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.
WASHINGTON - A coalition of more than 40 civil rights organizations have penned an open letter raising the alarm about the growing trend of anti-mask legislation and urging lawmakers to oppose mask bans.
Read the full letter here.
This letter, from a coalition of groups championing privacy, civil liberties, reproductive freedom, disability rights, COVID justice, mutual aid, LGBTQ+ rights, Palestinian liberation, and labor power, comes just weeks after the news that a second Trump administration, keen on targeting political opposition, will once again operate a massive surveillance infrastructure and embolden violence against marginalized communities from the highest office in the country.
However, as the letter notes, banning masks has been a bipartisan effort a long time in the making, with both Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina, New York, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Louisville, and more driving the latest push to ban masks in response to masking at Palestine solidarity protests.
Rights experts cite three main concerns with anti-mask legislation: suppression of free expression, forced exposure to police and commercial surveillance, and increased violence against marginalized people. Notably, a new mask ban in Nassau County, New York has already been weaponized to arrest a pro-Palestine protester without cause, while maskers in North Carolina note that even before it formally passed, a statewide ban escalated public harassment.
The coalition argues that lawmakers should oppose mask bans regardless of health and religious exemptions, as exemptions are likely to be enforced arbitrarily by police and do not prevent bans from stigmatizing masking in public. This creates a dangerous culture for all who mask to protect from a multitude of threats, including the ongoing risks of COVID and Long COVID, especially singling out immunocompromised and disabled people who have long masked to protect themselves in public.
The letter ends by calling on lawmakers to urgently denounce mask bans, oppose efforts to pass anti-mask legislation or revive defunct bans in their jurisdictions, and defend the right to mask in public for all.
The following can be attributed to Evan Greer (she/her), Director of Fight for the Future:
“It’s no surprise that fascists and science-deniers want to ban masks from protests. But it’s alarming that supposedly progressive lawmakers are helping them do it. There are many reasons to cover your face at a protest or in public, from defending yourself from harassment and doxing to protecting your community from COVID during an ongoing public health crisis. Like other anti-protest laws, these draconian measures will be selectively enforced, and used as an excuse by law enforcement to crack down on marginalized communities and protesters who they don’t like. Mask bans only escalate our current swing toward fascism and suffocating surveillance culture. It’s clear that the authoritarian desire to silence pro-Palestine and anti-racist activists is the main goal of this latest push for mask bans, but if they go into effect, they will impact everyone who dares to speak out and exercise their rights. We can’t let that happen.”
Several organizations who signed the letter provided additional comment:
Ricci Levy (she/her), President & CEO of Woodhull Freedom Foundation writes, “Banning masks is a clear violation of personal autonomy and bodily freedom – fundamental human rights that the Woodhull Freedom Foundation has long defended. Just as we advocate for sexual freedom as a human right, we believe individuals have the right to make their own choices about their health and safety, including wearing masks. Government overreach that restricts personal freedoms, whether related to sexuality or public health measures, sets a dangerous precedent. We urge policymakers to respect human rights and individual liberty by allowing people to make their own informed decisions about mask usage.”
Shahinaz Geneid (she/they), UAW Labor for Palestine facilitator and member of Unite All Workers for Democracy writes, “The labor movement and the Palestine movement must join the fight to stand against mask bans. We know all too well that the health of workers and everyday people, especially those of us in precarious employment positions, living under colonialism like our comrades in Palestine, or otherwise already at risk, will be placed at increasingly serious risk if these reactionary measures clearly meant to chill free speech by exposing pro-Palestine protesters to widespread surveillance and doxxing become the widespread norm, leaving workers unable to protect themselves from infection and potential long-term disability or death. Add to that the unequal and classist nature of the American healthcare system and the barriers that the working class in particular faces to accessing adequate healthcare when they do get sick, and it is clear that fighting anti-mask legislation must be all of our fight across movements.”
Sean O’Brien (he/him), founder, Yale Privacy Lab writes, “Masks provide people with the potential for anonymity and vital protection from not only harassment but the pervasive and growing tendrils of surveillance in our society. Mask bans create a chilling effect on speech and allow for biased and predictive policing, making it possible for facial recognition technology to follow individuals from protests and rallies all the way to their homes.”
Antoine Ghoston (he/him), Executive Director, Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum writes, “As an organization committed to the health and dignity of Black LGBTQ+ individuals, the Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum recognizes mask bans as a direct threat to our communities. They exacerbate health disparities and undermine public safety, disproportionately impacting those who are already vulnerable. Ensuring our community members have access to essential protections is non-negotiable.”
Jenna Sherman (she/her) Campaign Director at gender justice nonprofit UltraViolet writes, “The move to ban masks outright is an act of suppression under the guise of public safety. Particularly in an era of increased surveillance and facial recognition, people are living in fear of being targeted for what should be routine, protected parts of our lives like accessing reproductive healthcare. Everyone must have the right to choose to wear a mask regardless of whether it’s to protect their health or safeguard their privacy. The trend to revoke this right is deeply troubling, and has a disproportionate impact on women, trans people, and nonbinary people seeking out healthcare or protesting to fight for their right to do so.”
The full list of signers includes:
18 Million Rising
1021 Members for Palestine
Access Now
Adalah Justice Project
API Equality-LA
Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum
Assembly Four
Disability Rights California
Erotic Service Provider Legal Education and Research Project
Faith Choice Ohio
Fiat Fiendum
Freedom Oklahoma
Housing Works
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice
Jewish Voice for Peace
Lavender Phoenix
Long COVID Justice
Mask Bloc Louisville
Mask Bloc Sunset San Francisco
Mask Together America
Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition
MEAction NY
MediaJustice
Muslim Advocates
Oakland Privacy
PDX Privacy
Restore The Fourth
Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project
Secure Justice
Senior and Disability Action
Strategies for High Impact (S4HI)
SWOP Behind Bars
The Wayside
Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT)
Transgender Law Center
UAW Labor for Palestine
UltraViolet
Unite All Workers for Democracy
United We Dream
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Yale Privacy Lab
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026One legal expert called it "unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."
Republican-appointed justices handed the second Trump administration its first win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, allowing the Department of Education to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants intended to help states combat K-12 teacher shortages while a legal battle over the money plays out.
The emergency order was unsigned, but the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all dissented, and Chief Justice John Roberts noted that he "would deny the application" without offering further explanation. That means the decision came from the other five right-wingers, including three appointees of President Donald Trump.
The decision stems from a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Massachusetts by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general last month after the U.S. Education Department "arbitrarily terminated approximately $600 million in critical grants" for two programs: the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED).
The coalition's initial complaint explains that Congress authorized the funding "to address nationwide teacher shortages and improve teacher quality by educating, placing, and supporting new teachers in hard-to-staff schools, especially in rural and other underserved communities, and in hard-to-staff subjects, such as math and special education."
"The department's actions appear to encompass 'policy objectives' of ending disfavored but lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion—objectives that Congress expressly directed grantees to carry out in creating these programs, including by identifying that these teacher preparation programs should assist 'traditionally underserved' local education agencies... and ensure 'general education teachers receive training in providing instruction to diverse populations, including children with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and children from low-income families," the document details.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—found that the coalition was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and issued the temporary restraining order sought by offiicals in California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin.
However, the country's high court granted a stay on Friday, concluding that the Trump administration "is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed," the plaintiff states "have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running" during the legal fight, and if they "ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum."
In a dissent that was under two pages, Kagan wrote that "nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way."
Jackson argued in her longer dissent, joined by Sotomayor, that "this court's eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the department's actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the plaintiff states, and even though the government has not bothered to press any argument that the department's harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted."
In a footnote that drew attention from court watchers, Jackson accused the majority of handing the Trump administration "an early 'win'—a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful," and expressed concern that "permitting the emergency docket to be hijacked in this way, by parties with tangential legal questions unrelated to imminent harm, damages our institutional credibility."
I am fascinated by this fourth wall–breaking footnote from Justice Jackson criticizing the majority for handing the Trump administration "a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful." It's more about optics than law ...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Trump's billionaire education secretary, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, welcomed the ruling as "an important step towards realizing the president's agenda to ensure that taxpayer funds that support education go toward meaningful learning and serving our students—not to train teachers in radical racial and gender ideologies."
Meanwhile, Steve Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said that Friday's decision "is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."
"It leaves open the possibility that the plaintiffs are going to win not just this case, but a bunch of other challenges to the government's cancellation of grants, while freezing the order in this specific case. And even that was a bridge too far for Chief Justice Roberts and the three Democratic appointees," he added. "It's a victory for the government, but a short-lived one that may soon be overtaken by far more significant losses in the other pending cases in which Trump has asked the justices to intervene."
CNN noted that the Supreme Court "has already resolved two emergency appeals from the Trump administration" and is still considering others on topics including Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship and to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations.
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observerreported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.