September, 04 2020, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Stacey Schmader:,info@celdf.org
STATEMENTS: Democratic Party Must Not Water Down 'Rights of Nature'
Statements by indigenous program director of Movement Rights; Rights of Nature attorney; Hawaiian sovereignty movement leader; current member of Navajo Commission on Self-Governance; organizer behind the Lake Erie Bill of Rights; mutual aid organizer for Columbia River villages and the Celilo Wy’am; legislator who sponsored state constitutional amendment efforts to win municipalities governing power over corporations; Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund organizers; legal spokesperson for the Siletz River ecosystem; advocate for first-in-the-nation Rights of Nature law prohibiting corporate water extractions; and Another Gulf is Possible organizer released in response to Democratic Party’s interest in the Rights of Nature.
NATIONWIDE
This August, the Democratic National Committee Council on the Environment & Climate Crisis released an "Environmental and Climate Policy Agenda for the Democratic Party." It recommended the formation of a presidential Rights of Nature commission. It reads:
Establish a commission, similar to the President's Council on Sustainable Development, to explore incorporating Rights of Nature principles into U.S. law.
This recommendation did not make it into the final party platform, but nonetheless shows Rights of Nature's growing popularity. This presents opportunities and risks.
A broad list of leaders within the growing Rights of Nature movement within the United States have offered perspective on the developments within the Democratic Party:
***
"In theory, a Rights of Nature commission is a step in the right direction of environmental justice; but in reality, a corporate-friendly DNC platform could derail the real work and advances of the global and national Rights of Nature movement. Rights of Nature is deep system change, not tinkering at the margins of a rigged system. Rights of Nature requires policy and business decision-making based on the needs of the ecosystem as a whole, which will mean a massive and necessary shift of how business is done, including how communities of color are targeted for the most polluting projects. The question is whether the DNC is ready to embrace the idea that humans are part of--and not owners of--the natural world, and whether their interpretation of Rights of Nature would dilute its framework of revolutionary change. Rights of Nature is rooted in Indigenous cosmology and the idea of Rights as responsibilities--specifically ensuring humans are living in balance with the ecosystems upon which we depend. The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Indigenous people must be respected and woven into laws to protect humanity and the sacred system of life--which can well function without us, but which we need to survive." - Pennie Opal Plant, Co-founder and Indigenous Program Director, Movement Rights
"While I'm delighted to see a major political party interested in Rights of Nature policies, I'm also concerned that the DNC may not take seriously the legal paradigm shift that recognizing rights for ecosystems represents. The DNC must include the organizations and lawyers who have been doing this work on-the-ground, in particular the indigenous communities who have been at the frontlines of recognizing the destruction caused by our current nature-is-property paradigm." - Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin, Rights of Nature attorney, clients have included Lake Erie Ecosystem, Little Mahoning Watershed, Crystal Springs Ecosystem, and Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
"When you elevate something into a focus group at the national level and in such a politicized way, commissions like this merely reflect the political system--and water down more transformative demands. At worst indigenous peoples and grassroots environmental groups would be left out. At best, their voices and concerns would be marginalized. When you start forming committees, things tend to be sanitized for the political system. We saw this happen on Climate Change and look where it got us. If such a commission is launched it must engage a deep outreach campaign, and remain committed to transformative demands. In order to ensure such an effort is inclusive of all, a special effort would need to be made to specifically include indigenous peoples of the US including Indigenous Hawiians and Alaska Natives as well as the Indian Nations." - Mililani Trask, native Hawaiian attorney, and a leader within the Hawaiian sovereignty movement
"It is so ingrained within colonial legal systems to think that central governments must make decisions on our behalf. Colonial legal systems see law as a punitive force for control only, rather than something people can be taught to follow to bring healing, peace and self-regulation. To decolonize the law and honor Fundamental Law and the laws of earth is to support those who are practicing fundamental indigenous peoples' laws of nature. It means starting from the grassroots, and building from there, not coming from the top down through a punitive system. It means seeing ancient songs and ceremonies as tools for the transmission and interpretation of law." - Phil Bluehouse, current member of Navajo Commission on Self-Governance, former director of the Navajo judicial Peacemaking Program, former tribal police officer, who has worked to honor Navajo code's recognition of Fundamental Law (Title 1, Chapter 2, Subsections 201-206)
"The critics tell us our efforts are meaningless, but find it 'legitimate' when an 'authority' like the DNC begins to take Rights of Nature seriously. We cannot lose track of the fact that grassroots organizers are pushing this conversation, and the creative approaches to new governance. The fact that the DNC is contemplating this is a testament to the bravery of local communities willing to take action, despite the naysayers." - Markie Miller, organizer behind the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, the first law on United States settler colonial land to recognize the rights of a specific ecosystem
"I give the highest honor to the Ancestors of this Turtle Island. I speak to the heinous crimes against our Mother Earth and all living breathing beings in the circle of life under extinction. We must respond to her call to love, and care for her -- our provider of water and life on this earth. Greatest honor to my ancient one Celilo Falls, Wayamtama, flooded but not dead and buried -- only a prisoner of war like myself. Denied our right to exist and coexist in the ways designed by the creator of the law of nature that is Natural Law. We maintain the Ceremony to abide by the Natural Law as the Keepers, the preservationists of our territories. We are the Original Stewards of our respective territories here in the Northwest and all across the land. Many treaty rights involve the rights to practice traditional fishing, hunting, gathering and practices, but the true meaning of these rights is much deeper. These rights are about the duty to protect the Law of Nature, to be Stewards of it, to take only what we need for the preservation of our sacred foods and way. Honor the Treaties first, then we can talk about a 'commission'!" - Lana Jack, mutual aid organizer for Columbia River villages and the Celilo Wy'am, an unrecognized tribe, founder of Columbia River Indian Center
"Recognizing the Rights of Nature is not some hippie-dippy concept; it is nothing less than the full acknowledgement of the very concrete reality that humanity is a part of the ecosystem, and dependent on the life-sustaining systems of the Earth. Although I commend the DNC for taking up the issue of Rights of Nature, past experience has taught me to be wary. The vast majority of Democrats support the concept, but there is a pro-corporate element in the party structure itself that may seek to either water down, or worse, pervert this push." - Ellen Read, New Hampshire State Representative who sponsored state constitutional amendment efforts to afford municipalities governing power over corporations, including to recognize the rights of local ecosystems
"We don't need the DNC's empty promise to form a "commission," nor the rhetoric. What we need is an unequivocal law or Constitutional amendment granting the rights of Nature and its components--including humans--unalterable supremacy over commercial profits and conferring standing on natural objects to sue for their own protection." - Carol Van Strum, advocate for Lincoln County, Oregon Rights of Nature ordinance that stood for two years, ongoing human legal spokesperson for the Siletz River ecosystem, author of A Bitter Fog
"While it is important that the Rights of Nature be taken seriously by lawmakers and aspiring lawmakers, it is just as important that the foundational changes to our systems of law and government necessary to end the destruction of Nature are not minimized by empowering a politically motivated commission to 'study' the idea. We insist on real, enforceable Rights of Nature--nothing else will suffice to end our environmental and climate catastrophes. If we have learned anything from studying past movements for real systemic change, it is that once political parties turn the issue into a political debate, the movement weakens or dies. There is no time for this nonsense today. Nature already has more power and authority over humans and corporations, the question is if we have the wisdom to recognize it." - Tish O'Dell, Ben Price, Chad Nicholson, Michelle Sanborn, Kai Huschke, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund organizers, collectively worked with dozens of communities on settler colonial land to recognize enforceable rights of ecosystems
"We are at a time when the Rights of Nature must be centered and can no longer be ignored. At the end of the Mississippi River, just north of the Gulf of Mexico's hypoxic 'Dead Zone,' south of the petrochemical corridor known as 'Cancer Alley,' our ancestral Houma lands and waters and delta wetland territories are witnessing what happens when the Rights of Nature are ignored, suffering the consequences as sea-levels rise and land subsides, as politicians debate over which of our coastal communities are to be sacrificed to the sea. We need real Democratic leadership that understands the wellbeing of life on this planet is dependent upon survival strategies tied to recognizing, respecting and investing in regenerative relationships built in collaboration with the Earth's intelligence and her interconnected systems." - Monique Verdin, Citizen of United Houma Nation, Another Gulf is Possible
"The DNC's interest in 'establishing a committee to study the Rights of Nature' is disingenuous. The failure of the DNC to challenge the corporate stranglehold on policy is evident in omissions from the platform, notably, any pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies, to support Medicare-for-All, to legalize marijuana, to defund the police, to abolish ICE, to eliminate student debt, to provide free public college tuition to all, or to divert funding from an obscenely-bloated military budget. It is shameful to pay lip-service to a movement, the Rights of Nature, while apparently having no intention of standing up to corporate disregard for the planet and human health." - Diane St. Germain, Citizens of Barnstead for a Living Democracy, advocate for first-in-the-nation Rights of Nature 2008 law prohibiting corporate water extractions in Barnstead, NH
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) 498-0054LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


