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
federalist society
34 US Lawmakers Urge Biden to Pardon Steven Donziger
"We are deeply concerned about the chilling effect this case will have on all advocates working on behalf of other frontline communities, victims of human rights violations, and those seeking environmental justice."
Dec 11, 2024
More than 30 Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday called on outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden to pardon environmental and human rights lawyer Steven Donziger, who endured nearly 1,000 days in prison and house arrest after successfully representing Ecuadoreans harmed by Big Oil's pollution of the Amazon rainforest.
In a
letter to Biden led by Rep. Jim McGovern, (D-Mass.), 33 House and Senate Democrats plus Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont noted the "troubling legal irregularities" in Donziger's case, which have been "criticized as unconstitutional or illegal by three federal judges, 68 Nobel laureates, and five high-level jurists from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations."
Donziger represented a group of Ecuadorean farmers and Indigenous people in a 1990s lawsuit against Texaco—which was later acquired by Chevron—over the oil company's deliberate dumping of billions of gallons of carcinogenic waste into the Amazon. He played a key role in winning a $9.5 billion settlement against Chevron in Ecuadorian courts.
However, Chevron fought Donziger in the U.S. court system, and when the attorney refused to disclose privileged client information to the company, federal District Judge Lewis Kaplan—who was invested in Chevron—held him in misdemeanor contempt of court. Loretta Preska, Kaplan's handpicked judge to preside over Donziger's contempt trial, is affiliated with the Chevron-funded Federalist Society.
Donziger's case drew worldwide attention and solidarity, with human rights experts and free speech groups joining progressive U.S. lawmakers in demanding his release. He was released in April 2022 after 993 days in prison and house arrest.
"Donziger is the only lawyer in U.S. history to be subject to any period of detention on a misdemeanor contempt of court charge," the 34 lawmakers wrote. "We believe that the legal case against Mr. Donziger, as well as the excessively harsh nature of the punishment against him, are directly tied to his prior work against Chevron. We do not make this accusation lightly or without evidentiary support."
The legislators warned:
Notwithstanding the personal hardship, this unprecedented legal process has imposed on Mr. Donziger and his family, we are deeply concerned about the chilling effect this case will have on all advocates working on behalf of other frontline communities, victims of human rights violations, and those seeking environmental justice. Those who try to help vulnerable communities will feel as though tactics of intimidation—at the hands of powerful corporate interests, and, most troublingly, the U.S. courts—can succeed in stifling robust legal representation when it is needed most. This is a dangerous signal to send.
"Pardoning Mr. Donziger," the lawmakers added, "would send a powerful message to the world that billion-dollar corporations cannot act with impunity against lawyers and their clients who defend the public interest."
The lawmakers join more than 100 environmental and human rights groups that have urged Biden to pardon Donziger.
In an April opinion piece published by Common Dreams, Donziger contended that "I need this pardon because I am the only person in U.S. history to be privately prosecuted by a corporation."
"More specifically, the government (via a pro-corporate judge) gave a giant oil company (Chevron) the power to prosecute and lock up its leading critic," he continued. "As a result of this unprecedented and frightening private prosecution, I still cannot travel out of the country and I have been prohibited from meeting with clients I have represented for over three decades. Nor can I practice law, maintain a bank account, or earn a livelihood."
"No matter where one stands on the political spectrum," Donziger added, "we should all be able to agree that what happened to me should not happen to anybody in any country that adheres to the rule of law."
The appeal for a Donziger pardon comes amid a
wave of eleventh-hour pleas from lawmakers for Biden to grant clemency to figures ranging from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden to Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier—often described as the nation's longest-jailed political prisoner—and federal death row inmates including Billie Jerome Allen, who advocates say was wrongly convicted of murder.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Will Check the Supreme Court That Should Be Checking Trump?
The nine justices of the nation's highest court are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act?
Dec 05, 2024
FBI director nominee-in-waiting Kash Patel writes children’s books in which his character, a wizard, vows to protect “King Donald.” (Patel also peddled pills to reverse the Covid-19 vaccine and produced a song recorded by imprisoned January 6 insurrectionists called “Justice for All.”) Ominous credentials to head the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency, one with a history of abuse.
We’ve been vocal about what’s gone wrong at the Supreme Court. It has been captured by a faction of a faction. But if we’ve ever needed an independent judiciary, we need it now. If guardrails crumble and the powerful quail before Donald Trump, the high court may be one of the last — indeed, at times, the only — protectors of the Constitution.
All of which makes the latest revelations about the Court so dismaying — the inside story of how the justices adopted an ethics code that is more loophole than law.
In the past two years, ProPublica and other news outlets have revealed startling misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas for years had his lifestyle secretly subsidized by billionaire Harlan Crow. The billionaire provided lavish vacations, paid for the education of Thomas’s surrogate son, and even bought and renovated the justice’s mother’s house (with her living in it). If this happened with state legislators in Albany or Sacramento, we’d call it corruption. Justice Samuel Alito, too, took luxury travel from yet another billionaire, also without disclosing it. Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society played matchmaker between the judges and the billionaires. ProPublica won the Pulitzer Prize for its exposés.
Public outcry was loud enough that the Court last year felt compelled to issue a first-ever code of conduct. The justices explained that this was only to clear up a “misunderstanding” by citizens. Instead of being the only judges with no ethics code, they now had the weakest.
Now The New York Times has revealed the fevered deliberations that produced this result. It reads like the doings of sneaky pols on House of Cards. Justices sent each other memos in sealed envelopes because they were so fearful of leaks. Thomas and Alito “wrote off the Court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” write Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle. The liberal justices pushed for a strong code with an enforcement mechanism, such as a panel of retired judges, to no avail.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newspaper reported, was most vocal in opposition and judicial self-regard. “The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it,” the article reports. Gorsuch wrote a long memo of complaint as the rules were being drafted.
The result was a tepid code that did little to boost public confidence. It violates a core principle: Nobody is so wise that they should be the judge in their own case. The justices decide on their own when they must “recuse,” or refrain from hearing a case. Nor must they explain why they stepped back, though some justices have begun to do that. Most important, there is no mechanism for enforcement.
So the Court has served up mush. But the story need not end there. Congress has set rules for the federal courts throughout history, as envisioned by the Constitution. Samuel Alito has waxed indignant about this. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Justice Elena Kagan felt compelled to respond publicly. “It just can’t be that the Court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else,” she said. “We’re not imperial.”
This again shows why the Court needs fundamental reform. An 18-year term limit for justices would make the Court much more accountable. It accords with a fundamental American precept: Nobody should hold too much power for too long. It’s also widely popular. The most recent Fox News poll on the issue showed that 78 percent of respondents backed term limits — in other words, strong majorities of Republicans and independents as well as Democrats.
In recent years, congressional Republicans have been hostile to Supreme Court reform. With Congress in Republican hands for the next two years at least, there’s an opportunity to deepen support among conservatives and liberals, legal scholars, bar leaders, and others. It’s an idea whose time has come.
We need a strong, independent, principled Supreme Court. The ruling last summer granting vast criminal immunity empowers the president to law-break with impunity. Major rulings are due on vital issues — including the oral arguments today on state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Civil liberties violations likely to accompany mass deportation of noncitizens will surely reach the justices. This term will test whether this is a principled Court or, as seems increasingly likely, a MAGA Court.
No, Kash Patel is not a wizard. The justices wear robes, but they aren’t either. They are powerful government officials with a duty to stand up against abuse and for the rule of law. They claim they are independent. Will they act? The backstage saga of their ethics code doesn’t augur well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Supreme Court’s Billionaire Buddies Just Made Your Life Worse
The assault by the six right-wing justices on the Chevron doctrine is an assault on everyday people, carried out on behalf of corporations and the Court’s wealthy benefactors.
Jul 13, 2024
Last month, the Supreme Court broke with four decades of precedent and overturned Chevron deference, a cornerstone of administrative law that has been cited by federal courts over 18,000 times. The 6-3 ruling, handed down on party lines in the cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, eliminated a judicial doctrine that had long instructed federal courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous or unclear laws passed by Congress, rather than have judges act as regulatory policy-makers.
Chevron deference was established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council for two main reasons. First, because federal agencies are staffed with career civil servants and subject matter experts like scientists, researchers, and data analysts who understand the nitty-gritty details of regulatory policy-making far better than any given judge. Second was the importance of democratic accountability and the separation of powers, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing in the Chevron decision that “federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.”
In her blistering dissent for Loper Bright, Justice Elena Kagan excoriated the Court’s right-wing majority for “giv[ing] itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.” The Court itself had inadvertently showcased the danger of having judges act as regulatory experts a day earlier, when Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly confused the air pollutant nitrogen oxide with the anesthetic nitrous oxide (more commonly known as “laughing gas”).
But Chevron’s repeal is no laughing matter. Allowing unelected, lifetime-appointed federal judges to invalidate countless regulatory protections based purely on their own political preferences will open the floodgates to a corporate legal assault on crucial regulatory protections—from clean air and water, to food and drug safety, to labor and civil rights.
Curiously, Chevron was once celebrated by conservatives (including the late Antonin Scalia), as it allowed the Reagan administration to continue its industry-friendly regulatory approach unimpeded by the more liberal federal courts at the time (the DC Circuit ruling overturned by SCOTUS in Chevron was written by then-circuit judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg). But over the past decade, as Democrats regained control of the executive branch and used Chevron deference to check corporate power, conservatives have changed their tune. Aided by the GOP’s packing of the courts with Federalist Society alumni, the conservative legal movement and Big Business now see the unelected judiciary as the best long-term venue for dismantling the administrative state.
Allowing unelected, lifetime-appointed federal judges to invalidate countless regulatory protections based purely on their own political preferences will open the floodgates to a corporate legal assault on crucial regulatory protections—from clean air and water, to food and drug safety, to labor and civil rights.
Their most powerful ally in this effort has been Justice Clarence Thomas, a former supporter of Chevron doctrine whose about-face has been equally opportunistic. According to The Lever, Thomas—who wrote a landmark opinion upholding Chevron in 2005—began working to overturn the doctrine after he and his wife received lavish undisclosed gifts and financial support from wealthy conservative benefactors, including real estate mogul Harlan Crow and Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo. Records unearthed by ProPublica have also revealed that Thomas was invited to fundraising events held by fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch, whose donor network has long sought the overturning of Chevron.
These wealthy benefactors played a hidden role in the successful overturning of Chevron this term by using the disputes about federal fishing fees in the Loper Bright and Relentless cases as stalking horses against the doctrine. Petitioners in both cases were represented pro bono by lawyers with close ties to the Koch network. In Loper Bright, herring fisherman Bill Bright was represented by three lawyers who also work for Americans for Prosperity, one of the Koch Network’s most prominent organizations. In Relentless, the petitioners were likewise represented free of charge by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a right-wing litigation group that has received over $5 million from Koch-affiliated organizations and $4 million from Leonard Leo’s dark money groups.
The Court’s power brokers have also used amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs to engage in judicial lobbying. In Loper Bright and Relentless, we found 19 examples of this practice. Right-wing think tanks Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Texas Public Policy Foundation—who all filed anti-Chevron doctrine amicus briefs in Loper Bright—have received millions in donations from Koch organizations. The Board of Trustees for the Manhattan Institute, another Koch-funded Loper Bright amicus filer, is chaired by Justice Samuel Alito’s wealthy fishing buddy Paul Singer and counts Harlan Crow’s wife Kathy among its members. Leonard Leo has similarly bankrolled several amicus filers, including the Mike Pence-led Advancing American Freedom, the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, and (conspicuously) the recently-launched fishing industry lobby group NEFSA.
Despite these flagrant conflicts of interest, neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Alito recused themselves from Loper Bright or Relentless. In fact, the only Justice to recuse from either Chevron case was Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had participated in oral arguments for Loper Bright while serving as a circuit judge.
The devastating impact of Chevron repeal has been compounded by other radical party-line power-grabs made by the Court this term.
The Loper Bright decision is already bearing fruit for its corporate supporters. Just hours after the decision, Eastern District of Texas Judge Sean D. Jordan cited it in his decision to partially block a Department of Labor rule that would have made over 4 million workers eligible for overtime pay. Loper Bright has also been cited in at least four other legal challenges against the DOL’s protections for tipped and gig workers, as well as a new lawsuit filed by three New Jersey hospitals against HHS rules governing Medicare reimbursement. Experts at the Center for American Progress have outlined the many other regulatory protections that could be at risk post-Chevron, including fair housing and anti-discrimination rules, relief for student borrowers, the EPA’s new vehicle and power plant emissions standards, and the CFPB’s crackdown on predatory junk fees.
The devastating impact of Chevron repeal has been compounded by other radical party-line power-grabs made by the Court this term. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the conservative majority made it much harder for the federal government to prosecute white collar criminals, while also threatening the structure of many administrative agencies. And in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Justices functionally eliminated the statute of limitations for challenging new federal regulations. In her dissent for the latter, Justice Jackson warned that “the tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”
Of course for the right-wing, devastation is the goal. The Court’s dismantling of the administrative state follows Donald Trump’s own attempt to do so in the waning days of his presidency through the short-lived Schedule F scheme, which would have empowered the president to fire thousands of career civil servants at will and replace them with political loyalists. Though repealed by the Biden administration, restoring Schedule F remains a central plank of both Trump’s 2024 campaign and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
Corporate actors and right-wing activists are attacking the administrative state because they know how important it is for protecting the public from unchecked corporate power.
If nothing else, the end of Chevron should end debate among court-watchers as to whether any of the Roberts Court’s six conservative members (including Loper Bright author John Roberts himself) are “moderate.” Loper Bright is one more example in a series of landmark rulings— including Citizens United v. FEC, Janus v. AFSCME, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, and the recent Trump v. United States—which reveal what John Roberts and his Court actually care about. They have no regard for long-held precedent or for the rule of law, only far-reaching power-grabs that benefit the Federalist Society and Big Business. Their flagrant disregard for judicial ethics and the separation of powers should compel Congress to rein in the Court’s unchecked power by codifying Chevron deference into law, enacting a binding and enforceable Supreme Court ethics code, impeaching Justices Thomas and Alito, and expanding the Supreme Court.
Corporate actors and right-wing activists are attacking the administrative state because they know how important it is for protecting the public from unchecked corporate power. So long as the Supreme Court retains its corrupt right-wing majority, the future looks bright for Big Business. For the rest of us, the Court’s relentless power-grabs will make everyday life much worse.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular