

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.

Local activists sued San Francisco today over the city police department's illegal use of a network of more than 400 non-city surveillance cameras to spy on them and thousands of others who protested as part of the Black-led movement against police violence.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Northern California represent Hope Williams, Nathan Sheard, and Nestor Reyes, Black and Latinx activists who participated in and organized numerous protests that crisscrossed San Francisco, following the police killing of George Floyd.
During the first week of mass demonstrations in late May and early June, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), in defiance of a city ordinance, tapped into a sprawling camera network run by a business district to conduct live mass surveillance without first going through a legally required public process and obtaining permission from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
"San Francisco police have a long and troubling history of targeting Black organizers going back to the 1960s," said EFF Staff Attorney Saira Hussain. "This new surveillance of Black Lives Matter protesters is exactly the kind of harm that the San Francisco supervisors were trying to prevent when they passed a critical surveillance technology ordinance last year. And still, with all eyes watching, SFPD brazenly decided to break the law."
"In a democracy, people should be able to freely protest without fearing that police are spying and lying in wait," said Matt Cagle, Technology and Civil Liberties Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. "Illegal, dragnet surveillance of protests is completely at odds with the First Amendment and should never be allowed. That the SFPD flouted the law to spy on activists protesting the abuse and killing of Black people by the police is simply indefensible."
"Along with thousands of people in San Francisco, I took to the streets to protest police violence and racism and affirm that Black lives matter," said Hope Williams, the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit and a protest organizer. "It is an affront to our movement for equity and justice that the SFPD responded by secretly spying on us. We have the right to organize, speak out, and march without fear of police surveillance."
Records obtained and released by EFF in July show SFPD received a real-time remote link to more than 400 surveillance cameras. The vast camera network is operated by the Union Square Business Improvement District (USBID), a non-city entity. These networked cameras are high definition, allow remote zoom and focus capabilities, and are linked to a software system that can automatically analyze content, including distinguishing between when a car or a person passes within the frame.
The lawsuit calls on a court to order San Francisco to enforce the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and bring the SFPD back under the law. San Francisco's Surveillance Technology Ordinance was enacted in 2019 following a near unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.
The plaintiffs, all of whom participated in protests against police violence and racism in May and June of 2020, are:
For the complaint:
https://www.eff.org/document/williams-v-san-francisco-complaint
Link to video statement of attorneys and client
For more on police spying tech:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
(415) 436-9333"This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people," one critic noted.
A divided federal appellate panel ruled Friday in favor of the Trump administration's policy of locking up most undocumented immigrants without bond, a decision that legal experts called a serious blow to due process.
A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump's reversal of three decades of practice by previous administrations is legally sound under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The ruling reverses two lower court orders.
"The text [of the IIRIRA] says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations," Judge Edith Jones—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—wrote for the majority. "That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority... does not mean they lacked the authority to do more."
Writing in dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, asserted that "the Congress that passed IIRIRA would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost 30 years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did."
This is a very, very bad decision from one of the two Reagan judges left on the Fifth Circuit, joined by one of the two most extreme Trump appointees on the court.And, it is about the issue I walked through at Law Dork earlier this week, in the context of Minnesota: www.lawdork.com/i/186796727/...
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 6, 2026 at 6:50 PM
"Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border," Douglas added. "No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law. The overwhelming majority elsewhere have recognized that the government’s position is totally unsupported."
Past administration generally allowed unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the United States for years to attend bond hearings, at which they had a chance to argue before immigration judges that they posed no flight risk and should be permitted to contest their deportation without detention.
Mandatory detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was generally reserved for convicted criminals or people who recently entered the country illegally.
However, the Trump administration contends that anyone who entered the United States without authorization at any time can be detained pending deportation, with limited discretionary exceptions for humanitarian or public interest cases. As a result, immigrants who have lived in the US for years or even decades are being detained indefinitely, even if they have no criminal records.
According to a POLITICO analysis, more than 360 judges across the country—including dozens of Trump appointees—have rejected the administration's interpretation of ICE's detention power, while just 26 sided with the administration.
While US Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed Friday's ruling as a "significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn," some legal experts said the decision erodes constitutional rights.
"AWFUL news for due process," American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said on social media in response to Friday's ruling. "This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people detained in or transported to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by ICE."
While Friday's ruling only applies to those three states, which fall under the 5th Circuit Court's jurisdiction, there are numerous legal challenges to the administration's detention policy in courts across the country.
The vice president attended the opening ceremony in Milan, where people also protested the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Winter Olympics.
US Vice President JD Vance was booed at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Italy on Friday, but at least one widely shared video of it was swiftly scrubbed from X, the social media platform controlled by former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk.
Acyn Torabi, or @Acyn, "is an industrialized viral-video machine," the Washington Post explained last year, "grabbing the most eye-catching moments from press conferences and TV news panels, packaging them within seconds into quick highlights, and pushing them to his million followers across X and Bluesky dozens of times a day."
In this case, Torabi, who's now senior digital editor at MeidasTouch, reshared a video of the vice president and his wife, Usha Vance, being booed that was initially posted by filmmaker Mick Gzowski.
However, the video was shortly taken down and replaced with the text, "This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner."
Noting the development, Torabi, said: "No one should have a copyright on Vance being booed. It belongs to the world."
As of press time, the footage is still circulating online thanks to other X accounts and across other platforms—including a video shared on Bluesky by MeidasTouch editor in chief Ron Filipkowski.
JD Vance loudly booed at the Winter Olympics today.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) February 6, 2026 at 4:25 PM
The Vances' unfriendly welcome came after a Friday protest in the streets of Milan over the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Winter Olympics, with some participants waving "FCK ICE" signs.
The Trump administration has said the ICE agents—whose agency is under fire for its treatment of people across the United States as part of the president's mass deportation agenda—are helping to provide security for the vice president and other US delegation members, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
"It’s hard to see how Making America Healthy Again was anything but another broken campaign promise," said one critic.
The US Environmental Protection Agency on Friday announced its anticipated reapproval of dicamba for two key crops, a move which, given the pesticide's proven health risks, places the EPA at apparent odds with President Donald Trump's vow to "Make America Healthy Again."
“The industry cronies at the EPA just approved a pesticide that drifts away from application sites for miles and poisons everything it touches,” Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in response to Friday's announcement.
“With the EPA taking aggressive pro-pesticide industry actions like this, it’s hard to see how Making America Healthy Again was anything but another broken campaign promise," Donley added. "When push comes to shove, this administration is willing to bend over backward to appease the pesticide industry, regardless of the consequences to public health or the environment.”
The EPA said in a statement that the agency "established the strongest protections in agency history for over-the-top (OTT) dicamba application on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean crops," and that "this decision responds directly to the strong advocacy of America's cotton and soybean farmers."
While scientific studies have linked exposure to high levels of dicamba to increased risk of cancer and hypothyroidism and the European Union has classified dicamba as a category II suspected endocrine disruptor, the EPA said Friday that "when applied according to the new label instructions," it "found no unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from OTT dicamba use."
This is the third time the EPA has approved dicamba for OTT use. On both prior occasions, federal courts blocked the approvals, citing underestimation of the risk of chemical drift that could harm neighboring farms.
The agency highlighted new restrictions on dicamba use it said will reduce risk of drift.
"EPA recognizes that previous drift issues created legitimate concerns, and designed these new label restrictions to directly address them, including cutting the amount of dicamba that can be used annually in half, doubling required safety agents, requiring conservation practices to protect endangered species, and restricting applications during high temperatures when exposure and volatility risks increase," it said.
Critics noted that the EPA during the Biden administration published a report revealing that during Trump’s first term, senior administration officials intentionally excluded scientific evidence of dicamba-related hazards, including the risk of widespread drift damage, prior to a previous reapproval.
Others pointed to the recent appointment of former American Soybean Associate lobbyist and dicamba advocate Kyle Kunkler as the EPA's pesticides chief.
"Kunkler works under two former lobbyists for the American Chemistry Council, Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva, who are now overseen by a fourth industry lobbyist, Doug Troutman, who was recently confirmed to lead the chemicals office following endorsement by the chemical council," the Center for Food Safety (CFS) noted Friday.
The Trump EPA has also come under fire for promoting the alleged safety of atrazine, a herbicide that the World Health Organization says probably causes cancer, and for pushing the US Supreme Court to shield Bayer, which makes the likely carcinogenic weedkiller Roundup, from thousands of lawsuits.
CFS science director Bill Freese said that “the Trump administration’s hostility to farmers and rural America knows no bounds."
“Dicamba drift damage threatens farmers’ livelihoods and tears apart rural communities," Freese added. "And these are farmers and communities already reeling from Trump’s [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids on farmworkers, the trade war shutdown of soybean exports to China, and Trump’s bailout of Argentina, whose farmers are selling soybeans to the Chinese—soybeans China used to buy from American growers.”