

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.

Amy van Saun, Center for Food Safety, avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.
Christina Eastman, Farmers Against Foster Farms, christinaeastman1964@icloud.
Yesterday, several Oregon-based farmer groups filed a state court challenge to the Oregon Department of Agriculture's (ODA) water quality permit granted to J-S Ranch, a mega-chicken production facility. The farmer groups suing include Farmers Against Foster Farms, Friends of Family Farmers, Willamette Riverkeeper, and farmer Christina Eastman.
Yesterday, several Oregon-based farmer groups filed a state court challenge to the Oregon Department of Agriculture's (ODA) water quality permit granted to J-S Ranch, a mega-chicken production facility. The farmer groups suing include Farmers Against Foster Farms, Friends of Family Farmers, Willamette Riverkeeper, and farmer Christina Eastman.
"My farm has been in my family for five generations, and now it is threatened by an industrial mega-chicken operation next door," said Christina Eastman, member of Farmers Against Foster Farms and individual plaintiff in the case. The ODA, Eastman said, "assures us that everything will be fine, but you can't contain the uncontainable--like the noxious fumes and ammonia particles blowing out of a dozen buildings and threatening our beloved North Santiam River and our groundwater. I cannot stand by and wait for disaster to strike."
J-S Ranch is a proposed mega-chicken operation capable of raising nearly 3.5 million broiler chickens per year in the sensitive area of the Wiseman Island reach in the North Santiam River. The area is home to numerous wildlife species, including some endangered salmonids, and provides water and recreation to many in the area.
J-S Ranch will collect, store, and export massive quantities of livestock waste--approximately 4,500 tons of chicken litter a year--while blowing ammonia from the chicken litter out of its barns located just a quarter of a mile from the river. Over the strenuous objections of community members around the proposed facility, ODA granted a ten-year general groundwater quality permit with only a few additional conditions. While ODA claims this facility will cause no pollution to ground or surface waters such as the North Santiam River, the plaintiffs and other community members are seriously concerned given the high levels of precipitation, proximity of the river, and huge quantities of chicken waste.
"We are gravely concerned that this mega-chicken operation will contaminate the federally-protected North Santiam River, a precious resource that provides habitat for threatened species, including Spring Chinook Salmon and Winter Steelhead, and serves as a water source for the community," said Lindsey Hutchison, staff attorney at Willamette Riverkeeper. "ODA's refusal to acknowledge the high likelihood of this facility polluting the North Santiam River is unacceptable and in violation of both state and federal laws."
The lawsuit alleges that the ODA permit violates state and federal statutes and regulations, including clean water protections for community and wildlife uses. The current permit covers only discharges into state groundwaters, despite plaintiffs repeatedly urging state agencies to consider the likely discharge of ammonia into the North Santiam River. Plaintiffs also allege that it is highly unlikely that J-S Ranch will be able to prevent discharges of litter, compost, or processing wastewater into groundwater based on the climate, weather, and topography of the area. The plaintiffs seek to protect the water quality of the Willamette River Basin and the rural communities and wildlife that depend on that water.
"At the urging of the farmers we represent, we are fighting back against J-S Ranch because it threatens our ecosystems and water quality for downstream users, including many other farmers," said Alice Morrison, organizational director of Friends of Family Farmers. "We don't want to see Linn County become another Morrow County, where an emergency was recently declared over groundwater contamination from large CAFOs like J-S Ranch," she added. "ODA ignored the pleas of farmers and others in the community who depend on the land and water resources that once damaged would take years to restore."
Amy van Saun, senior attorney with Center for Food Safety, said, "ODA is failing family farmers and putting corporate profits ahead of community and environmental health. This mega-chicken operation--ultimately controlled by a venture capital firm--is the largest in the state and will generate huge amounts of waste, including ammonia blasted into the air right next to the North Santiam River. ODA unlawfully dismissed that pollution of that River and the groundwater under J-S Ranch's unlined barns."
The plaintiffs are represented by the nonprofit Center for Food Safety and a local firm, Sugerman Dahab.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."