

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.

The Supreme Court ruled today in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, siding with a public-school football coach who demanded the right to pray with his players after games at the 50-yard-line. The decision significantly erodes the separation of church and state in public schools.
The case was brought by Joseph Kennedy, a former football coach in Bremerton, Washington, who sued a public school district for placing him on administrative leave after he repeatedly ignored directives to stop leading his team in mid-field prayers immediately after games. The school determined that Kennedy's practice violated students' religious-freedom rights and also created a safety risk at games because Kennedy had orchesterated a public spectacle by inviting media and local politicans to attend. Kennedy claimed that the school's actions violated his free-speech and free-exercise rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Washington filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in the case, arguing that Kennedy's prayers, which he admits he delivered while on duty, are not protected by the Free Speech Clause and that the school district had a constitutional duty to stop his practice because it violated the separation of church and state. As the dissent explained, "[t]oday's decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official . . . over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this Court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection."
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said:
"This decision is deeply disappointing and undermines the religious liberty of public school students. As the Supreme Court recognized over 60 years ago, it's inherently coercive for school officials to pray with students while on duty. Today's ruling ignores that basic principle and tramples the religious freedom of students who may not share the preferred faith of their coaches and teachers."
Taryn Darling, senior staff attorney, ACLU of Washington, said:
"The freedom to hold beliefs that differ from those with authority has been a founding principle of our country. It is disappointing that today's decision erodes protections for public school students to learn and grow free of coercion. Kitsap County is a religiously diverse community and students reported they felt coerced to pray. One player explained he participated against his own beliefs for the fear of losing playing time if he declined. This decision strains the separation of church and state -- a bedrock principle of our democracy - and potentially harms our youth."
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666The fashion industry has thrived for decades while "failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected."
With clothing companies that will be offering discounted Black Friday deals this week relying heavily on the labor of tens of millions underpaid and overworked garment workers across the Global South, two reports by the human rights group Amnesty International make the case that ensuring these employees are afforded the right to organize their workplaces is key to ending worker exploitation across the fashion industry.
The organization interviewed 64 garment workers in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan from 2023-24, including 12 union organizers and labor rights activists, for its report titled Stitched Up, about the denial of freedom of association for workers in the four countries.
Two-thirds of the workers Amnesty interviewed were women, reflecting the fact that the garment workforce is mainly female, and many described the long hours, poverty wages, and abusive working conditions that the industry is known for.
But beyond that, the workers told Amnesty about the "climate of fear" they work in, with all but two of the 13 workers in Bangladesh reporting they had faced threats of retaliation at work if they joined or tried to form a union.
More than two dozen union organizers in the four countries described harassment, dismissal, and threats that they and their colleagues had faced for organizing their workplace.
“When workers raise their voices, they are ignored. When they try to organize, they are threatened and sacked. And finally, when workers protest, they are beaten, shot at, and arrested,” said a labor rights activist identified as Taufiq in Bangladesh.
The report notes that "restrictions on the right of workers to organize into trade unions and collectively speak out against human rights abuses at work are a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of association and collective bargaining," which are affirmed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, said that "an unholy alliance of fashion brands, factory owners, and the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka is propping up an industry known for its endemic human rights abuses" and allowing mistreatment of workers to continue while barring employees from working together to fight for better conditions and pay.
"By failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected, the industry has thrived for decades on the exploitation of a grossly underpaid, overworked, and mostly female workforce,” said Callamard.
The governments of the four countries have failed to provide a living wage to garment workers—instead competing to attract the investment of clothing companies by setting the lowest wages possible. Almost all of the workers interviewed by Amnesty said their wages did not cover their families' living costs.
Many of the workers also reported that they were hired with "informal" work contracts, with no formal mechanisms for reporting workplace abuses, including violence and sexual harassment.
“I was touched physically and abused verbally. No one in management would listen to my complaints then I asked other women to organize. I was threatened with dismissal many times,” Sumaayaa, a worker and organizer from Lahore, Pakistan, told Amnesty.
The governments in question have done nothing to counter such precarious working arrangements, with officials establishing "Special Economic Zones" (SEZ) in Bangladesh and "Free Trade Zones" in Sri Lanka—areas where administrative measures place "often insurmountable barriers against union communication and access to workers."
Instead of affording workers the right to freedom of association in SEZ's, officials in Bangladesh encourage workers to form "welfare associations or committees, which have limited ability to collectively organize."
Alongside Stitched Up, Amnesty released the companion report Abandoned by Fashion: The Urgent Need for Fashion Brands to Champion Workers’ Rights, which details top brands' responses to an international survey on the rights of garment workers to organize their workplaces.
All of the fashion brands and retailers surveyed, including Adidas, ASOS, Shein, PVH, and Marks and Spencer, had "codes of conduct for suppliers, human rights policies, or principles, which affirmed the company’s commitment to workers’ right to freedom of association."
But the survey revealed "a limited commitment to implementing these policies at the factory level, especially in proactively promoting union organizing and ensuring human rights commitments and the ability of workers to exercise this right were reflected in their choice of sourcing location."
Amnesty found very few independent trade unions operating within the companies' supply chains in the four countries.
Adidas reported that 9.5% of its suppliers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have unions. H&M works with 145 factories in Bangladesh, 29 of which had trade unions. Of 31 factories in Bangladesh, none had unions, and eight out of 93 facilities in India had them.
In the case of the clothing company Next, just 23 of the 167 apparel factories the company works with in Bangladesh had independent unions, while 134 had less empowered "committees."
"These findings provide a very stark indication of the low levels of unionization within the supply chains of major fashion companies in South Asia," reads the report. "They reveal the impact of the failures of the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to protect and promote garment workers’ rights in relation to the right to freedom of association. Our research shows how all four states have effectively denied this right to garment workers, including by creating disproportionate or arbitrary barriers to registration, unionization, and strike action, and by failing in their responsibility to protect workers, union members, and officials from corporate abuse including discrimination, harassment, and dismissal."
Amnesty International made a number of recommendations to fashion companies, including:
“The need of the hour is to build a human rights-respecting sourcing strategy for the global garment industry," she said. "Freedom of association is key to tackling the abuse of workers’ rights. It must be protected, advanced, and championed.”
West Virginia's governor initially announced that both members of his state's National Guard "passed away from their injuries," but he then said that "we are now receiving conflicting reports" about their condition.
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
Two National Guard members and one suspect were shot on Wednesday afternoon near the White House in Washington, DC.
Vito Maggiolo, the public information officer for the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Service Department, confirmed that first responders transported all three people from the scene to the hospital, and unnamed law enforcement officials told multiple media outlets that the Guard members were in critical condition.
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey wrote on the social media platform X that "it is with great sorrow that we can confirm both members of the West Virginia National Guard who were shot earlier today in Washington, DC have passed away from their injuries." However, he then said that "we are now receiving conflicting reports about the condition of our two Guard members."
Multiple agencies responded to the shooting on 17th Street, between I and H Streets—which briefly grounded flights at Reagan National Airport and put the White House on lockdown. President Donald Trump is in Florida, and Vice President JD Vance is in Texas.
Trump said on his Truth Social platform that "the animal that shot the two National Guardsmen, with both being critically wounded, and now in two separate hospitals, is also severely wounded, but regardless, will pay a very steep price. God bless our Great National Guard, and all of our Military and Law Enforcement. These are truly Great People. I, as President of the United States, and everyone associated with the Office of the Presidency, am with you!"
According to the Washington Post, US Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said the shooting had "no known direction of interest towards the White House other than the location at this time," and agency members at the scene did not fire shots.
ABC News noted that "the National Guard was deployed to the nation's capital as part of President Trump's federal takeover of the city in August. According to the most recent update, there are 2,188 Guard personnel assigned to DC."
US District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled last week that the deployment in DC is illegal and must come to an end, but she gave the Trump administration until December 11 to file an appeal.
"I've spoken to dozens of people held inside ICE detention centers in Arizona and this tracks," said Democratic Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari.
The libertarian Cato Institute this week further undermined the Trump administration's claims that it is targeting "the worst of the worst" with its violent immigration operations in communities across the United States by publishing data about the criminal histories—or lack thereof—of immigrants who have been arrested and booked into detention.
David J. Bier, the institute's director of immigration studies, previously reported in June that 65% of people taken by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had no convictions, and 93% had no violent convictions.
Monday evening, Bier shared a new nonpublic dataset leaked to Cato. Of the 44,882 people booked into ICE custody from when the fiscal year began on October 1 through November 15, 73% had no criminal convictions. For that share, around two-thirds also had no pending charges.
The data also show that most of those recently booked into ICE detention with criminal convictions had faced immigration, traffic, or vice charges. Just 5% had a violent conviction, and 3% had a property conviction.
"Other data sources support the conclusions from the number of ICE book-ins," Bier wrote, citing information on agency arrests from January to late July—or the first six months of President Donald Trump's second term—that the Deportation Data Project acquired via a public records request.
The data show that as of January 1, just before former President Joe Biden left office, 149 immigrants without charges or convictions were arrested by ICE. That number surged by 1,500% under Trump: It peaked at 4,072 in June and ultimately was 2,386 by the end of July—when 67% of all arrestees had no criminal convictions, and 39% had neither convictions nor charges.
Bier also pointed to publicly available data about current detainees on ICE's website, emphasizing that the number of people in detention with no convictions or pending charges “increased a staggering 2,370% since January from fewer than 1,000 to over 21,000."
In addition to publishing an article on Cato's site, Bier detailed the findings on the social media platform X, where various critics of the administration's immigration crackdown weighed in. Among them was Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), who said: "These are the facts. I've spoken to dozens of people held inside ICE detention centers in Arizona and this tracks."
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared: "This is the scandal. Trump isn't targeting dangerous people. He's targeting peaceful immigrants. Almost exclusively."
The US Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, also jumped in, as did DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. Responding to Murphy, McLaughlin said in part: "This is so dumb it hurts my soul. This is a made-up pie chart with no legitimate data behind it—just propaganda to undermine the brave work of DHS law enforcement and fool Americans."
Bier and others then took aim at McLaughlin, with the Cato director offering the raw data and challenging her to "just admit you don't care whether the people you're arresting are threats to others or not."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that "DHS's spokeswoman lies AGAIN," calling out her post as "either a knowing lie or an egregious mistake."
"The data David J. Bier published was distributed to multiple congressional staffers and is just a more detailed breakdown of data, which is publicly available on ICE's own website," he stressed.
Journalist Jose Olivares noted that this is "not the first time Tricia McLaughlin has said that ICE's own data is 'propaganda.' Months ago, she slammed me and my colleague at the Guardian on PBS... even though we used ICE's own data for our reporting."