

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.

Suzanne Novak, Earthjustice, Snovak@earthjustice.org, (212) 845-4981
Jonathan J. Smith, Earthjustice, jjsmith@earthjustice.org, (212) 845-7379
Communities across the country applaud a ruling by a federal judge requiring EPA to follow the law and investigate civil rights complaints in a timely manner.
The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by community-based groups in 2015 against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency challenging the agency's failure to investigate their civil rights complaints for more than a decade in violation of federal law.
District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong today denied EPA's motion to alter the court's judgment to remove from it an order specifically requiring EPA to follow the law for civil rights complaints filed in the future.
EPA is responsible for ensuring that public and private recipients of its funding comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. EPA's rules require that the agency complete its investigations into civil rights complaints filed under Title VI within 180 days, but time and again, EPA has failed to complete investigations in a timely way, sometimes for decades, leaving community groups with no recourse. Today the court reaffirmed that the EPA must comply with the law.
Father Phil Schmitter of the St. Francis Prayer Center stated, "The EPA has a long history of failing to enforce civil rights." In 1992, the St. Francis Prayer Center filed a complaint with the EPA alleging that Michigan's state environmental department discriminated by approving a permit for the Genessee Power Station in an area of Flint, Michigan that already had more than 200 polluting facilities. EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, but then the complaint gathered dust for decades.
In 2017, 25 years after the St. Francis Prayer Center filed its complaint, EPA finally issued a finding of discrimination. "It wasn't until we went to court, along with other community groups whose complaints were also ignored by EPA, that EPA took any action," said Fr. Schmitter.
"Meanwhile, residents of Flint have lived in the shadow of polluting facilities. EPA failed to hold the state accountable for discrimination, allowing our state agency to carry on with its ways for decades longer than it should have."
"If EPA had investigated St. Francis Prayer's Center's complaint in a timely manner 20 years ago, we might have seen improvements in state procedures and policies that could have avoided future tragedies like the Flint drinking water crisis," said Suzanne Novak, staff attorney at Earthjustice. "That is why access to the courts is so critical. Without accountability to a court, EPA might never have acted at all."
The ruling today came in a case filed on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE), Ashurst Bar/Smith Community Organization, Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping, the St. Francis Prayer Center, Sierra Club, and an individual, Michael Boyd. The plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to issue preliminary findings regarding their administrative complaints filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act within 180 days as required by law.
The court had previously issued a decision in favor of the community groups, finding EPA's delay in handling their cases violated the law. Today's decision rejected EPA's objection to the court's judgment. "EPA seems to have more interest in litigating against communities than enforcing civil rights law. This has to change." said Phyllis Gosa, who filed a complaint in 2003 against the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. "We filed a civil rights complaint to address discrimination in environmental permitting. It's high time EPA took timely action to address racial disparities in exposure to pollution," said Michael Boyd, who filed the 2000 CARE complaint to challenge permitting decisions by state and regional air agencies that had racially disproportionate impacts on communities of color in Pittsburg, California.
A scathing report from NBC and Center for Public Integrity uncovered that more than 90% of civil rights complaints to the EPA were rejected or dismissed. In fact, the EPA's External Civil Rights Compliance Office had only once formally found that anyone's civil rights were violated when the lawsuit was filed in 2015. The St. Francis Prayer Center complaint from Flint was highlighted in a report issued just this week by EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), which found that EPA had failed to provide the necessary oversight to ensure that recipients of EPA funding comply with Title VI. "EPA continued to litigate this case for years, challenging even a court mandate that essentially said that the agency needs to follow the law. Instead, EPA should have been taking the steps outlined in the OIG report to address the racial inequalities in environmental decision-making that have led to gross racial disparities in the location of polluting facilities and exposure to environmental contamination," said Marianne Engelman Lado, the director of the Environmental Justice Clinic at Vermont Law School.
"The court has spoken. Which makes it a good day in the long-standing battle for civil rights in this country." said Neil Carman, who had filed a complaint against a Texas state agency challenging its decision to grant a permit amendment to allow increases in emissions at a Mobil Oil facility in Beaumont, Texas, that is sited next to an environmental justice community suffering from the refinery's air pollution.
"Even though the court ruling brings some justice, at the end of the day, action in defense of civil rights is more necessary than ever. States continue to give permits to more and more facilities in already polluted areas, and EPA still doesn't have an effective civil rights program," said Deborah Reade, who worked with the Citizens for Alternatives for Radioactive Dumping on a complaint filed with EPA against the New Mexico Environmental Department for discriminating against Spanish-speaking residents.
The judge's order is attached and additional information on the cases that led to the lawsuit can be found here. The community groups are represented by Earthjustice and the Environmental Justice Clinic at Vermont Law School.
Client Contacts
Environmental Justice Clinic at Vermont Law School: Marianne Engelman Lado / marianne.lado@gmail.com / (917) 608-2053
Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE): Michael Boyd / (408) 891-9677
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping (CARD): Deborah Reade / (505) 986-9284
Ashurst Bar / Smith Community Organization: Ronald Smith / (334)-787-0329
Phyllis Gosa / rphgosa@yahoo.com / (334) 375-3123
St. Francis Prayer Center: Father Phil Schmitter / antonio7327@gmail.com / (810)-252-4459
Sierra Club: Neil Carman / neil_carman@greenbuilder.com / (512)-663-9594
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.