SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 03 2015, 04:00pm EDT
Wednesday June, 03 2015, 04:00pm EDT
Contact:
Chris Eaton, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9616, ceaton@earthjustice.org
Robin Silver, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 345-5708, rsilver@biologicaldiversity.org
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 253-8633, sandy.bahr@sierraclub.org
Kati Schmidt, National Parks Conservation Association: 415-847-1767, kschmidt@npca.org
More Than 200,000 People Urge Forest Service to Reject Mega-development Near Grand Canyon
Public Overwhelmingly Opposes Threat to National Treasure
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. - More than 200,000 people flooded the U.S. Forest Service with comments over the last month calling for the agency to reject a plan for roads and infrastructure that would enable construction of a mega-development on the Grand Canyon's doorstep.
The proposed roads, sewers and other utilities would pave the way for a multinational developer to transform the 580-resident community of Tusayan, Ariz., from a small, quiet tourist town into a sprawling complex of high-end homes, retail stores and restaurants only a mile from the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. The development threatens groundwater that feeds the Grand Canyon's creeks, springs and seeps, endangering some of the park's most important and biodiverse wildlife habitat.
The outpouring of public opposition included that from business owners in Tusayan and nearby Flagstaff, a former Coconino County development director, a former Grand Canyon National Park superintendent, outdoor enthusiasts, and thousands of park visitors who want to keep the experience of visiting the Grand Canyon unmarred by a massive commercial development. The Department of the Interior warned that the massive development was raising international concerns over the potential harm to Grand Canyon, a World Heritage Site.
"Building a massive sprawling development at the gateway to Grand Canyon threatens the very things that the park was established to protect -- the waters, wildlife, dark skies and opportunities to experience natural quiet," said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "That is why thousands of people here in Arizona and across the country are asking the Forest Service to reject this proposal."
Commenters also noted that the project would increase car and plane traffic and light and noise pollution in Grand Canyon National Park. The National Park Service has called the project one of the biggest threats to the park in its nearly 100-year history.
"The Grand Canyon is one of our most beloved and iconic national parks -- a sentiment that reverberated in messages of opposition sent by our members, supporters, and partners in Arizona and across the country," said David Nimkin, southeast senior regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "Water is a precious resource in the park and throughout the West, and we call on the Forest Service to recognize the resources in Grand Canyon and the nearby Havasu Canyon that would be jeopardized, and reject this proposal."
Earthjustice, on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a letter urging the Forest Service to reject the proposal or, at a minimum, to prepare a full environmental impact statement disclosing the impacts of the massive development on water, wildlife, air quality, traffic, crime and other resources and factors.
"The flood of opposition to this project shows that the public doesn't want Grand Canyon's unparalleled natural values given away to developers hoping to cash in on its popularity," said Chris Eaton, an Earthjustice attorney.
"The local, national and international communities have spoken, and the message is clear -- this development doesn't belong next to Grand Canyon," said Robin Silver, a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Now it's up to the Forest Service to act in the public interest and reject this proposal"
The comments and signatures included nearly 200,000 from members and supporters of conservation and advocacy groups including more than: 52,000 from the Center for Biological Diversity; 55,000 from Earthjustice; 13,000 from the National Parks Conservation Association; 30,000 from the Sierra Club; and 50,000 from the activist website RootsAction.org.
The Forest Service will review the public's comments over the next month or two and then decide whether to reject the application outright, proceed with a minimal "environmental assessment" with little public review, or prepare a more rigorous environmental impact statement. An environmental assessment would likely take up to a year to complete; an impact statement would take twice that long.
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) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Trump-Appointed Judge Rules White House Can't Retaliate Against AP Over Gulf of Mexico Dispute
A spokesperson for the news agency said the ruling "affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation."
Apr 08, 2025
A federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot cut off The Associated Press' access to the Republican leader because of the news agency's refusal to use his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico.
"About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president," wrote Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who is based in Washington, D.C.
Specifically, according to the news outlet, "the AP has been blocked since February 11 from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room."
The AP responded to the restrictions by suing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint," McFadden noted in his 41-page order. "Today, the court grants that relief."
The judge explained that "this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the president or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."
"The court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he stressed. "The Constitution requires no less."
McFadden blocked his own order from taking effect before next week, giving the Trump administration time to respond or appeal. Still, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said Tuesday that "we are gratified by the court's decision."
"Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation," Easton added. "This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."
NPRreported that "an AP reporter and photographer were turned back from joining a reporting pool on a presidential motorcade early Tuesday evening, almost two hours after the decision came down."
ACLU Sues to Block Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the lawsuit asserts.
Apr 08, 2025
The ACLU and allied groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a bid to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from "abusing the Alien Enemies Act"—an 18th-century law only ever invoked during wartime—to deport foreign nationals to a prison in El Salvador with allegedly rampant human rights abuses.
According to a statement, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union, "in partnership with the Legal Aid Society whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation, filed an emergency lawsuit this morning in federal court in New York to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court's judicial district."
The lawsuit—which names Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials as plaintiffs—follows Monday's 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that largely reversed a lower court's decision blocking the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador.
BREAKING: Today the NYCLU and @aclu.org filed an emergency lawsuit to ensure the Trump administration does not deport people under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country.
— NYCLU (@nyclu.org) April 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
While the high court said the Trump administration can resume deportations under the 1798 AEA, the justices included the caveat that people subject to such removals must be afforded due process under the law.
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the ACLU argued in the new lawsuit. "It cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States."
Not only has Trump sent foreign nationals—including at least one wrongfully deported man—to CECOT, he has also floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens there at the invitation of right-wing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who is scheduled to visit the White House next week.
This, despite widespread reports of serious human rights violations at the facility and throughout El Salvador in general.
ICE-IRS Deal Blasted as 'Bad Policy. Bad Economics. And Cruel.'
"The administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk," said one critic.
Apr 08, 2025
Migrant and privacy rights advocates this week are sounding the alarm over a deal signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to hand sensitive taxpayer data over to immigration authorities as part of U.S. President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement's efforts to combat illegal immigration," a Treasury Department spokesperson toldFox News, which reported on the development after a late Monday court filing.
"The bases for this MOU are founded in long-standing authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals," the spokesperson said. "After four years of [former President] Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump's highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people."
After weeks of warnings about a potential data transfer deal, it was revealed as part of a legal case brought by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Inclusive Action for the City, and Somos Un Pueblo Unido, which are represented by Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and Raise the Floor Alliance.
"Taxpayer privacy is a cornerstone of the U.S. tax system," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a Tuesday statement. "This move by the IRS is an unprecedented breach of taxpayer privacy laws and confidentiality, which has been respected by both political parties for decades."
"The Trump administration's terror tactic of using immigrants' tax data against them will drive some of our most vulnerable communities further underground," she warned. "If this taxpayer information isn't safe from the prying eyes of the Trump administration's goons, then no one's taxpayer information is safe."
Juliette Kayyem, a former Department of Homeland Security official now lecturing at the Harvard Kennedy School, wrote on social media: "Bad policy. Bad economics. And cruel. They are so desperate to get their deportation numbers up that they are doing this."
Multiple members of Congress also blasted the move. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said that "the IRS should NEVER be weaponized to target immigrant families. This backdoor deal with ICE shatters decades of trust—and may be illegal."
"I will fight this with everything I've got," vowed Gomez, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. "No one should fear that filing taxes puts their family at risk."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) was among the critics who emphasized that the MOU doesn't just affect migrants.
"First things first: The impact of folks not filing their taxes because they are afraid of deportation would be detrimental to our economy," he explained. "Two: Immigrants pay taxes but do not benefit from the social programs that most taxpayers do. Three: Everyone should be concerned about the privacy implications here. This sets the precedent that the federal government can arbitrarily share your personal information with law enforcement. And it's just wrong."
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) similarly said: "For decades, undocumented immigrants have trusted the IRS when it encouraged them to file. They've paid taxes in good faith, contributing nearly $100 BILLION per year and supporting social services they can't even access. Not only is this a total betrayal, but it's also illegal. We'll fight this."
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy also highlighted that "turning the IRS away from its job (collecting taxes) to instead focus on mass deportation efforts will mean less tax revenue collected on top of the harm done to families and communities affected by deportations."
In response to The New York Times' reporting on the deal, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick pointed out on social media that the MOU "is, on its face, limited to criminal investigations (not deportation investigations)."
"There are many questions raised about this new [agreement], which seems to violate previous understandings of the laws requiring IRS not to share taxpayer information," he continued. "But at its heart it does not seem that the MOU permits ICE to ask for taxpayer data for deportation reasons."
"It seems primarily to be aimed at criminal investigations for willful failure to depart after the issuance of a removal order, a crime on the books which (until now) is virtually never prosecuted," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Despite the fact that this MOU is limited only to criminal law enforcement, it will likely have a chilling effect on undocumented taxpayers."
How the Trump administration actually proceeds remains to be seen. The court filing says no information has been shared between the agenices yet—but the deal comes as part of a wave of anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric from the president and his officials.
"With the Supreme Court greenlighting Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act and the administration now gaining access to sensitive IRS data, we continue to slip into a new era of authoritarianism in America," Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub, said a Tuesday statement "The digital and physical dragnets that Trump is building mean millions of immigrants—many of whom have followed the law and paid their taxes for decades—are now vulnerable to indiscriminate brutality and quiet erasure with little opportunity for redress."
Lopez stressed that "undocumented immigrants already contribute billions to our economy—often paying a higher effective tax rate than 55 major corporations and some of the wealthiest individuals in America. By weaponizing private taxpayer data, the administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk."
"Coupled with Trump's xenophobic tariff threats and a $350 billion demand to fund mass disappearances and deportations, this is more than an attack on immigrants—it's a calculated effort to destabilize the country and remake its image," she concluded. "Congress must reject this funding and the authoritarian playbook behind it. This is not policy. It's punishment."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.