JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
What Trump Could Do on the Way Out
Brief #1—Transition of Power
By Sean Gray
It’s all over but the crying in the case of the 2020 presidential election, and rest assured there will be crying. Celebrations broke out in cities across the country at the news the Associated Press had called the race in favor of Joe Biden.
Election Legal Challenges # 2 Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin
Brief #2—Election Legal Challenges
By Zack Huffman
On Thursday, November 5, The Trump Campaign filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nevada. The suit seeks an emergency order to halt the use of an optical scanning machine to process ballots and validate voter signatures
Student Loan Debt and the Higher Education Act of 1965
Brief #50—Education
By Emily Carty
The student loan debt crisis has many people across the nation rethinking the university and job training systems. According to Forbes, 45 million borrowers nearly have a collective $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, falling just behind the collective debt of the mortgage industry.
Timber industry clear-cuts a path to more old-growth forest in Alaska
Brief #100—Environment
By Todd Broadman
The Tongass forest, referred to as “America’s Amazon,” was designated a National Forest by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902.
Democrats Missed Opportunities with Latino Voters
Brief #2—Campaign News
By Linda F. Hersey
Neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump addressed adequately the most significant issues facing Latinos in the United States is the blunt assessment of Kristina Sosa, a bilingual caseworker in California, about Election 2020.
2020 Presidential Election Motivates Both Sides to Protest
Brief #19—Criminal Justice
By Erika Shannon
This past week, tensions have been rising here in the U.S. while everyone impatiently awaits the result of the 2020 presidential election.
America Needs to Rethink Its Use of Military Force
Brief #96—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
It can be difficult to find coherence in Trump’s agenda, foreign policy included.
Election Legal Challenges Part 1 Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan
Brief #1—Campaign News
By William Borque
In Pennsylvania, President Trump launched a lawsuit to stop counting the votes in key counties still counting votes
Social Security in the Time of Covid-19
Brief #97—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
There are several ways in which older Americans will be impacted as a consequence of the Covid epidemic.
A Look At Tight House Races in Georgia’s 6th and Pennsylvania’s 10th Districts
By William Bourque
In American elections, the swing state reigns supreme. Now, more than ever, voters in swing states decide the course of American democracy more than any other. Here at U.S. Resist News, we have been looking at some of the closest house races across the nation. This week, I will focus on house races in the swing states of Georgia and Pennsylvania. Both of them have key implications in the race for President, as well as for control of the house.
Starting off in Georgia’s 6th district with incumbent Lucy McBath, a tightly contested race is expected. She faces Karen Handel, who is the former representative for the district who McBath beat in 2018 by a margin of about 4000 votes. This district is one that historically leans republican, which can be backed by 2016 presidential results. Trump won GA-06 by 1.5 points, a close margin in comparison to 2012, where Romney beat Obama by a whopping 23.5 points. McBath is the first democrat to represent the new 6th district, which was redrawn in the early 1990’s and includes the city of Roswell and many northern suburbs of Atlanta. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich hails from Georgia’s 6th, which shows just how much of a stronghold it was for the right. McBath has campaigned on being a strong advocate for gun control, as she lost her own son to gun violence in 2012. She has also promised to continue to fight for affordable healthcare for all Americans. McBath faces a difficult test ahead, but the two-time cancer survivor is no stranger to challenges, which she plans to face head-on.
Pennsylvania’s recently redrawn 10th district, which includes Harrisburg, may be one of several districts in the state to have a red seat turn blue. In 2018, The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s redrawn congressional districts, leading to some upheaval and discontent from state republicans. The incumbent is republican Scott Perry, who won a close contest in the first-ever race in the newly drawn district. Perry faces former Auditor General of Pennsylvania Eugene DePasquale, who has a history of winning close races in the state. A recent poll from FiveThirtyEight has Perry with a three point advantage. It is interesting to note that Vice President Biden holds a slight lead over President Trump in the district, in poll done by GBAO, an organization from Washington D.C. Depasquale’s campaign is running on his strength as Auditor General and his experience in the Pennsylvania Legislature, where he served for 5 years. Perry has shown himself to be an avid follower of President Trump, voting with hum 95.8% in this congressional session, according to FiveThirtyEight. Depasquale has to lean on his base of democrats who supported him in the race for Auditor General, as well as those republicans who can’t support their President any longer. The race is bound to be close, and we will continue to cover it at USResist News
Supreme Court Issues Landmark LGBTQ Decision But Leaves Other Issues For Future Cases
Policy Summary: On June 15, 2020 the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision Bostock v. Clayton County. The case consolidated a number of cases because of a similarity of fact patterns and issue at the heart of each case. In Bostock, a county employee was fired for “conduct unbecoming” when the county discovered that the plaintiff had joined a gay recreational softball league. In Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Donald Zarda was fired by his employer after they discovered that he was gay. And in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Aimee Stephens initially presented herself as a male to the funeral home when she interviewed for the job but after she was hired she informed her employer that she intended to live and work as a woman. She was subsequently fired. In each case the fired employee brought a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging discrimination based on sex in the appropriate federal district court with each eventually finding their way to a separate circuit court of appeals. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the employer was justified in firing Gerald Bostock. However, the Second Circuit in Mr. Zarda’s case and the Sixth Circuit in Ms. Stephens’s case both ruled that that each had a claim to sex discrimination under Title VII and allowed their cases to proceed. The cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a 6 – 3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The decision in the Bostock case is seen as a landmark ruling for LGBTQ rights but there are other issues lurking in the decision that needs to be monitored in case there is an attempt to water down the decision or significantly alter its effect in the future.
First, the case was considered a surprise because of the current makeup of the court. Justices’ Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two recent appointees by President Trump, are considered conservative jurists and their appointments shifted the balance of the court and gave the court a solid five vote conservative majority.
So while the LGBTQ community is celebrating the decision, it is important to note that this case was more about rules of statutory construction (meaning of the phrase “because of sex) rather than a vindication of LGBQT rights based on constitutional principles. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion tries to take an “ordinary meaning” approach and finds “because of sex” based on biological distinctions between male and female and how “because of” is used in other statutes without the word “sex.” Justice Alito’s dissent wanted to interpret the term “sex” as it meant when the statute was passed in 1964. But Justice Kavanaugh had the most interesting argument in his dissent because he found Justice Gorsuch’s analysis based on a “literal meaning” of the phrase instead of an “ordinary meaning” of the phrase which can elicit more than one meaning especially when applied to the word “sex.” It may be confusing but the point is that the Supreme Court as now composed came to this celebrated decision by accident through tedious wordplay rather than out of any genuine concern for the LGBQT community.
In the future, possible amendments to Title VII could conceivably change the law and another Supreme Court case could with one case severely curtail many of the constitutional rights that the LGBQT community has come to rely on. A number of justices have expressed skepticism over the “right to privacy” and 14th Amendment “fundamental rights” which were used to decide the landmark LGBQT cases Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. There is still a hostility in the Supreme Court towards LGBQT as a fundamental right under the Constitution that should give activists pause that the court will always be receptive to upholding LGBQT rights, the Bostock decision last week notwithstanding. With the right case, the Supreme Court could easily take the opposite position.
Finally, the decision did not specifically address and simply passed over the issue of how LGBQT rights and religious liberty will co – exist under the law. This has been a thorny issue as many religious persons and communities have been relying on their freedom of religion as a way to deny LGBQT persons from participating in American society. In the wake of the Bostock decision, a number of religious leaders expressed concern over the Supreme Court decision and voiced worries about now being exposed to lawsuits because of their hiring practices that are based on their religious beliefs. It is entirely conceivable that the Court could protect LGBQT rights today but side with religious advocates against LGBQT persons tomorrow. Advocates for LGBQT rights have won a victory but there are still many issues at play that could be dealt with by Congress and the Supreme Court in the near future that could still go in any number of directions – both good and bad. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s statement on Bostock decision.
- Lambda Legal – non – profit group advocating on LGBQT issues press release on Bostock decision.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Police Reform Bills Stalled in Congress, Highlights Partisan Paralysis
Despite broad swaths of Americans protesting in the streets, attempts to pass a police overhaul bill stalled in Congress last week. Both the GOP and Democrats introduced police reform bills, but neither survived the partisan divide, making it unlikely that Congress will take any action toward police reform before the November elections.
Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle support major reforms to policing, it may seem surprising that Congress couldn’t find enough common ground enough to pass a bill. After all, there were some commonalities in the GOP and Democratic bills, including measures to restrict the use of chokeholds, increase transparency through the use of a national database of use-of-force incidents, and strengthen the required use of body cameras.
The differences between the bills lay in the strength of the measures proposed (offering incentives versus imposing federal mandates) and, most significantly, the attempts by Democrats to peel back qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity, which is often cited by activists and civil rights groups as key to the lack of accountability in police departments, prevents police officers from being sued by victims and their families. This is important because civil suits are often the only recourse for victims of police violence, as prosecutors are resistant to pursuing criminal charges against police officers. The result is the shocking abuse of police power that has become all too common in the United States.
Currently, prosecutors must prove that an officer “willfully” violated an individual’s constitutional rights, while the Democratic bill lowers that standard to actions undertaken with “reckless disregard” for the individual’s rights. Lowering this standard would provide strong incentives for municipalities to restructure the police department toward de-escalation to prevent such abuses of power, as they are otherwise responsible for paying out damages to victims.
Analysis
In the wake of the protests, both Republicans and Democrats were quick to lament the death of George Floyd and call for police reform. So what explains the inability to come together to pass a bill pushing police reform?
One cannot deny the influence of police lobbying groups: the United Police Officers Association Super PAC has spent more than $7 million in the past two years alone. Yet, those donations are handed out on both sides of the aisle.
Another reason for the stagnation is partisan branding, with Republicans seeking to brand themselves as siding with ‘Law and Order’ and Democrats siding with ‘Racial Justice.’ And while Democrats shot down the GOP bill for being “inadequate,” Republicans claimed the Democratic bill is too punitive toward law enforcement.
Yet, despite calls among many protesters and some progressives to defund or abolish the existing police system, the Democratic bill proposes neither, focusing instead on improving accountability among police officers and their departments. Nonetheless, Trump pushed the narrative that Democrats are irredeemably extreme, stating in a tweet “Radical Left Democrats want to Defund and Abandon our Police.”
Other Republicans and Democrats are also quick to reinforce and inflame these battle lines. Such cynical jabs may gain some points among the electorate, but they also reinforce the misconceptions that further polarize the country and prevent compromise and reconciliation. In truth, politicians generally care about racial justice as well as law and order. Pitting the brands in staunch opposition helps no one.
Still, staunchly playing to one’s base can be a fruitful strategy in an election year. Despite protests on his doorstep, Trump shrugged off the lack of progress. “If nothing happens with it, it’s one of those things,” Trump said. “We have different philosophies.”
Resistance Resources:
The US Human Rights Network is a national network of organizations and individuals working to strengthen a human rights movement and culture within the United States led by the people most directly impacted by human rights violations. They work to secure dignity and justice for all.
The Law Enforcement Action Partnership’s mission is to unite and mobilize the voice of law enforcement in support of drug policy and criminal justice reforms that will make communities safer by focusing law enforcement resources on the greatest threats to public safety, promoting alternatives to arrest and incarceration, addressing the root causes of crime, and working toward healing police-community relations.
Don’t Politicize A Pandemic
By Ron Israel, Managing Editor, U.S. RESIST NEWS
America sadly has the highest number of coronavirus cases in the world. Other countries that used to have high case-loads and mortality rates ( e.g. Italy, Spain, China, South Korea ) have found ways to contain the virus and keep their outbreaks under control. Why has the United States been unable to follow suit? It is because of the politicization of the pandemic.
President Trump and his administration have consistently used the virus as a means to exacerbate America’s political divisions and stoke their voter-base. They have ignored the public health emergency that the virus presents, downplayed the seriousness of the virus and refused to listen to the scientific guidance of their own scientists. That guidance emphasizes the wearing of masks, social distancing, staying at home when needed. hand-washing, avoiding crowds, lots of testing and contact tracing and related public health measures.
The Trump administration has refused to lead at the national level and instead has allowed states to do their own thing in response to the virus, including opening-up without putting in place any of these basic measures. It has resisted invoking the War-Time Powers Act and other public policy tools that would allow the government to mandate production of needed personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing devices .It has prioritized the allocation of limited PPE resources to mostly red states. It has stoked a false dichotomy between opening up and staying at home when it’s possible to sensibly do both.
President Trump sees the coronavirus as a threat to his re-election. But rather than tell the American people the truth about the virus, and take aggressive action at the national level to contain its spread, he continues to downplay its seriousness. His Republicans colleagues have gone along and seem to be using the virus as a means of voter suppression, witness the small number of polling stations available in recent state primary elections in red states.
Trump’s failure to lead during this pandemic, and his willingness to politicize the virus, is resulting in a growing national tragedy. So many lives could have been saved, jobs preserved and spirits lifted had the President provided us with much needed national leadership. Sadly the virus cases continue to rise in large parts of the country. Trump’s politicization of the pandemic needs to stop.
US Withdrawal from World Health Organization Stuns Experts and Even Some Republicans
In May, President Trump announced that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO). Announcement of the withdrawal comes after Trump time and again reviled the WHO’s handling of the novel Coronavirus response. Many experts have stated that the unprecedented move jeopardizes the efficiency of global health responses and can even obstruct the process of developing a vaccine for COVID-19.
Trump claims that the WHO had failed to act appropriately during the nascent days of the pandemic. Namely, for not sounding the alarm in time about the spread of the Coronavirus out of Wuhan.
In April, the Trump Administration froze U.S. funding to the WHO. Trump then sent a letter to the WHO director demanding “substantive changes” to the organization’s procedures within the next thirty days or else the U.S. will permanently cut funding to the agency. Just eleven days later, Trump made the decision final.
This decision has seen bipartisan backlash. “I disagree with the president’s decision,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in a statement after the announcement. “Withdrawing U.S. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials that are essential to the development of vaccines, which citizens of the United States as well as others in the world need. And withdrawing could make it harder to work with other countries to stop viruses before they get to the United States.”
The legality of Trump’s withdrawal is still not clear. However, if the decision does follow through, congress can challenge it.
“This decision is really so short-sighted and ill-advised, and all it does is put American lives at risk,” said Dr. Howard Koh, former assistant secretary for health in the Obama administration and now a professor at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health.
Since the WHO’s founding in 1948, the U.S. has always played an outsized role in the agency’s operations. American experts hold many high ranking positions including in emergency committees which are in place to deliberate pandemic responses. It also remains unclear what would happen to their positions in the agency after a U.S. withdrawal.
Analysis
A global centralized response to pandemics—especially one like the COVID-19 pandemic—is the most effective way to combat their spread.
Many have interpreted the move to withdraw from the WHO as an attempt to divert attention from the Trump Administration’s botched Coronavirus response.
The U.S. leads the world in most COVID-19 deaths and many experts claim that the numbers wouldn’t be as high as they are today had the President taken the virus more seriously during its early days.
Earlier this year, Trump downplayed the severity of the virus and even praised Chinese president Xi Jinping for his handling of its spread—although the very reason Trump is blaming the WHO is for not being tough on China.
Perhaps rescinding membership of the WHO is just another part of efforts to tarnish globalization, which is part of the agenda of the right-wing’s anti-globalization, nationalist stance.
Whatever the case may be, precluding U.S. support to the WHO in the middle of a global pandemic will likely disrupt the vaccine development process, stifle an organized attempt at stopping the spread of the virus, and inflict other ramifications related to world health.
Learn more:
The World Health Organization is the world’s number one organization in helping stop the spread of diseases in less developed countries as well as all over the world. It has been at the forefront in attempting to mobilize the world against COVID-19.
Global Health Council is a coalition of organizations serving as a hub for business engagement on the world’s most pressing global health issues.
Trump Administration Refuses to Regulate Drinking Water Toxin Shown to Damage Babies’ Brains
Policy
The Trump administration and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler have decided to end Federal regulation of the toxic chemical Perchlorate in America’s drinking water. Perchlorate is a chemical used in explosives, such as rocket fuel, fireworks, and ammunition. When the chemical runs off into our drinking water supply, it is known to inhibit the function of the thyroid gland and can damage the brain development in fetuses and infants. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, perchlorate can “cause measurable drops in IQ in newborns,” and one study showed that “9 out of 13 breastfeeding infants were ingesting significant levels of the chemical.”
In the early 2000’s, the Bush administration had decided not to regulate levels of the toxin in drinking water. In 2011, the Obama administration determined that “Perchlorate from runoff contaminates the drinking water of as many as 16 million Americans,” and decided the EPA should set a maximum limit of 15 parts per billion (ppb) of perchlorate allowable in our drinking water. Some individual states have since set their own limits for allowable concentrations of perchlorate; Massachusetts and California setting their limits respectively at 2 and 6 ppb. Andrew Wheeler and the current EPA had originally proposed setting the maximum limit for allowable concentrations to be at 56 ppb, but after analyzing the local water tests of only 15 water systems in a total of 12 states, have decided to drop the federal regulation of the chemical all together.
Wheeler claims new analyses show that perchlorate is not harmful in such low concentrations as we once thought, and that based on this new fact, the federal government no longer needs to regulate the chemical. Wheeler says that state agencies are doing enough on their own and the EPA’s analyses show that the country’s water supply contains low enough levels of the toxin. In a draft final action, the EPA noted that up to 620,000 people may be drinking water that contains perchlorate concentrations higher than “levels of concern” (56 ppb being what the current administration considers a “level of concern” versus 15 ppb of the previous administration or 6 ppb and 2 ppb of California and Massachusetts). The administration has said that it was “not in the public interest” to regulate perchlorate because it is burdensome to business, and the move is part of President Trump’s promise to “pare back burdensome ‘one-size-fits-all’ overregulation for the American people.”
Analysis
The scientific community and environmental activists have lashed out at this new decision by the EPA. Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council says, “[This] decision is illegal, unscientific, and unconscionable. The Environmental Protection Agency is threatening the health of pregnant moms and young children with toxic chemicals in their drinking water at levels that literally can cause loss of IQ points.” Olson also points out that the EPA had required some nationwide testing for perchlorate in drinking water only from 2001-2005, and thus it is “impossible to determine how severe a problem remains nationally.” Olson believes the decision by the EPA is illegal because it “defies a court-ordered consent decree requiring the administration regulate the chemical.” After the Obama administration in 2011 had decided that perchlorate could not be allowed in drinking water in concentrations higher than 15 ppb, a “legal duty to regulate perchlorate” was issued. The EPA still never issued an official standard to regulate the toxin, so in 2016 the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the EPA in federal court to set limits on perchlorate. The judge hearing the case decided the EPA needed “a fire lit under them,” and so the agency agreed in a “court-approved consent decree to propose a perchlorate drinking water standard by October 2018 and to finalize it by late 2019.” An extension was granted to the EPA for more study and the due date for an established standard was moved to late June 2020. Now, in June 2020, the EPA is claiming perchlorate requires higher concentrations than previously thought to be considered dangerous and so they are not going to set any standard for its concentrations in drinking water, because studies by the agency show that the majority of the country’s drinking water contains perchlorate concentrations lower than 56 ppb. The agency claims its analyses of just 15 drinking water facilities in only 12 states, shows, mostly, perchlorate concentrations are below 56 ppb, and so the rest of the country’s drinking water must be fine and the state agencies can do their own regulating of the toxin.
The NRDC points out that the 15 ppb health advisory established by the Obama administration for perchlorate concentrations was based on a 2005 study from the National Academy of Sciences. Wheeler, on the other hand, now claims that “a level of 56 ppb would be safe, and perhaps even 90 ppb would be fine.” The EPA has even admitted “that a standard of 56 ppb would allow those kids exposed to perchlorate in drinking water at above this level to have an average IQ loss of two points. People at the lower end of the IQ spectrum could lose far more IQ points.” The NRDC says that “In concluding 56 ppb is safe, the agency would allow an unprecedented level of adverse impact on children’s brain development.” The council also points out that the EPA “has decided to ignore all other health effects of perchlorate that scientists say can occur at lower doses, rejecting its own previous analysis. EPA’s new supposedly “safe” level is nearly 10 times higher than California’s standard for perchlorate of 6 ppb. It also is 28 times higher than Massachusetts’s standard of 2 ppb.”
Based on a report from the National Research Council on the effects of ingesting perchlorate, some California experts now recommend the standard for concentrations of the toxin be brought down to 1 ppb to protect bottle-fed infants. A “blue-ribbon” panel of scientists from New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institute recommend “a maximum safe level of 5 ppb.” The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) even put out a statement saying, “It should be noted that this decision [by the EPA] was not reviewed by the peer reviewers of the U.S. EPA’s approach for the risk assessment of perchlorate.” The NJDEP further noted that even “using traditional EPA assumptions and analysis, a standard of 8 ppb would be called for.” What this means is that the EPA’s claim that 56 ppb or less of perchlorate is a safe concentration according to the latest health risk assessment, is not true. The NJDEP is saying that if the EPA conducted its health risk assessment the way the peer review boards said they should, then according to their calculations, the EPA should have recommended 8 ppb be the maximum allowable concentration of perchlorate in drinking water, not 56 ppb.
The NJDEP also points out that not all states have the laws in place to set their own regulations for perchlorate concentrations and thus rely on federal regulations for protection. So, for the EPA to justify no federal regulation based on the premise that states like California and Massachusetts have been able to successfully regulate the chemical, is not a valid argument. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urges “the strongest possible” federal limits. The AAP states that for the EPA to not regulate perchlorate “would set a precedent inconsistent with EPA’s stated mission to protect public health.” This statement rings particularly true when it appears that the EPA is providing the American public with a faulty analysis of the collected data.
Resistance Resources
- Natural Resources Defense Council works to safeguard the earth – its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/
- American Academy of Pediatrics an organization of 67,000 pediatricians committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. https://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx
- Environmental Defense Fund one of the world’s largest environmental organizations, with more than 2.5 million members and a staff of 700 scientists, economists, policy experts, and other professionals around the world. https://www.edf.org/
Sources Cited
- Agnarone, K. (2019, September 3). Regulations.gov (United States of America, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection). Retrieved June 23, 2020, from https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0780-0266
- Frazin, R. (2020, June 18). EPA declines to regulate rocket fuel chemical tied to developmental damage. The Hill. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/503359-epa-declines-to-regulate-rocket-fuel-chemical-tied-to-developmental
- Friedman, L., & Davenport, C. (2020, June 18). E.P.A. Won’t Regulate Toxic Compound Linked to Fetal Brain Damage. The New York Times. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/climate/trump-epa-perchlorate.html
- Knickmeyer, E. (2020, June 18). EPA drops regulation for contaminant linked to brain damage in babies. Abc 7 Eyewitness News. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from https://abc7.com/perchlorate-obama-era-president-donald-trump-epa-rolls-back/6254106/
- National Research Council. 2005. Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11202.
- Olson, E. D. (2020, May 14). EPA Refuses to Protect Children from Perchlorate-Contaminated Tap Water [Web log post]. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/erik-d-olson/epa-refuses-protect-children-perchlorate-contaminated-tap-water
Big Tech Companies Announce Halt To Sales of Facial Recognition Technology
Policy Summary: On June 10, 2020 Amazon.com announced that they would implement a one-year moratorium on providing Rekognition to law enforcement agencies. Rekognition is Amazon’s face recognition software that allows a user to scan a crowd of persons and quickly match a photo of a person’s face to a database of people’s face photos. The next day, Microsoft announced that they would discontinue selling their own version of facial recognition technology to law enforcement departments until a federal law is passed to regulate the technology. Both of these announcements followed the announcement of IBM to completely abandon the technology as a product for sale. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Facial recognition technology has always been controversial. This is because the technology has the ability to scan and potentially match large crowds of people who may not be engaging in illegal behavior which raises privacy issues. And in tests of the software, the software has been shown to be unreliable and prone to false matches when used against photos of persons of color. There have been calls to Congress to try and implement legislation that would regulate and limit the use of the software but nothing has been enacted. There have also been similar calls to Amazon to discontinue sales of the software to law enforcement agencies but Amazon ignored those calls.
Until now. In the aftermath of the protests due to the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor killings and the ongoing national discussion of police reform, Amazon, Microsoft and IBM have all issued statements regarding the future of their facial recognition software products. IBM is the only company of the three to announce that they will discontinue offering their software because of the potential for “mass surveillance and racial profiling.” Amazon and Microsoft’s decision represents a holding pattern – Amazon putting on hold sales to law enforcement for a year while Microsoft suspending sales while being more vocal in calling for federal legislation to regulate the technology.
On the surface these are steps in the right direction but any of these companies could have taken these steps the last couple of years. They refused. It was only because of the eruption of police reform protests that finally got the companies to change their tune. Amazon’s decision is only for one year which implies that they will simply go back to selling their product once the protests have simmered down. In addition, Amazon’s announcement states that their product is still being sold to groups that are not traditional law enforcement such as missing children’s groups. A moratorium on sales of Rekognition to law enforcement does not change the fact that other groups are still using the software. This action also does not mention how Amazon’s Ring service will be affected. Ring is a doorbell monitor that allows users and third – parties to view remotely video of a user’s front door. Even though controversial, Amazon and Ring have recently partnered with local law enforcement to give those police departments access to videos from the app which can be used to bypass search warrant requirements and again raises issues of privacy.
If these big tech companies want to implement more meaningful change in the controversial realm of smart policing, they need to look at all aspects of the field instead of simply halting sales for a limited time. Some of the best suggestions include making the software more available for independent third party testing, court approval before police can use it and a ban on use if a constitutional right such as free speech or a protest is in progress. What these tech companies have announced is a move in the right direction but there is more that can be done. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – press release on Amazon’s decision to halt sales of Rekognition.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – blog post on decision by tech companies halting sales for now of facial recognition technology.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Trump Continues to Deport Infected Migrants
Policy
Amidst the global lockdowns as a result of COVID-19, the Trump Administration deported 76 migrants on a plane to Guatemala in March. Of those 76 individuals, 71 had tested positive for COVID-19. Guatemala currently links about a fifth of their confirmed cases to those 71 individuals. They have since temporarily suspended accepting deportation flights, though President Trump has threatened to impose penalties on countries who deny or delay the acceptance of deportees.
The Trump Administration had previously shut national borders to all migrants and asylum seekers to avert serious danger of the spread of COVID-19 from abroad (See USRN Immigration Brief 94 ) The US now has the largest number of cases in the world and continues to deport thousands of immigrants, many of whom are infected and en route to countries that are ill equipped to cope with a mass outbreak. However, the deportation flights have persisted to countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Jamaica.
Analysis
Many Democrats had pushed for the release of migrants held in detention centers (which have become Covid-19 incubators) and suspension of deportations early in the Pandemic. The United Nations and human rights organizations have urged for this as well in addition to calling on governments to suspend forced returns as of May 13 to reduce serious health risks. While the xenophobic Trump Administration has placed emphasis on the dangers of communicable diseases infecting Americans from abroad, COVID-19 has rapidly spread within the United States and purposely deporting infected migrants is inhumane and unethical.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- World Health Organization: the WHO provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and global responses
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
The Supreme Court and Trump Administration Offer Conflicting Opinions on Transgender Rights in a Matter of Days
The Policy
On the four-year anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub shooting, where 49 LGBTQ+ (majority latinx) individuals were shot and killed in a Florida night club, the Trump Administration finalized a rule rescinding nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people in healthcare. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in 2010, “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities in certain health programs or activities”. In 2016, under President Obama, the rule redefined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include gender identity and termination of pregnancy, with gender identity being defined as “one’s internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, or neither, or a combination of male and female”.
The reversal of this rule, follows prior regulations of the Trump Administration that defines “sex discrimination” as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being male or female, and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. While the previous 2016 rule did not include sexual orientation in the definition of sex, gender identity was, and such a reversal severely impacts the protections of those who do not identify as what some would define as “traditionally” or biologically male or female. With such changes, the health care system is expected to save over $2.9 million. The rule is set to go in effect by mid-August.
This Rule change comes days prior to the monumental Supreme Court ruling protecting LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace. In a 6-3 decision that stated, “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law”. The Supreme Court decided on the cases of a skydiving instructor who was fired in 2010 after he told a client he was gay, a funeral home director who was fired after she came out as transgender in 2013, and a child-aid worker who was fired, also in 2013, after he joined a gay softball league.
Analysis:
The key reason driving , given by the Trump administration, the need for Section 1557’s amendment is cost efficiency. Cutting costs is a frequently used defense in instances where civil rights are impacted, or where minorities are severely affected. The Rule’s finalization is expected to save roughly $2.9 billion over the next five years. While this may benefit the pockets of Americans, it will most certainly negatively impact LGBTQ+ individuals, specifically, trans individuals.
Supporters of the change point to benefits of cost effectiveness and the need for correcting the “blatant executive overreach by President Obama”. Additionally, supporters claim the change will also reduce confusion regarding the legal meaning of “sex discrimination”. Critics argue the rule will further harm one of the most vulnerable populations, transgender people. The rule could also mean that those seeking an abortion could be denied care if performing the procedure violates the provider’s moral or religious beliefs. This rule opens the door for discrimination and protections for those who discriminate under religious freedom. In addition to the risk of discrimination, the signing of this rule produces a chilling effect, as seen in the Public Charge proposal, it is likely that transgender or non-binary people will be less willing to go to the doctor’s office out of fear and suffer health complications as a result. This comes during a pandemic where marginalized communities are severely impacted and to now add this layer of discrimination will inevitably result in preventable deaths. LGBTQ rights groups quickly and vocally condemned the rule change, calling the move “heartless”, “encouraging discrimination”, and “deadly consequences”. The Administration has made it clear with this rule, both in its contents and its signing date, that the LGBTQ+ community is a target and will lose rights.
However, the Supreme Court ruling provides workplace protections that help millions. Conservatives have strong opposition to this ruling and to the apparent abandoning of conservative-values by the conservative Justices that sided with liberal Justices; this ruling not only established LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace, it likely set the foundation for addition alprotections down the line.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the Court’s opinion based on a matter of logic when refuting the argument that the writers of the Civil Rights Act did not mention, nor intended on including sexual orientation of transgender status, when it protected against discrimination on the basis of sex. Gorsuch wrote “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first can not happen without the second.” While there is much to celebrate, many point to the widespread practice of “at-will employment”, where most employers do not need a reason for firing someone, thus rendering the decision meaningless. Title VII covers employees in workplaces with 15 or more employees and religiously-affiliated employers. While there are some exemptions, including ministers or other individuals whose job involves teaching or leading the faith, largely, this ruling applies to all job positions.
How do these two rulings interact with each other?
In a matter of four days, two branches of government gave conflicting orders prompting confusion about LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Both the Affordable Care Act and Title IX ban discrimination “on the basis of sex.” Although this language is different from the statutory language in Bostock, the Supreme Court case, which forbids discrimination “because of … sex,” the Court has indicated that the words “on the basis of” and “because of” have the same meaning. The Bostock ruling may have focused solely on employment discrimination, but legal scholars say the language will likely force an expansion of civil rights in countless areas of daily life for LGBTQ+ members and beyond.
The Administration has attempted to, and succeeded in some areas, to narrow the definition of sex in order to erase the rights of the LGBTQ+ population, but this ruling will likely upend this pursuit, protecting rights already federally protected in housing, healthcare, education, and credit. Importantly, the logic described in Justice Gorsuch’s opinion will be key, and will likely be applied to similar provisions, protections, and policies. With this precedent, there is an expectation that any future cases ruling in favor of sex rights will expand the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
While the Supreme Court ruling does not automatically invalidate the new healthcare rule, it makes it significantly more difficult to defend in court. Legal scholars, however, do not see the Bostock ruling impacting Trump’s Military Transgender Ban. The next challenge in sex discrimination is likely to be found in an anticipated policy to allow homeless shelters to consider biological sex rather than gender identity in placement decisions, even if that puts the LGBTQ+ individuals in harm’s way Another legal challenges will likely occur on the Administration’s argument that adoption services should be able to reject same-sex couples from adopting. The true strength of the Supreme Court ruling will be revealed in due time, likely highlighting more conflict with the Administration.
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- Human Rights Campaign : America’s largest civil rights organization, working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.
- Lambda Legal : A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of the LGBT community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS through litigation, societal education, and public policy work.
- National Center for Transgender Equality : The nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization winning life-saving change for transgender people
Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
Victory Ruling on DACA Status by the Supreme Court
Policy Summary
On June 18, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court denied the Trump Administration’s longstanding endeavor to dismantle the Obama era immigration program that allowed nearly 700,000 young people to remain in the US and avoid deportation. The program known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allows enrollees, “Dreamers,” to work, study, and remain in the US on a two-year renewable permit. Nearly 30,000 Dreamers work in health care and have been essential during the COVID-19 pandemic and 90% of Dreamers are employed and contribute greatly to the American economy. The Supreme Court addressed the Trump Administration’s failure to legally comply with the procedural requirements that it provide a reasoned explanation for its actions; this hubris enabled the Republican majority court to be more inclined to rule against the Trump Administration.
President Trump touted the decision as a “shotgun blast” into the faces of proud Republicans. He tweeted “we need more Justices or we will lose our second amendment [which is the right to bear arms] and everything else.” He has since promised to disclose a list of Conservative Judges to replace the current sitting Justices for his second term, should he be re-elected. Among many other progressives in the Court and legislature, the former Vice President and future Democratic Presidential Candidate, Joe Biden, called the ruling a victory.
Analysis:
In some capacity, this decision came as a shock due to the Republican majority of the court but serves as an unmistakable reminder that the Trump Administration cannot be exempt from the Rule of Law and official procedures. The Trump Administration has sought to dismantle and curate a more stringent policy towards immigration from its inception. The efforts to reverse the DACA program were amongst its greatest aspirations and the Supreme Court judgment firmly asserts the American Dream and core values are more important than acquiescing to a bigoted and xenophobic administration.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- World Health Organization: the WHO provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and global responses
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses