

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.

Kristen Monsell, Center for Biological Diversity, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Ruling In Favor of Environmental Groups Highlights Concerns About Endangered Whales
National and community-based environmental groups celebrated a legal victory on Tuesday when a federal district court judge overturned an offshore oil and gas lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet because the federal government violated the law when holding the sale.
The Center for Biological Diversity and Natural Resources Defense Council filed the lawsuit together with Earthjustice, on behalf of Cook Inletkeeper, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, and Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Lease Sale 258, held by the Department of the Interior in December 2022, opened nearly a million acres of federal waters in Southcentral Alaska to the fossil fuel industry, potentially locking in decades of future oil and gas drilling.
The Interior Department originally canceled Lease Sale 258 in May 2022, but then announced it would move ahead in August after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. Though that legislation spurred efforts to address climate change, it included a provision reviving the Cook Inlet lease sale (along with two others in the Gulf of Mexico: Lease Sales 259 and 261, which are being litigated).
While Lease Sale 258 only resulted in one bid for a relatively small tract, the areas auctioned off to bidder Hilcorp overlapped with critical habitat for federally endangered marine mammals. Cook Inlet is home to beluga whales and sea otters protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Tuesday’s ruling noted that, among other things, the Department of the Interior failed to fully consider the lease sale’s cumulative impacts on beluga whales, as well as the issue of blaring vessel noise. Belugas use sound to “see” in a process known as echolocation, which supports behaviors such as hunting, avoiding obstacles, and finding each other, so noise impacts can threaten whales’ survival.
Following the ruling, Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management must conduct a supplemental environmental review and determine based on this new review whether or not to add protections or redo the lease sale. The ruling also suspends Hilcorp’s lease while this process is underway. Since the start of 2024 alone, Hilcorp has been the subject of four different enforcement actions from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
In addition to endangered marine life, Cook Inlet also supports thriving subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries and a multi-faceted tourist industry, fed by visitors from around the world drawn by the region’s unparalleled natural beauty. The Inlet is also essential for Alaska Native communities, who have stewarded these lands and waters for millennia.
Alaska is experiencing more extreme consequences of climate change than the continental United States. Coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, melting sea ice, and fishery collapse are all ramifications of the worsening global climate crisis, which will only intensify with new oil and gas drilling operations.
Partnering organizations released the following statements in response to this favorable decision:
“Today’s legal victory is a win for Alaska communities, threatened beluga whales, and future generations who will face a hotter planet,” said Earthjustice attorney Carole Holley. “We’re celebrating the fact that this destructive lease sale has been sent back to the drawing board, and we will continue to push for a transition away from fossil fuels and toward a brighter and healthier energy future.”
“This is a huge victory for Cook Inlet belugas. I hope this decision makes it clear to federal officials that they can’t keep ignoring the ways offshore drilling threatens these critically endangered whales,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s reckless to keep destroying wildlife, ocean habitat and our climate for oil and gas drilling and it needs to stop. Interior must do its job and protect our country’s irreplaceable public lands, waters and wildlife from industrial havoc.”
“We are glad that the court recognizes the long-term harm that this lease sale would cause to our precious marine environment, belugas, and coastal communities,” said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “This is the time for restoration and renewal, and for a swift transition to renewable energy, not more offshore oil and gas lease sales which will only perpetuate harm. Given the history of the oil corporations’ illegal dumping of toxic waste, spills, noise, and chronic damage, we must ensure that Interior fulfills its responsibility to protect our fisheries, wildlife, and health of our communities.”
“This ruling helps protect Cook Inlet’s vibrant ecosystem, which is home to endangered beluga whales, and supports productive fishing grounds and culturally important sites for Alaska Natives,” said Irene Gutierrez, senior attorney for NRDC. “The region should not be sacrificed to decades of oil drilling. Interior must fully consider the range of potential harms when it carries out the court’s ruling.”
“Today’s victory in Cook Inlet is a triumph of community resilience and environmental stewardship,” said Loren Barrett, co-executive director at Cook Inletkeeper. “Our coastal communities have long resisted oil and gas leasing, understanding the irreversible impacts of industrial disasters and the need to preserve Cook Inlet’s habitat, fisheries, and natural beauty. By overturning Lease Sale 258, the court has recognized the critical importance of safeguarding Cook Inlet's dynamic ecosystem, and an essential piece of habitat required to ensure the continued survival of the iconic Cook Inlet beluga whale.”
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"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."