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
constitutional rights
Safeguarding Free Speech and Protecting Civil Rights in America
This bill is not just a threat to pro-Palestinian organizations; it endangers any group that engages in dissent or challenges government policies.
Nov 18, 2024
Congress is once again attempting to silence pro-Palestinian voices and restrict free speech. After failing to secure a two-thirds majority last Tuesday, House leaders are bringing HR 9495 back for a vote today, attempting to pass it with a simple majority. It is deeply concerning that they are doubling down on this dangerous bill—one that would deal a severe blow to free speech and place pro-Palestinian nonprofits and other advocacy organizations in peril. We must unite to defeat this legislation.
Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire for retribution against those he perceives as adversaries. On the campaign trail, he has alluded to taking aggressive actions, joking about being a dictator on "day one" in office, pledging to jail journalists, and threatening to retaliate against political foes. As his return to the White House looms, Congress is moving to hand a Trump administration a powerful tool that could be wielded against ideological opponents in civil society.
Up for a potential new vote as early as today in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as HR 9495, would grant the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization." The bill's vague and overreaching language lacks clear definitions and safeguards, effectively empowering the federal government to investigate and penalize nonprofits based solely on their First Amendment-protected advocacy for human rights. This bill is not just a threat to pro-Palestinian organizations; it endangers any group that engages in dissent or challenges government policies.
The ramifications of HR 9495 are clear: if passed, this law could subject countless nonprofit organizations to harassment, investigation, and unjust penalties simply for engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected advocacy.
For me, this fight is deeply personal. Over 113 of my family members have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. This tragic loss has driven me to dedicate my life to advocating for peace, justice, and an end to the suffering that plagues the region. Yet, instead of honoring the rights of individuals who have lost loved ones to violence, Congress is attempting to silence us by pushing bills like HR 9495 that effectively criminalize our grief, our commitment to peace, and our calls for justice. Such legislation adds insult to injury and undermines the principles of freedom and democracy that America professes to uphold.
The ramifications of HR 9495 are clear: if passed, this law could subject countless nonprofit organizations to harassment, investigation, and unjust penalties simply for engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected advocacy. It sets a chilling precedent, blurring the line between political dissent and terrorism in ways that erode our democratic freedoms. By threatening to silence voices advocating for Palestinian human rights, Congress is betraying the constitutional values it claims to uphold, including freedom of speech, association, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Our elected officials must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations, regardless of political ideology or perspective. Now is the time to defend—not restrict—the essential rights that sustain our democracy.
HR 9495 would be a powerful tool to stifle crucial debate about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East if enacted. It would discourage honest conversations about our nation's role in impacting human rights abroad and inhibit the exchange of ideas necessary for a healthy democracy. For families like mine, this bill adds another layer of trauma—stripping us of the right to speak out about the suffering we have experienced firsthand. It sends a message that our pain is inconsequential and that advocating for peace and justice is unwelcome or, worse, punishable.
Historically, efforts to suppress dissent have never boded well for democracy. From the Red Scare to the Civil Rights Movement, we have seen the dangers of allowing the government to silence voices under the guise of national security. Such actions often lead to the marginalization of minority communities and the erosion of civil liberties for all. HR 9495 threatens to repeat these dark chapters of our history by giving the Treasury Department unchecked power without adequate oversight or accountability.
From the Red Scare to the Civil Rights Movement, we have seen the dangers of allowing the government to silence voices under the guise of national security.
We must ask ourselves: what kind of nation do we want to be? Do we want to uphold the principles of freedom and justice enshrined in our Constitution, or do we want to drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is punished and minority voices are suppressed? Advocating for peace should never be a crime, and punishing those who do so only deepens the injustices we strive to confront.
We urge members of Congress to reconsider this dangerous path and vote down HR 9495 and any similar legislation that may arise in the future. Our elected officials must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and organizations, regardless of political ideology or perspective. Now is the time to defend—not restrict—the essential rights that sustain our democracy. By defeating HR 9495, Congress can reaffirm our nation's commitment to justice, free speech, and the power of peaceful advocacy.
In addition to legislative action, we call upon civil society, community leaders, and everyday citizens to raise their voices against this bill. Contact your representatives, write to your local newspapers, and engage in peaceful demonstrations to show that we will not stand by while our rights are eroded. It is through action and solidarity that we can safeguard our collective freedoms.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic' Settlement With Youth Will Force Hawaiian Transit System to Speed Decarbonization
"I hope our case inspires youth to always use their voices to hold leaders accountable for the future they will inherit," said one plaintiff.
Jun 21, 2024
Days before a case brought by 13 young climate advocates in Hawaii was set to go to trial, the state's governor and Department of Transportation on Thursday announced an "unprecedented" settlement that will expedite the decarbonization of Hawaii's transit system—and formally "recognizes children's constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate."
The plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportationwere between the ages of 9 and 18 when they filed their case in 2022, alleging that the state government was violating their rights under the Hawaii Constitution by investing in fossil fuel-intensive infrastructure that would worsen the effects of the climate crisis.
The case is the first youth-led legal challenge addressing constitutional rights related to pollution from the transportation sector, and according to Earthjustice, which represented the plaintiffs along with Our Children's Trust, the settlement is the first agreement "of its kind, in which government defendants have decided to resolve a constitutional climate case in partnership with youth plaintiffs, committing to comprehensive changes" to reduce fossil fuel dependence and emissions.
Under the settlement, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) agreed to "plan and implement transformative changes of Hawaii's transportation system to achieve the state's legally established goal of net-negative emissions by 2045," said Earthjustice.
Specific actions the HDOT agreed to take include:
- Establishing a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan within one year;
- Creating a lead unit and responsible positions within HDOT to coordinate the mission of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction throughout the agency; oversee climate change mitigation and adaptation for the highways program; and ensure public highways are upgraded to be accessible for all users, ages, and abilities;
- Establishing a volunteer youth council to advise on HDOT's mitigation and adaptation commitments in the years to come;
- Improving its transportation infrastructure budgeting process to prioritize reduction of GHG and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transparently analyze and disclose the GHG and VMT impacts of each project and the overall program; and
- Making immediate, ambitious investments in clean transportation infrastructure.
The department agreed to complete pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks within five years, dedicating a minimum of $40 million to expanding the state's public electric vehicle charging stations by 2030.
Earthjustice credited HDOT Director Edwin Sniffen with taking "unprecedented leadership to negotiate a resolution and embrace the government's kuleana (responsibility) to lead the way on bold and broad climate action."
The Navahine youth plaintiffs, said Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, "activated the courts and inspired true democracy in action—all three branches of government committing to work together to do what needs to be done according to best available science, to safeguard their futures."
"Our courts are essential guardians of children's constitutional rights and empowered to protect the planet, but they rely on our collective engagement," said Olson. "Young people across the country and around the world will follow in [the plaintiffs'] footsteps, carrying the same values of care, defense, and love of the land to action."
The settlement was announced nearly a year after young climate advocates in Montana won another historic victory in a case arguing that the state had violated their constitutional rights by prioritizing fossil fuel projects.
Three federal judges who had been appointed by former President Donald Trump angered climate groups last month when they granted the Biden administration's request to dismiss Juliana v. United States, a case originally filed in 2015, which argues the U.S. government has violated the rights of children by continuing to support planet-heating fossil fuel extraction.
A judge in Hawaii last year dismissed the state's request to dismiss the Navahine case. Hawaii officials argued that state laws aimed at reducing carbon emissions were "aspirational" and could not be used in legal arguments claiming the state had violated children's rights.
"Transportation emissions are increasing and will increase at the rate we are going," Judge Jeffrey Crabtree of the O'ahu 1st Circuit Court said as he denied the state's request. "In other words, the alleged harms are not hypothetical or only in the future. They are current, ongoing, and getting worse."
Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, echoed Crabtree's words on Thursday as he announced the settlement.
"We're addressing the impacts of climate change today, and needless to say, this is a priority because we know now that climate change is here," Green said. "It is not something that we're considering in an abstract way in the future."
Andrea Rogers, deputy director of U.S. strategy for Our Children's Trust, said the "historic agreement offers a holistic roadmap for states and countries to follow around the world."
The partnership between the plaintiffs and the state, said a plaintiff identified as Rylee Brooke K., "marks a pivotal step towards preserving Hawaii for future generations—one that will have a ripple effect on the world."
"Being heard and moving forward in unity with the state to combat climate change is incredibly gratifying, and empowering," said Rylee. "I hope our case inspires youth to always use their voices to hold leaders accountable for the future they will inherit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Landmark Report, DOJ Finds Phoenix Police Violated Rights of Homeless
"This behavior is not only unlawful but conveys a lack of humanity and dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke.
Jun 14, 2024
"A person's constitutional rights do not diminish when they lack shelter," reads a landmark report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice, the result of a three-year investigation into the Phoenix Police Department.
The finding is nothing new to advocates for unhoused people who have spent years fighting overpolicing and police brutality against the population, but the report represents the first time the DOJ has found violations of the civil and constitutional rights of people who lack shelter.
The DOJ opened an investigation into the Phoenix Police Department (PhxPD) after complaints about excessive force by police, and pledged to do a full accounting of police violence and of discrimination against Black, Latino, and Native American residents.
Officials found that the overpolicing of Phoenix's unhoused population has become a "central pillar of PhxPD's enforcement strategy," despite the department's stated policy to "lead with services" and provide referrals to agencies that can help unhoused people with housing, healthcare, and other needs.
"Between January 2016 and March 2022, people who were homeless accounted for over one-third—37%—of all PhxPD misdemeanor arrests and citations," reads the report.
The DOJ found the PhxPD principally violated unhoused people's rights by detaining them without reasonable suspicion and by seizing their property without notice—violations of the residents' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Officers last year forcefully moved hundreds of people to a large homeless encampment called The Zone near Phoenix's Capitol complex, which was ultimately cleared last November following a lawsuit filed by neighboring residents.
The DOJ found the police put unhoused people in harm's way by forcing them to move to The Zone, where high rates of crime including sexual assault had been reported. The report also found the PhxPD unlawfully subjected unhoused people to citations and arrests for camping in public parks and other areas, with one man cited or arrested 20 times over three years.
"We found that unhoused people in Phoenix have suffered a pattern of unconstitutional conduct," said Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights. "Additionally, the city and the police department seize and destroy the property of homeless people without providing adequate notice or fair opportunity to collect their belongings. This behavior is not only unlawful but conveys a lack of humanity and dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society."
Arizona state Rep. Analise Ortiz (D-24) applauded the DOJ's historic report, but noted that "the proposed state budget includes $0 for homelessness."
In addition to the police department's violations against many of Phoenix's 2,700 unhoused people, the DOJ reported on racial discrimination, with Black drivers 144% more likely than white drivers to be pulled over, and on department leaders urging officers to use projectiles often with a "use it or lose it" policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona said the report would bolster its ongoing litigation against the city and the PhxPD, and said it was not "not surprised" to hear that the DOJ had found widespread misconduct by the police.
"This damning report makes clear that the Phoenix Police Department suffers from an ingrained permissive culture that tolerates and even encourages widespread use of force, including deadly force, against some of our community's most vulnerable people," said Scott Greenwood, interim executive director of the group. "Moreover, this culture overwhelmingly directs enforcement activity against Black, Brown, Indigenous, and houseless people and harms people experiencing behavioral or emotional health crises."
"The people of Phoenix deserve genuine community safety," Greenwood added. "Today's report reflects a failure of leadership by prior chiefs over the last decade and a city government that has neglected or refused to hold them accountable. The most important thing that the mayor and city council can do now is to embrace this process as a vehicle for transformative change rather than stick their heads in the sand. Policing can and must be both effective and constitutional. Policing in Phoenix is neither."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular