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
alabama
Secretary Buttigieg, Act Now to Secure Justice for Shiloh Before Trump Takes Charge
I doubt you would want your legacy to read, “USDOT Secretary Pete let the Black Shiloh community and homeowners drown.”
Nov 18, 2024
Dear Secretary Pete Buttigieg,
I understand you and your top-level appointed officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation are preparing to leave their positions given the results of the November 5 elections. Again, I am pleading with you to fully resolve the highway flooding problem and secure the funds for binding commitments to cover flood damages to homes, businesses, and property in Elba, Alabama’s historically Black Shiloh community before the Biden-Harris administration comes to an end on January 20, 2025. We have two months to get justice for the Shiloh community. Let’s not fail them. Remember, they have been flooded for six-plus years.
Again, the matter of highway flooding in my hometown of Elba is no stranger to you and the USDOT. On February 27 this year, the Bullard Center sponsored a small delegation of Shiloh leaders to meet with Assistant Secretary Christopher Coes and high-level USDOT officials in Washington, D.C. And on April 3 of this year, you and several high-ranking members of your staff, including Assistant Secretary Coes and Federal Highway Administrator Shailen Bhatt (who has already left FHWA), participated in our “Journey to Justice” tour of the Shiloh community, talked with flood impacted residents, and saw firsthand the devastation left behind by six-plus years of highway flooding. It’s not a pretty picture—a shameful and dark reminder of misuse and abuse of federal transportation tax dollars.
Yes, racism created the highway flooding problem in Shiloh and it will require environmental justice to fix it.
Through no action or fault of their own, Shiloh residents are helpless as their beloved community becomes a small lake after a rainstorm—all due to racism, reckless design, and expansion of U.S. Highway 84 (that began in 2018 by the Alabama Department of Transportation or ALDOT) under the first Trump administration USDOT. And worse, lack of government response to the Shiloh residents’ complaints about flooding and damage to their homes and property add to growing mistrust of government—including restrictive covenants ALDOT attached to residents’ deeds and an unconscionable property settlement agreement that limits the ability of current and future residents to file actions against the state. The persistent flooding is also responsible for causing residents to lose homeowners insurance coverage, making them even more vulnerable to future economic losses due to climate change.
There is an abundance of documentation and irrefutable evidence to show flooding was not a problem in Shiloh before the Alabama DOT (ALDOT) widened U.S. 84 from two lanes to four lanes and elevated it, placing the once-flat land in the Shiloh community in a bowl and forcing stormwater downhill to flood its residents. To understand this highway flooding problem, one need not be a highway planner, engineer, hydrologist, or lawyer. It’s common-sense knowledge that gravity is forcing water downhill—in this case forcing highway stormwater into the Shiloh community.
By applying the widely accepted “polluter pays principle,” it’s clear who caused the problem and where the responsibility for addressing the flooding problem rests. ALDOT caused highway flooding in the Shiloh community and should be tasked with fixing the highway and required to pay for the damages and losses suffered by the Shiloh home, business, and property owners.
The hard-working Shiloh residents deserve better. They should not have their hard-earned tax dollars used to build a highway project that’s destroying their community and stealing their inheritance and intergenerational wealth. It would be shameful and immoral to allow the flooding problem in Shiloh to carry over into the second Trump administration, when it could be fully resolved on your watch under the Biden administration. I doubt you would want your legacy to read, “USDOT Secretary Pete let the Black Shiloh community and homeowners drown.” Yes, racism created the highway flooding problem in Shiloh and it will require environmental justice to fix it.
The October 4 Voluntary Resolution Agreement (VRA) between FHWA and ALDOT was reached on a civil rights discrimination complaint filed by Shiloh homeowners against the tate agency more than two years ago. The VRA represents binding commitments to fix the highway stormwater drainage system. It’s understandable why Shiloh residents see the VRA only as a partial civil rights victory, since the agreement does nothing to resolve or compensate residents for property losses or damaged homes and businesses. This is a textbook example of highway robbery. A just solution requires putting in place binding commitments to fully compensate Shiloh residents for more than six-plus years of flood losses and damages to their homes, businesses, and property, and offering voluntary buyouts and relocation for those who seek it. That’s the just, fair, and equitable thing to do.
Again, it is important the VRA fix the highway stormwater drainage problem. And it is equally important that binding commitments and an agreement to address damaged homes, property, and businesses be reached before this administration ends because it is unlikely the next USDOT under a second Trump administration would be inclined to resolve highway flood damages and losses of Shiloh residents that were caused by ALDOT under the first Trump administration USDOT.
Finally, ALDOT caused the problem and ALDOT should be held accountable to pay for a comprehensive solution—not a “partial fix” as contained in the VRA. The pressure is mounting for Secretary Pete to act as the clock is ticking for you to step up and make the flooded Shiloh community residents whole before this administration’s time runs out for them on your watch. It’s the just thing to do and the right time to do it. And you need to act with the urgency of now! Let’s not have the record show “you left Black people in Shiloh to drown” on your watch.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Blocks Alabama's Election Eve Voter Purge
"This ruling strengthens our democracy by safeguarding access to the ballot for all eligible voters including naturalized citizens who were unfairly targeted and removed from the rolls," said one case litigant.
Oct 16, 2024
Citing a U.S. law prohibiting states from removing people from their registered voter lists within 90 days of an election, a U.S. federal judge on Wednesday ordered Alabama officials to pause a controversial voter roll purge until after next month's contest.
U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco—an appointee of former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee—wrote in her preliminary injunction that GOP Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by launching a campaign purportedly targeting "noncitizens registered to vote."
"Allen blew the [NVRA] deadline when he announced a purge program to begin 84 days before the 2024 general election," Manasco said, adding that the secretary of state "later admitted that his purge list included thousands of United States citizens (in addition to far fewer noncitizens, who are ineligible to vote), and in any event, referred everyone on the purge list to the Alabama attorney general for criminal investigation."
The Biden administration's Department of Justice, along with civil and voting rights groups, last month sued Allen and the state of Alabama over the policy's timing. Individual Alabama voters also filed suit claiming the purge targeted naturalized U.S. citizens.
Allen's program removed more than 3,000 people from Alabama's voter rolls and referred them for criminal prosecution. However, more than 2,000 targeted individuals have since been deemed eligible to vote. Manasco's ruling gave Alabama officials three days to restore the active status of all wrongfully purged voters.
Responding to the decision, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said that "this action sends a clear message that the Justice Department will work to ensure that the rights of eligible voters are protected."
"The National Voter Registration Act's 90-day 'quiet period provision' is an important safeguard to prevent erroneous eleventh-hour efforts that stand to disenfranchise eligible voters," Clarke added. "The Justice Department remains steadfast in our resolve to protect voters from unlawful removal from the registration rolls and to ensure that states comply with the mandate of federal law."
Litigants in the challenge to Allen's voter removal program also welcomed Wednesday's ruling.
"We are pleased with the court's swift action to protect Alabama voters from an unlawful purge and ensure they can fully participate in the upcoming elections," League of Women Voters of Alabama president Kathy Jones said in a statement following Manasco's decision. "This ruling strengthens our democracy by safeguarding access to the ballot for all eligible voters including naturalized citizens who were unfairly targeted and removed from the rolls."
Campaign Legal Center senior legal counsel Kate Huddleston said: "No U.S. citizen should be afraid to vote, and we are proud to have defended Alabamians ahead of the upcoming election. Today's court decision helps protect Alabama citizens' freedom to register and vote without concerns about government interference or intimidation."
Janette McCarthy Wallace, general counsel at the NAACP, noted that "for over 115 years, the NAACP has been fighting for the right to vote," and while "the suppression tactics may look different... the intent remains the same—silencing Black and other vulnerable voices."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Seeks Biden Admin Opinion on Climate Suits Against Big Oil
Republican attorneys general are engaged in what one critic called "an obvious attempt to shield fossil fuel companies from facing accountability for their climate lies."
Oct 08, 2024
In yet another recent display of what's at stake in this year's U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday requested that the Biden administration weigh in on a case intended to thwart climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.
The justices invited U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar—an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden who represents the federal government in court—to file a brief "expressing the views of the United States" regarding Alabama v. California.
In May, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and 18 of his Republican colleagues launched their bid to block lawsuits that several Democrat-led states including California have brought against energy giants for deceiving the public while fueling the global climate emergency. Multiple U.S. municipalities have filed similar suits against Big Oil.
Although justices have rejected the oil and gas industry's efforts to shift those suits from state to federal court, six of them are right-wingers with a record of anti-environment rulings. A spokesperson for Marshall toldReuters that the new request of Prelogar is "an encouraging sign that the justices are taking seriously the complaint of 19 states."
"Communities deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable."
Meanwhile, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), took aim at the Alabama-led case, saying in a statement that "this meritless, politically driven request is an obvious attempt to shield fossil fuel companies from facing accountability for their climate lies and the monumental damage they're causing."
"It should be a no-brainer for the solicitor general to oppose this petition and for the Supreme Court to reject it," he added. "Communities deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable."
Wiles responded similarly in June, when the Supreme Court asked Prelogar to weigh in on a case brought by the City and County of Honolulu.
Alyssa Johl, CCI's vice president of legal and general counsel, said at the time that "lawsuits like Honolulu's are not seeking to solve climate change or regulate emissions—these plaintiffs simply want Big Oil to stop lying and pay their fair share of the damages they knowingly caused. The solicitor general should make clear that federal laws do not preempt the ability of communities to hold companies accountable for their deceptive claims under state law."
Reuters pointed out Monday that Prelogar has not yet filed a brief in that case, but has some history with these suits:
The Democratic-led states have noted that the Supreme Court has previously rejected bids by oil companies to move several such lawsuits to federal court, after numerous U.S. appeals courts said the claims are not preempted by federal law.
Prelogar had weighed in on that issue as well and had successfully urged the justices to reject the oil companies' appeals.
Although it's not yet clear where the Biden administration will come down on either of these cases—and the U.S. Department of Justice has infamously fought a climate suit that youth plaintiffs filed against the federal government—the high court's move comes less than a month away from a presidential election in which the fossil fuel-driven global emergency is a divisive issue.
The Republican nominee, former Republican President Donald Trump, has pledged to roll back the Biden administration's insufficient yet historic progress on climate policy if the fossil fuel industry pours $1 billion into his campaign.
His Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, is facing some criticism for watering down her previous climate policies but also had broad support from green groups, including some that had declined to endorse Biden before he dropped out and endorsed her in July.
Some climate campaigners and survivors of extreme weather events hope that Harris' election in November will lead to the Department of Justice launching a criminal case against fossil fuel companies, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called for in May after conducting a three-year congressional investigation.
Harris is "the perfect person to prosecute the case against Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn wrote in a Common Dreams opinion piece this summer. As California's attorney general, she "went after ConocoPhillips (the company behind the Willow Project in Alaska) for air quality violations at their gas stations and prosecuted a pipeline company for a 2015 spill in Santa Barbara. Before that, as San Francisco district attorney, she set up the city's first environmental justice division."
While many names have been floated as Harris' potential pick for attorney general, some climate advocates have recently urged her to pick Raskin to lead the Department of Justice. As progressive organizer Aaron Regunberg wrote for The New Republic in August, "Who better to ensure the DOJ stops bowing to fossil fuel industry pressure than the head of the House Oversight Committee's push to hold Big Oil accountable?"
Regardless of which cases are filed and how far they go, concerns remain about conflicts of interests in the courts, particularly at the highest level of the federal judiciary.
Justice Samuel Alito "has recused himself from Honolulu and other climate accountability cases—likely because of his investments in oil companies," CCI highlighted on social media Monday. "But today he did not recuse himself from the request from 19 Republican AGs to block lawsuits against Big Oil."
"Justice Amy Coney Barrett has also faced calls to recuse herself from cases against Big Oil because her father was a top attorney for Shell for 29 years," the group added. "But she has not."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular