Friday, July 10, 2026

Chellie Pingree, M.C. on ICE in Maine

 From: Congresswoman Pingree <ME01CPIMA@mail.house.gov>

Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 4:13 PM
Subject: Message from Congresswoman Chellie Pingree
To: <marilyn.armbruster@gmail.com>


Dear Marilyn, 

Thank you for contacting me about the immigration enforcement actions taken by the Trump Administration. Like you, I’m deeply concerned about how these policies are harming our friends and neighbors.

Maine is home to over 50,000 immigrants —more than 8,000 of whom are seeking asylum and have likely already survived unimaginable hardship—who contribute actively to our communities and local economies. Asylum seekers are lawfully present while their cases move through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the courts, and many other immigrants in Maine hold work permits, green cards, or are pursuing other lawful paths to permanent status in the U.S. All they want is a safe life and the means to provide for themselves and their families. This administration wants to make it impossible for them to build their lives here. Asylum seekers, lawful immigrants, and undocumented immigrants are distinct groups, even though this administration’s policies often blur those distinctions .

Since taking office in 2025, President Trump has reinstated and expanded the dangerous and reckless immigration policies he enacted in his first term. In his first months in office, Trump launched a sweeping agenda of anti-immigrant policies—issuing Executive Orders to expand detention and deportation, impose travel bans, restrict refugee admissions, and make it harder for immigrants to access pathways to remain in the U.S. lawfully. In particular, he directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand detention infrastructure in the country and begin detaining anyone arrested by Homeland Security for deportation. This has led to arrests in schools, hospitals, courthouses, and workplaces, causing fear and confusion across the country.

Here in Maine, we regularly see reports now of Homeland Security detaining someone in our community. The recent arrests of a work-authorized Old Orchard Beach Police Department reserve officer, a pastor from Westbrook, and an individual seeking medical attention after a car crash, not to mention the countless unreported stories of workplace and roadside arrests, are cause for alarm and expose a broader pattern: The immigration enforcement tactics used by this administration are more opaque, more punitive, wildly inconsistent, and are enabling unchecked authority and undermining trust in lawful pathways. Instead of going after the most dangerous people, these enforcement actions do not distinguish between individuals with pending asylum cases, those with valid work authorization, and those without lawful status—instilling fear among law-abiding residents who are simply trying to live, work, and care for their families. 

My office has heard from several Maine employers that their work-authorized employees —including home health aides, food processors, construction workers, educators, and religious leaders—are being targeted for detention. Several of these employees passed background checks as a requirement of their employment. These are not failures of the individuals – many of whom are here lawfully, working with authorization, or actively pursuing legal pathways to permanent immigration status. They are failures of a system that makes it dangerously easy to jail people who are lawfully present and fully participating in and contributing to our community. This blurring of lines between lawfully present immigrants and those who are intentionally breaking the law undermines confidence in the system and penalizes those who are following the rules.

As someone who has long worked in Congress to fix our broken immigration system and correct the cumbersome work permit authorization process, the reports of workplace sweeps and of people with valid work permits being detained are particularly disturbing. Employers across Maine take great pride in welcoming new Mainers to help fill their workforce needs. To target people who are not only contributing to our economy but enriching our communities is nonsensical and flat-out wrong.

My staff also hear almost every day from people whose loved ones have been detained. In many cases, these arrests involve lawfully present individuals with pending asylum claims or valid work permits, yet families are left without clear information. Families contact my office because they do not know why their family member has been arrested, if they are in Customs and Border Patrol custody, or ICE custody or where they have been sent--a local county jail or a detention facility in another, often rural part of the country. While my team can help find these family members by reaching out to Customs and Border Parol and ICE directly or, using the ICE online detainee locator, because of the separation of powers between Congress and the judicial branch, there is unfortunately only so much my office is able to do.

Let me be clear. Homeland Security has always been able to move detainees between jails and states, particularly in New England, where several states share a field office and immigration court in Massachusetts. But now we are seeing a dramatic shift from what used to happen. In the past, ICE transfers were less frequent and usually involved individuals with final removal orders. Now, asylum seekers, children with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and others still awaiting hearings are being swept into detention and transferred far from their families and, importantly, legal representation.

 

My office has received reports of random traffic stops targeting people following a lawful immigration process and with no criminal background, resulting in a transfer to a rural Texas detention facility. We have heard from people arriving home after an overnight shift caring for people with disabilities to learn that Homeland Security has been to their house and is now looking for them. This is not normal. By targeting people who are following lawful processes alongside those who are not, the Administration has eroded trust in immigration enforcement

Members of Congress have the constitutional and legal authority to oversee any federal agency, program, or infrastructure in their district. That includes ICE detention centers. It is deeply alarming that several Members have been denied entry to these facilities and only reinforces the idea that the Trump Administration is above the law and unconstrained by our Constitution. For months, we have heard about the deplorable conditions in many of these detention centers. Some of the accounts are truly horrific. The Administration’s efforts to undermine congressional oversight represents a brazen assault on the separation powers and our system of checks and balances.

The Trump Administration has made it abundantly clear that it will stop at nothing to meet its deportation goals— even if it means sweeping up immigrants who have taken every step required to lawfully live and work here. This isn’t just morally and legally indefensible; it’s disastrous for our democracy—eroding trust in government, jeopardizing public safety, and undermining the very values this country holds dear.

I strongly believe that we should focus on enforcing immigration laws that are already in place, and addressing our nation’s workforce needs while protecting the rights of American workers, preserving families, defending our national security, defending the rights of migrants to seek asylum at our borders, as guaranteed under U.S. and International law, and expanding alternative pathways for lawful migration. I also believe it is critical that we ensure access to legal representation for those who have been detained, a right to which is being made even more challenging due to the remote locations of the facilities and the obstacles created by this administration.

I know these are frightening times for many. If you have chosen to make Maine your home, I promise to do everything in my power to ensure that you and your community are given the rights, protections, and opportunities you deserve. I am grateful that you chose Maine, and that you continue to choose to contribute to our culture, our state, and our nation by being here.

No matter what, I will keep fighting for a stronger, fairer, compassionate, and economically sound immigration system that provides a pathway to citizenship allowing full and fair consideration as Americans, and all of the same rights and responsibilities that come with it.


Sincerely,

Chellie Pingree
Member of Congress

Please do not reply to this message, as this inbox is unattended. To contact me, please visit my website at http://pingree.house.gov. If you need immediate help with a federal agency, please call my Portland Office at 207-774-5019 or toll free at 888-862-6500.

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

A king, not a chief executive

Trump v. Slaughter, June 29, 2026 Supreme Court of the United States

Roberts, C.J. :

 'The Constitution vests “[t]he executive Power” in a “President of the United States of America” and instructs that he “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §§1, 3. To vest the executive power in one person was to establish a hierarchy—a “Chief Magistrate” with whom the buck stops, and below him various “assistants or deputies” who “derive their offices from his appointment” and remain “subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 436 (A. Hamilton). To remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the President.

***What text, history, and structure settle, the Court’s precedent confirms—the President may remove his subordinates at will. Pp. 13– 25. (1) As early as 1839, the Court reaffirmed what the First Congress had held. It was “very early adopted, as the practical construction of the Constitution,” the Court noted, that the power “to remove, where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the Constitution,” was “vested in the President alone.” Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 259. See also Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324, 330 (“[T]he decision of Congress in 1789, and the universal practice of the Government under it, ha[s] settled the question beyond any power of alteration”). The Court's landmark decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, confirmed the President’s power to fire his subordinates at will.

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Scotus poised to further undermine voting rights - Marc Elias

This year June is likely to be the cruelest month...particularly for voting rights.  - GWC

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court made vote dilution nearly impossible to prove. It ignored Congress’ alterations to the Voting Rights Act and turned it back into an intents test, where the plaintiffs had to make the extremely difficult showing that the legislators intended to discriminate based on race. And yet, in the Alabama case, the plaintiffs managed to do that.

Democracy Docket - Marc Elias

In "The Waste Land," T.S. Eliot describes April as "the cruelest month." With all due respect, the renowned poet was clearly not a lawyer awaiting Supreme Court decisions that may define democracy for a generation.

 

For while April might contain a disquieting blend of death and renewal — "breeding lilacs out of the dead land, mixing memory and desire, stirring dull roots with spring rain" — in recent years, June has been the time when the high court delivers its most devastating blows against individual rights and the rule of law.

 

While November may hold elections, it has been June that is the cruelest month for our democracy.

 

As we enter June this year, the Court has yet to issue opinions in 26 cases. Among them are two that I was personally involved in litigating: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC and Watson v. Republican National Committee.

 

Arguing before the Supreme Court is a highlight of any attorney's career. I have had that honor five times. The first four cases I argued all involved voting rights and redistricting. I won each one of them.

 

I argued the fifth — NRSC v. FEC — in December. It was different in every way.KEEP READING

TPM: Scotus cobbles together a way to deny vote to African Americans

 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/supreme-court-alabama-midterms-black-voters

By Kate Riga - Talking Points Memo

The Supreme Court showed beyond a doubt Tuesday that it will never again put a stop to Republican states snuffing out the Black vote. 

The six right-wing justices granted Alabama’s request for a stay, which clears the way for the state to hold its 2026 elections under a 2023 map crafted to deliver Republicans six congressional seats and Democrats only one. It does so by making Black Alabamians’ votes count for less than white ones’. 

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court made vote dilution nearly impossible to prove. It ignored Congress’ alterations to the Voting Rights Act and turned it back into an intents test, where the plaintiffs had to make the extremely difficult showing that the legislators intended to discriminate based on race. And yet, in the Alabama case, the plaintiffs managed to do that. The district court found plentiful evidence that the state intentionally discriminated after the court had previously ordered it to produce a map with two districts composed of a Black majority or near-majority, and Alabama flatly ignored it. The state instead produced another map with only one Black-majority district.

KEEP READING - link above

Saturday, May 30, 2026

Trump v. Internal Revenue Service

Trump v. Internal Revenue Service

(1:26-cv-20609)

District Court, S.D. Florida

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On February 18, 2026, the Court entered a paperless order (DE 27) that instructed Plaintiffs to file any memorandum in opposition to the motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae (DE 7 ; DE 15 ) on or before February 25, 2026. Plaintiffs did not file any memorandum in opposition. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae (DE 7 ; DE 15 ) are GRANTED. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 2/27/2026. (ymd) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Friday, May 29, 2026

Why the Filibuster has to go - Josh Marshall

Why the filibuster must go: Josh marchall // TPM

 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-the-filibuster-absolutely-has-to-go 

Talking points mefo.


When I was young  it was plain to us tha tthe filibuster rule (requiring 2 2/3 majority in the Senate - was an anti-democratic rule which preserved the system of racial discrimination called Jim Crow

Pope Leo's AI Encyclical - Fordham expert on papacy

https://now.fordham.edu/living-the-mission/qa-fordham-papal-expert-unpacks-pope-leos-encyclical-on-ai/?utm_source=1+Fordham+Master+List&utm_campaign=f54948da82-Fordham+Now+1%2F8%2F2026_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-dafb70a51e-172874509

 Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical takes up one of the most urgent questions of our time: how artificial intelligence is reshaping our lives and how it can be wielded for the common good. Framing AI as both an opportunity and a potential threat, Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence urges a renewed commitment to ethical reflection, social justice, and human dignity in applying the technology. 

To better understand the significance of the document, Fordham Now spoke with David Gibson, director of Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture and a leading commentator on the papacy. 

The encyclical uses the word “dignity” 100 times. Why do you think that’s such an important theme for the church in the age of AI?

Since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, the church has changed its stance toward the world, looking to engage, encourage, and grow in mutual understanding. That requires a shared vocabulary and concepts, and human dignity is a foundational term. It is also the foundational concept of this encyclical, because our humanity is what AI is threatening. 

Friday, May 22, 2026

The Death of the voting rights act?

 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/16/opinion/voting-rights-act-supreme-court.html?smid=url-share


Thursday, May 14, 2026

Cuba: Waiting in Darkness - Commonweal Magazine

 


Waiting in Darkness

The U.S. fuel blockade against Cuba Commonweal Magazine. May 2026
By Joy Gordon [Professor of Social Ethics, Loyola University - Chicago]

Havana - a city of two million reduced to 1.5 million - is silent.  A few hours of electricity a day is all that survives the U.S. blockade.  Mexico and Venezuela - its principal sources of oil for power production - are blockaded by the order of Donald Trump.
Siege warfare is an ancient device.  Cuba is walled by the sea.  Without access to its trading partners the country - famous for its commitment to education and health care - is reduced to poverty by a siege that is executed without mercy and without escape.  Donald Trump's oil blockade is a quiet act of war that is drowned out by the blockade of Iran.
Joy Gordon reports from Havana on the devastating impact of the blockade, obviously designed to bring about the collapse or overthrow of Cuba's government.  A government which has made food security, housing, health care and education its priorities.  Neither Venezuela nor Mexico is permitted by the Trump government to ship oil to Cuba.  Starvation is the historic consequence of siege.  Cuba is not yet at that point ..but the government - which has long alloted to each family provided rice, beans, cooking oil, coffee, bread, and chicken - is stymied by the blockade.  Hospitals and the elderly are particularly denied necessities.
Relentless anti-communism and the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba has reduced its population.  The Soviet Union - long a lifeline - is no longer a market for Cuba's exports - largely of sugar.



Monday, May 11, 2026

Scotus Blog: Supreme Court clears Alabama to dissolve a Black-majority Congressional district

Alabama, like Mississippi,  has a notorious history of racial discrimination in voting.  See Morton Stavis, A Century of Struggle For Black Enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the Congressional Challenge of 1965-and Beyond, 57 Miss. L.J. 591, 603 (1987). By 1892, only 68,127 white voters qualified as eligible and a mere 8,615 black voters.  

In Allen v. Caster the Supreme Court has ok'd the dissolution of one of Alabama's two Black majority Congressional districts.  This in a state in which 25% of the electorate is African-American and another 5% Hispanic.

The three Democratic-appointed justices dissented vigorously:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 

Today, the Court vacates a District Court order enjoining Alabama’s 2023 Redistricting Plan and remands for reconsideration in light of the Court’s new interpretation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U. S. ___ (2026). There is no reason to do so. In addition to holding that Alabama’s 2023 Redistricting Plan violates §2, the District Court held, in one of the three cases before this Court, that Alabama violated the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of Black voters in Alabama. That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of, and unaffected by, any of the legal issues discussed in Callais. Vacatur is thus inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the elections scheduled for next week. I respectfully dissent.

Scotus Blog: Supreme Court clears Alabama to dissolve a Black-majority Congressional district 

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map that a lower court had blocked on the ground that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The justices threw out the lower-court order barring Alabama from using the map, which it had adopted in 2023, and sent the dispute back to the lower court for another look. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from Monday’s decision, in a four-page opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In her view, the court’s order was “inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the elections scheduled for next week.”

The dispute began five years ago, when Alabama enacted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. A group of Black voters and civil rights organizations went to federal court, where they alleged that the new map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because it spread Black voters in southern Alabama across three congressional districts, leaving them a minority in each.

The district court agreed that the 2021 map likely violated Section 2, and it barred the state from using the map. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2023 in Allen v. Milligan.

The Fall of Tom Goldstein - Scotusblog founder


 

Tom Goldstein was not only the founder and EIC of Scotusblog, he was an outstanding Supreme Court practitioner.  But compulsive high stakes gambling has cost him his career, his life with Scotusblog co-editor Amy Howe, and, soon, his freedom. - GWC

Prosecutors Oppose Move To Put Off Goldstein Sentencing

 (May 8, 2026, 3:01 PM EDT) -- Federal prosecutors are claiming that SCOTUSblog founder Thomas Goldstein may have violated his pretrial release conditions when he racked up over $1.7 million in gambling income last year, telling a federal judge not to delay sentencing for the famed U.S. Supreme Court lawyer.

According to a government filing this week, Goldstein — who was convicted on 12 counts of tax evasion, filing false returns, failure to timely pay taxes and mortgage fraud by a federal jury in February — reported the winnings on his 2025 tax return after his six-week trial in Greenbelt, Maryland.

"Those numbers call into question his repeated claims that he could not pay his attorneys, and also his compliance with release conditions barring gambling and engaging in financial transactions without first notifying pretrial services," the U.S. Department of Justice said.

The disclosure also casts a new light on his failure to file personal or law firm returns for tax years 2022, 2023 and 2024, the government said.

"Even if he did not technically mislead the court or violate any conditions, his willingness to file a tax return for a year (2025) when he was barred from gambling only highlights his choice not to file returns for years (2022-2024) when he was still actively gambling," the government told U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.

Goldstein, who was first indicted in the Eastern District of Maryland in January 2025, had asked the court in the run-up to trial for permission to sell the Washington, D.C., home — valued at over $3 million — that he owned with his wife, saying he needed the money to fund his defense. Judge Griggsby denied that request ahead of trial, but the jury that convicted him on 12 of the government's 16 charges in February found that there wasn't a clear nexus between the property and his mortgage fraud conviction, effectively stopping the government from seizing it.

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Mifepristone

 

https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/05/2026-05-01-Fifth-Circuit-Order-Granting-Stay-of-2023-REMS.pdf

Four years after Dobbs Mifepristone again on edge of ban



Certain high risk drugs are subject to REMS - risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. The abortifacient drug Mifepristone has one such drug. But the FDA - during the administration of Joe Biden rejected such a categorization, making the drug widely accessible.

In Louisiana v. FDA the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a nationwide injunction against prescription of Mifepristone, the abortifacient drug.

 See Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of PregnancyThrough Ten Weeks Gestation, FDA.

 

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

Voting Rights Act: Scotus majority partisan wrecking - NY Times

 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/29/opinio    n/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-2026.html?smid=url-share


Cass Sunstein on Bob Dylan!

 The brilliant law professor - Cass Sunstein- turns his attention to Bob Dylan!

Sunstein on Dylan!

REBECCA LOWE: We’ve been thinking a bit in this season of our podcast on arts and liberalism about particular artists, or other kinds of—writers, producers of art objects—thinking of them as liberals. This question can obviously mean lots of different things. I think it can lead us on to some questions I’m keen for us to discuss about the relation more generally between liberalism and culture. But I know you are there, in writing, having stated that Bob Dylan is a liberal. I’m just wondering, what do you mean by this? In what way is Bob Dylan a liberal?

Liberalism in Dylan’s Music

SUNSTEIN: Well, have a listen to “Maggie’s Farm,” which is a song about freedom, and not working on Maggie’s farm anymore. Some of the energy of the song comes from the embrace of freedom that the song instantiates. “Like a Rolling Stone” is an anthem. It’s an American anthem. And it turns the situation of rootlessness, and no direction home, into a situation of liberty. That’s why it’s an anthem. And it’s a liberal song in its celebration of people’s ability to make choices.

Now, that’s not all liberalism is, by any means. The liberal tradition is pretty subtle on this point. But the enthusiasm for agency and autonomy is at the center of Dylan’s work. And my favorite moment really for that was when he sang “Like a Rolling Stone” in the UK, and he got booed, and he turned to his people, and he said, “Play it f-ing loud,” which was a liberal moment.

LOWE: That’s good. I should say, I love classical music; it’s only really in the last two years, I’d say, I’ve started listening to non-classical music. So I’m not the best person to ask you about Bob Dylan. Although I have recently, I think, had a change of view about Bob Dylan. I think I used to be one of those silly people who thought, “I don‘t know, it sounds quite good, but why would you give him the Nobel Prize for literature?”

But recently, I have been listening to some—partly in preparation for this. And it did strike me, I mean, some of these ones you’ve mentioned, they seem quite obviously liberal songs. Some of the civil rights songs seem to be. These anti-establishment songs. It seems to me that “Maggie’s Farm” is an anti-establishment song. It seems to me—what is the one where he lifts up the little cards? “Subterranean Homesick Blues”, that seems anti-establishment. There are some anti-war songs, obviously. There’s “Hard Rain.” And then there are the more explicit civil rights ones. These seem liberal because they are engaging in a political sense.

SUNSTEIN: I think we want to be very careful about this. So, Dylan talked about protest songs with revulsion rather than identification. He described protest songs as basically the songs of dead people. He described political posturing in songs as a way of losing your spirit and just spouting cliches. So the “Hard Rain” song, I don’t think it’s a political song in the narrow sense. I think if it’s a liberal song—and I think it is—it’s about freedom and about obstruction of same.

KEEP READING