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
ACLU, BLM Seek Emergency Court Order Barring Use of Chemical Weapons on Protesters in Seattle
WASHINGTON
Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County, together with individuals protesting police brutality, today sued the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the city of Seattle to immediately stop the use of chemical agents and projectiles on protesters. The emergency lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Washington, the law firm of Perkins Coie, and the Korematsu Center of the Seattle University School of Law.
In recent days, SPD has fired tear gas, pepper spray, and less-lethal weapons on protesters during numerous demonstrations after the murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis. The lawsuit, Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County et al. v. City of Seattle, argues that the use of chemical agents and projectiles for crowd control violate the First and Fourth Amendments.
"These daily demonstrations are fueled by people from all over the city who demand that police stop using excessive force against Black people, and they demand that Seattle dismantle its racist systems of oppression. It is unacceptable that the Seattle Police Department would then respond to these demonstrations with more excessive force, including using tear gas and flashbang grenades," said Livio De La Cruz, board member of Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County. "Rather than trying to silence these demonstrations, the City and SPD must address the protesters' concerns by focusing on its policies and systems regarding police practices, use of force, and accountability."
The suit comes after SPD deployed chemical irritants against protesters on Saturday night, one day after Mayor Jenny Durkan announced a temporary, 30-day ban on the use of tear gas for crowd control. On Sunday night, SPD announced that they were authorized to use chemical agents (CS gas) and deployed them against demonstrators.
"Excessive use of force against protesters is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, chills free speech, and widens the rift of distrust between communities and the police that are sworn to serve them," said Michele Storms, executive director of the ACLU of Washington. "The City should instead listen to demonstrators, build community trust, and establish meaningful police reforms."
This lawsuit joins a number of legal actions the ACLU has been taking around the country in response to escalating law enforcement attacks on journalists and protesters, including suingPresident Trump and other administration officials for firing of tear gas on protesters outside the White House on June 1.
"As we warned, we will not let these violent attacks on our constitutional rights go unchecked," said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "Police cannot respond to protesters speaking out against police brutality with yet more brutality. This is one of many lawsuits the ACLU plans to file across the country to safeguard our right to protest in peace."
Below is additional comment from:
Robert Chang, executive director of the Korematsu Center: "As executive director of the Korematsu Center, I am keenly aware that government wrongs occur more easily when people do not speak out against those wrongs. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that people can raise their voices to protect Black lives and to gather together and march in silent protest against police violence without fear of police violence."
David Perez, an attorney at Perkins Coie LLP, representing plaintiffs: "This action seeks to uphold rights that are foundational to our democracy: the rights to peaceful assembly, petition for redress of grievances, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from unwarranted seizures by the government. We will not waver in our commitment to defending those rights."
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court of Western Washington. In addition to Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County, individual plaintiffs include:
- Abie Ekenezar, a veteran with disabilities who has attended protests in Seattle every day since Saturday, May 30 and was subjected to chemical irritants twice during the demonstrations. She served in Afghanistan and Somalia and participated in tear gas drills during her military training.
- Sharon Sakamoto, a Japanese-American lawyer who survived internment as a child during World War II and is deeply dedicated to racial justice and civil rights, but who was deterred from the protests in Seattle due to concerns over the negative health effects of tear gas and other chemical agents used by SPD.
- Muraco Kyashna-tocha, a 60-year-old woman who participated in the Seattle protests every day from May 30 through June 6 was subjected to tear gas and flash-bang grenades during the Capitol Hill protest on June 1. She required medical assistance for the injuries that she sustained that evening.
- Alexander Woldeab, a Seattle-based videographer who participated in protests in both downtown Seattle and the Capitol Hill neighborhood, was subjected to chemical agents and flash-bang grenades several times over the course of a week.
- Alexandra Chen, a first-year law student at Seattle University who experienced tear gas and flash-bang grenades twice during protests outside of the Seattle Police Department headquarters and in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
- Nathalie Graham,a journalist with The Stranger, who was forced to stop reporting on the protests on both May 30 and June 2 because of the deployment of chemical agents by SPD on protesters.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
At Hague Group Emergency Summit, 30+ Nations Seek to 'Halt the Genocide in Gaza'
Host nation Colombia's deputy foreign minister said participants "will not only reaffirm their commitment to opposing genocide, but also formulate concrete steps to move from words to collective action."
Jul 15, 2025
Ministerial delegates from more than 30 nations gathered in the Colombian capital Bogotá Tuesday for an emergency summit focused on "concrete measures" to end Israel's U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza and other crimes against occupied Palestine.
The two-day Hague Group summit ultimately aims to "halt the genocide in Gaza" and sois led by co-chairs Colombia—which last year severed diplomatic relations with Israel—and South Africa, which filed the ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) joined by around two dozen countries. Progressive International first convened the Hague Group in January in the eponymous Dutch city, which is home to both the ICJ and International Criminal Court (ICC), whose rulings the coalition is dedicated to upholding.
"This summit marks a turning point in the global response to the erosion and violation of international law," South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola said ahead of the gathering. "No country is above the law, and no crime will go unanswered."
Colombian Deputy Foreign Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir said before the summit: "The Palestinian genocide threatens the entire international system. Colombia cannot remain indifferent in the face of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The participating states will not only reaffirm their commitment to opposing genocide, but also formulate concrete steps to move from words to collective action."
That action includes enforcement of ICC arrest warrants issued last year for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza including murder and forced starvation in a war that has left more than 211,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Hague Group members Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, and Senegal will attend the summit. Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Venezuela will also take part.
Notably, so will NATO members and U.S. allies Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Turkey. Like Israel, the United States denies there is a genocide in Gaza, despite growing international consensus among human rights defenders, jurists, and genocide experts including some of the leading Holocaust scholars in Israel and the United States.
A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department—which has sanctioned ICC judges and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese for seeking accountability for Israeli crimes—told Jewish News Syndicate Monday that the United States "strongly opposes efforts by so-called 'multilateral blocs' to weaponize international law as a tool to advance radical anti-Western agendas."
The spokesperson added that the Trump administration "will aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic warfare," even as U.S. allies take part in the summit.
Undaunted by U.S. sanctions, Albanese is among several U.N. experts who spoke at the summit, which she hailed as "the most significant political development in the past 20 months."
In prepared remarks, Albanese—who earlier this month said that "Israel is responsible for one of the cruelest genocides in modern history"—told attendees that "for too long, international law has been treated as optional—applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful."
"This double standard has eroded the very foundations of the legal order," she argued. "That era must end."
According to Albanese:
The world will remember what we, states and individuals, did in this moment—whether we recoiled in fear or rose in defense of human dignity. Here in Bogotá, a growing number of states have the opportunity to break the silence and revert to a path of legality by finally saying: Enough. Enough impunity. Enough empty rhetoric. Enough exceptionalism. Enough complicity. The time has come to act in pursuit of justice and peace—grounded in rights and freedoms for all, and not mere privileges for some, at the expense of the annihilation of others.
The Israeli Mission to the United Nations told Jewish News Syndicate that "what the event organizers, and perhaps some of the countries attending, forget is what triggered this conflict—namely, the butchering of 1,200 innocent souls on October 7, and how 50 Israelis remain in brutal captivity to this day by Hamas in Gaza."
"Attempting to exert pressure on Israel—and not Hamas, who initiated and are prolonging this conflict—is a moral travesty," the mission added. "The war will not end while hostages remain in Gaza."
In addition to the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, the ICJ—whose ruling in the genocide case is not expected for years—has ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza, to stop blocking lifesaving humanitarian aid from entering the strip, and to halt its assault on Rafah. Israel has ignored all three orders.
"The choice before us is stark and unforgiving," Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote in The Guardian last week. "We can either stand firm in defense of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics."
"While we may face threats of retaliation when we stand up for international law—as South Africa discovered when the United States retaliated for its case at the International Court of Justice—the consequences of abdicating our responsibilities will be dire," Petro continued. "If we fail to act now, we not only betray the Palestinian people, we become complicit in the atrocities committed by Netanyahu's government."
"For the billions of people in the Global South who rely on international law for protection, the stakes could not be higher," he added. "The Palestinian people deserve justice. The moment demands courage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's Very MAGA!' Inflation Ticks Up as Trump Tariffs Push Consumer Prices Higher
"Today's inflation report confirms what we already knew: Trump's tariffs are a tax on working-class Americans and additional tariffs would hurt them even more."
Jul 15, 2025
Inflation figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics offered what economists described as early evidence that President Donald Trump's erratic tariff policies are driving up prices across the nation's economy, from household appliances to groceries to apparel.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 2.7% in June compared to the previous year, according to the new data—the highest reading since February. Separate figures released by the Labor Department showed that real wages declined slightly in June, underscoring the impact of rising prices.
"Trump's Big Beautiful tariffs are showing up in the data," wrote Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "It's very MAGA!"
Baker highlighted coffee prices—which were up 2.2% in June—and noted that "prices will go much higher if Trump carries through with his threat of a 50% tax on coffee imported from Brazil because they are prosecuting someone for trying to overthrow the government."
According to the Labor Department, the "food at home" index—which tracks grocery costs—rose 0.3% in June and is up 2.4% compared to a year earlier. Beef and ice cream prices rose to record highs last month, and toys, shoes, and other categories also registered increases.
"The impact of tariffs is becoming more salient," said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at Yale University's Budget Lab. "Apparel, which had seen cool inflation the last two months, grew 0.4% in June. Household furnishings grew 1%. Video and audio electronics grew 1.1%."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, said in a statement that "today's inflation report confirms what we already knew: Trump's tariffs are a tax on working-class Americans and additional tariffs would hurt them even more."
"Republicans in Congress should intervene and put a stop to this, but so far they've just doubled down on policies that line the pockets of the ultra-rich while hurting hardworking families," said Tal.
"President Trump promised to bring prices down. Instead, he and Republicans have made things worse."
Democratic lawmakers immediately seized on the new government data as proof that, despite his campaign promises, Trump's agenda is driving up costs for American consumers—a problem that they said will intensify if the president follows through on the tariff threats he recently leveled at the European Union, Brazil, and other U.S. trading partners.
"For those saying we have not seen the impact of Trump's tariff wars, look at today's data," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "Americans continue to struggle with the costs of groceries and rent—and now prices of food and appliances are rising."
"Trump has announced even more tariffs, including 50% on Brazil and 30% on the European Union," Warren added. "Families were already getting crushed, and the president's making it worse."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, warned that the Republican budget measure that Trump signed into law earlier this month—which includes trillions of dollars in tax cuts primarily for the wealthy and historic cuts to Medicaid and food assistance—"will raise costs even further, on everything from groceries to healthcare, all while showering billionaires with tax breaks."
"President Trump promised to bring prices down. Instead, he and Republicans have made things worse," said Boyle. "American families are already struggling, and they simply can't afford another round of this president's lies and his reckless economic policies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judge Strikes Down CFPB Rule That Would Bar Medical Debt From Credit Reports
"This decision will hurt people's financial futures, including their ability to buy a home, care for their families, or even get a job," said the president and CEO of the nonprofit Undue Medical Debt.
Jul 15, 2025
A Trump-appointed judge axed a Biden-era rule on Friday that would have removed medical debt from credit reports and barred lenders from using certain medical information in loan decisions.
The rule, enacted under the authority of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, would have removed an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of about 15 million people.
But after a lawsuit brought by two industry groups with the support of Republicans in Congress who attempted to block it, Judge Sean Jordan of the U.S. District Court of Texas' Eastern District ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had exceeded its authority in introducing the rule.
According to the CFPB, those with medical debt on their credit reports would have received a 20-point boost to their credit scores on average as a result of the rule. It would have led to an estimated 22,000 more mortgages being approved for people struggling with medical debt.
According to a report by the Peterson Center on Healthcare and KFF last year, roughly 1 in 12 adults has over $250 in unpaid medical debt.
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra at the time of the rule's passage in January 2025. "The CFPB's final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe."
The consumer reports industry lobbied furiously against the measure. Two industry groups—the Consumer Data Industry Association and the Cornerstone Credit Union League—brought the lawsuit before Judge Jordan. Meanwhile, reporting from Accountable.US in March revealed that Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee accepted a combined $867,000 from trade groups opposed to the rule.
Using the same talking points as the industry, they then attempted to block the rule, arguing that it would "weaken the accuracy and completeness of consumer credit reports."
However, according to research by the CFPB, medical debt on credit reports often has no bearing on a person's ability to pay back other loans.
Medical bills also frequently contain mistakes. According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund last year, more than 45% of respondents were billed for a service they thought was covered by insurance. The trade magazine Becker’s Hospital Review, meanwhile, has estimated that 80% of medical bills contain errors that inflate costs.
"Medical debt unjustly damages the credit scores of millions, limiting their ability to obtain affordable credit, rent safe housing, or even get a job," said the National Consumer Law Center after the rule was introduced.
Now, as a result of its being struck down, the 15 million Americans who have medical debt on their credit reports will see an average of $3,200 remaining on their reports that would have otherwise been erased.
"The facts are clear: Medical debt is not predictive of creditworthiness," said Allison Sesso, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Undue Medical Debt, on Monday. "This decision will hurt people’s financial futures, including their ability to buy a home, care for their families, or even get a job—all because they got sick, injured, or were born with a chronic condition through no fault of their own. It will also further decrease their willingness to get the care they need."
The ruling also marks the latest attack by Republicans on the CFPB. In February, the Trump administration attempted to unilaterally and illegally shut down the consumer watchdog agency. His effort to dismantle it was later blocked by a federal judge.
Since its creation in 2011, the CFPB has relieved $21 billion worth of debt for nearly 200 million Americans. It recouped that money from powerful financial institutions and credit card companies that had engaged in predatory practices and saddled Americans with junk fees.
But by cracking down on corporate abuses, it became the bane of Republican lawmakers and their corporate donors. Many top Trump donors sought to kill the CFPB because it was coming after the actions of their companies.
Elon Musk's company Tesla was facing scrutiny over its auto loan policies, which had received hundreds of complaints from customers. His social media company, X, was also being examined for its payment policies.
Another top Trump donor, investor Marc Andreesen, launched a broadside against the bureau when it ordered a payday lending company he'd invested in to pay tens of millions worth of fines for engaging in predatory lending.
"Judge Sean Jordan, a Trump-appointed judge, joined congressional Republicans in making it easier for the Trump administration to raise costs on millions of Americans," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk.
"Not only are they dismantling healthcare for 17 million through their big, ugly betrayal, but they're dooming millions more with low credit scores due to illness and injury," he continued. "Republicans are holding a grudge against the CFPB, and it's costing Americans money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular