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.
Security fencing outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 7, 2022 in Washington, DC.Supreme Court has 30 remaining cases to be decided by the end of June or the first week in July. The issues include abortion, guns, religion and climate change. (Photo: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Usurping the fundamental rights of women to control their own bodies.
Authorizing corporate giants to buy our elections.
Nullifying the right of organizers to talk to workers about unionizing.
Today's tightly knit Republican majority on the court did not come together by happenstance--and certainly not because any one of them was the brightest, most fair-minded choice in the land.
Who is rigging America's legal system against workaday people? The Supreme Court's right-wing extremists, that's who. Just a handful of aloof, unelected judges have been turning what's supposed to be a citadel of justice into an unrestrained political instrument for instituting autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic power over us. If that sounds like a coup, it is! A slow-motion power grab has quietly been underway for years, with a core group of corporate billionaires and far-right political operatives working (with practically no media exposure) to stack federal and state courts with partisan activists.
There's even a smoking gun revealing the origins of the plot. It's a confidential memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written in 1971 by Lewis Powell--at the time a rich corporate lawyer, consigliere for Big Tobacco and a Phillip Morris board member.
In his memo, Powell lamented that the likes of Ralph Nader were getting media coverage and legislative action by accusing upstanding corporate citizens (like cigarette makers) of profiteering from wrongdoings such as intentionally selling dangerous products. Powell wailed that poor little corporate America wasn't getting the respect it deserved from lawmakers, nor did it have its fair share of power over the nation's political system. You can practically hear Powell sobbing when he concludes that "with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the 'forgotten man.'"
Never mind that he made this absurd plea for pity at a time the presidency itself was infamously known as Nixon Incorporated, with a cadre of corporate functionaries literally running whole segments of the U.S. government! But absurdity was no barrier to Powell's grand ideological determination not only to increase the influence of those "forgotten" executives, but to return to pre-New Deal days when their ilk was the supreme, domineering force over America's government, economy and society. To get there, Powell's memo proposed a novel point of attack he labelled "Neglected Opportunity in the Courts."
He noted that "with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change"--by which he meant structural changes that empower moneyed interests over workers, consumers, et al. Powell proceeds to specify judicial maneuvers for the Chamber and its big funders, conceding that the aggressive offensive "would require far more generous financial support from American corporations. ... But the opportunity merits the necessary effort."
Just two months after Powell sent his memo, Nixon awarded him a seat on the Supreme Court. Although few Americans have ever heard of him, Powell spent the next 15 years on the bench advancing corporate power over us, including writing a 1978 opinion that Roberts and Co. used 32 years later to justify their Citizens United decree.
But there's much more to this plutocratic attempt to capture the courts than one lawyer's how-to blueprint. After all, a memo is not a coup. Indeed, it has taken a concerted, surreptitious, two-decade campaign by a consortium of laissez-faire ideologues, dark-money billionaire funders, secretive front groups, top GOP politicos and many lies by Supreme Court nominees to "operationalize" Powell's memo.
Today's tightly knit Republican majority on the court did not come together by happenstance--and certainly not because any one of them was the brightest, most fair-minded choice in the land. All were hand-picked by the consortium and escorted to third-branch rule specifically because they could be counted on the use their lifetime appointments to make our laws accord with the GOP's right-wing agenda and to return to their imagined ideal of the grand old days of pre-1930s corporate supremacy. This is a direct special-interest assault on workaday Americans and on the very idea of America.
Lisa Graves, a corporate watchdog and advocate of fair courts, reminds us that "the choice of who interprets the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our land is every bit as important as electing those who make the laws in the first place." The moneyed elites figured this out years ago and have captured the top court. Now, democracy champions must free it from their corporate grip.
The Alliance for Justice was founded in the wake of the infamous Powell Memo urging corporate titans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "to weaponize the courts to serve business interests." AFJ is a national association of more than 120 organizations working to secure confirmation of "highly qualified, fair-minded, and diverse federal judges." afj.org
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Usurping the fundamental rights of women to control their own bodies.
Authorizing corporate giants to buy our elections.
Nullifying the right of organizers to talk to workers about unionizing.
Today's tightly knit Republican majority on the court did not come together by happenstance--and certainly not because any one of them was the brightest, most fair-minded choice in the land.
Who is rigging America's legal system against workaday people? The Supreme Court's right-wing extremists, that's who. Just a handful of aloof, unelected judges have been turning what's supposed to be a citadel of justice into an unrestrained political instrument for instituting autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic power over us. If that sounds like a coup, it is! A slow-motion power grab has quietly been underway for years, with a core group of corporate billionaires and far-right political operatives working (with practically no media exposure) to stack federal and state courts with partisan activists.
There's even a smoking gun revealing the origins of the plot. It's a confidential memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written in 1971 by Lewis Powell--at the time a rich corporate lawyer, consigliere for Big Tobacco and a Phillip Morris board member.
In his memo, Powell lamented that the likes of Ralph Nader were getting media coverage and legislative action by accusing upstanding corporate citizens (like cigarette makers) of profiteering from wrongdoings such as intentionally selling dangerous products. Powell wailed that poor little corporate America wasn't getting the respect it deserved from lawmakers, nor did it have its fair share of power over the nation's political system. You can practically hear Powell sobbing when he concludes that "with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the 'forgotten man.'"
Never mind that he made this absurd plea for pity at a time the presidency itself was infamously known as Nixon Incorporated, with a cadre of corporate functionaries literally running whole segments of the U.S. government! But absurdity was no barrier to Powell's grand ideological determination not only to increase the influence of those "forgotten" executives, but to return to pre-New Deal days when their ilk was the supreme, domineering force over America's government, economy and society. To get there, Powell's memo proposed a novel point of attack he labelled "Neglected Opportunity in the Courts."
He noted that "with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change"--by which he meant structural changes that empower moneyed interests over workers, consumers, et al. Powell proceeds to specify judicial maneuvers for the Chamber and its big funders, conceding that the aggressive offensive "would require far more generous financial support from American corporations. ... But the opportunity merits the necessary effort."
Just two months after Powell sent his memo, Nixon awarded him a seat on the Supreme Court. Although few Americans have ever heard of him, Powell spent the next 15 years on the bench advancing corporate power over us, including writing a 1978 opinion that Roberts and Co. used 32 years later to justify their Citizens United decree.
But there's much more to this plutocratic attempt to capture the courts than one lawyer's how-to blueprint. After all, a memo is not a coup. Indeed, it has taken a concerted, surreptitious, two-decade campaign by a consortium of laissez-faire ideologues, dark-money billionaire funders, secretive front groups, top GOP politicos and many lies by Supreme Court nominees to "operationalize" Powell's memo.
Today's tightly knit Republican majority on the court did not come together by happenstance--and certainly not because any one of them was the brightest, most fair-minded choice in the land. All were hand-picked by the consortium and escorted to third-branch rule specifically because they could be counted on the use their lifetime appointments to make our laws accord with the GOP's right-wing agenda and to return to their imagined ideal of the grand old days of pre-1930s corporate supremacy. This is a direct special-interest assault on workaday Americans and on the very idea of America.
Lisa Graves, a corporate watchdog and advocate of fair courts, reminds us that "the choice of who interprets the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our land is every bit as important as electing those who make the laws in the first place." The moneyed elites figured this out years ago and have captured the top court. Now, democracy champions must free it from their corporate grip.
The Alliance for Justice was founded in the wake of the infamous Powell Memo urging corporate titans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "to weaponize the courts to serve business interests." AFJ is a national association of more than 120 organizations working to secure confirmation of "highly qualified, fair-minded, and diverse federal judges." afj.org
Usurping the fundamental rights of women to control their own bodies.
Authorizing corporate giants to buy our elections.
Nullifying the right of organizers to talk to workers about unionizing.
Today's tightly knit Republican majority on the court did not come together by happenstance--and certainly not because any one of them was the brightest, most fair-minded choice in the land.
Who is rigging America's legal system against workaday people? The Supreme Court's right-wing extremists, that's who. Just a handful of aloof, unelected judges have been turning what's supposed to be a citadel of justice into an unrestrained political instrument for instituting autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic power over us. If that sounds like a coup, it is! A slow-motion power grab has quietly been underway for years, with a core group of corporate billionaires and far-right political operatives working (with practically no media exposure) to stack federal and state courts with partisan activists.
There's even a smoking gun revealing the origins of the plot. It's a confidential memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, written in 1971 by Lewis Powell--at the time a rich corporate lawyer, consigliere for Big Tobacco and a Phillip Morris board member.
In his memo, Powell lamented that the likes of Ralph Nader were getting media coverage and legislative action by accusing upstanding corporate citizens (like cigarette makers) of profiteering from wrongdoings such as intentionally selling dangerous products. Powell wailed that poor little corporate America wasn't getting the respect it deserved from lawmakers, nor did it have its fair share of power over the nation's political system. You can practically hear Powell sobbing when he concludes that "with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the 'forgotten man.'"
Never mind that he made this absurd plea for pity at a time the presidency itself was infamously known as Nixon Incorporated, with a cadre of corporate functionaries literally running whole segments of the U.S. government! But absurdity was no barrier to Powell's grand ideological determination not only to increase the influence of those "forgotten" executives, but to return to pre-New Deal days when their ilk was the supreme, domineering force over America's government, economy and society. To get there, Powell's memo proposed a novel point of attack he labelled "Neglected Opportunity in the Courts."
He noted that "with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change"--by which he meant structural changes that empower moneyed interests over workers, consumers, et al. Powell proceeds to specify judicial maneuvers for the Chamber and its big funders, conceding that the aggressive offensive "would require far more generous financial support from American corporations. ... But the opportunity merits the necessary effort."
Just two months after Powell sent his memo, Nixon awarded him a seat on the Supreme Court. Although few Americans have ever heard of him, Powell spent the next 15 years on the bench advancing corporate power over us, including writing a 1978 opinion that Roberts and Co. used 32 years later to justify their Citizens United decree.
But there's much more to this plutocratic attempt to capture the courts than one lawyer's how-to blueprint. After all, a memo is not a coup. Indeed, it has taken a concerted, surreptitious, two-decade campaign by a consortium of laissez-faire ideologues, dark-money billionaire funders, secretive front groups, top GOP politicos and many lies by Supreme Court nominees to "operationalize" Powell's memo.
Today's tightly knit Republican majority on the court did not come together by happenstance--and certainly not because any one of them was the brightest, most fair-minded choice in the land. All were hand-picked by the consortium and escorted to third-branch rule specifically because they could be counted on the use their lifetime appointments to make our laws accord with the GOP's right-wing agenda and to return to their imagined ideal of the grand old days of pre-1930s corporate supremacy. This is a direct special-interest assault on workaday Americans and on the very idea of America.
Lisa Graves, a corporate watchdog and advocate of fair courts, reminds us that "the choice of who interprets the U.S. Constitution and the laws of our land is every bit as important as electing those who make the laws in the first place." The moneyed elites figured this out years ago and have captured the top court. Now, democracy champions must free it from their corporate grip.
The Alliance for Justice was founded in the wake of the infamous Powell Memo urging corporate titans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "to weaponize the courts to serve business interests." AFJ is a national association of more than 120 organizations working to secure confirmation of "highly qualified, fair-minded, and diverse federal judges." afj.org
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.