because of who she is."
Sotomayor said there is "very clear" evidence "that there are some children who actually need this treatment."
A 2022 study led by researchers at the University of Washington found that transgender and nonbinary youths aged 13-20 were 60% less likely to experience moderate or severe depression and 73% less likely to be suicidal after receiving gender-affirming care.
Prelogar asked the justices to "think about the real-world consequences of laws like S.B. 1," highlighting the case of a plaintiff identified as Ryan Roe.
Roe had such severe gender dysphoria that "he was throwing up before school every day," said Prelogar. "He thought about going mute because his voice caused him so much distress. And Ryan has told the courts that getting these medications after a careful consultation process with his doctors and his parents, has saved his life."
"But Tennessee has come in and categorically cut off access to Ryan's care," she added. "This law harms Ryan's health and the health of all other transgender adolescents for whom these medications are a necessity."
Tennessee is home to about 3,100 transgender teenagers, and about 110,000 transgender youths between the ages of 13-17 live in the 24 states where gender-affirming care is restricted.
More than 20 states have laws that could be impacted by the court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives," said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "But I also know that every out trans person has embraced the unknown in the name of living free from shame or the limits of other people's expectations."
"My heart aches for the parents who spent years watching their children in distress and eventually found relief in the medical care that Tennessee now overrides their judgment to ban," said Strangio. "Whatever happens today, tomorrow, and in the months and years to come, I trust that we will come together to fight for the realized promise of our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Small Town Sues Utility for Climate Deception
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change," said the mayor of Carrboro, North Carolina.
Dec 04, 2024
The town of Carrboro, North Carolina filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the utility company Duke Energy of carrying out a "knowing deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis."
The municipality—which is near Chapel Hill and is after compensation for damages it has suffered or will suffer as a result of the alleged deception campaign—is the first town in the United States to challenge an electric utility for public deception about the dangers of fossil fuels and seek damages for the harms those emissions have created, according to the town's mayor, Barbara Foushee.
The case was filed in North Carolina Superior Court and argues that Duke Energy has engaged in a "greenwashing" campaign to convince the public it sought to address the climate emergency.
"In reliance upon these misrepresentations, the public has continued to conduct business with Duke under the mistaken belief that the company is committed to renewable energy," according to the filing.
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change. The climate crisis continues to burden our community and cost residents their hard-earned tax dollars," said Foushee, according to a press release.
Mayor Pro Tem Danny Nowell added that "it's time for us to hold Duke Energy accountable for decades of deception, padding executives' pockets while towns like ours worked to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. This suit will allow the Town of Carrboro to invest new resources into building a stronger, more climate-resilient community, using the damages justly due to our residents to reimagine the ways we prepare for our climate reality."
According to the lawsuit, Carrboro will be forced to spend millions of dollars either repairing or shoring up public infrastructure as a result of more frequent and devastating storms, which scientists agree are caused by climate change.
The complaint comes not long after the release of a report, Duke Energy Knew: Documenting the Utility’s Early Knowledge and Ongoing Deception About Climate Change, from the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group. According to the report, Duke Energy well understood the risks posed by burning fossil fuels as far back as the 1960s, but chose to take part in promoting disinformation about climate science. In more recent years, the utility continued to pursue fossil fuels while blocking renewable energy development, according to the report's authors. Much of this research is referenced in the lawsuit.
As one example of its "deception," the lawsuit points to Duke Energy's participation in the the Global Climate Coalition, an entity created with the intent of opposing action to curb the climate crisis.
Duke Energy was the third largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in 2021, according to a breakdown from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which ranked U.S. companies in terms of their CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.
More than 20 states, tribes, cities, and counties have brought similar climate deception lawsuits. Maine, for example, recently became the ninth state to sue a major oil and gas company for deceiving the public about its products' role in the climate crisis.
"We’ll soon have a climate denier-in-chief in the White House, but Carrboro is a shining light in this darkness, taking on one of the country's largest polluters and climate deceivers," Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. The Center for Biological Diversity is advising on the case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular