

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.

Spokane residents fighting for the right to a healthy climate will have their day in court on Wednesday, July 12th, in the case of Holmquist v. United States (No. 2:17-cv-00046-TOR).
The case was filed on behalf of seven residents by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) in January 2017. The plaintiffs contend the federal government has failed to take adequate steps to secure and protect the right to a livable and healthy climate. They challenge the federal government's preemption of local regulation over the transportation of fossil fuels by rail, asserting that such transportation violates their right to a healthy and livable climate.
The hearing to determine if the lawsuit will proceed to trial will take place at the federal courthouse in downtown Spokane, Room 902 at 9:00 a.m., with Judge Thomas O. Rice presiding.
Last year, six of the seven plaintiffs were involved in nonviolent civil disobedience as a necessary measure to combat climate change by halting the transportation of coal and oil by train through Spokane.
Human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to climate change. Today, both land and ocean ecosystems are severely damaged, destabilized by the effects of excessive greenhouse gases. The rail transportation of fossil fuels is part of a chain of activities accelerating global warming
In 2016, Judge Ann Aiken of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Eugene Division), in the case of Juliana v. United States (No. 6:15-cv-01517), held that people possess a fundamental constitutional right to a "climate system capable of sustaining human life." In that same opinion, Judge Aiken held that a "stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." Judge Aiken further declared, "this Court simply holds that where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet's ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation."
Dr. Gunnar Holmquist, the lead plaintiff in the case, stated, "We've brought this lawsuit against the federal government because its role in enabling the extraction and burning of more and more fossil fuels amounts to a death sentence. The planet is burning up and the federal government's lack of action to stop this human-caused catastrophe is frankly unconscionable and criminal."
CELDF attorney Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin added, "A fundamental principle in American law is that the government cannot violate people's rights. Here, because federal law purports to prevent the City from making laws to protect people from coal, oil, and gas trains, that federal law is unconstitutional. It violates the people's right to a healthy climate, and the right of local community self-government. It prevents us from using our local governments to protect our health and safety. Protecting our rights, and our health and safety, is, fundamentally, what government is for."
Judge Rice may deliver a decision from the bench on the 12th, or in a written opinion provided after the hearing.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) is helping build a decolonial movement for Community Rights and the Rights of Nature to advance democratic, economic, social, and environmental rights-building upward from the grassroots to the state, federal, and international levels.
(717) 498-0054"Unlike GOP-led states that redrew their congressional maps in backroom deals, Virginia let the people decide," said Sen. Tim Kaine. "But the Virginia Supreme Court has blocked the people's choice."
Virginia, one of two states that combated President Donald Trump's gerrymandering campaign by enacting voter-approved congressional districts favoring Democrats, had its new map struck down by the state Supreme Court on Friday.
"On March 6, 2026, the General Assembly of Virginia submitted to Virginia voters a proposed constitutional amendment that authorizes partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the commonwealth," notes the court opinion. Voters narrowly approved the proposal, 51.7% to 48.3% last month.
However, the state's high court found that "the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy."
Responding in a Friday statement, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates Don Scott (D-88) said that "we respect the decision of the Supreme Court," while also celebrating that so many Virginians turned to the ballot box to "fight back against the Trump power grab" and pledging to keep up the battle "for a democracy where voters—not politicians—have the final say."
Some leading Democrats were more critical of the Republican-majority state court, which Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said "has chosen to put politics over the rule of law" with a decision that "silences the voices of the millions of Virginians who cast their ballots in every corner of the commonwealth, and... fuels the growing fears across our nation about the state of our democracy."
"Before the court, my office clearly laid out both in filings and oral arguments that this constitutional amendment process and voter ratification occurred in a timely, constitutionally compliant, and legally sound manner," he continued. The court "contorted the plain language of the constitution and code of Virginia to give it a meaning that was never intended, which allowed them to reach the wrong legal conclusion that fit their political agenda. The consequences of their error are grave."
"This court's ruling follows a dangerous trend of tilting power away from the people," Jones added. "My team is carefully reviewing this unprecedented order, and we are evaluating every legal pathway forward to defend the will of the people and protect the integrity of Virginia's elections."
Denouncing the decision as "outrageous and unconscionable," Congressman Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) said that "at the heart of our democracy is the principle that the results of elections ought to be respected, and the Virginia Supreme Court today dealt our democracy a terrible blow."
MoveOn Political Action's chief communications officer, Joel Payne, also called out the court for "silencing and invalidating the votes of 3 million Virginians," the majority of whom "voted to level the playing field against Republican efforts to avoid accountability at the ballot box."
"Once again, the courts have blunted the will of the people, and are giving a green light to President Trump and Republicans’ unprecedented power grab in the midterms," said Payne, whose group had endorsed Virginia's ballot measure.
US Tim Kaine (D-Va.) isn't up for reelection this cycle, but he still stressed the importance of convincing voters to support Democrats, no matter what their congressional maps look like, in the November midterms. As he put it: "Unlike GOP-led states that redrew their congressional maps in backroom deals, Virginia let the people decide. But the Virginia Supreme Court has blocked the people's choice. So we have to campaign and win on their maps. We can do it!"
California is the other state where voters approved a new map for the US House of Representatives in response to Trump pushing Republican leaders in Texas, Missouri, and Florida to redraw districts to help the GOP in the next election. As in Virginia, California's redistricting is being challenged in court. There have also been recent changes to political lines in Ohio and Utah that could help influence control of Congress.
The 4-3 ruling in Virginia—which election expert Dave Wasserman noted is an "enormous setback for Dems" who had hoped to pick up four seats—came just hours after Tennessee Republicans passed a new map targeting the state's only majority-Black district, despite objections in Memphis and across the state. Their move followed the US Supreme Court ruling that gutted the remnants of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) last week, which also led to an ongoing fight over a primary in Louisiana.
Human rights attorney and former Illinois congressional candidate Qasim Rashid said Friday: "So to be sure, US Supreme Court says red states can ignore the will of the people and gerrymander their districts 9-0 in favor of MAGA Republicans. But VA Supreme Court says blue states cannot put the vote to the will of the people and follow through on the people's vote to redistrict."
"Once again, gerrymandering that centers white people is A-OK, but gerrymandering that centers a broad base of voters is not," he added. "Absurd."
“It again raises urgent questions: Is this president fit to lead and make consequential decisions that impact countless lives?” said the National Iranian-American Council.
As he struggles to force Iran’s capitulation, US President Donald Trump issued what seemed to be yet another threat to commit an act of mass destruction against the country through nuclear warfare.
When negotiations have faltered in recent weeks, Trump has on multiple occasions defaulted to genocidal threats—including that the “whole civilization” of Iran would “die,” and that the whole country would be “blown up"—which have only seemed to anger and galvanize his Iranian adversaries rather than make them quake with fear.
While the Trump administration has continued to insist that the ceasefire with Iran was still in effect, the two countries have exchanged significant fire this week.
On Thursday, the US launched what it said were "self-defense" strikes on military facilities it claimed were responsible for attempting to attack three US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran called the attacks a violation of the ceasefire and said its attacks on US ships were in response to American bombings of Iranian oil tankers the previous day.
Trump told reporters on Thursday that if the ceasefire were truly over, everyone would know. "If there's no ceasefire, you're just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran," he said. "They'd better sign the agreement fast… If they don’t sign, they’re going to have a lot of pain.”
To many observers, this sounded like a threat from Trump to carry out a nuclear holocaust, though it could also be a redux of Trump's threats to attack civilian energy infrastructure, which would still be a war crime.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, the editor-in-chief of Responsible Statecraft, noted that if it were indeed a nuclear threat, it would be "ironic since the war today supposedly is to prevent Iran from getting... a nuclear weapon."
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) said that “threatening to make Iran glow—with nuclear weapons or otherwise—is an almost unthinkable threat to commit a mass war crime against 92 million people. It must never be normalized.”
“It again raises urgent questions: Is this president fit to lead and make consequential decisions that impact countless lives?” the group said. “Would the chain of command refuse unlawful orders to make Iran ‘glow,’ killing millions of people?”
Trump's pledge to wipe out Iranian civilization last month drew widespread condemnation and led dozens of Democratic members of Congress to call for his Cabinet to remove him from office using the powers of the 25th Amendment.
“Our leaders need to interrogate these questions seriously, and not write them off as the ramblings of a madman,” NIAC said. “Trump is the president, and may seek to act on these horrible, contemptible threats. This war needs to end, and so [does] Trump’s horrific threatening of war crimes.”
"People have made it clear that they are desperate for an alternative to this failing Labour government," said Zoë Garbett, the victorious Green Party Hackney mayoral candidate.
The UK's Labour Party got a political thrashing from both the progressive left and the reactionary far right in local elections on Thursday, with BBC reporting that the center-left party of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has lost at least 490 council seats so far.
The biggest winner from Labour's collapse was the far-right Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, which has gained over 650 seats as of this writing.
However, the triumph of Reform was not the only notable development, as the left-wing Green Party, with a focus on uplifting the working class by challenging corporate power, gained at least 96 seats.The centrist Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, also took a bite out of Labour's share of the vote by securing 36 seats and possibly more.
Green Party leader Zach Polanski said the elections marked a turning point in UK politics as both Labour and the Conservative Party, traditionally the two largest parties in the country, collectively lost more than 700 seats.
"This is an historic victory," Polanski said in the wake of the results. "It's the first time the Green Party has ever won a directly elected mayor. Two-party politics is not just dying, it is dead, and it is buried."
Polanski suggested that the real coming fight for the future of the country would be between his party and Reform, which has positioned itself as anti-immigration and anti-European Union.
In a social media post, Polanski boasted his party had "gained seats across the country and an increase in our vote share almost everywhere we've stood."
"All over the UK people are voting to end Rip Off Britain," Polanski added.
Zoë Garbett, the Green Party candidate who won the mayoral race in the longtime Labour stronghold of Hackney, told The Guardian that her victory shows "people have made it clear that they are desperate for an alternative to this failing Labour government."
"It’s not old politics... versus new parties," Garbett said. "This is about a system of fear versus a movement of hope."
Writing in The Times, UK political analyst John Curtice said the evidence was clear the Greens had helped inflict severe damage on Labour, even though Reform was the chief beneficiary of Labour's collapse.
"Both Reform and the Greens have been able to inflict significant damage on Labour," wrote Curtice. "It appears that around half of Labour’s losses have been to Reform. This reflects the fact that, at 26 per cent, Reform’s average share of the vote in the BBC’s sample is well above the 16% recorded by the Greens. Nevertheless, Labour’s vote has tended to suffer more when the Greens have recorded a strong vote than when Reform have done."