May, 22 2017, 01:15pm EDT
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Applauds SCOTUS Finding of Racial Gerrymandering by the North Carolina Legislature
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the redrawing of two congressional districts by the North Carolina legislature following the 2010 census was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
"We are pleased that, once again, the Supreme Court has recognized the pernicious and discriminatory effects of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering on African American and other minority communities," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil rights Under Law. "Moreover, the Court made it clear that it would not allow states to get away with an unlawful racial gerrymandering by claiming that it's just politics. This is a critical decision as communities prepare for the 2020 redistricting cycle, where states would still be able to purposely create legitimate majority-minority districts, consistent with this opinion."
Before the redistricting, the two districts did not have a majority of African-American voters, but had consistently elected candidates who were the preference of most African-American voters. In affirming the ruling of a three-judge District Court, the Supreme Court found that racial considerations predominated in the drawing of the lines of both districts. The justices also found that the State had not met its burden of justifying its line-drawing by showing it was narrowly tailored to a legitimate state interest.
The Lawyers' Committee, together with its pro bono counsel Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, filed an amicus curiae brief in the matter.
"The Supreme Court rightly found that North Carolina had unlawfully drawn these congressional districts in such a way as to separate citizens into different voting districts on account of race," said Bradley Phillips, partner for Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. "That's wrong and unconstitutional."
Read the full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1262_db8e.pdf
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Act of Retaliation': EPA Suspends 140+ Employees for Signing 'Declaration of Dissent'
The employees were put on leave after they signed a letter saying the Trump EPA's actions "endanger public health and erode scientific progress."
Jul 04, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the Trump administration's "harmful" policies.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch accused the employees of "undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration's agenda." But the union that represents these employees is calling it an act of illegal "retaliation."
The "declaration of dissent", published by Stand Up for Science Monday, had been signed by 620 people as of Thursday. Addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the letter accused the administration of "recklessly undermining" the agency's mission under his watch. It accused the administration of "ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters."
"This administration's actions directly contradict EPA's own scientific assessments on human health risks, most notably regarding asbestos, mercury, and greenhouse gases," the letter said.
Since Trump retook office, the administration has eviscerated policies meant to contain pollution, slashing funding for green energy production and electric vehicles while championing increased fossil fuel drilling and consumption. It has also rolled back the enforcement of limits on cancer-causing "forever chemicals" in water.
The signatories also pointed to the Trump EPA's "undermining of public trust" by using official channels to trumpet "misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric."
They called out EPA press releases, which have referred to climate science as a "religion," EPA grants as "green slush funds," and "clean coal" as "beautiful." The letter also suggested the EPA had violated the Hatch Act by promoting political initiatives like Trump's tariffs and the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
"Make no mistake: your actions endanger public health and erode scientific progress—not only in America—but around the world," the letter said.
The employees also accused the administration of "promoting a culture of fear." They cited comments by top Trump officials, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who has said he wanted to put EPA employees "in trauma" and make them unable "to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."
While some signatories signed their names, many others chose to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. That retaliation came Thursday, when—according to The New York Times—144 employees received an email putting them on leave for the next two weeks "pending an administrative investigation."
The decision was widely criticized as a violation of the employees' First Amendment rights.
Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has previously represented EPA and other employees, said federal employees are allowed to publicly criticize the administration they work for.
"The letter of dissent did really nothing to undermine or sabotage the agenda of the administration," Whitehouse told The Washington Post. "We believe strongly that the EPA should protect the First Amendment rights of their employees."
Bill Wolfe, a former environmental policy professional with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said that the letter "was a classic form of whistleblowing that is protected by federal whistleblower laws and the 1st Amendment, as upheld by federal courts."
Justin Chen, the union representative for EPA employees under the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Times that the agency's actions were "clearly an act of retaliation" and said the union would "protect our members to the full extent of the law."
Despite the punishment, one of the signatories anonymously told The Post that they had no regrets.
"I took the risk knowing what was up," the employee wrote. "I'll say it before, and now it rings even more true … if this is the EPA they want me to work for, then I don't want to work for the EPA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Social Security Chief Applauds Budget Bill That Will Harm Social Security's Finances
"The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund."
Jul 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's handpicked Social Security chief issued a statement Thursday applauding the passage of a Republican reconciliation bill that analysts say would negatively impact the New Deal program's finances.
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano called the Republican legislation, which Trump is expected to sign on Friday, a "historic step forward for America's seniors" and a reaffirmation of the president's "promise to protect Social Security."
But experts warned in the lead-up to the bill's passage that its massive tax cuts would bring forward the date at which Social Security will no longer be able to pay out full benefits in the absence of legislative solutions.
"By raising the standard deduction for all filers, and raising it even higher for some seniors, fewer Social Security beneficiaries will pay taxes on their benefits, and those who do will pay lower rates," said Kathleen Romig and Gbenga Ajilore of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Raising the standard deduction would deliver little to no benefit to lower- and moderate-income families while reducing income into Social Security's trust funds."
The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund pic.twitter.com/aRhLfcRiIv
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 4, 2025
According to the latest Social Security Board of Trustees report—released ahead of the reconciliation bill's passage—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2033. Thereafter, if lawmakers don't act, the fund will be able to pay out 77% of total scheduled benefits.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a conservative think tank, estimated in an analysis released last month that the Republican reconciliation package would accelerate the depletion of Social Security and Medicare's trust funds by a year. Compared to current law, the GOP measure would also result in "even deeper" cuts to Social Security benefits after the trust fund depletion date, the analysis projected.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a leading champion of Social Security Expansion in Congress, highlighted CRFB's findings in a video posted to social media a day before House Republicans secured final passage of the reconciliation bill.
"We have to act now, not just to protect Social Security but to expand the benefits," said Larson. "It needs to be protected, it needs to be enhanced—not cut and diminished."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular