

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.

Jean Su, Center for Biological Diversity, jsu@biologicaldiversity.org
Seth Gladstone, Food & Water Watch, sgladstone@fwwatch.org
Erin Jensen, Friends of the Earth, ejensen@foe.org
John Farrell, Institute for Self-Reliance, jfarrell@islr.org
Jim Warren, NC WARN, Inc., jim@ncwarn.org
Five climate and energy-conservation groups took legal action this week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge an Arizona public power utility's discrimination against rooftop-solar customers.
The Salt River Project, a public power utility in Arizona, raised electricity rates for rooftop-solar customers by 60%. In response rooftop-solar customers challenged the utility for the discriminatory rates that penalize them, in violation of the antitrust laws. A lower court dismissed the case on antitrust injury grounds. Today's amicus brief opposes the dismissal and urges the appeals court to remand the case back to the lower court to address the utility's antitrust violations.
"The Salt River Project's discriminatory rates unlawfully penalize families who embrace solar energy and want to protect Arizona's air quality," said Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's energy justice program. "It's outrageous that fossil fuel utilities like Salt River are using anticompetitive tactics to strangle rooftop solar and protect their profits. Especially in this era of COVID-19 and the climate emergency, these dinosaur utilities must be stopped from obstructing energy resilience and our desperately needed transition to a clean and just energy system."
"Renewables are the future and fossil fuel companies know it," said Marcie Keever, legal director for Friends of the Earth. "These dirty corporations are so intent on protecting their own profits that they've resorted to illegal tactics to try and stop clean energy innovations. To create an equitable energy future based on renewable sources, we must oppose the illegal protections utilities use to defend fossil fuels."
"The Salt River power company is attempting to stifle renewable energy for its own financial gain, but punishing homeowners for going solar is shortsighted and reckless," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Too many elected officials receive contributions from the fossil fuel companies to look the other way. It's critical that the courts weigh in and put a stop to these illegal and immoral practices. Solar energy is critical for the future of this planet. We must transition off of fossil fuels, starting now."
"We are deeply concerned about the coordinated efforts of the Salt River Project and other monopoly utilities to stifle the growth of solar energy," said Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN. "Distributed solar, combined with battery storage, is a path that can help slow the climate crisis. Continuing our status quo of big utility construction of unneeded power plants is disastrous."
"The case for preserving an electric utility's monopoly over electricity generation died with federally induced wholesale competition in the late 1970s and with the recent advent of customer-owned and cost-effective rooftop solar," said John Farrell, director of the Energy Democracy Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. "The 9th Circuit should permanently bury it in 2020."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom," said Rep. Jason Crow. "Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren suggested President Donald Trump is running a "pay-to-play loyalty program for wealthy donors" after a report on Thursday revealed that more than half the companies that contributed to his White House ballroom project have been awarded government contracts over the last six months, totaling over $50 billion.
Examining the 27 publicly known corporate donors to the president’s $400 million gold-plated vanity project, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that 14 of them—more than half—had received either new or expanded contracts over the past six months after donating millions to the ballroom and appearing at a lavish White House banquet in October as Trump prepared to demolish the building's East Wing.
Over two-thirds, 19 of the 27 companies, received government contracts since fiscal year 2021, totaling over $338 billion. At least 16 out of 27 are also either facing federal enforcement actions and/or have had them suspended by the Trump administration.
“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom fiasco out of the goodness of their hearts. They have massive interests before the federal government, and they hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration,” said Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger, an author of the report.
By far the biggest monetary beneficiary has been the military contractor Lockheed Martin, which received a $43.8 billion in new or expanded contract funding over the past six months after it pledged $10 million to fund the dance hall last fall.
Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company that serves military and intelligence agencies and pledged at least $5 million to the project, received $4 billion in contracts over the same period.
Meanwhile, Palantir—the data-mining surveillance giant with deep ties to the Trump administration—reaped over $1 billion in contracts after giving its own $5 million donation.
"Millions to fund Trump’s bizarre fever dreams are nothing compared to the billions they’re getting back in contracts and favorable government enforcement decisions," Golinger said. "The American people are paying the price.”
Other ballroom benefactors that have brought in more than $100 million worth of contracts over the past six months include Microsoft, Amazon, HP, and Caterpillar, while T-Mobile, Google, NextEra Energy, and Comcast have all brought in more than $10 million.
Public Citizen noted that while the White House has publicized some of the ballroom donors and others have been revealed by news organizations, not all of the companies that have contributed to the project are publicly known, since the secret funding agreement obtained by the group through a Freedom of Information Act request allows their identities to remain private.
In a statement to The Washington Post, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle suggested that critics should be grateful that Trump was soliciting donations from the wealthy for this very important undertaking.
“The same critics who are alleging fake conflicts of interest would also complain if American taxpayers were footing the bill for these long-overdue renovations,” he said, ignoring the fact that Trump has previously pressured Republicans in Congress to appropriate hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding to secure the ballroom.
Ingle added that “the donors for the White House ballroom project represent a wide array of great American companies and generous individuals, all of whom are contributing to make the People’s House better for generations to come.”
But several Democratic members of Congress have pointed to it as evidence of Trump selling out the government "to the highest bidder."
“Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.). “Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars.”
“Wild coincidence or taxpayer-funded corruption?” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “You be the judge.”
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said that “the part that should make your blood boil” is the fact that many of the companies identified in the report “were facing federal enforcement actions, antitrust reviews, labor cases, [or] securities charges.”
"Many of those cases have been quietly dropped or scaled back since Trump took office. You write a check, your legal problems disappear," Levin said. "That’s not a coincidence."
“You cannot afford to donate to Trump’s ballroom, so he does nothing to improve the quality of your life,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “But for those who can, there are billions in government contracts.”
“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said one advocate.
A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday struck down a series of President Donald Trump's policies that he ruled were rooted in "anti-immigrant sentiments" and ordered the administration to resume processing of asylum grants and immigration benefit applications of people from 39 targeted countries.
Last November, US Citizenship and Immigration Services indefinitely suspended asylum adjudications and froze immigration applications for people affected by a travel ban implemented after a man from Afghanistan allegedly shot two National Guard troops in Washington, DC.
Trump vowed to “permanently pause migration from all Third World countries” and expedite the removal of people his administration doesn’t consider “a net asset” to the United States. The administration's move halted the ability of people from affected nations to obtain green cards, US citizenship, and other benefits.
US District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that the administration's policies are rooted in “anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making" and have placed immigrants living in the United States in "indeterminate legal limbo."
“The challenged policies placed the lives of countless individuals on hold—solely by virtue of their countries of birth,” McConnell wrote. “Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures.”
“The government effectively invites the court to shut its eyes and ignore the strong evidence of anti-immigrant animus before it,” the judge added. “Doing so would require profound naiveté on the court’s part. Unfortunately for the government, that is an invitation that this court will have to decline.”
US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel James Percival slammed McConnell's ruling in a social media post accusing "the Left" of "running the same gambit with so-called 'animus' claims since 2017."
"It is sabotage dressed in legal clothing," Percival added. "It goes like this: (1) the admin is racist, (2) therefore a policy I don’t like is motivated by race, (3) therefore it is invalid. They have used it on virtually every Trump-era DHS policy."
Plaintiffs and others involved in the case welcomed McConnell's decision.
“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement.
"These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives," Perryman added. "We are pleased that the court recognized the devastating human consequences of these policies. Our communities deserve a fair process governed by law, not political targeting rooted in fear-mongering and discrimination.”
🚨 STATEMENT: Federal Judge Rejects Trump Admin’s Unlawful Immigration Restrictions, Restoring Access to Asylum for Immigrant NYers“Everyone deserves a fair chance to have their case heard under the law." Murad Awawdehnyic.org/press
[image or embed]
— New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) (@thenyic.bsky.social) June 5, 2026 at 10:43 AM
Milagro Sique, CEO at the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, said: “Today is a good day. On behalf of the thousands of immigrants we serve, we are grateful to Judge McConnell for his ruling."
"These policies were wrong, plain and simple, and caused profound fear and uncertainty for so many of our friends, neighbors, and coworkers," Sique added. "Having the judicial process work as intended—by upholding the rule of law—gives us some reassurance that all is not lost and allows those who have been impacted to move forward with their lives in a meaningful way."
Abbey Koenning-Rutherford, staff attorney at Muslim Advocates, said that "today’s decision is an unsparing rejection of the government’s discriminatory and unlawful actions to gut access to immigration benefits under the false pretext of national security."
“These policies unjustly revived the discriminatory logic of the first Muslim and African bans and expanded them widely to millions of community members already inside the United States," she continued, referring to policies enacted during Trump's first term.
"In vacating these unlawful policies, the court makes it unmistakably clear that the Trump administration cannot hold the lives of immigrants in legal limbo based on their countries of birth, and must continue processing their applications for status and benefits as required by law," Koenning-Rutherford added.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—an immigrant from India—was among the Democratic lawmakers who applauded Friday's ruling, writing on social media that "this is a BIG win."
"A judge has now reaffirmed that Trump’s freeze on processing immigration applications for 39 countries is illegal and that processing must restart immediately," she added. "Today’s ruling is not the end of the fight, but it is a major step in the right direction."
"At a time when Trump is corrupting the courts with crony judges who will rig our economy and attack our rights and freedoms for decades, Democrats cannot afford to treat these nominations like business as usual."
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman is coming under fire from progressives for allowing one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees from his home state of Pennsylvania to advance to a confirmation hearing.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Fetterman (D-Pa.) this week waived his right to block the nomination of former federal prosecutor Antonio Pozos for a lifetime appointment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In doing this, Fetterman became the first Democratic senator to waive this right during Trump's second term.
Under the Senate's "blue slip courtesy" tradition, senators can opt not to return a blue slip—named for the color of the paper form—to the Judiciary Committee for a particular judicial nominee from their home state, if they don't believe the nomination should advance. A spokesperson for Fetterman confirmed he had turned in a blue slip for Pozos on Friday.
This drew the ire of Demand Justice, which vowed on Friday to take out a six-figure ad campaign against the Pennsylvania Democrat for letting a "crony Trump judge" move toward confirmation.
"At a time when Trump is corrupting the courts with crony judges who will rig our economy and attack our rights and freedoms for decades," the group said, "Democrats cannot afford to treat these nominations like business as usual."
In an interview with Punchbowl News, Demand Justice president Josh Orton called on all Democrats, not just Fetterman, "to stand up to Trump’s attacks on the rule of law," imploring them to "do so in every room—not just on Twitter and not just on TV."
Demand Justice has argued that all of Trump's judicial nominees have refused to contradict the president's false claim that he won the 2020 election or to denounce the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, and has called on Democrats to block everyone he's nominated to the federal bench.
Progressive organizing group Indivisible also criticized Fetterman for enabling Pozos' nomination to go through, while hinting at a future primary challenger for the first-term senator should he run for re-election in 2028.
"Alleged Democrat John Fetterman has decided to let one of Trump’s judicial nominees move forward for a lifetime appointment," wrote Indivisible. "Fetterman’s betrayal of his voters and everything he claimed to campaign for is why he will be a one-term senator."
Fetterman in 2025 tied with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) as the Senate Democrat who voted for the most Trump Cabinet nominations. Data published by VoteHub in February showed that Fetterman has voted on legislation with Trump more than any Democratic senator.
He is also the only Democrat in the Senate to consistently oppose war powers resolutions aimed at ending Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.