SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 21 2018, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Email:,nrdcinfo@nrdc.org
Flint Safe Water Case Back in Court
Groups say city isn’t complying with lead pipe settlement
Detroit, MI
Seventeen months after a settlement approved by a federal court paved the way to take big steps to address the water crisis in Flint, groups are back in court to ensure the City can successfully execute key provisions to protect the public from further lead exposure.
"The Concerned Pastors for Social Action remain vigilant in our commitment to getting every lead pipe in Flint out of the ground. We're back in court to ensure that the City finishes the work it's required to do by a federal court order, and that they do it the right way," said Pastor Allen Overton, representing Concerned Pastors for Social Action.
Two main issues will be presented to U.S. District Judge David Lawson: First, whether the City can defend the methods it used to conclude that there are fewer than 18,000 lead and galvanized steel service lines in Flint and about how much it will cost to replace them. Second, whether the City should be required to act faster to ensure that each household is receiving a faucet filter immediately after its service line is replaced to prevent lead spikes in the drinking water.
"The people of Flint are not going to accept shoddy, half-finished work when it comes to replacing lead-tainted water pipes. The City of Flint needs to properly identify which water lines still need to be replaced, and secure the funding to do the job right. Nothing less will be tolerated," said Melissa Mays of Flint.
The groups have raised questions about whether the City inadequately analyzed the number of pipes to replace by relying on guesswork and a rigged formula. If the City's analysis is incorrect, it will run out of the $97 million in funding it received to replace every lead service line under the agreement.
In addition, groups are asking the court to require the City to complete required visits to each home more quickly to ensure they have a properly installed faucet filter immediately after its lead water line is replaced. The groups are also asking for additional reporting documenting the visits. To date, the City has failed to conduct the required visits to verify that filters are installed, increasing the risk that lead service line replacement could make things worse, not better, in the short term for some Flint residents.
"The City of Flint is either unwilling or unable to meet its legal obligations under the water settlement, which is unacceptable. We will not give up on the protections negotiated on behalf of Flint's residents, who have a right to safe drinking water at home," said Cyndi Roper, NRDC's Michigan Senior Policy Advocate.
Flint's lead pipe water settlement of 2017 is the result of a lawsuit Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri filed by Concerned Pastors for Social Action, Flint resident Melissa Mays, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the ACLU of Michigan. The agreementsecured clear, specific steps the City must take to address the water crisis in Flint. It requires the state of Michigan to pay for and the city to complete thousands of lead service line replacements in Flint within three years at no cost to Flint residents. The settlement agreement also requires the state to provide filters and filter-installation services to residents; offers tap water monitoring above and beyond the requirements of federal regulations; and requires the city, state, and MDEQ to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Emergency Administrative Order.
Additional Resources:
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
'Nonprofit Killer' Pulled From GOP Tax Bill—For Now
"Because authoritarians love using censorship to silence opposition, it's likely gonna keep rearing its head," warned one rights group.
May 19, 2025
While welcoming the removal of legislation in House Republicans' budget reconciliation package that would empower U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems supportive of a terrorist organization, rights groups on Monday urged vigilance, warning that GOP lawmakers could slip the contentious provision back into a future draft of the legislation.
In an unusual late Sunday night session, the House Budget Committee voted 17-16, with four Republicans voting "present," to advance the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—named in an act of GOP fealty to Trump's description of the proposal—which would extend the president's 2017 tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited ultrawealthy households and corporations while slashing vital social programs upon which tens of millions of people rely.
The latest version of the proposal no longer contains an amendment based on the language of the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, or H.R. 9495—which critics have dubbed the "nonprofit killer."
"The removal of the nonprofit killer bill from the House Republicans' advanced tax package is a promising sign, not a victory."
According to the advocacy group Free Press Action, the bill allows the treasury secretary "to accuse any nonprofit of supporting terrorism—and to terminate its tax-exempt status without due process."
Civil liberties defenders say the proposal's lack of clarity regarding the determination of whether and how a nonprofit supports terrorism would enable Trump to follow through on his threats to cancel the tax-exempt status for organizations with which he disagrees, including universities, advocacy groups, media outlets, charities, religious institutions, and others.
Organizations that support Palestinian rights or oppose Israel's annihilation of Gaza—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case—have been particularly concerned about the bill, citing the Trump administration's moves to defund universities and other institution that oppose crackdowns on Gaza protests and the arrest and detention of foreign nationals, including green-card holders, for constitutionally protected protests.
The Nonprofit Killer Bill was pulled from the GOP tax package, but this is no victory. It could return at any moment. If we want to protect the right of nonprofits to speak truth to power, we must act now. 🛑 Tell Congress: Keep the Nonprofit Killer Bill OUT 👉 action.cair.com/a/nonprofit-killer-bill
[image or embed]
— CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) (@cairnational.bsky.social) May 19, 2025 at 12:58 PM
While welcoming the removal of the measure from the reconciliation package, groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) warned of the possibility that Republican lawmakers could re-insert the provision in the reconciliation package, which is scheduled for consideration by the House Rules Committee later this week.
"The removal of the nonprofit killer bill from the House Republicans' advanced tax package is a promising sign, not a victory,"CAIR government affairs director Robert S. McCaw said Monday."This provision could come back at any time, and if Americans want to preserve the right of nonprofits to speak truth to power, now is the time to flood Congress with messages demanding they keep this language out of the bill."
"We are defending nothing less than the future of nonprofit advocacy and our core constitutional freedoms," McCaw added.
While it is uncertain why the proposal was removed from the reconciliation bill, ACLU senior policy counsel Kia Hamadanchy toldThe Intercept that "it's possible they took it out to rewrite it in some way, because we know that this package is going to be amended."
"But for now, it's not in the text of the bill, and that's an improvement from where we were at last week," Hamadanchy added.
Addressing everyone who contacted their federal lawmakers or took other action in opposition to the bill, the digital rights group Fight for the Future said on the social media site Bluesky that "pressure from YOU is making a difference."
"We killed this bill in the fall, but because authoritarians love using censorship to silence opposition, it's likely gonna keep rearing its head," the group added, referring to the legislation's failure to receive a Senate vote before the previous congressional term ended.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly Half of US Kids—34 Million—Rely on Food, Health Programs Targeted by GOP
"Children and families across America are at risk of losing affordable health coverage and access to healthy meals to pay for a massive tax cut for billionaires and big corporations," said Congresswoman Kathy Castor.
May 19, 2025
On the heels of the U.S. House Budget Committee's Republicans striking a deal to advance their megabill following a failed vote last week, a trio of organizations on Monday released a report detailing how the legislation could negatively impact tens of millions of American children.
Published by the AFL-CIO, First Focus on Children, and UnidosUS, the report—Children Under Attack: How congressional assaults on health and food programs are endangering the youngest Americans—begins by pointing out that nearly 45% of the country's kids, or 34 million, rely on Medicaid for health insurance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for food, or both.
"Put simply, budget reconciliation threatens to do severe and irreparable harm to millions of American children by terminating their health coverage and taking away help paying for food," the report states. "These cuts will leave children poorer, hungrier, and sicker."
"These cuts will leave children poorer, hungrier, and sicker."
Specifically, the document details, "14 million people would lose their health insurance, and millions would lose SNAP or see their benefits drop precipitously, compared to current law. All who participate in Medicaid and SNAP would be at risk, including people with disabilities, seniors, and low-wage workers at jobs without affordable health insurance—but children would be disproportionately hurt: 44% of all American children benefit from Medicaid or SNAP, compared to 23% of adults under age 65."
The publication notes that "these budget reconciliation proposals threaten children of all races and ethnicities, but Latino families and others from historically marginalized communities are in particular danger. Two-thirds of the children who participate in Medicaid or SNAP come from communities of color, placing them at heightened risk from proposed cuts."
"A cautionary note about the numbers in this report is important: They significantly understate the number of children who benefit from Medicaid and SNAP," the report adds. "Our estimates are based on the best available national survey data, but survey respondents significantly under-report their participation in Medicaid and SNAP. If administrative data from these benefit programs was available with enough detail to answer the questions posed in this report, our numbers would be both higher and more accurate."
The push for this megabill began in November, when the GOP won control of not only the White House but also both congressional chambers. Eric Rodriguez, senior vice president of UnidosUS, said in a Monday statement that "earlier this year, Republicans took control of the Congress and made three core promises: to bring costs under control for everyday people; to protect America's children; and to stand up for working-class families, including those in the Latino community who voted them into power."
"Today's report shows how their massive budget plan would break those promises," Rodriguez said. "It makes history's largest cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, taking away the healthcare and food assistance on which millions rely to help them work and make ends meet."
Trump—who is scheduled to meet with House Republicans on Capitol Hill Tuesday to promote the legislation—calls the package "one big, beautiful bill," a name that other GOP elected officials have adopted.
"There is nothing in this big bill that's beautiful for children," said First Focus on Children president Bruce Lesley, "but the gigantic cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are particularly ugly. Children already are struggling with rising infant and child mortality, increased poverty, and growing rates of hunger, homelessness, and a lack of health insurance."
The GOP's evolving budget reconciliation package would cut programs like Medicaid and SNAP—plus add up to trillions of dollars to the national debt over the next decade—to build on Trump and congressional Republicans' 2017 tax giveaways to wealthy individuals and corporations, a point that critics, particularly Demcratic lawmakers, have highlighted.
"Children and families across America are at risk of losing affordable health coverage and access to healthy meals to pay for a massive tax cut for billionaires and big corporations," said Congresswoman Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), co-chair of the Congressional Children's Health Care Caucus, in the groups' Monday statement.
"It's wrong and fiscally unwise—and will set children back at a time that they need support," Castor continued. "When children have a healthy start in life, they are more likely to succeed in school, the workplace, and in life. The Republican cuts to care and food for kids could result in developmental delays, serious health problems like cancer that could have been treated successfully, learning losses, and barriers to a high school diploma."
"First Focus on Children and UnidosUS help shine the light on the long-term damage to kids that would result from the GOP billionaire tax giveaway," she added. "Their new report serves as a call to action to reject the billionaire tax giveaway and instead focus on what makes children across America healthy and strong. The fight is far from over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Allows Trump to End Protections for Some Venezuelans
"The humanitarian and economic impact of the court's decision will be felt immediately," said one attorney who challenged the Trump administration's push to remove Venezuelans from the country.
May 19, 2025
A lawyer who challenged the Trump administration's push to revoke protections for Venezuelan migrants said Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court had taken the "largest single action stripping any group of noncitizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history" as the justices ruled the White House could move forward with its effort.
The court issued an unsigned order with no reasoning or indication of how the justices voted, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that she would not have overturned a lower court decision that had kept Venezuelans' Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in place.
The decision allows President Donald Trump to repeal protections that the Biden administration provided for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S., pending appeal of the case.
"That the Supreme Court authorized this action in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking," said lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy. "The humanitarian and economic impact of the court's decision will be felt immediately."
Venezuelans had been set to have protections from deportation through October 2026 under the action taken by former President Joe Biden at the end of his presidency.
"The administration's move to end TPS throws out people who are contributing substantially to our economy."
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem rescinded the protections in February, partially over the administration's claim that many Venezuelan migrants are members of the street gang Tren de Aragua, which the White House had claimed works directly with Venezuela's government. Intelligence agencies have rejected that allegation.
The White House has also used those claims to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center—but reports indicate many of the people who have been sent there are not connected to the gang.
"These are innocent people who have lawfully built lives here under TPS," said U.S. Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) on Monday. "Not terrorists or criminals like Donald Trump wants you to believe."
Seven Venezuelan migrants were joined by the National TPS Alliance in suing the Trump administration to block Noem's action in February; a federal judge in Northern California then paused the action, saying it was likely driven by racial bias and violated procedural rules.
The plaintiffs said in legal filings that Noem "explicitly relied on false, negative stereotypes... to justify both the vacatur and termination decisions. Her statements conflated Venezuelan TPS holders with 'dirt bags,' gang members, and dangerous criminals."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Monday denounced the administration's plan to move forward with deporting Venezuelans en masse following to Supreme Court ruling.
"The administration's move to end TPS throws out people who are contributing substantially to our economy," said Jayapal. "Economists have warned that the administration's cruel moves on ending TPS for those who have committed no crimes and are here working will have enormous economic consequences, disrupt businesses, increase prices for consumers, and lead to deeper labor shortages."
"It is shameful that the Trump administration would pull the rug out from so many Venezuelans who came into this country lawfully," she said, "fleeing untold violence and devastation in their home country."
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, noted that "country conditions still meet the legal standard for maintaining TPS" for Venezuelans.
"If you check the U.S. State Department website today, it continues to advise Americans not to travel to Venezuela, citing threats of torture, kidnapping, and civil unrest," said Schulte. "As we wait to fully understand the implications of this decision, we urge the Trump administration to keep work authorizations in place and abandon this cruel and unlawful effort to strip protections from individuals contributing to our country every single day."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular