

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.

More than half the country’s wetlands, along with streams and even lakes, could be left vulnerable to pollution.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency released their updated Waters of the United States Rule, commonly referred to as “WOTUS”, in response to the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Court’s ruling severely weakened the scope of the Clean Water Act, drastically limiting which bodies of water are protected from pollution under the bedrock environmental law, in what is the largest rollback of water protections in the United States.
The EPA will now rely on a radically narrower definition of protected waters, severely limiting the scope and effectiveness of the Clean Water Act, one of the most successful, effective, and widely supported pieces of legislation ever codified in the United States. In addition to removing protections for well over half of the wetlands in our country, a substantial number of tributaries, streams, and even lakes may very well lose Clean Water Act protections.
“The Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority’s disastrous ruling in Sackett v. EPA reduced EPA’s ability to protect our wetlands and waters from destruction and contamination,” said Patrice Simms, Vice President of Litigation for Healthy Communities. “The new rule from EPA adjusts its existing regulations to comport with Sackett and reflects our dangerous new reality — one where mining companies, Big Ag fossil fuel developers, and other polluting industries can bulldoze and fill wetlands indiscriminately, harming our public health and ecosystems. The politically motivated decision by the Supreme Court ignores science and flies in the face of what almost everyone knows: that we all need clean water.”
In Sackett v. EPA, SCOTUS dismissed established science and radically narrowed the definition of what can be a protected wetland, severely limiting the reach of the Clean Water Act. The Sackett decision, handed down by the new conservative supermajority marked a significant departure from previous SCOTUS interpretations of the Clean Water Act. This reflects the Supreme Court’s disturbing pattern of striking down environmental regulations to serve industry interests at the expense of the environment and people. It did much the same in last term’s West Virginia v. EPA ruling.
Click here to see where wetlands are most in danger.
Click here to see five watersheds in jeopardy because of the Sackett decision.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460Undaunted, the New Jersey Democrat vowed to introduce similar measures "again and again and again as more Americans on both sides of the aisle see this war for what it is."
Republican senators on Wednesday blocked Sen. Cory Booker from forcing a final vote on a resolution to curb President Donald Trump's ability to continue waging the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran without congressional authorization.
"All of us—all 100—swore an oath to the Constitution," Booker (D-NJ) said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday's 47-53 vote against the measure. "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the authority to declare war and authorize the use of military force, but in this case, Congress and the United States Senate in particular has done nothing."
"This is why I urge my colleagues soon to support the motion to discharge Senate Joint Resolution 118," Booker continued. "I ask for that because of what is at stake: Billions of taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of American lives. What is at stake is the Constitution of the United States of America."
All 100 Senators swore an oath not to Donald Trump, but to the Constitution. That’s why I’m fighting in the Senate tonight to end this reckless war.
[image or embed]
— Sen. Cory Booker (@booker.senate.gov) March 18, 2026 at 3:24 PM
The resolution would have ordered the "removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress."
"We swore an oath. We have an obligation.This is the moment now," the senator added. "This is not left or right; this is a moral moment and a solemn, sacred, patriotic duty to uphold the Constitution—especially when the president of the United States is so willfully violating it."
Every Democrat except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted to advance Booker's resolution. Every Republican with the exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky voted "no." Both Independent senators—Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Maine's Angus King—voted "yes."
Earlier this month, Fetterman joined all upper chamber Republicans save Paul in blocking a war powers resolution aimed at reining in Trump's US-Israeli war on Iran.
On Sunday, Booker said that "both parties have been feckless in allowing the growth of the power of the presidency."
"At this scale, at this magnitude, at this cost, why is Congress just laying down and doing nothing?” he added.
Undaunted by Wednesday's defeat, Booker vowed to introduce similar resolutions "again and again and again as more Americans on both sides of the aisle see this war for what it is: one president's decision costing all Americans."
According to a poll published Wednesday by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, nearly 8 in 10 Trump voters want the war to end quickly.
"Even after this vote, there are many of us here in this body who will fight to uphold the Constitution," Booker said.
"The report recommends a full investigation by the International Criminal Court into Britain’s complicity and participation in genocide," said the leftist lawmaker.
A report led by progressive British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn and submitted Wednesday to the International Criminal Court recommends that the Hague-based tribunal investigate UK government officials complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza.
"The Gaza Tribunal report exposes the full scale of Britain's complicity in genocide," said Corbyn, a former Labour leader who represents Islington North for the leftist Your Party. "Complicity demands consequences. That's why, today, we submitted The Gaza Tribunal report to the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
"The report concludes that the British government has failed in its fundamental obligation to prevent genocide, has been complicit in atrocity crimes, and in some instances has even been an active participant in these crimes," Corbyn wrote in a foreword to the publication. "The report recommends a full investigation by the International Criminal Court into Britain’s complicity and participation in genocide."
According to the report, "Britain has played a vital role in Israeli military operations in Gaza," including through weapons sales, Royal Air Force surveillance flights, diplomatic support, and failure to sanction Israeli officials responsible for a war that United Nations experts, jurists, scholars, national and other governments, and others say is genocidal.
Report co-author and international law professor Shahd Hammouri said: “In our hands we have evidence that British officials knowingly hid the truth and distorted the truth. They had the legal advice and chose to overlook it. British citizens in good conscience who sought to uphold their legal and moral obligations of standing up against power were threatened with their livelihoods and asked to either quit their jobs or shut the hell up."
In 2024, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also in The Hague, is weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and supported by an increasing number of nations.
"Israel has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza," the tribunal's report states. "The genocide in Gaza must be understood within its historical context: as part of a decadeslong, ongoing, and systematic effort to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part. We heard from a range of witnesses who described in devastating detail the human and social reality of displacement, ethnic cleansing, and genocide."
The report notes the deliberate destruction of Gaza's healthcare and education systems, targeting of journalists, and famine caused by Israel's "complete siege" of the embattled strip.
The Gaza Tribunal report notes the UK's legal obligations under international law, which include:
The publication of the Gaza Tribunal report—which is related in spirit and method to a separate Gaza Tribunal headed by former UN special rapporteur Richard Falk—follows last year's finding by the Corbyn-led body that Britain is complicit in the Gaza genocide.
The UK government has also faced international condemnation for persecuting members of Palestine Action and other activists. Last month, the British High Court ruled that the government illegally banned the protest group, some of whose members nearly died while on recent hunger strikes.
The report also comes as Israeli forces continue killing, maiming, and forcibly displacing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, where the ICJ found in 2024 that Israel is guilty of illegal occupation and apartheid.
To date, more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded in Gaza, according to officials there. Around 2 million others have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
"Our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
The lawn outside the US Capitol building was strewn with colorful backpacks and children's shoes on Wednesday afternoon as progressive members of Congress called for an end to President Donald Trump's "illegal" war with Iran.
They were there to memorialize the 168 children, mostly girls aged 7-12, who were killed when the United States bombed an elementary school in Minab on February 28 in the opening salvo of a war that has gone on to claim the lives of more than 2,000 people, including more than 300 children, according to reports from Iranian and Lebanese health authorities.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said each backpack and pair of shoes represented "an Iranian child who should still be with us today... but they were struck down by a Tomahawk missile."
Van Hollen described it as a consequence of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's crusade against what he's derided as "stupid rules of engagement."
"Those rules of engagement are designed to prevent civilian harm," the senator said. "They're designed to prevent a war crime."
The lawmakers described Trump's attack on Iran as a "war of choice" and an act of aggression that violated international law.
"There was no imminent threat" from Iran, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "There is certainly no plan for this war, and most importantly, there is no authorization from Congress."
Shortly after the war was launched, War Powers Resolutions seeking to rein in Trump's ability to use force without authorization narrowly failed in both the House and the Senate, with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans to kill the measure.
The White House is reportedly preparing to ask Congress for an additional $50 billion in supplemental funding to cover the cost of the Iran war on top of the more than $990 billion Congress has already authorized in last summer's GOP budget bill and the latest funding package.
Most Democrats have taken a firm line against more funding, which would require seven of their votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, though some pro-war Democrats have signaled a willingness to fund the war, according to reporting earlier this month.
"Civilians in Iran aren't the only ones who are paying the price," said Rep. Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.). "Our service members and the American people are too."
She noted that 13 members of the US military have been killed since the war was launched less than two weeks ago, saying, "I fear that this number will grow."
Based on Pentagon estimates provided to Congress earlier this month, the war is projected to have already cost US taxpayers more than $24 billion as of Wednesday.
Jacobs said she would oppose "any defense supplemental package" because "every dollar Congress spends on this war without ever authorizing it tells this president and every future president that they can drag this country into any conflict they want and dare us to defund the troops."
"From Palestine to Iran, our bombs are killing women, they're killing children... our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
She called for Congress to pass her Block the Bombs Act, which would cut off "offensive" US military funding to Israel, and to pass a war powers resolution limiting Trump's authority to continue striking Iran.
"Not one more dollar for a war with Iran," Ramirez said. "Not one more excuse, not one more bomb."