Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion ensures that innocent people will spend years behind bars.
One of the most fundamental principles of criminal law is that no one may be convicted of a crime unless the legislature previously passed a law making their actions illegal. If there is no law on the books that, say, marijuana possession is unlawful, then a judge cannot toss someone in jail because they were found with a joint.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Jones v. Hendrix, handed down Thursday, does not directly attack this foundational principle. Instead, it does so indirectly by prohibiting many prisoners from ever challenging their convictions in court.
The case centers on Marcus DeAngelo Jones, a federal prisoner who was convicted in 2000 of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. Nineteen years later, in Rehaif v. United States (2019), the Supreme Court held that no one may be convicted under this felon-in-possession statute unless they knew they had a felony conviction at the time that they possessed the gun.
Jones says that he (incorrectly, but genuinely) believed that his previous felony conviction had been expunged when he purchased a gun, and thus his conviction was invalid under Rehaif. In essence, he claims that no federal law criminalized his possession of a firearm, because he did not know he had a felony conviction.
Thanks to Thomas’s opinion in Jones, however, we will never know if Rehaif invalidates Jones’s conviction — that is, if he is innocent of the crime that caused him to spend nearly a quarter-century in prison — because the Court held that Jones may not challenge his conviction at all.
The reason why is a federal law, known as Section 2255, which ordinarily prevents federal prisoners from challenging their conviction or sentence more than once.
After he was sentenced, but before Rehaif raised a cloud of doubt over whether Jones belonged in prison at all, Jones successfully petitioned a federal court to vacate part of his sentence. Thomas’s opinion holds that Jones’s pre-Rehaif challenge to his sentence blew his only chance to challenge his conviction — even though Jones couldn’t have known before Rehaif was decided that he had a potentially valid claim that he is innocent.
Section 2255 contains several exceptions which allow some federal prisoners to bring a second challenge — one of which provides that Jones may bring a second challenge if § 2255’s usual process “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
But Thomas construes this “inadequate or ineffective” language very narrowly — so narrowly, in fact, that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson mocks Thomas in her dissenting opinion for ruling that someone like Jones may only seek relief “if the courthouse where a § 2255 motion would have otherwise been filed has burned to the ground or been carried away by a mudslide.”
Under Thomas’s majority opinion, it will not just be people like Jones — people convicted under the felon-in-possession gun statute, to whom Rehaif offered new hope — who will be denied second chances at overturning their convictions. Many other people who committed no crime whatsoever will also be denied these rare-but-occasionally-legal second appeals, and will languish in prison.
Thomas’s opinion is “entirely atextual”
To understand Thomas’s reasoning, it’s helpful to understand the history of how § 2255 became law.
Before its enactment in 1948, federal prisoners who wished to challenge their conviction were required to do so in the federal judicial district where they were incarcerated. This system was unworkable, because it placed an extraordinary burden on federal trial courts that happened to be located in the same geographic district as a federal prison.
Additionally, because prisoners are often incarcerated far from where they were tried and convicted, the court that heard a prisoner’s challenge often did not have easy access to records, evidence, and witnesses it needed to weigh the prisoner’s arguments.
Section 2255 fixed this problem by requiring prisoners to challenge their convictions in the same court that originally tried and convicted them. This meant that the burden of hearing these cases, known as “habeas” petitions, would be distributed equitably among the federal district courts. And it also meant that the court most familiar with a prisoner’s case would also hear any habeas suits challenging that prisoner’s confinement.
Ordinarily, § 2255 does not allow a prisoner to bring a second habeas challenge if they were previously denied such relief, but the law permits a second challenge to proceed if § 2255’s ordinary processes are “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality” of a prisoner’s detention.
After the Supreme Court ruled in Bailey v. United States (1995) that a federal law prohibiting the use of a firearm in certain drug crimes should be read more narrowly than many courts had interpreted it, for example, most federal appeals courts permitted prisoners convicted under a broader interpretation of the law to challenge their convictions, even if they’d previously filed another habeas petition.
Thomas, however, characterizes these post-Bailey decisions as an “end-run” around federal law’s limits on habeas petitions. And he construes § 2255’s “inadequate or ineffective” provision so narrowly that there are unlikely to be many cases where it applies at all to a prisoner fighting an unlawful conviction.
In Thomas’s telling, the main purpose of this “inadequate or ineffective” provision is to protect prisoners who are unable to bring a habeas challenge in the court where they were originally convicted — such as if Congress later passed a law eliminating that court. Indeed, in a footnote, Thomas suggests that the “inadequate or ineffective” provision may largely be a relic of an age before the federal interstate highway system was built, when transporting a prisoner to the judicial district where they were convicted “posed difficulties daunting enough to make a § 2255 proceeding practically unavailable.”
One problem with Thomas’s reading of § 2255, as Justice Jackson writes in dissent, is that it is “entirely atextual.” Both Thomas and Jackson agree about the history of why § 2255 was originally enacted in 1948 — to alleviate the burden placed on district courts located near federal prisons. But the statute itself contains no language whatsoever suggesting that its “inadequate or ineffective” provision applies only when the court that would ordinarily hear a § 2255 case is inaccessible or unavailable.
Here is the entire relevant subsection of § 2255, quoted in full:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
This language does place some burdens on prisoners. It normally precludes habeas relief if a prisoner “failed to apply for relief” in the court that sentenced them, and it also precludes most prisoners from seeking relief from a court that’s already denied it to them. But the “inadequate or ineffective” exception to these general rules is broadly worded, and does not contain any language supporting Thomas’s interpretation of the law.
Justice Jackson’s alternative reading of § 2255, briefly explained
To understand Jackson’s dissent, it’s also helpful to understand the history of another federal law, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which inserted many of the barriers facing prisoners who wish to file a second habeas petition into federal law.
AEDPA also added two new exceptions to the general rule that second habeas petitions are disfavored. Even after AEDPA, such petitions are permitted if they are grounded in “newly discovered evidence” that strongly indicates the prisoner was not guilty, or if the Supreme Court hands down “a new rule of constitutional law” that applies retroactively to prisoners convicted in violation of that new rule.
Thomas’s opinion places a great deal of weight on the fact that Jones — who argues that his conviction is invalid on statutory grounds and not because it violates the Constitution — cannot fit his case within either of these two new exceptions created by AEDPA.
But AEDPA did not repeal the preexisting “inadequate or ineffective” language in § 2255. Indeed, according to Jackson, Congress reenacted this exception, “using identical language,” when it rewrote much of § 2255 in 1996. And Jackson argues that this longstanding exception should allow Jones to challenge his conviction after Rehaif undermined the statutory basis of that conviction.
As Jackson writes, the real purpose of the “inadequate or ineffective” provision was not simply to permit habeas cases to proceed if a faraway court is inaccessible or shut down. It was also “to ensure that certain pre-existing postconviction claims (say, a claim of statutory innocence) could still be heard even if the statutory language Congress was adopting inadvertently barred them.”
Congress, in other words, wanted to make sure that § 2255 only changed which court would hear a habeas dispute, and that it would not cut off habeas disputes that otherwise could have been brought.
All of this matters because, in Davis v. United States (1974), the Supreme Court held that § 2255 permits prisoners bringing habeas petitions to raise both constitutional and statutory challenges to their conviction. So, if the purpose of the “inadequate or ineffective” provision — which was reenacted by Congress when it passed AEDPA in 1996 — was to preserve prisoners’ rights to bring the sort of suits that they’ve historically been allowed to bring, then Jones should be allowed to challenge his conviction.
This case is really about a philosophical dispute about the purpose of the criminal justice system
If you’ve read this far, you should be forgiven for being a little confused. Federal habeas law is notoriously complicated, and statutes like AEDPA require prisoners to jump through an array of procedural hoops that are often ill-defined in the statute itself.
To understand what’s really going on in the Jones case, one must not only understand this complicated statutory regime, one must also be familiar with a philosophical debate between the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative factions, which has gone on for at least three decades.
Left-leaning justices have long argued that the criminal justice system should primarily try to determine whether a criminal defendant has actually committed a crime — and that there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that someone who is wrongfully convicted can challenge that conviction.
Meanwhile, justices on the Court’s rightward fringe have long argued that the primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to reach final judgments concerning an individual’s guilt. Under this view, this need for finality can even overcome a claim that a prisoner is innocent.
Thus, in his concurring opinion in Herrera v. Collins (1993), the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that there is “no basis” in the Constitution for “a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.” At the time, Thomas was the only other justice to join Scalia’s opinion.
As Republican presidents filled more seats on the Supreme Court, however, the finality über alles approach favored by Scalia and Thomas was embraced by a majority of the justices.
Thus in Shinn v. Ramirez (2022), a case involving an innocent man who was later freed after spending 29 years on death row for a crime he did not commit, Thomas complained in the Court’s majority opinion that a federal habeas court’s decision to free a state prisoner “overrides the State’s sovereign power to enforce ‘societal norms through criminal law,’” and “disturbs the State’s significant interest in repose for concluded litigation.”
In Jones, Thomas does not simply repeat his philosophical commitment to finality in criminal convictions, he attributes that commitment to Congress — claiming that, by enacting AEDPA, “Congress has chosen finality over error correction.”
READ MORE 
Donald Trump speaks to supporters from the Ellipse near the White House on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP)
So of course, they’re trying it again.
John Eastman, the Federalist Society-bred legal eagle of Donald Trump’s attempted coup, might get disbarred. He’s on trial in front of a California judge on an 11-count complaint alleging that his public statements, his advice, and his two memos mapping out how Mike Pence could help steal the election mean he should lose his license to practice law.
Eastman’s trial so far is pretty much a rehash of stolen-election mythology, how courts and election administrators debunked it, and how Eastman helped push the “fake elector” scheme in Georgia, in the Oval Office, and beyond.
Eastman’s defense (so far) is that his advice to Trump, Pence, and state legislators was, in the end, normal lawyer stuff. It may have been unprecedented and controversial, his lawyers say, but it was legit legal advice—not counseling a conspiracy he knew was illegal.
Eastman runs the risk that federal prosecutors will indict him in the Special Counsel probe of Jan. 6 and the coup attempt. The Jan. 6 committee certainly thought that when they referred Eastman for charges (page 105.) But it turns out that were it not for John Eastman, we might not be talking about federal indictments for Trump and other coup plotters at all.
This week the Washington Post confirmed what many legal experts and accountability-philes had suspected in the many months after the insurrection: DOJ avoided even investigating Trump and his lieutenants in the coup plot for over a year, even while public evidence mounted that Jan. 6 was not just a spontaneous riot, but the culmination of a planned coup.
In those days of 2021 and early 2022, before dual Special Counsel investigations and grand juries, there was widespread worry that bad-faith claims of DOJ bias by the Trumpist GOP had cowed AG Merrick Garland into inaction. Now we know that’s exactly what happened!
Read all about it. The Jan. 6 committee’s emerging evidence of criminal activity made the public ask, repeatedly, where was DOJ? Privately, the revelations embarrassed DOJ officials.
But this is where Eastman comes in. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a Jan. 6 committee-related lawsuit in March, 2022 that Eastman’s emails included evidence of a likely criminal conspiracy with Trump. Press reports and an insider book revealed Eastman’s Oval Office advocacy for a block-and-switch plan where Pence would reject duly chosen electors and allow GOP-led swing states to replace them with fake ones.
Not until all this, according to this week’s report, did DOJ begin to stir and open a criminal probe. Garland and his deputies didn’t want to invite more GOP accusations of political bias or fan the MAGA machine with the idea of real accountability for Trump.
Trumpist Republicans know their propaganda worked, at least for a while. It’s precisely why, now that the law is coming down on Trump, they’ve launched a full-on blitz against DOJ and any other agents of accountability in sight.
Censuring leaders of Trump’s impeachment? Check. Moving to actually expunge impeachment? Check. Pretending tax and gun violations by Hunter Biden deserve the exact same charges as mishandling dozens of national security secrets, obstruction and false statements? Sure. Pledging to impeach Joe Biden? Definitely, though for exactly what, no one knows. Attacks on Jack Smith and his family? You betcha. All this week.
Trumpist Republicans helped stave off accountability for Trump’s attempted coup for more than a year. Now, potential indictments are still outstanding. Potential jurors are watching. The MAGA GOP are trying their hardest to further intimidate DOJ, or at least lay the political groundwork for corrupt pardons or interference later.
Speaking of intimidation: Greg Jacobs, Pence’s former counsel, testified at Eastman’s disciplinary hearing this week about how he was getting a coffee in the Capitol on Jan. 6 when he heard the smash of a nearby window. It was Proud Boy Dominic “Spazzo” Pezzola breaking through with that stolen police shield. Jacobs, shaken, was quickly ushered with others onto the Senate floor by security personnel who said it was the only way to guarantee their safety.
Jacobs says that was the moment he fired off a now-famous email unearthed by the Jan. 6 committee. It was to John Eastman. “Thanks to your bullshit we are now under siege,” he wrote.
Imagine the irony if Eastman’s bullshit winds up being the little thing that convinced the Justice Department to stop being intimidated by the people who are still trying to steal an election.
Read below about how Georgia officials have formally dismissed the bogus claims of election fraud that Trump and his media allies used to sic threats on election workers. And it’s a great time to say CONGRATS to VICE’s Alexis Johnson and Madeleine May, who won a 2023 Cronkite Award for their Breaking the Vote coverage of the MAGA faithful who threatened election workers in Georgia and beyond.
Here’s their award-winning piece, and you can also check out the awards ceremony.
To peach is own
Hey, do you live in Fulton County? Get a jury summons this week? You could be in the pool for DA Fani Willis’s widely expected case against the attempt to overturn the election in Georgia. Hope you make it to voir dire!
John Eastman’s disbarment trial probably won’t wrap up until next week. But for all the testimony about his role in the coup attempt, the most remarkable part was happening away from the courtroom in California.
While Eastman was defending efforts to get Georgia legislators to rescind Donald Trump’s loss and appoint fake electors, things were going quite differently back in the Peach State.
There was some good news! A board that Georgia Republicans created in 2021 and gave the power to take control of county election authorities decided not to do that in Fulton County, home of Atlanta. The worry among voting advocates was that subversion-minded Republicans could use the board to grab power from Fulton County officials, especially after the MAGA propaganda campaign around Fulton County’s election.
That propaganda included now-infamous claims that Fulton election workers had spirited ballots into tabulation centers in “suitcases.” It’s one of the key claims Trump boosted to advance his lies about Georgia’s results and to sic his supporters on election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. The board voted finally to dismiss that claim, among others, officially putting that little piece of voting disinformation to rest.
Stay, as we love to say, tuned in Fulton County. Hot crime summer continues.
Richer for it
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer also testified in Eastman’s disciplinary hearing Thursday. Shortly after he finished came news that Richer is suing Kari Lake. Richer says he’s sick of the failed GOP governor candidate lying about him and his role in the 2022 election, so he’s suing her for defamation.
The male tase
A Jan. 6 rioter who pleaded guilty to jamming a stun gun into the neck of DC Police Off. Michael Fanone was sentenced to 12 ½ years in prison by a federal judge this week. Danny “DJ” Rodriguez pleaded guilty earlier this year to several charges, including obstructing an official proceeding and assaulting a police officer. After Jan. 6 he bragged to friends that he “tazzed [sic] the fuck out of the blue.” US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Rodriguez to 151 months in prison, calling him a “one-man army of hate.”
Loyal and committed
A federal judge says that Oath Keepers attorney Kellye SoRelle isn’t competent to stand trial on Jan. 6-related charges and instead must be treated for mental illness. SoRelle was an attorney for the Oath Keepers and also the girlfriend of founder and convicted seditionist Stewart Rhodes. She was supposed to go on trial on four federal counts including obstruction. But US District Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over the Oath Keepers trials, ruled SoRelle wasn’t competent to understand the charges against her or to aid in her own defense.
“Trump won!”
— Jan. 6 rioter Daniel “DJ” Rodriguez after being sentenced for 12 ½ years in prison for assaulting a police officer with a stun gun, and other charges.
Stay classy-fied — Speaking of illegally retaining defense information in violation of the Espionage Act… A former FBI agent was just sentenced to nearly four years in prison for keeping classified documents at her home in Kansas. Kendra Kingsbury pleaded guilty to taking and keeping hundreds of classified documents in her private residence, which DOJ stressed was a very inappropriate place to be keeping sensitive national defense information.
“Kingsbury put national security at risk by retaining classified information in her home that would have, if in the wrong hands, revealed some of the government’s most important and secretive methods of collecting essential national security intelligence,” DOJ said, to no one in particular.
Shot, Chase — Virginia GOP Sen. Amanda Chase once got censured for praising Jan. 6 rioters. She openly trafficked conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election, as well as the 2021 GOP governor primary, which she lost. She once described herself as “Trump in heels.” Now, Chase is a loser again. She got ousted in her GOP state Senate primary on Tuesday. Surprise, she’s not conceding, claiming the election was stolen.
Eric-rolled — Eight GOP-led states have now left the Electronic Registration Information Center, aka ERIC, the non-profit organization designed to make it easier for states to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter rolls. ERIC has a long history of bipartisan cooperation and thus has become the target of Trumpist disinformation and conspiracy theories. Alaska just did ERIC a solid by staying in the fold. Now the question is, will these GOP states form their own version of ERIC? Even if they wanted to, could they?
Happy mothers prey — On Tuesday VICE News’s David Gilbert published the story on how “parental rights” group Moms for Liberty is making common cause with right-wing extremists like the Proud Boys and even adopting their penchant for online harassment. On Thursday, the Moms for Liberty Chapter of Hamilton County, Ind. quoted Adolf Hitler at the top of their newsletter. What timing!
(BTW… the quote the Moms for Liberty chapter parked at the top of their newsletter is the same one MAGA GOP Rep. Mary Miller paraphrased in her infamous Capitol Hill speech the day before Jan. 6. Just so you know! Have a great weekend.)
READ MORE 
Abortion rights activists protest after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, overturning the right to abortion, in Portland, Oregon, June 24, 2022. (photo: John Rudoff/AFP)
In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, 14 states have banned most abortions, but even more have moved to protect abortion rights in various ways.
Eleven states have passed so-called "shield laws," which can safeguard providers and patients against prosecution from other states. And at least 15 municipalities and six state governments allocated nearly $208 million to pay for contraception, abortion and support services according to data provided to NPR by the National Institute for Reproductive Health.
Some states have opened new clinics and have become destinations for people seeking an abortion as new research shows just how difficult it has become to get in-person care.
California embraces role as 'sanctuary' state
Following the Dobbs decision, California lawmakers moved quickly to shore up protections for abortions and become a "sanctuary" for people who live in places with new restrictions.
Last year, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed new laws to strengthen civil and privacy rights for those who get an abortion and require insurance companies to cover the procedure, along with certain over-the-counter contraceptives.
The state also launched a website where people – whether they live in California or not – can find providers, connect with abortion funds for financial aid, and learn about their rights for receiving reproductive care in the state.
California was one of several states where voters added abortion protections to the state constitution last November.
This year, members of the legislature's Democratic supermajority are looking to build on policies to expand privacy by banning "reverse warrants," which can be used to compel tech companies to reveal the identities of users who have made certain keyword searches or visited a particular location, such as an abortion clinic.
Maryland trains more health care providers
Maryland, like a handful of other solidly Democratic states, rushed to ensure abortion protections since Dobbs.
The state legislature appropriated $3.5 million to train health care professionals in reproductive health in order to expand the number of people to provide abortion services in the state. Those funds were delayed by former Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, and are currently being allocated under Democratic Gov. Wes Moore's administration.
During the 2023 legislative cycle, lawmakers voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution. That still needs final approval from Maryland voters who will decide on the amendment in a referendum during the 2024 election.
The state is also trying to hedge further challenges to abortion rights. The Moore administration stockpiled two-and-a-half years' worth of Mifepristone, a drug generally used in combination with another drug to induce abortions, after recent federal cases put the future of the drug's use in jeopardy.
Michigan Democrats, newly in control, repeal 1931 law
In Michigan, the Dobbs decision was a catalyst that helped Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Democratic slate sweep the statewide elections in Nov., 2022 – against an admittedly anemic Republican statewide ticket. Democrats won complete control of the legislature for the first time in nearly four decades. Turnout was spurred by a ballot proposal to add an abortion rights amendment to the Michigan Constitution.
"We will make Michigan a leader, a place where everyone is respected and protected under the law, a place where women make their own decisions," Whitmer said to a crescendo of cheers at the Democrats' election night party. "A place that protects civil rights and workers' rights and where there's a path for everyone."
Democrats used their newfound hegemony in Lansing to formally repeal Michigan's dormant 1931 abortion ban. Earlier last month, Whitmer signed a bill to add reproductive rights to Michigan's civil rights law, which would, among other things, protect women who have had abortions from employment discrimination. That was over the objections of the Catholic Church and some other faith organizations that oppose abortion rights.
Colorado enacts legal protections
Even prior to the end of Roe, Democrats in control of Colorado's government began thinking of how to implement protections for people to get an abortion, and passed a law to cement legal abortion into Colorado law.
Following the Dobbs decision, Colorado's governor, Democrat Jared Polis, issued an executive order in July of 2022 giving legal protection to people who come to Colorado for abortions, or to anyone who helps another person cross state lines to obtain the procedure.
When state lawmakers convened for their annual legislative session this year, codifying the governor's executive order was a top priority. They passed it as part of a package of laws aimed at ensuring access to abortion, including expanding private insurance coverage for abortions and other reproductive care.
Colorado has also set restrictions on how crisis pregnancy centers — which generally seek to convince pregnant women not to abort — can advertise their services, including making claims that they can reverse a medication abortion, a scientifically controversial procedure. Colorado became the first state to effectively outlaw abortion reversal treatment classifying it as "unprofessional conduct." That law is slated to go into effect later this year after state health officials review the science behind it to decide whether it should be considered a "generally accepted standard of practice."
Illinois as a 'midwestern safe haven'
Since the fall of Roe, Illinois has welcomed an influx of out-of-state patients seeking abortions, becoming what advocates call a "Midwestern safe haven" for reproductive health care.
Democratic lawmakers have focused on passing shield laws, or protections for people coming to Illinois from surrounding states where abortion access is restricted or generally banned, like Indiana and Missouri.
One such measure, which was signed into law earlier this year, applies to health care providers and patients. Another measure passed last month, which is waiting for a signature from Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, would prohibit law enforcement from sharing data from automated license plate readers with other states for the purpose of prosecuting someone seeking an abortion in Illinois.
Other notable legislation includes requiring insurers to cover abortion medication, requiring public colleges to offer emergency contraception at "wellness kiosks" and allowing patients of crisis pregnancy centers to sue if they feel the center had misled them from seeking abortion care.
Oregon protections remain strong but Democrats struggle
Oregon has long had some of the nation's least-restrictive abortion policies. The right to receive an abortion is written into state law. But after keeping their majorities in the 2022 election, Democrats have been looking to go further.
The party introduced a bill that would have ensured children of any age could receive an abortion without parental consent, expanded access to reproductive health care in rural areas, and granted legal protections to abortion providers that treat people from states where the process would be illegal.
But Republicans balked. GOP Senators refused to attend floor sessions for six weeks in order to block the bill. With the legislative session in serious jeopardy, Democrats traded away pieces of their proposal to get Republicans to return. That means parental consent is still necessary for children under 15, unless two health care providers determine it would be harmful. And money for expanded services in rural parts of the state was cut.
Still, Oregon is likely to protect providers who serve patients from anti-abortion states, a step Democrats and their allies have cheered. And the state continues to be extremely protective of the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Minnesota's largest abortion shift in generations
After winning the state's House, Senate and governor's office, Minnesota Democrats vowed the day after the 2022 election to expand abortion access and eliminate restrictions that had been on the books for decades.
Within weeks, they passed a law guaranteeing the right to reproductive health care, including abortion. Then lawmakers advanced a plan to create new legal protections for patients that travel to the state for abortions and for providers in Minnesota.
Lastly, on the final day of the legislative session, Democrats wiped out a series of restrictions on abortion. They chipped away at reporting requirements for abortion procedures, ended a 24-hour waiting period and mandate that both parents sign off on a minor's abortion, increased funding available for abortions and ended a program that funded nonprofits that advocate against abortions.
Taken together, the changes are the largest shift in abortion law the state has seen in generations. Democrats at the Capitol say they'll aim to send a constitutional amendment to voters next year guaranteeing the right to abortion.
Connecticut expands who can provide abortions
Before the Dobbs decision, but after the draft abortion opinion was leaked out of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, Connecticut passed the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act. The law protects healthcare providers and patients from so-called "bounty hunter" lawsuits that seek to prosecute them for traveling out of state for an abortion. The law also allows nurse-midwives, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants to perform abortions — expanding the number of clinicians and facilities available to provide abortions.
This legislative session, lawmakers passed a bill to allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control and emergency contraception. Earlier this week, state Attorney General William Tong appointed two special councils to ensure reproductive healthcare is protected in Connecticut.
READ MORE 
The Border Patrol station in Harlingen, Texas, where an 8-year-old girl was moved with her family after being diagnosed with the flu while in U.S. custody in May. (photo: David Pike//AP)
A Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by The Washington Post called for a major overhaul of medical care for migrants
The June 8 memo from DHS acting chief medical officer Herbert O. Wolfe said the Border Patrol station where Anadith Reyes Álvarez and her family were held “lacked sufficient medical engagement and accountability to ensure safe, effective, humane and well-documented medical care.”
The child was not treated by a doctor despite worsening flu symptoms, a fever that reached 104.9 degrees and a medical history of sickle cell disease and heart problems. After eight days in U.S. custody, Anadith had a seizure and died May 17.
Wolfe’s memo to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) acting commissioner Troy Miller describes an ad hoc system with little ability to manage medical records, poor communication among staff and a lack of clear guidelines for seeking help from doctors outside the border agency.
The Harlingen, Tex., border station where Anadith and her family were held — designated by CBP for medical isolation cases — had a list of on-call doctors and pediatricians that was used so seldom it was “out of date,” according to Wolfe’s memo.
A separate internal investigation into Anadith’s death is being conducted by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility, but it has been complicated by a lack of closed-circuit video footage from inside the Harlingen station. The camera system was flagged for repair in mid-April but was not fixed until nearly a week after Anadith’s death, according to CBP records.
Anadith’s death prompted CBP to remove chief medical officer David Tarantino last week and place U.S. border facilities under the supervision of DHS medical officials and a team of uniformed doctors from the U.S. Public Health Service. Doctors from the Health Service have deployed to CBP facilities along the border to help provide care and make recommendations for additional improvements, according to CBP’s Miller.
In a June 9 response to the DHS memo, Miller told Wolfe the child’s death was “deeply upsetting and unacceptable.”
“We can and we will do better to ensure this event never happens again,” said the response, which was separately obtained by The Post.
Miller has ordered medically at-risk migrants transferred out of the Harlingen station, and the facility is no longer being used as an isolation unit, according to his response to Wolfe. CBP is checking to make sure camera systems at its other facilities are operating properly, Miller said.
CBP has told its medical contractor, Loyal Source Government Services, to “take immediate action to review practices and quality assurance plans to ensure appropriate care,” Miller wrote in the response. “These are only the first of many steps that CBP will take to address the issues you raised.”
Border officials say they have raised their standards of care in recent years amid record numbers of crossings by migrant families and children whose needs are ill-suited to holding cells that were designed for adults.
CBP is supposed to transfer migrants from those holding cells to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or another agency within 72 hours. The agency has not developed the kind of medical record-keeping and case-management system used by ICE and other federal agencies that hold detainees long-term.
When border crossings surge, backups in CBP facilities can leave migrants spending a week or more in cramped conditions where illness can spread. CBP officials say they have opened 11 facilities over the past two years with dedicated spaces for medical triage, basic care and isolation wards to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. The agency says it has contracted more than 1,000 medical personnel to staff CBP facilities and border stations.
Federal records show Loyal Source Government Services received a $408 million medical services contract from CBP in 2020.
Wolfe’s memo recommended that individuals placed in CBP medical isolation have a documented consultation with a physician or pediatric adviser and said juveniles should receive clinical assessment every four hours.
Anadith, who was born in Panama to parents from Honduras, crossed into the United States on May 9 with her family as part of a large group of migrants, according to a CBP timeline released last month.
During an initial CBP medical screening, Anadith’s mother provided the agency with documents and information about the child’s medical history.
Four days later, Anadith was diagnosed with the flu after reporting abdominal pain and congestion. “During this medical encounter, CBP contracted medical personnel documented a past medical history including cardiomyopathy,” CBP noted.
The family was transferred to the Harlingen isolation unit that day. But the DHS medical team investigating Anadith’s death found CBP lacked a system to track the child’s care. “There was no documented communication between the custodial and medical personnel regarding awareness of at-risk individuals or acute medical care issues,” the DHS memo states.
As her daughter battled the flu and the child’s condition deteriorated, she “begged for her life,” Anadith’s mother, Mabel Alvarez Benedicks, said in an interview with the Associated Press.
Anadith was treated by a nurse practitioner four times on the day of her death, according to preliminary findings released June 1 by CBP. She was administered over-the-counter medications and had a normal heart rate and blood oxygen levels.
The nurse practitioner reported “denying three or four requests from the girl’s mother for an ambulance to be called or for her to be taken to the hospital,” CBP said. Another contracted medical staffer “reported having brought a pile of documents and a bottle of folic acid tablets from the family’s property to the nurse practitioner,” but the nurse practitioner declined to review the papers, the inquiry found.
The DHS memo said the mother’s requests for medical care were not properly documented, and the nurses attending the child at the Harlingen facility did not review the records the family had provided to CBP. “Clinical interactions, medical assessments, and encounters were documented inaccurately within [electronic medical records], not documented … and/or not shared with subsequent medical service providers,” the memo states.
In response to Wolfe, Miller said CBP has launched a review of its medical record-keeping system to implement “critical updates” and “to determine whether we may better served by replacing this system with a different system, such as a commercial medical record system.”
The DHS memo said CBP should produce a medical care manual within 90 days and take steps to “ensure information sharing and accountability at shift change for medically at-risk individuals in CBP custody.” Such information-sharing and accountability “must be electronically documented,” Wolfe said.
He also urged CBP to develop and disseminate verbal instructions and visible signage in isolation wards to spell out the procedures for requesting medical attention and “escalation” to more qualified physicians.
Anadith was the second minor to die in U.S. government custody within a one-week span. A 17-year-old Honduran boy died May 10 while staying at a shelter in Florida for minors who cross the border without their parents.
Miller told Wolfe that CBP had a “large number of individuals, including families, in custody for more than 72 hours” at the time of Anadith’s death, as border crossings spiked before the expiration of the Title 42 border policy on May 11.
Crossings have fallen 70 percent since then, the latest CBP data show. Miller told Wolfe his agency has reduced the average amount of time families with minor children are held in custody to fewer than 30 hours, and CBP is processing families with minor children “as expeditiously as possible” to move them out of border facilities.
READ MORE 
Elon Musk reportedly has been attempting to silence critics of Tesla. (photo: Theo Wargo/WireImage)
Greenspan, founder of PlainSite, found his online presence abruptly disrupted on June 13. The suspension of his account, which had more than 24,000 followers, raises questions about freedom of speech and online censorship. Ironically, Twitter claims defending and respecting the user's voice is one of its core values.
Greenspan gained a reputation for meticulously monitoring Twitter for any criticism directed toward Tesla and Musk. His vigilance in tracking and documenting litigation involving various companies, including Tesla, Twitter, General Motors Corp. and Meta Platforms Inc., made him a prominent figure in the world of online scrutiny. Over the years, Greenspan and Musk have found themselves entangled in legal disputes, further fueling the intensity of their interactions.
PlainSite served as a valuable resource for Twitter users, providing free access to state and federal court filings, public records and insightful analytics features for paying subscribers.
Greenspan's personal Twitter account was also suspended.
Even before gaining control of Twitter, Musk would take a proactive approach to addressing criticism.
Back in 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk actively monitored Twitter for tweets containing the hashtag $TSLA, often used by Tesla short-sellers. Musk would reach out to executives at companies to investigate employees who were potentially publishing negative tweets about his electric vehicle company.
During that time, Musk reportedly emailed former Volkswagen CEO Herbert Diess in July 2018, questioning whether one of Diess's employees was using Twitter to criticize Tesla anonymously. Business Insider later reported that Volkswagen determined the tweets were posted by the employee's brother.
Musk also allegedly texted Lawrence Fossi's employer. According to the WSJ, on July 23, 2018, Musk sent a text to the top executive at Fossi's company, asking the boss whether he knew his employee, known on Twitter as Montana Skeptic, "was obsessively trashing Tesla via a pseudonym," as disclosed in the report.
Following the incident, Fossi voluntarily deactivated his Twitter account and ceased writing for Seeking Alpha. Expressing his surprise at the extent to which Musk would go to quash criticism, Fossi commented, "I'm a nobody and he calls my employer?"
Following Musk's contact, Fossi ceased writing under the Montana Skeptic alias. He posted a farewell message on Seeking Alpha explaining that Musk threatened to sue him if he continued to write. He also stated, "Neither Mr. Musk nor Tesla has ever attempted, at any time, to contact me. Instead, Mr. Musk determined to go directly to my employer."
It was revealed that Fossi's employer was an early customer of Tesla's Model S sedan, according to a Tesla spokesperson cited by Business Insider.
READ MORE
Left: Migrants crowd a vessel crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Right: The OceanGate Expeditions Titan submersible. (photo: AP/OceanGate)
As many as 700 migrants are feared to have died after an overloaded fishing vessel capsized last week off the coast of Greece. As search and rescue efforts continue with dwindling expectations, the Greek Coast Guard is facing backlash over its failure to help rescue passengers before the boat sank. Most of the migrants were women and children; many were from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria and Palestine. They are presumed victims of what may be one the deadliest migrant shipwrecks ever recorded, yet the story has received far less public attention than the search for five passengers aboard a submersible to view the wreck of the Titanic. All five of those passengers were confirmed by the U.S. Coast Guard to have likely died Sunday, days before wall-to-wall media coverage began to speculate about their plight.
We discuss this disparity and the European refugee crisis at large with two guests: Giorgos Kosmopoulos, a senior migration campaigner for Amnesty International, and Laurence Bondard, spokesperson and operations communications manager for SOS Méditerranée, a nongovernmental rescue organization that operates in the central Mediterranean. Bondard has sailed on seven rescue missions with the NGO, part of a growing necessity in the region, where European countries have withheld the resources available for sea rescue. In the last decade, more than 30,000 refugees are estimated to have drowned in the Mediterranean.
The two vessels were lost at sea four days and 4,000 miles apart. The five men who lost their lives on the Titan have been getting wall-to-wall coverage in the media worldwide. Meanwhile, the estimated 700 who died when the Adriana sank off the coast of Greece, mostly women and children, have been essentially forgotten.
Passengers on the Titan were wealthy; two were billionaires. Each paid $250,000 for an adventure of a lifetime, a deep sea dive to view the wreckage of the Titanic. Those crammed onto the ramshackle Adriana fishing boat were seeking not adventure, but refuge from war, poverty, climate change or any of the many other life-threatening crises that force people to flee their homes with little more than the clothes on their back. They paid human traffickers — some, thousands of dollars — to ferry them from Libya to Europe. Many of the passengers were from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria and Palestine.
A multinational effort was launched to search for the passengers on the Titan submersible. Meanwhile, the Greek government is facing accusations that it could have saved the migrants aboard the doomed ship but opted not to. The newspaper El País reports Greek authorities were tracking the ship for more than 12 hours and never activated a rescue operation, even after the ship’s engine broke down.
We begin today’s show with two guests. Giorgos Kosmopoulos is a senior migration campaigner for Amnesty International. He’s joining us from Brussels. And in Paris, we’re joined by Laurence Bondard, spokesperson and operations communications manager for SOS Méditerranée. She’s been on seven rescue missions in the Mediterranean.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Laurence, a spokesperson for Méditerranée. If you can respond to what took place last week and continues to take place? And clearly, when we don’t know the migrants’ names, when we don’t know their stories, like we know those on the Titan, the Titans, it is hard to care. Talk about who died last week.
LAURENCE BONDARD: Hi, Amy.
Yes, it is very difficult to relate and to understand what happens in the Mediterranean, when it’s far and when you don’t exactly understand what it means to be in the middle of the sea and completely alone, facing with the strength of the elements and having no one to hear your cry of despair and to come and rescue.
The people that flee via the sea and that take the risk to die to seek safety are people from very different regions of the world, from the African continent, Asian continent, Middle East region. These are people, as you were describing, who are fleeing their original countries for various reasons, from war to poverty, different kinds of violence. And they end up in Libya, trapped in a country where they are facing a harrowing cycle of violence. We hear recounts of people who are abducted, detained in unofficial detention centers, beaten up with their family on the phone to make sure that the family sells everything they have and provides as much money as possible. So, the people who take these unseaworthy boats that are critically overcrowded, without life jackets, often without enough food and water to do such hazardous and dangerous crossing, are people that are in the absolute despair. They will take any opportunity they have to just flee and try and seek safety.
AMY GOODMAN: Giorgos Kosmopoulos, you have said that this is a completely avoidable disaster. El País continues to expose what took place off the coast of Greece. Explain where the migrants were coming from on this overcrowded fishing vessel, what the Greek Navy knew, when they knew it, and why this sunk. We don’t know how many hundreds of people, in fact, have died, but it could be up to 700.
GIORGOS KOSMOPOULOS: Hi. Hi, Amy. Thank you for having us all.
Indeed, it’s a tragedy beyond words, and it was completed preventable, simply because Europe doesn’t allow, doesn’t afford safe and legal routes, pathways for these people to seek safety. And that’s the beginning. That’s the result of policies of European member states, who do not prioritize lives.
Hearing the account of our other guest, I always remember my friend Ali, when he fled Syria. He called me yesterday, after the shipwreck. He told me, “A few years ago, it could have been me, me and my children.” He always tells me how it was the hardest thing he ever had to do, fleeing his own country among bombs, carrying his three children in his arms, telling them, night and day, “It’s going to be OK,” and thinking inside him, “It’s going to be OK, even if I have to die.”
It’s just to say that these people have absolutely no option. Nobody puts their family and themselves in such danger unless they have no other option. And European politicians, who very often now express condolences, regret, do very little to do the right thing, to have a safe and legal route.
We also know that Greek Coast Guard was alerted in this latest shipwreck. They were alerted early on, and they followed very closely this shipwreck. There are a lot of questions who remain to be answered by the Greek authorities. Why they acted the way they did? Or, why didn’t they act in the way they should have acted? Especially as more information emerges, it was clear that the vessel was probably not seaworthy.
We need an investigation that is thorough, that’s independent, to come to the truth. We need to know the truth. And we expect from the Greek authorities now to, A, look after the survivors, make sure that families and their members have access and identify their loved ones, and, again, truth and justice for what has happened.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Abdelfarid Ahmad, the father of 18-year-old Syrian migrant Mohammad Ahmad, who went missing after that shipwreck off Greece. He said he doesn’t know if his son is dead or alive.
ABDELFARID AHMAD: [translated] On Friday night, we lost contact with my son. And until now, we don’t know anything about his whereabouts. The smugglers say they arrived on the other side. And until now, there’s been no communication. We don’t know anything about him. Drowned, alive, we don’t know. If my son had work, he wouldn’t have thought about leaving. If he had peace of mind or a good livelihood, he wouldn’t have left.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Giorgos, if you could talk more about what people know at this time, what they’re told? And also talk about your own family coming from the southern coastal town of Peloponnese. You’ve worked in the region as a volunteer. We just passed World Refugee Day.
GIORGOS KOSMOPOULOS: Yes, it’s particularly stressful and taxful for — taxing for me to think that this is a region, the Peloponnese, where all my family comes from. It’s the same beaches where me and my family spend our holidays. And it’s becoming a cemetery for refugees and migrants. Over 30,000 people, that we know of — and that’s possibly the tip of the iceberg — have perished in the Mediterranean, again, in shipwrecks that are completely avoidable.
Right now people, survivors, have been taken to facilities who are managed by the Greek authorities. And we understand that there has been one investigation opened by the Greek authorities into the events. We don’t know the exact scope. But, again, I have to repeat: There has to be a thorough and independent investigation into what happened.
I also have to say that despite the negative rhetoric and toxic rhetoric very often by politicians in Greece, in my own country, but also across Europe, the solidarity is strong. I’ve seen a lot of people aiding, running to help, providing for these people. They have done it again. They have done it in 2015. I was there when the thousands of hundreds of refugees from Syria came. And the ordinary people, us, call them, they are there to help. And I do think that there is a lot more solidarity left in us, and it’s proven every day.
And Europe and European leaders must follow that lead, must follow the legacy of what happened in 2015 in solidarity by those people to show the way and provide, finally, safe and legal routes for these people. Otherwise, all the tears and all the condolences amount to nothing. They’re almost hypocritical. And yeah, I hope — I really hope that this is the last shipwreck. I really hope this is the last time we will be looking for survivors and hear testimonies like the ones we heard before, because they’re completely avoidable. And it’s on us. It’s on us to fix it.
AMY GOODMAN: Laurence Bondard, I was wondering if you could talk about — is it pronounced Mare Nostrum? — what this program was, started by the Italian government in 2013, over 100,000 people rescued that year. What happened to it? And if you can talk more about how to avoid these tragedies?
LAURENCE BONDARD: Yes, the operation called Mare Nostrum — in Italian, meaning “Our Sea” — was a European operation conducted by the Italian authorities in between 2013 and 2014. In this time, in less than a year, this European operation — it was a military and a humanitarian operation, also dedicated to search and rescue — rescued over 150,000 people in less than a year. It shows how possible it is. We know how to do, European member states know how to do, and maritime sectors know how to perform search and rescue. It means putting European ships at sea, having people that are trained and equipped and coordinated accurately and efficiently to organize searches and then rescue efforts in distress. It happened at that time in this operation.
But this operation was ended in 2014 due to a lack of European solidarity. The Italian authorities asked for European solidarity to ensure that this was financed not only by the Italian country and that the people that were rescued could be also taken care of by the European Union in its entirety. And with this lack of solidarity, the operation — they decided to put an end to this operation. And since then, it was not replaced, only replaced by operations that were military and that were border defense operations. No European search and rescue operation has been put in place since then.
This is why SOS Méditeranée, we created ourself as citizens eight years ago, and other organizations, citizen organizations, created themselves. It’s to fill the gap left in the central Mediterranean, specifically in this region in between Libya and Europe that is completely left alone. It’s completely empty of European efficient search and rescue assets.
And this is why this is the hope that I’ve been hearing just now. It’s a hope we all share, of course. We hope that this will be the end, that it’s the last shipwreck at all and last shipwreck of this magnitude. Unfortunately, I don’t have this — I don’t hope. I lost this hope. I can tell you here and now: There will be other shipwrecks, in the days to come, in the weeks to come, in the months to come, and most likely in the year to come, if nothing is done. There will be other shipwrecks. There will be other tragedies.
The only way to stop that — and it’s not that complicated — is to have this European solidarity in place, a movement that organizes a European search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean, so that there is, again, real coordination, efficient coordination. When we receive the stress alert, it means that maritime rescue centers coordinate, relay the distress alerts, make sure that ships around, in the vicinity, are able to assist, provide assistance, and then disembark in a place of safety. We know how to do. Maritime world knows how to do. What we need is the political choices, is the will to do it. That’s the only thing that is lacking.
AMY GOODMAN: And talking about that will, I want to end with Giorgos Kosmopoulos in Brussels. Do you have a message to the world’s media? This, as we call it, titanic disparity in how they cover the five people who died in that submersible, the idea that that should be a model, blanket coverage, when people die at sea, using that model for — and multiplying it many, many times over, for the number of migrants who have died at sea. The message you have to media responsibility?
GIORGOS KOSMOPOULOS: I think it’s a message for all of us, including media. Everyone who’s at risk at sea, no matter where they come from, no matter which language they speak, their income, the societies they come from, we have to mobilize all our resources to help them, with no reservations, no “but” or “if”s, and put human life on the very, very top of our priorities, not only words but also with actions. We need solidarity. We need search and rescue. We need safe and legal routes for everyone. And everyone has to be able to look in the eyes of the survivors and see we did what we could do, and this is not going to happen again.
But so far, this is not what’s happening. We have policies in Europe that lead to these shipwrecks, that they are — these policies have a direct cause and effect with these shipwrecks we are seeing. So, yes, we have the resources. We have the capacity. We have the technology. We have advanced. It’s time to put human lives on the very top of our agenda and our efforts, no matter where these people come from.
AMY GOODMAN: Giorgos Kosmopoulos, I want to thank you for being with us, senior migration campaigner for Amnesty International, speaking to us from Brussels, Belgium, and Laurence Bondard, spokesperson for SOS Méditerranée, speaking to us from Paris.
Coming up, we look at the occupied West Bank as tensions soar, with Jewish settlers attacking Palestinian villages and Israel launching drone and helicopter gunship attacks. Stay with us.
READ MORE 
A man enters an encampment that has been outfitted with a misting station during a heatwave in Portland, Oregon, in August 2021. (photo: Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Reuters)
Multnomah county is suing 17 companies for the fatal heatwave, seeking billions to upgrade public services and infrastructure
The defendants should be held responsible, the lawsuit alleges, for their role in fueling the climate crisis.
From 25 to 28 June 2021, an unprecedented heat dome blanketed the Pacific north-west. The record-shattering temperatures killed 69 in Oregon’s Multnomah county and hundreds more across the region, marking one of the most destructive weather disasters in American history.
“It was this real crisis situation,” said the Multnomah county chair, Jessica Vega Pederson. “It really struck this community and this area in ways that no other event ever, honestly, had.”
The new lawsuit, filed at a state circuit court in Portland, draws on research showing the scorching heat was exacerbated by climate breakdown. It aims to hold 17 fossil fuel companies and interest groups – including Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute – accountable for their role in the event.
“The heat dome that cost so much life and loss was not a natural weather event. It did not just happen because life can be cruel, nor can it be rationalized as simply a mystery of God’s will,” the litigation says. “Rather, the heat dome was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ decision to sell as many fossil fuel products over the last six decades as they could.”
The suit seeks $50m in damages for the 2021 heat dome’s consequences and $1.5bn for future climate damages. And it demands the defendants spend an additional $50bn on a county plan to upgrade public healthcare services and infrastructure to protect residents from coming extreme heat events and other climate disasters.
“We know that our need to mitigate, to take action, to respond in the future is going to escalate over time as climate change worsens,” said Pederson. “We really want to make sure that we have the resources to do that.”
When 2021’s heatwave struck, Multnomah’s county seat, Portland, broke its own heat records on three consecutive days. The city’s streetcar cables melted. Officials recorded 97 hospital visits for heat illness – nearly the same number of cases they would usually see all summer. Many who perished were seniors and lower-income people who did not have access to air conditioning.
At the time, Pederson said she and other officials were “overwhelmed” by the need to distribute supplies, manage cooling centers and otherwise keep communities safe. But later, upon reviewing research showing that the climate crisis made the event at least 150 times more likely, she began to think about accountability.
“Fossil fuel companies and industry organizations really lied about the impacts of using these fossil fuels,” she said. “So it’s about, how do we hold them accountable … since we are dealing with the effects today and we are going to be dealing with these effects for a long time to come.”
The defendants, the challengers allege, committed negligence and fraud and created a public nuisance by covering up their knowledge of the dangers of using fossil fuels. Attorney Jeffrey Simon, a partner at Simon Greenstone Panatier and a law professor of mass tort litigation, said the case was based on well-established laws.
“There are no new laws or novel theories being asserted here,” he said.
The suit cites oil companies’ well-documented history of sowing doubt about climate science.
The litigation was filed by the law firms Simon Greenstone Panatier; Worthington & Caron; and Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost – firms that specialize in large-scale catastrophic harm litigation, including legal actions related to asbestos and lead poisoning. None of the three firms have previously brought climate litigation.
It comes as part of a wave of similar litigation against fossil fuel interests. Since 2017, seven states, 35 municipalities, the District of Columbia, and one industry trade association have sued major oil and gas corporations and lobbying groups, alleging that defendants have for decades known about the dangers of fossil fuels and yet actively hid that information from consumers and investors.
“Multnomah county has joined the growing ranks of local governments that are standing up to big oil and fighting to make these polluters pay for the catastrophic damage they knowingly caused and lied about for decades,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which has supported plaintiffs who have filed similar litigation.
The litigation is among the first to demand damages from fossil fuel companies for a specific climate disaster. Last year, Puerto Rico filed a federal lawsuit against oil and coal firms for their role in 2017’s Hurricane Maria.
“Communities should not be forced to pay the price for these catastrophic climate damages while the companies that caused the crisis perpetuate their lies and rake in record profits,” said Wiles. “The people of Multnomah county deserve their day in court to hold big oil accountable.”
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.