![Brennan Center for Justice](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012660/origin.jpg)
Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, 212-998-6289
Susan Lehman, 212-998-6318
FOIA Lawsuit Seeks Bush-Era DOJ Opinion
Today, the Brennan Center for Justice is filing a
federal lawsuit to compel release of a long-suppressed Bush-era legal opinion;
the opinion in question purportedly acknowledges that a federal law -- which
requires organizations receiving federal grants for HIV/AIDS work to pledge
opposition to prostitution -- may be unconstitutional.
The opinion was drafted in 2004 by the Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) housed within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Today, the Brennan Center for Justice is filing a
federal lawsuit to compel release of a long-suppressed Bush-era legal opinion;
the opinion in question purportedly acknowledges that a federal law -- which
requires organizations receiving federal grants for HIV/AIDS work to pledge
opposition to prostitution -- may be unconstitutional.
The opinion was drafted in 2004 by the Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) housed within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The "pledge requirement" (22 U.S.C. SS 7631(f)) requires
organizations to vow opposition to prostitution. The nonprofit community
opposes the law because it hampers their HIV/AIDS prevention work with
prostitutes and others vulnerable to the pandemic.
"This couldn't be more relevant," said Rebekah Diller,
Deputy Director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program. "The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is currently deciding how to
enforce the pledge requirement. If it is unconstitutional, this would moot this
question and leave HHS with more time in which to do their important health
care work."
The opinion sought in today's Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request was issued in February 2004 but was not publically disclosed. It
purportedly states that the Constitution bars federal agencies from enforcing
the pledge requirement against U.S. organizations. In September 2004, OLC
withdrew that opinion in a letter that said "reasonable arguments" support the
statute's constitutionality.
The impetus for the FOIA request was a lawsuit, Alliance
for Open Society International v. USAID, that challenged the statute. The
Judge in that case enjoined enforcement against most U.S. organizations pending
a final ruling in the case.
"Release of any document that indicates the Bush Justice
Department viewed the pledge requirement as unconstitutional would further
illuminate the role political pressure played in OLC's September 2004
letter and in other legally questionable OLC memos, including those on torture
and rendition. Together, these documents provide a jarring insight into the way
the Bush Justice Department bent the rule of law for ideological
reasons," said Laura Abel, Deputy Director of the Brennan Center's
Justice Program.
In 2005, the Brennan Center requested the undisclosed
opinion from DOJ, HHS and the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID). The agencies repeatedly denied these requests, citing the
"deliberative process privilege" -- which sometimes protects documents
containing an agency's internal communications.
The Brennan Center complaint shows that this privilege is
inapplicable here, because HHS and USAID acknowledged reliance on the
undisclosed opinion when they refrained from enforcing the pledge requirement
against U.S. nonprofits in 2004 and 2005.
For more information, or to arrange an interview with
Rebekah Diller or Laura Abel, please contact Jeanine Plant-Chirlin at
212-998-6289 or Jeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310Trump's Pick of Vance Shows GOP 'Will Stop at Nothing to Ban All Abortion' in US
"A Trump-Vance administration will be the most dangerous administration for abortion and reproductive freedom in this country’s history."
Reproductive rights advocates are warning that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's selection of U.S. Senator JD Vance of Ohio as his running mate proves that "a Trump administration will stop at nothing to ban all abortion" at the federal level, as one leader said.
"Make no mistake, Trump picked him because of—not in spite of—his anti-abortion bona fides," said Mini Timmaraju, the group's president and CEO, in response to Monday's announcement. "A Trump-Vance administration will be the most dangerous administration for abortion and reproductive freedom in this country's history. We must re-elect President Biden and Vice President Harris to not only restore our rights but to safeguard our democracy."
With Vance saying in 2022 that he supports a "minimum national standard" for an abortion ban and arguing that "two wrongs don't make a right" when explaining why he doesn't believe a person who survives rape or incest should be permitted to terminate a resulting pregnancy, Reproductive Freedom for All said it's clear the vice presidential nominee would continue working "in lockstep with extremist Republican" to ban abortion care nationwide.
As U.S. voters have resoundingly shown their support for abortion rights following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022—with traditionally red states like Kansas and Kentucky among those that have rejected efforts to restrict abortion—Trump and the GOP have recently attempted to portray themselves as "moderating" their views on the matter in recent months.
In April Trump declined to publicly endorse a nationwide 15-week abortion ban, saying the issue of abortion rights should be decided by "the law of the state," while the GOP platform released last week omitted a section calling for a nationwide ban—efforts that reproductive rights groups warned should not allay fears about the party's actual views on abortion care.
Advocates said Vance's own voting history and positions have clearly exposed how a second Trump administration would govern on reproductive freedom.
Shortly after Trump announced his vice presidential pick, The Lever reported on an effort Vance embarked on last year to rescind a federal privacy rule barring police from accessing the medical records of people who seek abortions.
The Biden administration introduced the rule in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for 14 states to ban abortion care. The rule is aimed at stopping police in anti-abortion states from tracking down people who have crossed state lines to receive care and prosecuting them.
As The Lever noted, the right-wing political agenda Project 2025, which Vance has said contains "good ideas," calls for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to "ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method."
Vance joined 28 other GOP lawmakers last year in pushing HHS to withdraw the privacy rule, and would likely help bring that effort to fruition if he and Trump win the November election.
The senator's opposition to the right to privacy for patients who obtain abortions is a "five-alarm fire," said Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of progressive advocacy group Indivisible.
Vance recently has attempted to distance himself from his own extreme views on abortion, saying last year that Americans "do not want blanket abortion bans" and that laws must include exceptions to protect the life of a pregnant patient. He has also been denounced by some in the pro-forced pregnancy movement for saying he supports access to mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortions.
But Indivisible urged voters to see for themselves how Vance describes his views on the matter on his official website, where he states that "abortion has turned our country into a place where we see children as an inconvenience to be thrown away."
Reproductive Freedom for All added that Vance dodged a question in December 2023 about whether he is among the Republican lawmakers who oppose access to birth control.
In June, Vance voted against a bill to affirm that Americans have the right to seek in vitro fertilization—yet attacks on people who do not have children have become a key talking point for the senator. He has criticized the "childless left" and said politicians including Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Vice President Kamala Harris—who don't have biological children of their own—do not "have a direct stake in the future of the country."
"J.D. Vance is an extremist weirdo who just blocked a bill to protect IVF and suggested in his book that people should stay in violent marriages for the sake of their kids," said Evergreen Action organizer Courtney Bourgoin after the selection was made public. "Yes, Trump 2.0 would be far worse than the first time."
As Prime Day Begins, Sanders Report Finds 'Incredibly Dangerous' Conditions at Amazon
"Amazon continues to treat its workers as disposable and with complete contempt for their safety and wellbeing," Sen. Bernie Sanders said.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday released a report on the high levels of injuries at Amazon warehouses, especially during sales periods, as the tech giant launched its annual Prime Day discount event.
The report shows that during Prime Day in 2019, one of the last years for which data was available, more than 10% of Amazon's U.S. warehouse workers suffered injuries that required federal disclosure, and more than 45% endured injuries recorded internally by the company.
The company takes in billions of dollars in revenues during its two-day Prime Day sale every year.
"The incredibly dangerous working conditions at Amazon revealed in this investigation are a perfect example of the type of corporate greed that the American people are sick and tired of," Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), said in a statement.
"Amazon continues to treat its workers as disposable and with complete contempt for their safety and wellbeing," he added. "That is unacceptable and that has got to change. Amazon must be held accountable for the horrendous working conditions at its warehouses and substantially reduce its injury rates."
Incredibly, during Prime Day week in 2019, nearly 45% of Amazon's warehouse workers were injured. Amazon is a $2 trillion corporation owned by Jeff Bezos worth $215 billion. Corporate greed at Amazon is off the charts. It must be held accountable. pic.twitter.com/tP1zVKtaDY
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 16, 2024
As HELP chair, Sanders launched an investigation into Amazon warehouse safety issues in June 2023, and the new report marks its interim findings, based on internal records that the company shared with the committee and interviews with over 100 workers.
Amazon's recordable injury rate, which it reports to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has gone down in the last few years, but the report's authors question the reliability of that data. They point to a "documented history" of "failing to record injuries and illnesses" and "misclassifying injuries and illnesses," as per federal and state citations that the company has received.
Amazon made $12.7 billion in sales on 375 million products on Prime Day in 2023. The crush of orders during such discount periods, combined with what the report calls "regularly understaffed" warehouses, places huge burdens on employees, one of whom reported working back-to-back 12 hour shifts with only a seven hour break in between.
Another Amazon worker reported having to process twice as many packages as normal at their stations. A third employee said that the Prime Day rush caused management, in its focus on maximizing sales, to install a conveyor belt that didn't automatically stop when there was a jam, which led packages to overload and fall off when jams inevitably occurred. Workers were instructed to keep piling more packages on the belt even as jammed packages, some weighing as much as 50 pounds, piled up around other workers.
A 2021 investigation by The Washington Post found that injury rates at Amazon warehouses were significantly higher than those at other companies and peaked on Prime Day and holidays. Muscle sprains, rotator cuff injuries, and herniated disks are among the types of workplace injuries that warehouse workers face.
Amazon's critics argue that the workplace surveillance measures, which allow the company to control workers' physical movements and limit any "time off task," also contribute to increased injuries.
Sanders is not the only government official looking into Amazon's workplace safety record. OSHA, part of the Labor Department, has repeatedly cited Amazon for putting workers at risk of injuries such as sprains, strains, and carpal tunnel syndrome. In 2022, Washington state fined the company for the rushed pace of work, which it said put employees at risk. Last month, California fined the company $5.9 million for illegal use of productivity quotas in its warehouses.
The fines themselves are inconsequential for Amazon, which made $36 billion in profits last year and is valued at over $2 trillion, but workplace safety advocates hope the attention will lead to meaningful government action.
Several states have regulated the use of productivity quotas in recent years and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in May introduced legislation to do so at the federal level. The Biden administration is also taking on Amazon's monopoly power, with the Federal Trade Commission filing suit against the company last year.
In a statement to The Washington Post, an Amazon spokesperson dismissed the new report, arguing that "it draws sweeping and inaccurate conclusions based on unverified anecdotes, and it misrepresents documents that are several years old and contained factual errors and faulty analysis." The spokesperson also said that the report authors' suggestion that Amazon underreports injury levels was "false."
Puerto Rico Sues Oil Giants Over Decades of Climate Deception
One advocate said the island "has paid a terrible price for Big Oil's climate lies, and now officials are taking necessary action to hold these corporations accountable and make polluters pay for damages they knowingly caused."
Puerto Rico's secretary of justice on Monday filed a climate liability lawsuit against fossil fuel companies including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation, Shell, and TotalEnergies in the Court of First Instance of San Juan.
By filing the suit, which seeks at least $1 billion in compensation from the defendants, Domingo Emanuelli Hernández, the chief legal officer in the U.S. commonwealth, followed in the footsteps of dozens of U.S. municipal and state leaders.
"These companies have known internally for decades that greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel products would have adverse impacts on the global climate and sea level," Emanuelli said in a statement in Spanish. "Armed with that knowledge, they took steps to protect their own assets from climate damage and risks, through immense internal investment in research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new business opportunities in a warming world."
"However, they did not truthfully warn Puerto Rican consumers about the consequences of using and burning fossil fuels on the island, as well as their impact on the environment," he continued. "It is time for them to mitigate the damage they have caused to Puerto Rico and not let Puerto Ricans foot the bill."
Emanuelli now joins the attorneys general of the District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, who have all launched similar suits, and Michigan's AG, who is planning one. There are also several cases brought by municipalities, including one previously filed in Puerto Rico.
As E&E Newsreported Tuesday, "More than a dozen municipalities filed suit in 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asking the industry for compensation related to the 2017 hurricane season that killed thousands of people and left much of the island without power for nearly a year."
Scientists with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that 2023 was the hottest year in human history and 2024 is on track to continue that trend, with the January through June global surface temperature already ranked warmest in the 175-year record. NOAA has also warned that the current Atlantic hurricane season is expected to be "extraordinary."
Welcoming Emanuelli's new move to protect the Caribbean island, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Tuesday that "Puerto Rico has paid a terrible price for Big Oil's climate lies, and now officials are taking necessary action to hold these corporations accountable and make polluters pay for damages they knowingly caused."
"As communities suffer from more and more unnatural disasters fueled by Big Oil's climate deception, it's more important than ever for officials to stand up to the fossil fuel industry on behalf of their communities," he added. "The people of Puerto Rico deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable."
Along with civil climate suits filed by attorneys general and local leaders, some campaigners and lawmakers have demanded that the U.S. Department of Justice take legal action against fossil fuel companies—particularly given the recent findings of a three-year congressional probe.
As Common Dreamsreported last month, there is also a nascent movement in the United States urging prosecutors to consider hitting oil majors with criminal charges for deaths related to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.