|
Gov. Brad Little signed the measure on Transgender Day of Visibility as advocates rallied outside the statehouse  Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, signed a bill Tuesday criminalizing transgender people for using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, enacting one of the nation’s most sweeping restrictions on public accommodations and marking a new phase in the state’s effort to regulate where transgender people can exist in public life.
Little signed House Bill 752 at about 4:50 p.m., according to a daily tracking log released by the governor’s office. Idaho advocate Nikson Mathews said the governor acted as activists gathered outside the statehouse for a Transgender Day of Visibility rally. The law makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” enter a restroom or changing facility that does not align with one’s sex assigned at birth in a government building or place of public accommodation. A first offense is punishable by up to one year in jail. A second conviction within five years can be charged as a felony, carrying a potential sentence of up to five years in prison. Advocacy groups condemned the measure as punitive and dangerous. “Sending someone to prison just for using the bathroom is nothing but pure, unfiltered cruelty,” said Delphine Luneau, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign. “Anti-equality Idaho officials have displayed exactly that kind of animosity by passing a law that would put transgender people behind bars for using the restroom and subject people to harassment and discrimination in the most private of spaces. This is a blatant and unconscionable attack on their own constituents that risks ruining the lives of innocent people while doing nothing to address the actual concerns of Idaho families.” The legislation cleared the Idaho Senate on Thursday after passing the House, moving from introduction to enactment at an unusual pace for a bill carrying criminal penalties. Law enforcement groups had warned the measure would be difficult to enforce. Organizations, including the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, said it could place officers in the position of determining a person’s “biological sex” or weighing whether someone qualifies for an exception, decisions critics say are inherently subjective.
0 Comments
While most Americans recognize the Chinook as a versatile military workhorse, few know it is named after one of North America’s most prestigious indigenous tribes – the Chinook Indian Nation.  Sam Robinson is fighting to change that.
Robinson is an Army veteran and a proud Chinook Councilmember. For years, he’s worked to gain federal recognition and honor the Chinook’s namesake. Robinson wonders why the country he served granted honorary name recognition to the Chinook in 2001, only to rescind it 18 months later. Many Native Americans join the military for financial reasons, a pathway to college, or based on family tradition. Robinson was no exception. Having a brother, father and uncles who all served, Robinson felt a gravitational pull to join the military. “Once I turned 18, I knew that college wasn’t my path, so enlisting felt like a practical option that I would take pride in,” Robinson told Military.com. “About six months before high school graduation, I went to an Army recruiter and signed up for delayed entry so that I could leave for service right after high school.” Robinson served in the Army for four years. He spent the first year in infantry, then was selected for a new anti-tank platoon, managing two missile systems. From there, he was sent to brigade headquarters, becoming a sergeant in only three years. “Which I was proud of because it showed how much I had learned in such a short period of time,” he said. One of Robinson’s favorite memories from the Army was flying in a Chinook – that’s right, a Chinook in a Chinook. It was a unique experience that left Robinson swelling with pride. “I was out in the field working when a captain asked me for a ride. On the way back, he recognized the pilot of a Chinook sitting out there and struck up a conversation. After they talked, the pilot allowed me to back my Jeep into the helicopter and take a ride in it,” Robinson said. “One thing I remember vividly is how noisy it was inside. I had always been a fan of the helicopter, and I felt especially proud to be a Chinook man who had gotten to ride in a Chinook helicopter.” Robinson’s four years in the military taught him how to adapt to changes and learn on the fly. But he had strong mentors to guide him, seasoned soldiers from the Vietnam War, full of wisdom. He also learned strong leadership skills, which led to a 43-year career in wood products manufacturing, where he served as a plant manager. “I saw a lot of different leadership styles in the military, and it taught me that if you want people to respect you, you should not ask them to do anything you would not do yourself,” Robinson said. “You get more respect and better work out of people that way. That really stayed with me and carried me into my working life." A Proud Nation in the Pacific Northwest American history buffs are likely pretty familiar with the Chinook Indian Nation and its ties to the famed Lewis and Clark Expedition in the early 1800s. The Chinooks were the first tribe to settle the Lower Columbia River and the Pacific Coast region, now known as Washington and Oregon. The nation is comprised of five tribes: the Clatsop, Cathlamet, Lower Chinook, Wahkiakum, and Willapa. Centuries later, most of the nation’s 3,400 enrolled members still call the Pacific Northwest their home. “The Chinook are alive and well,” Robinson said. “We are a living nation, not a people of the past, which is exactly why the federal government’s refusal to formally recognize us is so harmful.” Despite the nation’s history in helping the American government during the time of Lewis and Clark, Chinook members serving in the military, and lending its name to what Robinson calls “one of the Army’s most recognizable helicopters,” federal recognition has been painfully fleeting. “Federal recognition) is the formal acknowledgment of a tribe’s sovereignty and government-to-government relationship with the United States,” Robinson said. “Being a federally recognized tribe would grant us resources that other tribes receive, like healthcare access and education programs.” For many years, the Army adopted names of Native American tribes or chiefs and used them for its aircraft. So, when the powerful, robust CH-47 Chinook entered the fleet in 1962, naming it after the tribe made sense. The practice became official in 1969 through Army Regulation 70-28, establishing names that promoted strength, agility and endurance. “The name is fitting,” Robinson said. “Our people have endured generations of broken promises and mistreatment from politicians in D.C., yet we’ve always fought to remain on, and protect, our ancestral homelands.” Still Hope for Recognition? Receiving federal recognition allows a tribe to be formally acknowledged by the U.S., establishing governmental relationships. Without it, tribes are denied full political status, resources, and certain protections that the federal government gives to recognized tribes. There was a glimmer of hope for the Chinook in 2001 when the nation received recognition, but that dream quickly died 18 months later when the act was rescinded. In other ways, however, the U.S. can’t seem to get enough of the Chinook. Not only is the iconic Army helicopter named after the tribe, but the government has also signed treaties with tribal ancestors, and the state of Washington is unofficially nicknamed the “Chinook State.” For Robinson, and so many Chinook, the situation is confusing and frustrating. “The question we keep coming back to is: if you acknowledge us enough to put our name on your helicopter, why not formally recognize our nation?” he said. “Without that, none of the acknowledgment we’ve received translates into real, tangible support for our people.” Hope is not lost, however. Robinson said the Chinook Justice Movement is working to restore federal recognition through legislation, support from local and regional leaders, neighboring tribes in Washington and Oregon, descendants of Lewis and Clark, and, according to Robinson, “tens of thousands of Americans who have signed petitions and written letters.” Ultimately, federal recognition must come from Congress through legislation signed into law. The same members of Congress who just a few weeks ago heard Trump glowingly praise the “massive Chinook.” In steadfast support of its members and the legal profession at large, the American Bar Association continues its efforts to combat industry-chilling attacks on the profession, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the current administration’s unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms.  In early March 2026, a high-profile court hearing took place regarding the American Bar Association's (ABA) lawsuit against the Trump administration's "Law Firm Intimidation Policy". Hearing Details
The lawsuit challenges a series of executive orders and memoranda that targeted specific law firms (such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block) for their past legal work against the administration. These actions included:
The court has heard arguments from both sides, and a written decision on the motion to dismiss is expected soon. While the DOJ briefly considered dropping its appeals of lower court rulings that had already blocked some of these orders, it later reversed that decision, signaling it will continue to defend the policy. “The framers of the 14th Amendment were specifically acting to prevent government officials from interfering with native-born Americans' citizenship and they would be dismayed by what the president is trying to do today.”  The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara on April 1, 2026. This landmark case will determine the constitutionality of a January 20, 2025, executive order that seeks to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas. The Case: Trump v. Barbara
John Keller, the former head of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Public Corruption Unit, recently warned that a "broader kind of illness" at the agency—marked by political interference and erosion of norms—could have consequences lasting for "years, if not decades"  Keller’s remarks were made during a March 2026 panel titled "Abusing the Justice Department" at a symposium sponsored by the Fordham School of Law and the American Bar Association
The U.S. Justice Department struggled to convince the justices that plea bargained waivers of appeal should be enforceable even in cases where the judge sentenced a defendant for a sexist, racist or other arbitrary reason.  The U.S. Department of Justice's hard line on enforcing plea bargained waivers of appeal took U.S. Supreme Court justices aback Tuesday.
The high court heard arguments in the case Hunter v. U.S., which deals with whether defendants can—in certain egregious circumstances—appeal a prison sentence notwithstanding having waived their appellate rights through a plea agreement with prosecutors. Plea agreements are a relatively modern phenomenon that have become commonplace in the U.S. criminal justice system, with an estimated 98% percent of federal convictions now reached through these deals between defendants and prosecutors. Many plea agreements include provisions whereby defendants agree not to appeal the sentence handed down by the court. The DOJ struggled to convince the Supreme Court on Tuesday that those appellate waivers should be enforceable even in cases where the judge sentenced a defendant for a sexist, racist or other arbitrary reason. What about "a racist sentencing judge?" Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, incredulously. "Our position is that it is enforceable," Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Zoe Jacoby responded on behalf of the government. "A sexist sentencing judge?" Gorsuch said. "Yes," Jacoby answered. "Someone who is biased against religious minorities?" Gorsuch said. "Yes," Jacoby responded. "The appeal waiver is enforceable." Jacoby acknowledged that her position sounded "very harsh" but insisted it was necessary so that the government receives the full "benefit of the bargain" in a plea agreement. She said recognizing additional exceptions to appellate waivers would open the floodgates and defeat the purpose of those agreements in the first place. But several justices appeared unconvinced. Gorsuch suggested there should be exceptions to appeal waivers in circumstances that "bring disrepute on the federal judiciary." He hypothesized a sentencing judge who allowed an orangutan to pick a sentence out of a hat. Jacoby did not dispute that that too would be covered by the appellate waiver. The government appeared to lose ground following the exchange, with Justice Elena Kagan saying to Jacoby, "Just out of curiosity… what’s your back-line position?" The high court is considering the case of Munson Hunter II, who entered into a plea agreement containing an appellate waiver in his financial fraud prosecution. Hunter is now seeking to challenge a condition later imposed at sentencing that requires him to take medication prescribed by a doctor, which goes against Hunter's religious beliefs. His lawyer, Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly, argued it would be "absurd" to refuse to permit Hunter to assert a "contract defense" to his appellate waiver, while allowing business tycoons such as Elon Musk to make such arguments in contract disputes. She said sentencing judges would be allowed to impose egregious sentencing conditions, such as castration or forbidding extramarital pregnancy, adding such sentences have occurred in the past. The sentencing judge said of Hunter that "it might be easier if this guy were medicated," Blatt told Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. during another colorful exchange during the hearing. "That's preposterous," Blatt added. "I mean it might be easier if you [Roberts] were medicated, too, for my job. That’s not how you get to medicate people.” The high court appeared broadly sympathetic to allowing defendants to get around appellate waivers beyond the two narrow circumstances identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit below: ineffective assistance of counsel and a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum. For example, Kagan suggested that the court recognize an additional exception for a "miscarriage of justice," making clear that is a high bar for lower courts to meet. She said the Supreme Court can, as the de facto supervisor of the federal judiciary, make sure that certain egregious sentences do not stand. The Supreme Court is expected to render its decision by July. Make America Healthy Again supporters plan to rally against the proposal when Supreme Court justices hear the case in April.  Trump administration lawyers told Supreme Court justices on Tuesday that they should rule in favor of the chemical company Bayer in an upcoming case that could prevent individuals from suing pesticide companies over claims their products cause cancer and other illnesses. In an amicus brief, the lawyers said that federal pesticide laws, enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), preempt state laws and jury decisions around the risks of chemicals. The brief lands at a moment when the herbicide glyphosate has become a flashpoint in the relationship between Republicans and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition that supports them. MAHA supporters plan to rally in front of the Supreme Court to oppose the administration’s stance on April 27. The EPA maintains that Roundup—produced by Bayer after its 2018 purchase of Monsanto—and its active ingredient glyphosate are not carcinogenic, despite a classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic.” Roundup is the most widely used weedkiller in history, and many studies have linked regular glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. For years, Bayer has been battling thousands of lawsuits in which individuals allege using the product caused them to develop the disease. One of those lawsuits was brought by Missouri gardener John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of Roundup use. In 2023, a jury found Bayer failed to warn him of the product’s risks and awarded him $1.25 million. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, and Bayer then petitioned the Supreme Court. In their brief, administration lawyers said that because the EPA didn’t require a warning, Bayer couldn’t be held responsible for failing to provide one. They also said that if the Supreme Court allowed the lawsuits to continue, a confusing array of state-level warnings on the same products would follow. In December, the administration made it clear that they were siding with Bayer in the case, but the amicus brief affirms that decision and provides additional legal justification. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.