October, 02 2020, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Suzanne Novak, Earthjustice, Snovak@earthjustice.org, (212) 845-4981
Jonathan J. Smith, Earthjustice, jjsmith@earthjustice.org, (212) 845-7379
Federal Court Requires EPA to Enforce Civil Rights
Court rules in favor of communities, holding EPA accountable for failing to investigate civil rights complaints in a timely manner.
WASHINGTON
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.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


