

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.

Chandra Hayslett, chayslett@ccrjustice.org
Two years after the historic settlement of Ashker v. Governor of California marked the end of indefinite solitary confinement in California, the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsel filed a motion to extend the terms of the settlement by one year, noting that substantial reforms are still needed and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) continues to violate the constitutional rights of Ashker class members. Concurrently, the legal team and researchers from the Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Lab at Stanford University (Stanford Lab) released a report detailing the ongoing negative health consequences Ashker class members have suffered following their release from long-term solitary confinement into the general population, the first-ever in-depth report on the subject.
The Ashker litigation followed coordinated hunger strikes undertaken by thousands of prisoners statewide. The 2015 settlement resulted in nearly 1,600 prisoners being released into general population, but hundreds of class members were transferred to Level IV prisons, where conditions are similar to the SHU, with many spending the same or more time isolated in their cells than when they were in SHU. Today's motion details how, two years later, California has failed to make the requisite reforms to bring their prisons into compliance with due process. It asks the court to maintain its supervision and order CDCR to remedy various violations.
Among the violations: the settlement created a new "Restricted Custody General Population" unit, intended to temporarily house class members who would face a threat to their safety in the general population, until they could be safely transferred out. The RCGP was to provide increased recreation and interaction, akin to a GP unit, but, instead, it has become what one CDCR official called a "purgatory" where prisoners are indefinitely isolated from their families, denied jobs and educational programs, and have no way to earn release. CDCR's failure to properly administer the unit amounts to yet another constitutional violation. In addition, CDCR continues to use unreliable, fabricated, or improperly disclosed confidential information to send class members back to solitary and is still using old, improper gang validations to bar people from the opportunity to get parole. The men who were in SHU continue to suffer severe psychological harms and are not receiving the care they need to recover.
The Stanford Lab report released today, based on interviews at three maximum-security prisons, details severe and wide-ranging mental health consequences, further underscoring the need for CDCR reform.
"The torture of solitary confinement doesn't end when the cell doors open," said lead counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights Jules Lobel. "California's continued violation of the Constitution and new evidence of the persistent impact of prolonged solitary confinement requires CDCR to make essential changes in their conduct and rehabilitative programs, and, more broadly, demonstrates the urgent need to end solitary confinement across the country."
The severe mental health impact of solitary confinement has been thoroughly documented, but before now, little was known about how prisoners adjust after release to a GP unit. CCR approached the Stanford Lab--a multi-disciplinary collaboration among Stanford University's School of Medicine, Law School, and the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice--to investigate the open question of how and to what extent psychological harm caused in long-term, isolated imprisonment continues after transfer into general population.
The interviews revealed a range of continued, and potentially permanent, adverse consequences, including: mood deterioration and depression, intense anxiety, emotional numbing and dysregulation, cognitive impairments, modifications in perception of time, physical health ailments, distressful relational estrangement with family and/or friends, and diminished capacity for socialization.
According to the report, the emotional numbing and desensitization that commonly results from prolonged solitary continues to be a problem long after release, and significant alterations in cognition, perception, concentration, and memory not only persist, but worsen. Class members reported ongoing anxiety, paranoia, and hypervigilance. They emphasized the importance of jobs, mental health and psychological services, and other rehabilitative program opportunities to ease this transition, but expressed dismay about the inadequate options offered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation--in particular, they had reservations about programs run by correctional officers, and requested services and support from non-CDCR staff.
The report recommends an overhaul of occupational, educational, and social programs as well as mental health services for former SHU prisoners after their release. The Stanford Lab recommends that class members be offered mental health and psychological services in the form of independent psychiatric care and/or peer-facilitated support groups, echoing the feedback of class members, one saying, "It feels good to relate your experience to others. You can help someone else by recognizing patterns in your own life and preventing that for them."
The Stanford Lab report is being sent to corrections and government officials around the country.
The prisoner representatives in the Ashker case released a statement last month, which underscores the directives of both the extension motion and the report. They wrote, "We must stand together, not only for ourselves, but for future generations of prisoners, so that they don't have to go through the years of torture that we had to."
For more information, visit CCR's case page. Read the full report from Stanford Lab here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."