

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“There is no legal requirement that US citizens carry papers or have proof of their citizenship on them," said an attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.
Federal law enforcement agencies are detaining US citizens who do not carry proof of their citizenship in what civil rights advocates describe as a flagrant violation of constitutional rights—and a top Trump administration official is claiming the government has the authority to do so.
A Somali-born Minnesota man was alarmed by the practice last Tuesday when immigration agents tackled him, handcuffed him, and arrested him, refusing to accept his REAL ID as proof of his legal residence in a video that was widely circulated on social media.
The man, who identified only as Mubashir, was placed into a chokehold and forced to his knees in the snow on his way to get food in Minneapolis' Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, which has a large Somali population.
As the Sahan Journal describes:
Mubashir said he told officers multiple times that he is a US citizen and asked if he could show them his ID. Officers ignored him, dragged him in the snow, and pushed him into a car as witnesses yelled and blew whistles, according to the video of his arrest.
The arrest occurred as federal agents walked into nearby businesses in the Somali-heavy neighborhood, questioning people and asking them to show their passports. Mubashir said he was in the car with officers for about 20 minutes, asking them repeatedly if he could show them his ID. They refused, he said.
According to the report, officers asked if they could photograph Mubashir to check whether he's a US citizen—likely to run his information through a facial recognition application that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has acknowledged it uses during immigration stops, including on US citizens without their consent.
Mubashir declined to have his photo taken, asking: "How would a picture prove I’m a US citizen?”
He was later taken to a federal building that houses an immigration court and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) offices. Only after having his fingerprint taken was Mubashir allowed to present his ID and given permission to leave.
Officers refused to drop him back off at Cedar-Riverside, instead telling him to walk home more than seven miles in the midst of a snowstorm, which had led authorities to issue a weather advisory.
“I deserve to be here like anyone else—I’m a US citizen,” Mubashir said. “I can’t even step outside without being tackled—no question—because I’m Somali.”
"I apologize that this happened to you in my city, with people wearing vests that say 'police.' That's embarrassing," Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said to Mubashir during a press conference on Wednesday.
According to legal experts, there is no requirement under US law that American citizens must be prepared to prove their citizenship at a moment's notice.
In comments to KQED, a public radio station in San Francisco, earlier this month, Richard Boswell, a law professor at the University of California Law School, called it “most troubling” that US citizens have felt the need to carry their ID to avoid harassment.
“There is no reason why government officers can or should be questioning people about their citizenship without any reason to suspect that they are noncitizens who are here unlawfully,” he explained.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noncitizens must carry proof of their legal status, such as a green card or a foreign passport with stamps indicating a lawful visa.
About two dozen states require residents to identify themselves if stopped by law enforcement. But none require citizens to carry a physical ID at all times, except in specific cases, such as operating a motorized vehicle.
And, as Bree Bernwanger, a senior attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, explained, “there is no legal requirement that US citizens carry papers or have proof of their citizenship on them." Unless police have reasonable suspicion that a person is in the US unlawfully, she said, "there shouldn’t be a reason to have to carry your papers, because immigration agents aren’t supposed to stop people or detain them."
But as backlash rolled in from the video of Mubashir's arrest, the man leading Trump's mass deportation crusade, US Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, seemed to falsely suggest via social media that citizens are required to carry proof of their citizenship.
"One must carry immigration documents as per the INA. A REAL ID is not an immigration document," he wrote in response to a post about Mubashir's arrest, which noted his citizenship.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, responded that "in no way does the INA require citizens to carry immigration documents" and that Bovino is "just letting his jackboot thugs presumptively detain whomever they like."
Add to this that HSI just filed a declaration in our case challenging these policies saying they can’t trust REAL IDs as proof of status.So showing your papers isn’t even enough to end the stop.
[image or embed]
— Jared (@jaredmcclain.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Immigration lawyer Jared McClain later noted on social media that, in response to a class-action suit arguing against indiscriminate workplace raids, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) argued that an Alabama construction worker, who was kept in handcuffs even after presenting multiple REAL IDs to agents, had still not done enough to prove his citizenship, according to the federal officers.
"This is the official policy—not a one-off," McClain said.
Aaron Reichlin Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the filing was "official confirmation that ICE HSI believes that it can, in fact, detain US citizens for immigration checks, and keep them handcuffed while they have their biometrics run."
"That is a chilling assertion," he said.
ProPublica found in October that at least 170 Americans have been detained by immigration agents, sometimes for days, with some having been "dragged, tackled, beaten, tased, and shot."
But months after the report was published, top administration officials—including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—continue to emphatically deny that any US citizens have been detained during the second Trump administration.
At a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Thursday, Noem abruptly left before Democrats could grill her on reports that citizens had been arrested, claiming she had to speak at a different committee hearing. Reports later found that the hearing had already been cancelled, leading to accusations that Noem misled Congress.
In response to Bovino's assertion that REAL IDs are not immigration documents, Nicole Foy, a reporter at ProPublica, told the Border Patrol commander: "We've been trying to request an interview with you for months now about the enforcement operations you're leading and the detention of US citizens."
"Why does a US citizen need to carry immigration documents?" she asked. At press time, Bovino had not publicly responded to Foy's question.
"If senior officials are processing this grift behind closed doors... that is not just bad optics, it is a direct threat to government integrity."
A democracy advocacy organization is stepping up pressure on the federal government to release more information on President Donald Trump's scheme to receive a $230 million payout from the US Department of Justice.
Democracy Forward on Monday filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint against the DOJ and the US Department of Treasury, alleging that both agencies have so far refused to turn over any records related to what the group describes as Trump's "stunning effort to obtain a $230 million taxpayer-funded payout for investigations into his own misconduct."
The group notes that it has already filed multiple FOIA requests over the last several weeks, and in response neither DOJ or Treasury has "produced a single substantial record or issued a legally required determination."
The complaint asks courts to compel DOJ and Treasury "to conduct searches for any and all responsive records" related to Democracy Forward's past FOIA requests, and also to force the government "to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-exempt responsive records," and to create an index "of any responsive records withheld under a claim of exemption."
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said her organization's lawsuit was a simple demand for government transparency.
"People in America deserve to know whether the Department of Justice is entertaining the president’s request to cut himself a taxpayer-funded $230 million check," Perryman said. "If senior officials are processing this grift behind closed doors—including officials who used to represent him—that is not just bad optics, it is a direct threat to government integrity."
Democracy Forward's complaint stems from an October New York Times report that Trump was lobbying DOJ to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars to him as compensation for the purported hardships he endured throughout the multiple criminal investigations and indictments leveled against him.
Trump was indicted in 2023 on federal charges related to his mishandling of top-secret government documents that he'd stashed in his Mar-a-Lago resort, as well as his efforts to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Both cases were dropped after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
When asked about the DOJ payout scheme in the wake of the Times report, Trump insisted he would give any money paid out by the department to charity and asserted that he had been "damaged very greatly" by past criminal probes.
Perryman, however, insisted that Trump was not entitled to enrich himself off taxpayer funds.
"President Trump may think he can invoice people for the consequences of his own actions," she said, "but this country still has laws, and we demand they be enforced.”
A new analysis warns the president's assault on immigrants risks setting off "a cascading crisis in senior and disability care that will harm families across the economic spectrum."
An analysis released Monday provides a more focused look at the economic impacts of US President Donald Trump's lawless mass deportation agenda, estimating that his administration's policies could kill nearly 400,000 jobs in the direct care industry, which employs home health aides, nursing assistants, and others.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis shows that if the Trump administration achieves its stated goal of deporting one million people per year over the next four years, "the direct care industry would lose close to 400,000 jobs—affecting 274,000 immigrant and 120,000 US-born workers."
"This dramatic reduction in trained care workers would compromise home-based care services, forcing family members to scramble for informal arrangements to support relatives who are older or have disabilities," wrote EPI's Ben Zipperer, the author of the new analysis.
The estimate builds on earlier EPI research warning that Trump's deportation policies could destroy nearly 6 million total jobs in the US, an economic impact that comes in addition to the pain and human rights abuses inflicted on families across the country.
So far, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the administration is on pace for fewer than 700,000 deportations by the end of 2025—well short of its goal.
But it's not for lack of trying: In recent months, masked agents have been rampaging through American cities and detaining people en masse, often targeting job sites. Immigration agents have reportedly been instructed to prioritize "quantity over quality," leading to the detention of mostly people with no criminal convictions.
"Rather than creating jobs for U.S.-born workers as proponents claim," he added, "mass deportations eliminate employment opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike."
Recent research indicates that Trump's mass deportations are harming local economies across the US. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in August that "the early warning signs show a growing labor shortage, rising prices, terrified employees, and employers left in the lurch without any tools to ensure workforce stability."
"Should these operations continue unabated over the next three and a half years," he continued, "the situation could become far worse for the nation as a whole."
Zipperer wrote Monday that the direct care sector is "highly vulnerable to these enforcement actions," as it "relies heavily on immigrant labor."
"The Trump administration’s deportation agenda threatens to trigger a cascading crisis in senior and disability care that will harm families across the economic spectrum," Zipperer warned. "If the direct care workforce contracts by nearly 400,000 workers due to deportations, millions of older adults and people with disabilities will be left without the professional assistance they need to remain safely in their homes."
"Rather than creating jobs for U.S.-born workers as proponents claim," he added, "mass deportations eliminate employment opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike while dismantling a care infrastructure that seniors, people with disabilities, and families depend on."