

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.
Rob Duffey, (646) 463-3267, rob.duffey@berlinrosen.com
Isabel Urbano, isabel.urbano@berlinrosen.com, 646-680-0905
A local Fight for $15 fast-food worker organization filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Memphis Wednesday, charging its police department with a widespread and illegal campaign of surveillance and intimidation in an attempt to stifle the workers' fight for $15 an hour and union rights.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District Tennessee by the Mid-South Organizing Committee, alleges the Memphis Police Department [MPD] "engaged in a pattern and practice of various intimidation tactics aimed at discouraging [workers] from engaging in protected free speech activities."
The police department behavior--which included following organizers home after meetings, ordering workers not to sign petitions, and blacklisting organizers from City Hall--violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution, as well as a consent decree prohibiting the city from engaging in political surveillance, the complaint alleges.
"MPD's surveillance and intimidation tactics not only violate the constitutional rights of free expression and association guaranteed by both the Tennessee and United States constitutions, but they also violate the terms and conditions of a 1978 Consent Order that remains in full force and effect," according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges the MPD has, since December 2014, targeted workers and activists in the Mid-South Organizing Committee, the local Fight for $15 chapter, because of their race and political message by:
* Selectively enforcing the city's permit requirements against the Fight for $15;
* Regularly following organizers and activists in squad cars and sometimes parking outside of their homes to intimidate them;
* Spreading disparaging information about the Fight for $15 to schools and community members, sometimes using racially coded and offensive language;
* Threatening and intimidating Fight for $15 activists and organizers with arrests for engaging in free speech; and
* Including Fight for $15 organizers on a black list that prevents them from entering City Hall without an armed police escort.
The surveillance, harassment and intimidation began after Memphis workers participated in a nationwide day of protest on September 4, 2014. Since then, police officers have repeatedly threatened workers with arrest during protests, at one point telling them they had "authorization from the president of McDonald's to make arrests." In another instance, a McDonald's franchise manager joined a group of police officers tailing workers after a protest. The officers, in some instances, "seemed to take direction from McDonald's," the complaint charges.
Earlier this year, officers in four unmarked cars and a patrol car showed up outside a teach-in on then labor-secretary nominee Andy Puzder and followed an organizer at the meeting's conclusion. In April 2015, a local catholic school shut down for the day after being warned by the MPD that, "groups representing the $15 minimum wage push" and "Ferguson protestors" would stage a rally near school grounds.
In November 2016, police officers stepped behind the counter of a fast-food restaurant to prevent workers from signing petitions calling for better working conditions, union rights, higher wages, and benefits. And over the course of two years, officers disparately enforced local permitting laws on the predominantly black workers in the Fight for $15, while allowing protests by mostly white crowds to continue unabated.
"The MPD is engaging in an intentional and illegal campaign to intimidate workers in an effort to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to speak out," said Jerry Martin, an attorney for the Mid-South Organizing Committee. "We've read about such behavior in history books, but unfortunately, in Memphis, intimidation and harassment of protesters is not just a thing of the past."
In 1978 the City of Memphis entered into a consent decree with the ACLU of West Tennessee that placed limits on domestic surveillance by the local police force. The first of its kind consent decree was designed to protect citizen political activities from police coercion, and prohibits the department from harassing political groups by disseminating damaging or false information, or from photographing or otherwise recording attendees of gatherings protected by the First Amendment. The consent decree was largely seen as a response to state sanctioned terror groups called "red squads" that worked in conjunction with the Memphis Police Department and FBI to infiltrate and dismantle activist groups fighting for social and economic justice.
"The City of Memphis is declaring war on its lowest paid workers, most of whom are black," said Edie Love, a member of the leadership team at Standing Up For Racial Justice Memphis. "It's a strategy ripped from the playbook of Bull Connor and J. Edgar Hoover. It appears Memphis and its Police Department are still stuck in the days of Jim Crow."
The campaign of intimidation by the MPD comes amid a torrent of action nationwide against peaceful protest. Lawmakers in at least 10 states have proposed laws criminalizing peaceful protest.
"They're trying to stop us from speaking out, but even though it's riskier, we know we have a right to protest and we're not going to be intimidated," said Ashley Cathey, a Church's Chicken worker and member of the Fight for $15 National Organizing Committee. "Our fight for $15 is changing the country and it's the Memphis Police Department that's going to have to change along with it."
Fast food workers are coming together all over the country to fight for $15 an hour and the right to form a union without retaliation. We work for corporations that are making tremendous profits, but do not pay employees enough to support our families and to cover basic needs like food, health care, rent and transportation.
"Bigotry has been his brand since day 1," said Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.
As President Donald Trump refuses to apologize for a now-deleted social media post in which former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are portrayed as apes, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus on Friday blasted what she called the "bigoted and racist regime" in the White House.
“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) said in an interview with the Associated Press. "Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their M.O. at this point."
After dismissing the widespread revulsion—including by some Republican lawmakers—over Trump's sharing of the racist election conspiracy video on his Truth Social network as "fake outrage," the White House subsequently claimed that an aide "erroneously made the post," which was deleted after nearly 12 hours online.
The president told reporters aboard Air Force one Friday evening, "I didn't make a mistake" and that he is the "least racist president you've had in a long time."
Trump launched his political career by amplifying the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and his 2016 presidential campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists." Since then, he has made numerous bigoted statements about racial minorities, immigrants, Muslims, women, and others.
Brushing off the administration's explanation for Trump's post, Clarke said that "they don’t tell the truth."
"If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from," she contended.
"Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning," the congresswoman added. "It’s beneath all of us."
Asked what it means that Trump—who rarely retracts anything—deleted the post, Clarke said, "I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass."
"As my mother would say," she added, "'Too late. Mercy’s gone.'"
Civil rights groups also condemned Trump, with Color of Change posting on Facebook that "this is white supremacy expressed from the Oval Office."
"Trump resents what the Obamas represent: A Black family that is accomplished, respected, and widely admired," the group continued. "Their success contradicts the worldview he has spent years promoting. His attacks follow a clear trajectory—from birther conspiracies questioning Obama's legitimacy, to false accusations of treason, to now circulating imagery rooted in centuries of racial dehumanization used to justify slavery, lynching, and violence."
"Republican leadership has been silent," Color of Change added. "Elected officials who refuse to condemn this behavior are choosing to normalize it."
NAACP president Derrick Johnson said in a statement that "Donald Trump's video is blatantly racist, disgusting, and utterly despicable."
Johnson asserted that Trump is attempting to distract from the cost of living crisis and Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
"You know who isn't in the Epstein files? Barack Obama," he said. "You know who actually improved the economy as president? Barack Obama."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," said an advocate for the family.
The Trump administration's bid to expedite deportation proceedings against 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family faltered Friday as a judge granted them more time to plead their asylum case.
Danielle Molliver, an attorney for Ramos' family, told CNN that a judge issued a continuance in the case, meaning it is postponed to a later date.
The US Department of Homeland Security filed a motion Wednesday seeking to fast-track the Ecuadorian family's deportation. The family responded by asking the court for additional time to reply to the DHS motion.
Zena Stenvik, superintendent of the Columbia Heights Public Schools, where Ramos is a student, told CNN that Friday’s ruling “provides additional time, and with that, continued uncertainty for a child and his family."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," Stenvik added. "We will continue to advocate for outcomes that prioritize children."
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Ramos and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, in the driveway of their Columbia Heights home on January 20 during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration's ongoing deadly immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities.
They were taken to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center southwest of San Antonio, Texas. Run by ICE and private prison profiteer CoreCivic, the facility has been plagued by reports of poor health and hygiene conditions and accusations of inadequate medical care for children.
Detainees report prison-like conditions and say they’ve been served moldy food infested with worms and forced to drink putrid water. Some have described the facility as “truly a living hell.”
Ramos, who fell ill during his detention in Dilley, and his father were ordered released earlier this month on a federal judge's order, and is now back in Minnesota.
Molliver accused the Trump administration of retaliating against the family following their release. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed that “there is nothing retaliatory about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws."
Arias told Minnesota Public Radio Friday that he is uncertain about his family's future.
"The government is moving many pieces, it's doing everything possible to do us harm, so that they’ll probably deport us," he said. "We live with that fear too."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who helped accompany Ramos and his father back to Minnesota, said at a Friday news conference that DHS "should leave Liam alone."
“His family came in legally through the asylum process,” Castro said. “And when I left the Dilley detention center, one of the ICE officers explained to me that his father was on a one-year parole in place, so they should allow that to continue.”
"This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people," one critic noted.
A divided federal appellate panel ruled Friday in favor of the Trump administration's policy of locking up most undocumented immigrants without bond, a decision that legal experts called a serious blow to due process.
A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump's reversal of three decades of practice by previous administrations is legally sound under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The ruling reverses two lower court orders.
"The text [of the IIRIRA] says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations," Judge Edith Jones—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—wrote for the majority. "That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority... does not mean they lacked the authority to do more."
Writing in dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, asserted that "the Congress that passed IIRIRA would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost 30 years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did."
This is a very, very bad decision from one of the two Reagan judges left on the Fifth Circuit, joined by one of the two most extreme Trump appointees on the court.And, it is about the issue I walked through at Law Dork earlier this week, in the context of Minnesota: www.lawdork.com/i/186796727/...
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 6, 2026 at 6:50 PM
"Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border," Douglas added. "No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law. The overwhelming majority elsewhere have recognized that the government’s position is totally unsupported."
Past administration generally allowed unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the United States for years to attend bond hearings, at which they had a chance to argue before immigration judges that they posed no flight risk and should be permitted to contest their deportation without detention.
Mandatory detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was generally reserved for convicted criminals or people who recently entered the country illegally.
However, the Trump administration contends that anyone who entered the United States without authorization at any time can be detained pending deportation, with limited discretionary exceptions for humanitarian or public interest cases. As a result, immigrants who have lived in the US for years or even decades are being detained indefinitely, even if they have no criminal records.
According to a POLITICO analysis, more than 360 judges across the country—including dozens of Trump appointees—have rejected the administration's interpretation of ICE's detention power, while just 26 sided with the administration.
While US Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed Friday's ruling as a "significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn," some legal experts said the decision erodes constitutional rights.
"AWFUL news for due process," American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said on social media in response to Friday's ruling. "This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people detained in or transported to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by ICE."
While Friday's ruling only applies to those three states, which fall under the 5th Circuit Court's jurisdiction, there are numerous legal challenges to the administration's detention policy in courts across the country.