I have drafted a Preamble I believe our Founding Fathers should have adopted as the opening statement of the Australian Constitution in 1901. We should vote on it (or a better version) at a Referendum to be held on the same day as Federal Election 2028 so that future Parliaments are required to uphold the …
Hearings over bar on cooperation with Palestinian aid agency are test of Israel’s defiance of international law
Israel will come under sustained legal pressure this week at the UN’s top court when lawyers from more than 40 states will claim the country’s ban on all cooperation with the UN’s Palestinian rights agency Unrwa is a breach of the UN charter.
The five days of hearings at the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague have been given a fresh urgency by Israel’s decision on 2 March to block all aid into Gaza, but the hearing will focus on whether Israel – as a signatory to the UN charter – acted unlawfully in overriding the immunities afforded to a UN body. Israel ended all contact and cooperation with Unrwa operations in Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem in November, claiming the agency had been infiltrated by Hamas, an allegation that has been contested.
The UN has called the detention of Pablo López Alavez ‘arbitrary’, while human rights organisations say his sentence is part of a systematic and alarming pattern of criminalisation of Mexico’s environmental activists
The meeting room in the prison of Villa de Etla, a town in Oaxaca, Mexico, doubles as a classroom with school desks and a small library. The walls feature motivational phrases such as “First things first”, “Live and let live” and “Little by little, you’ll go far”.
Pablo López Alavez, a 56-year-old environmental defender, has had nearly 15 years to contemplate these sentiments – and faces 15 more, after being imprisoned for murders he says he did not commit.
We are Harvard Law students who have read the lengthy and comprehensive list of demands on our Harvard University by your staff. They are assuredly designed to turn this institution of higher education, older than the U.S.A., into a fiefdom under your iron rule. As modest students of medieval history, we see that your demands provide a status for the peasants – the students, the vassals – the faculty, but no one for the role of the Lord of the Manor.
It is obvious that you want to become the LORD OF THE MANOR. We have a proposal. There is no more exalted status at Harvard than that of the law professors. They are the best and brightest law professors in the land; if you doubt that, just ask them. They are specialists in knowledge of the law. However, they are not specialists in the seriously destabilizing arena of lawlessness.
Quite candidly, we believe and can document that you are the world’s expert on lawlessness – its range, depth, rewards and modes of escape from accountability. For some unfathomable reason, you have been far too modest about your unparalleled knowledge in this fast-expanding area of immune business and political activity. We make this claim after reading your statements – about twenty of them – where you explicitly declare your superior knowledge over all in such subjects as “trade,” “technology,” “drones,” “construction,” “devaluation,” “banks,” – “renewables,” “polls” and even “the power of Facebook.” (See the book, “Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lawbreaking and Lies Betray All” by Mark Green and Ralph Nader, 2020).
Missing from your expansive proclamations of expertise is the subject of LAWLESSNESS. Having engaged in over 3000 lawsuits and having been sued under tort law and indicted under criminal law, you have demonstrated an escapist skill that even seasoned attorneys find breathtaking. No sheriff has ever caught you. Only one prosecutor has ever convicted you. E. Jean Carroll won two civil tort cases with damages that are still on appeal.
One of your remarkable tactics is interminable stalling of the legal process. Another is how you can personally and continually attack in public, with tough language, the judges and other judicial personnel with complete impunity. As we know from our studies, such vituperative language in the United Kingdom would have landed you in contempt of court and a jail term.
Now, therefore, here is our proposal to fill the position of LORD OF THE MANOR, without impinging on your Day Job as president of the United States. With your permission, we will approach our Dean and request that he appoint you as a VISITING FULL PROFESSOR OF LAW CONDUCTING THE FIRST AND ONLY COURSE IN LAWLESSNESS – its nature, function and strategies of escape from the long arm of the rule of law. It would be the largest class in Harvard Law School history, overflowing our largest auditorium, AUSTIN HALL.
YOU would provide, effortlessly from your extraordinary memory, empirical information never before revealed and analyzed.
Your self-awareness is exceptional, having said in 2019 – “With Article II, I can do whatever I want as President,” and having openly wished that you could be King. To understand the rule of law better, it is necessary to understand the outlaws. This is especially true for you, Mr. President because you once declared, “I know more about courts than any human being on earth.”
Going deeper, you are eminently qualified to lecture us on regions of lawlessness abroad and how you think one should try to establish peaceful and law-abiding governance. The Middle East comes to mind. By enlisting the law school’s reservoir of scholarship on these conflicts you could establish yourself as a Nobel-Prize worthy implementor of a profound peaceful PRO-SEMITISM between Arab and Jewish Semites. Just envision your going to Norway to receive the coveted Award that your detractors could never believe was remotely possible.
We anticipate your affirmative response and understand fully if a condition of your acceptance is that the course be taught by Zoom from the Oval Office. Should you wish to have your lectures streamed to a wider audience, the Law School has all the requisite facilities.
Just your exalted title “Honorable visiting Professor of Law, Donald J. Trump” along with your presiding over the White House will anoint you as the LORD OF THE MANOR. You would be addressed by all members of the Harvard University community as “MY LIEGE.”
My friend Henry Brown, who has died aged 85, was a South African and later British solicitor whose human rights work across nearly four decades reads like a South African anti-apartheid struggle “Who’s Who”. In the UK he also became a leader in the field of mediation.
As a young attorney with Cape Town’s leading civil rights firm, Frank, Bernadt and Joffe, he was involved in the trial of leaders of a dramatic march of 30,000 protesters from Langa township into the centre of the city in 1960. Henry, barely into his 20s, was on his way. In 1967 he consulted with the imprisoned Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, on one occasion when the then ANC leader and future president was charged with slacking in the notorious salt mine. The charge was withdrawn after it was reported in the local newspaper.
The Trump administration maintains that it can send people to overseas concentration camps with impunity because “activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy” (BBC, 4/11/25).
As the Trump administration openly defies court orders to return a man wrongfully deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, some American outlets are underplaying the significance of this constitutional crisis.
In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court “declined to block a lower court’s order to ‘facilitate’ bringing back Kilmar Ábrego García,” a Salvadoran who had legal protections in the United States and was wrongfully sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT (BBC, 4/11/25).
The White House is not complying (Democracy Docket, 4/14/25). “The federal courts have no authority to direct the executive branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” Trump’s Justice Department insists (CNN, 4/15/25). Fox News (4/16/25) said of Attorney General Pam Bondi: “Bondi Defiant, Says Ábrego García Will Stay in El Salvador ‘End of the Story.’”
In an X post (4/15/25) filled with unproven assertions that skirt the question of due process and extraordinary rendition, Vice President J.D. Vance said, “The entire American media and left-wing industrial complex has decided the most important issue today is that the Trump admin deported an MS-13 gang member (and illegal alien).” (Are we supposed to believe that the six conservatives on the Supreme Court, three of whom were appointed by Trump, are a part of the “left-wing industrial complex?”)
The complete disregard to constitutional protections of due process and to court orders should send alarm bells throughout American society. The MAGA movement condones sending unconvicted migrants to a foreign hellhole largely on grounds that they are not US citizens, and thus don’t have a right to constitutional due process. But the administration has floated the idea of doing the same thing to “homegrown” undesirables as well (Al Jazeera, 4/15/25).
‘An uncertain end’
The New York Times (4/15/25) goes out on a limb and declares that the president defying the Supreme Court is “a path with an uncertain end.”
The case is quite obviously not about the extremity or unpopularity of President Donald Trump’s policies, but a breaking point at which the executive branch has left the democratic confines of the Constitution, as many journalists and scholars have warned about. But the case is not necessarily being portrayed that way in the establishment press.
In an article about the Trump administration’s record of resisting court orders, a New York Times subhead (4/15/25) read, “Scholars say that the Trump administration is now flirting with lawless defiance of court orders, a path with an uncertain end.” In an article about “What to Know About the Mistaken Deportation of a Maryland Man to El Salvador” (4/14/25), reporter Alan Feuer described the Supreme Court’s upholding the order to “facilitate” the return of Ábrego García as “complicated and rather ambiguous” rather than a “clear victory for the administration.”
At the Washington Post (4/14/25), law professor Stuart Banner wrote an opinion piece saying that fears of a constitutional crisis were overblown, noting that while Trump is “famous for his contemptuous remarks about judges…tension between the president and the Supreme Court is centuries old.” Thus, he said, there are incentives in both branches to “not to let conflict ripen into public defiance.”
The Wall Street Journal (4/15/25) presents the prospect of the White House defying a Supreme Court order as a “showdown” that Trump might “win.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board (4/15/25) said:
Mr. Trump would be wise to settle all of this by quietly asking Mr. Bukele to return Mr. Ábrego García, who has a family in the US. But the president may be bloody-minded enough that he wants to show the judiciary who’s boss. If this case does become a judicial showdown, Mr. Trump may assert his Article II powers not to return Mr. Ábrego García, and the Supreme Court will be reluctant to disagree.
But Mr. Trump would be smarter to play the long game. He has many, much bigger issues than the fate of one man that will come before the Supreme Court. By taunting the judiciary in this manner, he is inviting a rebuke on cases that carry far greater stakes.
These articles display a naivete about the current moment. The Trump administration and its allies have flatly declared that they believe a judicial check on the executive authority wrongly places constitutional restraints on Trump’s desires (New York Times, 3/19/25; Guardian, 3/22/25).
House Speaker Mike Johnson, responding to court rulings that went against MAGA desires, “warned that Congress’ authority over the federal judiciary includes the power to eliminate entire district courts,” Reuters (3/25/25) reported. The House also approved legislation, along party lines, that “limits the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders, as Republicans react to several court rulings against the Trump administration” (AP, 4/9/25).
In other words, Trump’s defiance of the courts is part of a broader campaign to assert that the Constitution simply should not be an impediment to his rule. That’s not a liberal versus conservative debate about national policy, but a declaration that the United States will no longer operate as a constitutional republic.
‘Constitutional crisis is here’
“Think long and hard about what it means to have a president who gleefully ignores the courts,” urges Rex Huppke (USA Today, 4/15/25). “It’s time to stand up and shout ‘Hell no!’ right freakin’ now, and not a moment later.”
Pieces like the ones at the Journal, Times and Post give readers the sense that this affair is just another quirk of the American system of checks and balances, when, in fact, history could look back and declare this the moment when the Constitution became a dead letter.
Other outlets, however, appeared to appreciate the gravity of the situation. “America Is Dangerously Close to Being Run by a King Who Answers to No One” was the headline of Rex Huppke column at USA Today (4/15/25). “The Constitutional Crisis Is Here” was the headline of a recent piece by Adam Serwer at the Atlantic (4/14/25).
This case will roil on, and both the judicial system (Reuters, 4/15/25) and congressmembers (NBC News, 4/16/25) are taking action. There’s still time for the papers to treat this case with the urgency that it deserves.
CPJ joined 31 other organizations in an April 16 statement calling on the European Commission to strengthen its annual rule of law report, which assesses media freedom in European Union member states.
The statement said the European Commission “should issue targeted recommendations to mitigate risks to media freedom and pluralism, ensuring a comprehensive and transparent approach to protecting journalism and journalists across the EU.”
A Liberal Democrat MP refused entry to Hong Kong to see her young grandson has said her experience should be “a wake-up call for any parliamentarian”, given that it seems to show China holds a secret list of banned politicians.
Wera Hobhouse, who was turned back by officials on Thursday, said she was given no explanation as to why this happened, and could only assume that it was because she had spoken out about rights abuses by China.
Lured by promises of an education but allegedly trapped in servitude and self-mortification, the former members are suing the ultra-conservative organisation over their ‘exploitation and abuse’
The first item Opus Dei gave 12-year-old Andrea Martínez was a pink dress. The second was a schedule that detailed every task for every minute of her day. Then, when she was 16, she was given a cilice – a spiked metal chain to wear around her thigh – and a whip.
In the late 1980s, Opus Dei, a secretive and ultra-conservative Catholic organisation, promised Martínez an escape from a life of poverty in rural Argentina. By attending one of their schools, they said, she would receive an education and opportunities.
Exclusive: Action comes five years after lack of legal recognition for humanist marriage in England and Wales was ruled discriminatory
Two couples are taking the government to court over its failure to legalise humanist marriage in England and Wales five years after a ruling that the lack of recognition was discriminatory.
Engaged couples Terri O’Sullivan and Edd Berrill, from Coventry, and Nicole Shasha and Rory Booth, from Leicester, are preparing to go to court in their fight to be married in line with their humanist beliefs.
Amnesty International confirms 1,518 people executed in 2024 but says real total is likely to be thousands more
More people were executed in 2024 than in any other year over the past decade, mainly reflecting a huge increase in executions in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, according to Amnesty International’s annual report on the use of the death penalty.
The human rights NGO said that although the number of countries carrying out executions was the lowest on record, it had confirmed 1,518 executions globally in 2024, a 32% increase over the previous year and the highest since the 1,634 carried out in 2015.
Woman who worked with western governments in her home country before fleeing the Taliban told to return
An Afghan woman who risked her life to defend human rights in her home country before fleeing to the UK has been told by the Home Office it is safe for her to return after officials rejected her asylum claim.
Mina (not her real name) worked for western government-backed projects and was involved in training and mentoring women across Afghanistan, which left her in grave danger even before the Taliban took over in 2021.
Legislation was repealed in 2018 but Caribbean country’s supreme court last week recriminalised the act after appeal
The privy council in London will soon be called upon to make the final decision on a court case to remove homophobic laws in Trinidad and Tobago.
The laws were repealed in 2018 in a high court judgment that struck from the statute book the “buggery law” that had criminalised consensual anal sex since an act passed in 1925 under British rule. However, last week Trinidad’s supreme court upheld a government appeal against the ruling and recriminalised the act, dealing a hammer blow to LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean country and prompting the UK Foreign Office to update its advice for LGBTQ+ travellers.
The need for women to be accompanied by a man in public is blocking access to healthcare and contributing to soaring mortality rates, say experts
It was the middle of the night when Zarin Gul realised that her daughter Nasrin had to get to the hospital as soon as possible. Her daughter’s husband was away working in Iran and the two women were alone with Nasrin’s seven children when Nasrin, heavily pregnant with her eighth child, began experiencing severe pains.
Gul helped Nasrin into a rickshaw and they set off into the night. Holding her daughter’s hand as the rickshaw jolted over the dirt road, Gul says she prayed they would not encounter a Taliban checkpoint.
Chancellor says UK will respond calmly to US tariffs as Keir Starmer attempts to play down fears of trade war
There will be two urgent questions in the Commons after PMQs. At around 12.30pm a Foreign Office minister will respond to a question from Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, about the Chagos Islands. And then another Foreign Office minister (or the same one?) will reply to a UQ from the Green co-leader Carla Denyer about Gaza.
After that Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, will make a statement about nursery provision.
With new US tariffs coming, Welsh businesses face even more uncertainty.
The UK must make a strategic decision: with 58.6% of Welsh exports going to the EU, we must provide stable access to European markets by rejoining the single market and customs union, allowing us to stand up to Trump’s reckless moves.
Jill Falcon Ramaker couldn’t believe what she was hearing on the video call. All $5 million dollars of her and her colleagues’ food sovereignty grants were frozen. She watched the faces of her colleagues drop.
Ramaker is Turtle Mountain Anishinaabe and the director of Buffalo Nations Food Sovereignty at Montana State University – a program that supports Indigenous foodways in the Rocky Mountains and trains food systems professionals – and is supported by the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA.
“The funding that we had for training and infrastructure leading to raising our own foods that are healthy and not highly processed and culturally appropriate, has stopped.” Ramaker said. “We don’t have any information on when, or if, it will resume.”
In his first two months in office, President Trump has signed over 100 executive orders, many specifically targeting grants for termination that engage with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and climate-related projects associated with the Inflation Reduction Act. Climate change destroys the places and practices central to Indigenous peoples in the United States, and is exacerbated by droughts and floods that also affect foods essential to Native cultures. Food sovereignty programs play a crucial role in fighting the effects of climate change by creating access to locally grown fruits, vegetables, and animal products.
“It feels like we’re just getting started in so many ways,” Ramaker said.
The funding freeze from the USDA is sending shockwaves throughout the nation’s agriculture sector, but their effect on tribal food initiatives raises even larger questions about what the federal government’s commitments are to Indigenous nations. That commitment, known as the federal Indian trust responsibility, is a legally enforceable obligation by the federal government to protect Indigenous lands, assets, resources and rights. It is grounded in treaties made with Indigenous nations in exchange for the vast tracts of land that allowed America to expand westward.
“That general trust responsibility I think absolutely encompasses food sovereignty and tribes ability to cultivate their lands,” said Diné attorney Heather Tanana at the University of California Irvine.
As the U.S. gained territory in the 19th century, Indigenous nations were largely successful at resisting incursions by settlers. Because tribes were typically more powerful, militarily, then American forces, federal officials turned to peace treaties with tribes. Often, these treaties signed away large areas of territory but reserved certain areas for tribal use, now known as federal Indian reservations, in exchange for guarantees like medical aid, protection, and food. Some tribes specifically negotiated to preserve traditional food practices in their treaty rights. Examples include the right to hunt in the Fort Bridger Treaty for tribes in the mountain west, the right to fish in the Medicine Creek Treaty in the pacific northwest, and the right to gather plant medicines.
“It would be odd not to consider the federal responsibility of including food security along with water access and healthcare services,” Tanana said.
But the United States has failed to uphold those obligations, taking land and then ignoring legal responsibilities, including provisions for food and sustenance. Hunting, fishing and gathering rights weren’t upheld and in the mid-1800s rations designed to replace traditional foods that were delivered to reservations were “low cost and shelf-stable” while many arrived to reservations rotten. Combined with federal policies that prevented tribal citizens from leaving their reservations to hunt and gather, malnutrition was widespread. For instance, a quarter of those on the Blackfoot reservation in Montana died of starvation in the winter of 1884.
In 1974, the USDA began its Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. The monthly package of foods like flour, beef, and coffee, colloquially known as “commodities” or “commods,” was meant to provide Indigenous households with breads, fats, and sugars. But many of the foods provided by the USDA were, and remain, low in nutritional value, contributing to high rates of obesity-related diseases and other health issues. In 2023, around 50,000 Indigenous people per month accessed the program.
“That’s what we are trying to address with Buffalo Nations,” Jill Falcon Ramaker said. “Our communities have gone through a lot.”
Last year the Biden administration announced new initiatives aimed at strengthening tribal food sovereignty. This included funding meat processing facilities, support for Indigenous children’s nutrition in schools, and food and agriculture internships for those in higher education. The administration’s goal was to directly address the adverse effects of climate change on Indigenous peoples, as tribes are often “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”
However, it’s unclear just how many programs the Biden administration funded or how much money went to those efforts. A request to the USDA for a list of food sovereignty grants was not answered.
“USDA is reviewing the programs for which payments have been on hold to ensure they align with the Department’s goals and priorities,” a spokesperson said in an email statement. “Secretary Rollins understands that farmers and ranchers, and other grant-funded entities that serve them, have made decisions based on these funding opportunities, and that some have been waiting on payments during this government-wide review. She is working to make determinations as quickly as possible.”
Earlier this month, the Pueblo of Iseta, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, and Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes along with five Indigenous students sued the Trump administration for violation of trust and treaty responsibilities after cutting funding to the Bureau of Indian Education. The cuts resulted in staff reductions at tribal colleges like Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Polytechnic Institute and the lawsuit alleges that the move is a violation of federal trust obligations.
“Tribes have not historically had a good experience hearing from the government,” said Carly Griffith Hotvedt, an attorney and director of the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative and member of the Cherokee Nation. “That doesn’t always work out for us.”
Hotvedt added the way the Trump administration is playing whack-a-mole with funding tribal food programs will continue to erode the little trust Indian country has in the federal government.
In Montana, Jill Ramaker said Buffalo Nations had planned to build a Food Laboratory in partnership with local tribes. The project would have developed infrastructure and research for plains Indigenous food systems. That plan is now permanently on hold for the foreseeable future.
“We are used to and good at adapting,” said Ramaker. “But it’s going to come at a tremendous cost in our communities.”
From Russia to the US, those who seek to uphold the law are coming under increasing pressure
What the law says on paper is irrelevant if it cannot be upheld, or even stated clearly. That is why lawyers are targeted – with harassment, disbarment from the profession or even jail – by repressive regimes.
Russia’s attempts to suppress the voice of the opposition leader Alexei Navalny did not end with his death in an Arctic prison colony. In a bleak coda, three of his lawyers have been jailed for several years. Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser and Igor Sergunin were found guilty of participating in an “extremist organisation” for relaying his messages to the outside world.
The well-prepared, abundantly funded Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025’s implementation overwhelms all that has come before. The ill-prepared, leaderless Democrats and opposition are stymied to stop it. No March on Washington like the 1963 March for civil and political rights or the 1967 March against the Vietnam War will slow down the Trump steamroll. Neither the high price of eggs nor Wall Street jitters have had any effect.
What to do? Could courts be the deciding factor to halt the United States slide towards fascism?
Rules are essential to any organized society. Ever since Hammurabi’s Code written laws have existed. Although the idea of rules may be a fiction unless they are physically implemented, their very existence since at least 1750 BC shows how societies have historically sought to govern themselves. When Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social network last month; “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” he directly challenged the relevance of laws. The man who twice swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution placed his saving the country above the law. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary and its role in government checks and balances are more than a constitutional crisis; there is now a societal crisis between liberalism and fascism.
Having consensual rules and implementing them are fundamental to stable societies. The Dominican Republic, for example, has had 32 constitutions since its independence in 1844. The United States, on the other hand, has had one constitution since 1789; it is the oldest written national constitution in force in the world and has been amended only 27 times. The U.S. Constitution is the constitutional gold standard; it has had international influence. The 1848 Swiss Constitution, for example, is in many ways a cut and paste of the U.S. one, something my Swiss friends don’t like to admit.
The implementation of the written law or commonly agreed upon laws such as in the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom separates liberal societies from fascist states. Fascism revolves around an authoritarian leader who believes he is the incarnation of the nation; someone who acts individually as if he had no obligations to obey society’s laws.
In a very short period of time, President Trump has shown that he has no intention to respect the rule of law and uphold the oath of office he took on January 20, 2025. An example: A federal judge ruled that the government should not deport Venezuelan men to El Salvador without due process. The deportation went ahead anyway. “If anyone is being detained or removed from based on the administration’s assertion that they can do so without judicial review or due process, the president is asserting dictatorial power and ‘constitutional crisis’ doesn’t capture the gravity of the situation,” a Columbia University law professor was quoted in The New York Times.
Trump then called for the impeachment of the judge who made the ruling. “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
Supreme Court Chief Judge John Roberts, in an unusual public statement indirectly rebuking Trump’s threat, said that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” the Republican appointed Justice declared. “The normal review process exists for that purpose.”
Where will the confrontation between Trump and the judiciary lead? The federal judge, James Boasberg, moved to hold the government in contempt for not following his order. “The government again evaded its obligations,” he wrote. Not following judge’s decisions is a Trump Administration pattern. In refusing to provide Judge Boasberg with details of the mass deportation, the Department of Justice argued that “This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate,” and that “’[J]udicial deference and restraint’ are required to avoid undue interference with the Executive Branch.”
Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson also threatened the courts. “We do have authority over the federal courts,” he said at a press conference. We can eliminate an entire district court,” he boasted.
“The problem with this administration is not just acute episodes like what is happening with Judge Boasberg and the Venezuelan deportations,” another law professor was quoted in The Times’ article. “It’s a chronic disrespect for constitutional norms and for the other branches of government.”
Trump and Musk are moving to consolidate presidential power at the expense of the Constitution’s separation of powers. In addition to the deportation ruling, CNN reported; “[A] judge in Rhode Island hearing a dispute over a government-wide freeze…added a cautionary footnote: ‘This is what it all comes down to: we may choose to survive as a country by respecting our Constitution, the laws and norms of political and civil behavior…Or, we may ignore these things at our own peril.’ A judge in Seattle declared in a separate case; ‘It has become ever-more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals.’”
As far as the case involving the United States Institute of Peace (USIP); DOGE and Washington D.C. police forcibly entered its building, evicting the USIP president George Moose and others. “I’m very offended by how DOGE has operated at the Institute and treated American citizens trying to do a job that they were statutorily tasked to do at the Institute,” District Judge Beryl Howell said. “I mean, this conduct of using law enforcement, threatening criminal investigation, using armed law enforcement from three different agencies … to carry out the executive order… with all that targeting probably terrorizing employees and staff at the institute when there are so many other lawful ways to accomplish the goals [of the executive order] …Why?” Howell asked. “Why those ways here — just because DOGE is in a rush?”
Whatever protests are organized against the MAGA president, whatever MAGA failures occur because of the price of eggs, inflation/recession or the downslide on Wall Street, the legal battles taking place warrant close attention. According to Bloomberg News, “[I]n the first four weeks of the new administration, at least 74 lawsuits were filed, and of those, 58 were brought in federal district courts in Washington, Boston, Seattle and suburban Maryland.”
Cases will soon reach the Supreme Court. Judges Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts seem prepared to break with the conservative majority to join the three liberal judges. If that happens, there will be more than a just a constitutional crisis. The confrontation between Trump and the courts will be a tipping point between liberalism and fascism.
As Harvard Law Professor and constitutional expert Laurence Tribe eloquently stated in The Guardian; “The president, abetted by the supine acquiescence of the Republican Congress and licensed by a US supreme court partly of his own making, is not just temporarily deconstructing the institutions that comprise our democracy. He and his circle are making a bid to reshape the US altogether by systematically erasing and distorting the historical underpinnings of our 235-year-old experiment in self-government under law.”
Vietnam arrested an ethnic Khmer Krom monk and two activists on Thursday and charged them with breaking a vague law that is often used to silence dissent, a Khmer Krom advocacy group said.
Nearly 1.3-million Khmer Krom live in a part of Vietnam that was once southeastern Cambodia. They have faced serious restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and movement.
The trio were arrested in Preah Trapeang, known in Vietnamese as Tra Vinh province, according to the Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation, or KKF, which condemned the arrests.
They were charged under Article 331 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code, and charged “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State, lawful rights, and interests of organizations and/or citizens,” KKF said.
If found guilty, the three men face prison sentences ranging from six months to three years, the group said.
The group called the arrests another example of the Vietnamese government’s repression of the Khmer Krom community, “particularly their peaceful efforts to advocate for indigenous rights, religious freedoms and cultural preservation.”
Lam Thi Pung, the wife of Thach Nga, one of the activists, said he collected used bottles and other materials for recycling to support their family.
“Villagers give him rice, vegetables and fruits. I’m taking care of my child,” she said. “Now they have arrested my husband. I’m just with my child now, what am I to do?”
Vocal Khmer Krom advocate
The monk, the Venerable Kim Som Rinh, is a respected spiritual leader, the gorup said, and has long been a vocal advocate for the Khmer Krom people’s religious and indigenous rights through peaceful means.
A year ago, on March 25, 2024, the state-sanctioned Vietnam Buddhist Sangha stripped Kim Som Rinh of his monk status, KKF said.
“This arbitrary decision to defrock and arrest him was part of a broader effort to suppress the Khmer Krom community’s religious freedoms and prevent the expression of their cultural identity,” the group said.
The other two activists are Thach Nga and Thach Xuan Dong, the KKF said.
“Both men have courageously stood up for their people,” it said, including organizing human rights events such as the celebration of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and International Human Rights Day.
The Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation called on the United Nations and the international community to take action.
It said that Vietnam, as a member of the Human Rights Council, must be “held accountable for its blatant disregard of international human rights norms.”
Vietnamese officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Khmer.
Iranian police are using digital tools to identify and punish women who defy the Islamic state’s harsh dress code
Like many women in Iran, Darya is used to feeling under surveillance. Yet in recent months, the 25-year-old finance analyst from northern Tehran says that she never knows who could be watching her every move.
She says she has received messages from the police before warning her of suspected violations of the country’s strict hijab laws, but last November she was sent an SMS message containing her car registration plate that stated the exact time and place that she had been recorded driving without her head properly covered. Next time it happened, the SMS warned, her car would be impounded.
Wolfgang Kaleck, founder of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, talks about the need for a universal, international criminal justice system instead of one where only some nations are held to account. Kaleck is a longtime human rights attorney who has represented Edward Snowden. He twice filed war crimes suits against former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Germany.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Despite some gains, women remain significantly underrepresented in decision-making positions – especially at senior levels of the judiciary worldwide.Judge Angela Attachie, from Ghana, is both a Circuit Court Judge and the Queen Mother of Ho Bankoe – a dual role that makes her as a key figure in community governance and social development.Speaking to UN News’ Pia Blondel, she talks about her journey to the courtroom, her experience as a woman in a traditionally male-dominated field, and what needs to change for more women to rise in leadership positions.
In the year since Hong Kong passed its “Article 23” legislation, national security police have hauled in the friends of a pro-democracy activist in Taiwan over comments he made on social media, and are increasingly monitoring people’s social media interactions.
Fu Tong, who now lives in democratic Taiwan, said police back home seem to be targeting online speech since the passing of a second national security law that includes a broader “sedition” offense than earlier legislation.
“It’s pretty serious now,” Fu told RFA in an interview on Monday. “Before, they would just read my posts. But since Article 23, they have even been monitoring my interactions with my friends.”
A friend of his was hauled in for questioning by national security police after Fu left a comment on their Facebook account, he said.
“Now, I daren’t leave comments on my friends’ Facebook [posts],” he said.
Images of activists Simon Cheng, Frances Hui, Joey Siu, Johnny Fok and Tony Choi are displayed during a press conference to issue arrest warrants in Hong Kong, Dec. 14, 2023.(Tyrone Siu/Reuters)
The Safeguarding National Security bill, commonly known as Article 23, was passed on March 23, 2024.
It came amid a crackdown on dissent that has used both the 2020 National Security Law and colonial-era sedition laws to prosecute and jail people for protest and political opposition in unprecedented numbers.
Chilling effect
The government said the legislation was needed to plug “loopholes” left by the 2020 National Security Law and claims it is needed to deal with clandestine activity by “foreign forces” in the city, which the ruling Communist Party blames for the 2019 mass protest movement that was sparked by plans to allow extradition to mainland China.
The law proposes sentences of up to life imprisonment for “treason,” “insurrection,” “sabotage” and “mutiny,” 20 years for espionage and 10 years for crimes linked to “state secrets” and “sedition.”
It also allows the authorities to revoke the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passports of anyone who flees overseas, and to target overseas activists with financial sanctions.
Human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung is seen inside a vehicle after being detained in Hong Kong, Sept. 8, 2021.(Tyrone Siu/Reuters)
The concept of “collusion with foreign forces ” runs throughout the draft bill, and sentences are harsher where “foreign forces” are deemed to be involved.
Fu said Article 23 has had a chilling effect on Hong Kong-related activism, even overseas, with fewer exiled Hong Kongers turning out for protests and other events in Taiwan.
He said activists still plan to go ahead with a protest marking the first anniversary of the Article 23 legislation in Taipei on Sunday, however.
Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law, Georgetown University, said there are other examples of the law being used to censor social media.
In May 2024, Hong Kong police arrested jailed human rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung and five other people — the first arrests to be made under the recently passed Article 23 security law — for making social media posts with “seditious intent” ahead of the anniversary of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square massacre.
Being watched
He said the government is using the legislation to bolster the feeling that ordinary people are being watched.
“Over the past year, the most common charge used to prosecute people under Article 23 has been sedition,” Lai said. “Sedition is kind of a catch-all offense, and the government is using it to target more ordinary Hong Kongers.”
“The point is to warn Hong Kongers that they’re not immune just because they’re not a political figure … and that ordinary people are also being monitored when they go online,” he said.
Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University, is seen in an undated photo.(Tang Zheng/RFA)
The government hasn’t made public details of the number of prosecutions under the law to date, but Lai said that the cases that make the news may only be the tip of the iceberg.
He said the recent confiscation of exiled pro-democracy lawmaker Ted Hui’s assets only came to light because Hui himself spoke out about it.
He said the law grants sweeping powers of surveillance to the authorities, increasing the size of the police dragnet to include everyday comments and activities.
“The biggest difference between Article 23 and the 2020 National Security Law is that Article 23 provides more powers for the Hong Kong government to chip away at the system,” Lai said.
“The government can decide not to parole people if it judges them to be a threat to national security, and it can prevent defendants from seeing a lawyer, and hold them in police stations for longer than before,” he said.
He said it was significant that the Court of Appeal allowed an injunction against the banned 2019 protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong” after the Article 23 legislation was passed.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.
Allegations of crimes against humanity laid out against former Philippines president over his deadly ‘war on drugs’
Rodrigo Duterte has become the first Asian former leader to appear before the international criminal court, where he stands accused of committing crimes against humanity during his notorious “war on drugs” which is estimated to have killed as many as 30,000 people.
The ex-president of the Philippines, who was in office from 2016 to 2022, was arrested in Manila on an ICC warrant early on Tuesday, put on a government-chartered jet hours later, and arrived in The Hague the following day.
The Swiss government has been told it must do more to show that its national climate plans are ambitious enough to comply with a landmark legal ruling.
The Council of Europe’s committee of ministers, in a meeting this week, decided that Switzerland was not doing enough to respect a decision last year by the European court of human rights that it must do more to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and rejected the government’s plea to close the case.
Haunting accounts of torture in newly found detention centre lead to calls for an investigation into what experts say could be among the worst atrocities of Sudan’s civil war
Lying between the makeshift graves is a mattress, a large bloodstain visible in the midday sun. A name is scrawled in Arabic on its ragged fabric: Mohammed Adam.
Who was Adam? Had he ended up here, in a bleak corner of a remote military installation in Sudan’s Khartoum state? Had his body been stretchered on the mattress from the detention centre nearby and dumped into one of hundreds of unmarked graves?
Janine Jackson interviewed EarthRights International’s Kirk Herbertson about Big Oil’s lawsuit against Greenpeace for the February 28, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: Energy Transfer is the fossil fuel corporation that built the Dakota Access Pipeline to carry fracked oil from the Bakken Fields more than a thousand miles into Illinois, cutting through unceded Indigenous land, and crossing and recrossing the Missouri River that is a life source for the Standing Rock tribe and others in the region.
CounterSpin listeners know that protests launched by the Indigenous community drew international attention and participation, as well as the deployment, by Energy Transfer’s private security forces, of unleashed attack dogs and pepper spray, among other things, against peaceful protestors.
Now Energy Transfer saysit was harmed, and someone must pay, and that someone is Greenpeace, who the company is suing for $300 million, more than 10 times their annual budget. No one would have showed up to Standing Rock, is the company’s story and they’re sticking to it, without the misinformed incitement of the veteran environmental group.
Legalese aside, what’s actually happening here, and what would appropriate reporting look like? We’re joined by Kirk Herbertson, US director for advocacy and campaigns at EarthRights International. He joins us now by phone from the DC area. Welcome to CounterSpin, Kirk Herbertson.
Kirk Herbertson: Thanks so much, Janine.
JJ: Let me ask you, first, to take a minute to talk about what SLAPP lawsuits are, and then why this case fits the criteria.
KH: Sure. So this case is one of the most extraordinary examples of abuse of the US legal system that we have encountered in at least the last decade. And anyone who is concerned about protecting free speech rights, or is concerned about large corporations abusing their power to silence their critics, should be paying attention to this case, even though it’s happening in North Dakota state court.
As you mentioned, there’s a kind of wonky term for this type of tactic that the company Energy Transfer is using. It’s called a SLAPP lawsuit. It stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” But what it really means is, it’s a tactic in which wealthy and powerful individuals or corporations try to silence their critics’ constitutional rights to free speech or freedom of assembly by dragging them through expensive, stressful and very lengthy litigation. In many SLAPP lawsuits, the intention is to try to silence your critic by intimidating them so much, by having them be sued by a multimillion, multibillion dollar corporation, that they give up their advocacy and stop criticizing the corporation.
JJ: Well, it’s a lot about using the legal system for purposes that most of us just don’t think is the purpose of the legal system; it’s kind of like the joke is on us, and in this case, there just isn’t evidence to make their case. I mean, let’s talk about their specific case: Greenpeace incited Standing Rock. If you’re going to look at it in terms of evidence in a legal case, there’s just no there there.
KH: That’s right. This case, it was first filed in federal court. Right now, it’s in state court, but if you read the original complaint that was put together by Energy Transfer, they referred to Greenpeace as “rogue eco-terrorists,” essentially. They were really struggling to try to find some reason for bringing this lawsuit. It seemed like the goal was more to silence the organization and send a message. And, in fact, the executive of the company said as much in media interviews.
Civil litigation plays a very important role in the US system. It’s a way where, if someone is harmed by someone else, they can go to court and seek compensation for the damages from that person or company or organization, for the portion of the damages that they contributed to. So it’s a very fair and mostly effective way of making sure that people are not harmed, and that their rights are respected by others. But because the litigation process is so expensive, and takes so many years, it’s really open to abuse, and that’s what we’re seeing here.
JJ: Folks won’t think of Greenpeace as being a less powerful organization, but if you’re going to bring millions and millions of dollars to bear, and all the time in the world and all of your legal team, you can break a group down, and that seems to be the point of this.
KH: Absolutely. And one of the big signs here is, the protests against the Dakota Access pipeline were not led by Greenpeace, and Greenpeace did not play any sort of prominent role in the protests.
These were protests that were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who was directly affected by the pipeline traveling through its primary water source, and also traveling a way where they alleged that it was violating their treaty rights as an Indigenous nation. So they started to protest and take action to ask for this pipeline not to be approved. And then it inspired many other Indigenous tribes around the country, many activists, and soon it grew into a movement of thousands of people, with hundreds of organizations supporting it both in the US and internationally. Greenpeace was one of hundreds.
So even in the case where Energy Transfer’s “damaged” and wants to seek compensation for it, it’s really a telltale sign of this abusive tactic that they’re going after Greenpeace. They have chosen to go after a high-profile, renowned environmental organization that played a very secondary role in this whole protest.
JJ: So it’s clear that it’s symbolic, and yet we don’t think of our legal system as being used in that way. But the fact that this is not really about the particulars of the case, an actual harm being done to Energy Transfer by Greenpeace, that’s also made clear when you look at the process. For example, and there’s a lot, the judge allowed Energy Transfer to seal evidence on their pipeline safety history. There are problems in the process of the way this case has unfolded that also should raise some questions.
KH: That’s right. So when the case was first filed–I won’t go through the full timeline of the protests and everything that happened. It’s very in-depth, and it’s well-covered online. But the pipeline became operational in June 2017, and a little over one month later, that’s when the first lawsuit was filed against Greenpeace and others.
And that first lawsuit was filed in federal court. Energy Transfer brought it into federal court, and they tried to claim at that point that Greenpeace was essentially involved in Mafia-like racketeering; they used the RICO statute, which was created to fight against the Mafia. That’s when they first alleged harm, and tried to bring this lawsuit.
The federal court did not accept that argument, and, in fact, they wrote in their decision when they eventually dismissed it, that they gave Energy Transfer several opportunities to actually allege that Greenpeace had harmed them in some way, and they couldn’t.
So it was dismissed in federal court, and then one month later, they refiled in North Dakota state court, where there are not these protections in place. And they filed in a local area, very strategically; they picked an area close to where there was a lot of information flowing around the protest at the time. So it was already a situation where there’d already been a lot of negative media coverage bombarding the local population about what had happened.
So going forward, six years later, we’ve now started a jury trial, just in the last week of February. We’ll see what happens. It’s going to be very difficult for this trial to proceed in a purely objective way.
JJ: And we’re going to add links to deep, informative articles when we put this show up, because there is history here. But I want to ask you just to speak to the import of it. Folks may not have seen anything about this story.
First of all, Standing Rock sounds like it happened in the past. It’s not in the past, it’s in the present. But this is so important: Yesterday I got word that groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, National Students for Justice in Palestine, they’re filing to dismiss a SLAPP suit against them for a peaceful demonstration at O’Hare Airport. This is meaningful and important. I want to ask you to say, what should we be thinking about right now?
Kirk Herbertson: “This is a free speech issue that in normal times would be a no-brainer.”
KH: There’s a lot of potential implications of this case, even though it’s happening out in North Dakota state court, where you wouldn’t think it would have nationwide implications.
One, as you mentioned, this has become an emblematic example of a SLAPP lawsuit, but this is not the first SLAPP lawsuit. For years, SLAPPs have been used by the wealthy and powerful to silence the critics. I could name some very high-profile political actors and others who have used these tactics quite a bit. SLAPPs are a First Amendment issue, and there has been bipartisan concern with the use of SLAPPS to begin with. So there are a number of other states, when there have been anti-SLAPP laws that have passed, they have passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.
So just to say, this is a free speech issue that in normal times would be a no-brainer. This should be something that there should be bipartisan support around, protecting free speech, because it’s not just about environmental organizations here.
I think one of the big implications of this trial going forward at this time, in this current environment, is that if Energy Transfer prevails, this could really embolden other corporations and powerful actors to bring copycat lawsuits, as well as use other related tactics to try to weaponize the law, in order to punish free speech that they do not agree with.
And we’ve seen this happen with other aspects of the fossil fuel industry. If something is successful in one place, it gets picked up, and used again and again all over the country.
JJ: Well, yes, this is a thing. And you, I know, have a particular focus on protecting activists who are threatened based on their human rights advocacy, and also trying to shore up access to justice for people, and I want to underscore this, who are victims of human rights abuses perpetrated by economic actors, such as corporations and financial institutions. So I’m thinking about Berta Caceres, I’m thinking of Tortuguita.
I don’t love corporate media’s crime template. It’s kind of simplistic and one side, two sides, and it’s kind of about revenge. And yet I still note that the media can’t tell certain stories when they’re about corporate crimes as crimes. Somehow the framework doesn’t apply when it comes to a big, nameless, faceless corporation that might be killing hundreds of people. And I feel like that framing harms public understanding and societal response. And I just wonder what you think about media’s role in all of this.
KH: Yes, I think that’s right, and I could give you a whole dissertation answer on this, but for my work, I work both internationally and in the US to support people who are speaking up about environmental issues. So this is a trend globally. If you’re a community member or an environmental activist who speaks up about environmental issues, that’s actually one of the most dangerous activities you can do in the world right now. Every year, hundreds of people are killed and assassinated for speaking up about environmental issues, and many of them are Indigenous people. It happened here.
In the United States, we fortunately don’t see as many direct assassinations of people who are speaking up. But what we do see is a phenomenon that we call criminalization, which includes SLAPP lawsuits, and that really exploits gray areas in the legal system, that allows the wealthy and powerful to weaponize the legal system and turn it into a vehicle for silencing their critics.
Often it’s not, as you say, written in the law that this is illegal. In a lot of cases, there are more and more anti-SLAPP laws in place, but not in North Dakota. And so that really makes it challenging to explain what’s happening. And I think, as you say, that’s also the challenge for journalists and media organizations that are reporting on these types of attacks.
JJ: Let me bring you back to the legal picture, because I know, as a lot of us know, that what we’re seeing right now is not new. It’s brazen, but it’s not new. It’s working from a template, or like a vision board, that folks have had for a while. And I know that a couple years back, you were working with Jamie Raskin, among others, on a legislative response to this tactic. Is that still a place to look? What do you think?
KH: Yes. So there’s several efforts underway, because there’s different types of tactics that are being used at different levels. But there is an effort in Congress, and it’s being led by congressman Jamie Raskin, most recently, congressman Kevin Kiley, who’s a Republican from California, and Sen. Ron Wyden. So they have most recently introduced bipartisan bills in the House, just Senator Wyden for now in the Senate. But that’s to add protections at the federal level to try to stop the use of SLAPP lawsuits. And that effort is continuing, and will hopefully continue on bipartisan support.
JJ: Let’s maybe close with Deepa Padmanabha, who is Greenpeace’s legal advisor. She said that this lawsuit, Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace, is trying to divide people. It’s not about the law, it’s about public information and public understanding. And she said:
Energy Transfer and the fossil fuel industry do not understand the difference between entities and movements. You can’t bankrupt the movement. You can’t silence the movement.
I find that powerful. We’re in a very scary time. Folks are looking to the law to save us in a place where the law can’t necessarily do that. But what are your thoughts, finally, about the importance of this case, and what you would hope journalism would do about it?
KH: I think this case is important for Greenpeace, obviously, but as Deepa said, this is important for environmental justice movements, and social justice movements more broadly. And I agree with what she said very strongly. Both Greenpeace and EarthRights, where I work, are part of a nationwide coalition called Protect the Protest that was created to help respond to these types of threats that are emerging all over the country. And our mantra is, if you come after one of us, you come after all of us.
I think, no matter the outcome of this trial, one of the results will be that there will be a movement that is responding to what happens, continuing to work to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, and also to put a spotlight on Energy Transfer and its record, and how it’s relating and engaging with the communities where it tries to operate.
JJ: We’ve been speaking with Kirk Herbertson. He’s US director for advocacy and campaigns at EarthRights International. They’re online at EarthRights.org. Thank you so much, Kirk Herbertson, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
