

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.

ACLU: aeverett@aclu.org ACLU of Florida: media@aclufl.org
Center for Reproductive Rights: center.press@reprorights.org
A Florida state trial court indicated today that it will dismiss a challenge to an abortion restriction that will force patients to delay obtaining this time-sensitive care for at least 24 hours after meeting with a physician. The mandatory delay requirement forces patients to make an additional trip to a clinic to receive care. Since its enactment in 2015, the medically unnecessary restriction has largely been blocked, first by a trial court ruling granting a temporary injunction on the law shortly after enactment and then by a 2017 state supreme court ruling reinstating that injunction after an appellate court briefly allowed it to take effect.
Since the passage of this law, Florida politicians have continued to place hurdles in the path of people seeking abortion care as part of a larger effort to push care out of reach. The state legislature took its most extreme step yet in attacking reproductive freedom earlier this month when politicians passed a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign any day.
Florida's mandatory delay law singles out abortion and does not apply to other medical procedures, even those that involve far greater health risks. Florida's law requires patients to make an additional trip to a clinic, which will force many people to miss work, lose wages, and spend more on transportation and child care. Those without the means to do so could be prevented from getting care entirely. Delaying access to abortion is medically unnecessary and is another tactic designed to take away people's ability to get care when they've decided to have an abortion. Laws that require people to delay care push people to have abortions in later pregnancy, which increases both the cost and the risks of the procedure. In fact, when a similar 24-hour delay law took effect in Mississippi, abortions later in pregnancy increased by 53 percent.
The case, Gainesville Woman Care v. Florida, was brought on behalf of Gainesville Woman Care LLC and Medical Students for Choice by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Florida, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, and Tallahassee attorney Richard Johnson.
In response to the court's decision, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, and Center for Reproductive Rights released the following statements:
Julia Kaye, staff attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
"This law is an insult to Floridians and their ability to make their own medical decisions. When someone has determined that having an abortion is the best decision for them and their family, politicians should not be in the business of putting unnecessary obstacles in their path, but that is exactly what this law does. And this harmful restriction is just one in a string of laws that Florida politicians have passed to turn back the clock and take away people's rights to make their own decisions about pregnancy and about the course of their lives. We will continue fighting laws designed to push abortion out of reach in Florida and across this country until every person can get the care they need, regardless of their zip code."
Daniel Tilley, legal director, ACLU of Florida:
"This law imposes a significant hardship on Floridians that is medically unnecessary, arbitrary, and dangerous. For years, the Courts have agreed that imposing an additional barrier that would delay an individual's ability to receive the abortion care they need was in direct violation of Floridians' right to privacy. A person's private medical decisions should be made in consultation with a doctor they trust, not politicians, and no one should ever be made to delay the care they need. Abortion care should be safe and accessible. Politicians have no right to interfere with Floridians' private medical decisions."
Marc Hearron, Senior Counsel, Center for Reproductive Rights:
"This demeaning, intrusive law forcibly delays a person's access to essential healthcare despite potentially dangerous risks to their health. Politicians should not be dictating a person's own medical decision of whether and when to end a pregnancy. Abortion access in Florida is in real peril, and this restriction is just another way to push abortion care out of reach and infringe on the rights of Floridians. We will continue to fight to ensure that Floridians can get the care they need without political interference."
More about this case can be found: https://www.aclu.org/cases/gainesville-woman-care-llc-v-state-florida
This release can be found online here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/florida-state-court-indicates-it-will-uphold-abortion-restriction-forces-patients
The mission of the ACLU of Florida is to protect, defend, strengthen, and promote the constitutional rights and liberties of all people in Florida. We envision a fair and just Florida, where all people are free, equal under the law, and live with dignity.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
"Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official," one news network said.
In a move one administration critic described as "fragrantly unconstitutional," Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr wrote a post on social media on Saturday that appeared to threaten the broadcast license of any media outlet that reported information concerning President Donald Trump's war on Iran that the president did not like.
"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions—also known as the fake news—have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not," Carr's message began.
Carr also shared a screenshot of a Trump post on Truth Social complaining about "Fake News Media" coverage of five US Air Force refueling planes that were reportedly hit and damaged in an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.
"The[is] is the federal government telling news stations to provide favorable coverage of the war or their licenses will be pulled," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media in response to the post. "A truly extraordinary moment. We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. Act like it."
Several other media professionals, free speech advocates, and Democratic politicians understood Carr's post as a threat.
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that."
"The FCC is threatening the licenses of news stations that report on the effects of Iranian attacks on the American military," wrote journalist Séamus Malekafzali.
Bulwark economics editor Catherine Rampell wrote, "FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens broadcast licenses over Iran War coverage."
Journalist Sam Stein posted, "The state doesn't like the war coverage, threatens the license of the broadcasters."
Independent news network MediasTouch wrote: "Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official."
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that," the group continued.
"This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Several pointed out that such a threat would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
"Constitutional law 101: It’s illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn’t like about Trump’s Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social media. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny from the administration for advising service members to disobey illegal orders, wrote: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, said: "The president's hand-picked misinformation czar is at it again, singling out 'fake news' that conflicts with his boss' political agenda. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor information about the war it's waging."
Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Timothy Karr responded to Carr with a screenshot of the First Amendment and the words: "Here it is—as it seems you've forgotten what you swore an oath to 'support and defend.'"
This is not the first time that Carr has been accused of putting his loyalty to Trump over his duty to the Constitution. In September, he pressured ABC to take comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air over remarks Kimmel had made following the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While ABC eventually reinstated Kimmel's show following public backlash, free speech advocates warned at the time that the Trump administration would not stop trying to censor opposing views.
“The Trump regime’s war on free speech is no joke—and it’s not over," Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said at the time.
Indeed, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote of Carr's Saturday statement: "This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Carr's note comes at a particularly urgent time for independent media coverage in the US, as Paramount Skydance, which is run by the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. The Trump administration has often criticized CNN's coverage, including of the war.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” as he complained about a CNN report on how the Pentagon underestimated the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Carr has already spoken out in favor of the merger, telling CNBC he thought it was a "good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly."
This piece has been updated with quotes from Sens. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Kelly.
“Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill," one advocate said.
State leaders and environmental advocates responded with outrage after the Trump administration on Friday ordered the restarting of a California pipeline that caused one of the largest oil spills in the state's history, a move that comes as oil prices have skyrocketed following President Donald Trump's launching of an illegal war against Iran and Iran's subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
After Trump issued an executive order on Friday authorizing the Department of Energy (DOE) to ramp up oil and gas development under the Defense Production Act, Energy Secretary Chris Wright ordered Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operations on the Santa Ynez Unit and Pipeline System, which include an offshore rig and a network of offshore and onshore pipelines along the Santa Barbara coast. Among them is a pipeline that ruptured in 2015, spilling around 450,000 gallons of oil into Refugio State Beach and killing hundreds of marine mammals and sea birds.
“Californians have repeatedly rejected dangerous drilling off our coast for decades," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Now, after dragging the US into a war with Iran and driving up oil prices, the Trump administration is trying to exploit this crisis to further enrich the oil industry at the expense of our communities and our environment."
In his statement, Wright emphasized the defense benefits of resuming drilling, arguing that "today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness.”
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal."
The DOE added that "Sable's facility can produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day, a 15% increase to California’s in-state oil production, that can replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month."
Yet, far from a novel response to an unexpected emergency, the order is actually an escalation in a preexisting battle between California and the Trump administration over the future of the pipeline system. The state's Attorney General Rob Bonta sued to stop the administration from a federal takeover of two of the pipelines in January.
Sable also faces several lawsuits due to its attempts to restart the system after it purchased it from ExxonMobil in 2024, and has not yet cleared all of the state permitting requirements, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
"In its latest brazen abuse of power, the Trump administration is attempting to seize exclusive federal control over two of California’s onshore pipelines," Bonta said on social media Friday evening. "We will not stand by as this administration continues their unlawful all-out assault on California and our coastlines, and we are reviewing all of our legal options."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against Wright's announcement.
"Trump knew his war with Iran would raise gas prices," he wrote on social media. "Now he wants to illegally resurrect a pipeline shut down by courts and facing criminal charges. And it won't even cut prices. I refuse to let Trump sacrifice Californians, our environment, or our $51 billion coastal economy."
The Center for Biological Diversity noted that this order would mark the first time that the Defense Production Act was used to force an oil company to restart out-of-use Infrastructure and to disregard the state permitting process.
“This is a revolting power grab by an extremist president. Trump is misusing this Cold War-era law just to help a Texas oil company skirt vital state laws that protect our coastline, and Californians will pay the price,” Talia Nimmer, an attorney for the center, said. “Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill. Overriding state law to let an oil company restart pipelines sets a radically dangerous precedent. It’s clear that no state is safe from Trump.”
The center also promised to push back against the order.
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal,” Nimmer said. “We’re exploring all legal avenues. This dangerous action should be swiftly blocked by the courts.”