protections

Nov. 27 (UPI) — A federal judge who oversaw the sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday demanded prosecutors explain how they are protecting victims’ privacy after the release of unredacted documents.

New York-based Judge Richard Berman issued the order in response to a letter raising alarm about how the names of some of Epstein’s victims were included in a trove of documents released by Congress earlier this month.

The order comes amid a recent push for more transparency into the investigation of Epstein, a now-deceased financier who had ties to the wealthy and powerful.

However, Bradley Edwards and Brittany Henderson, attorneys representing the victims, wrote in a letter to Berman on Tuesday that transparency cannot “come at the expense of the privacy, safety and protection of sexual abuse and sex-trafficking victims.”

“These women are not political pawns,” the attorneys wrote. “They are mothers, wives and daughters. These are women who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, and in some instances by others, and who have already had their rights violated in the past by the government.”

The House Oversight Committee has released dozens of documents from the Justice Department and Epstein’s estate that exposed victims’ identities, causing them “significant emotional distress,” they wrote. Victims have already been approached by the press after their names were released, the attorneys wrote.

The attorneys called the situation “absolutely unacceptable and a problem that must be rectified prior to the release of any additional documents.” One victim described being unable to sleep or function after the release.

The Department of Justice unsuccessfully asked Berman to unseal grand jury transcripts and exhibits in Epstein’s case. However, the victims’ attorneys wrote in their letter that the documents reveal little compared to the department’s investigative files.

Earlier this month, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed a bill directing the DOJ to release files on its investigation into Epstein.

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton wrote to a separate judge Wednesday that the department “intends to redact or withhold victim information to the fullest extent permitted” by the recently passed law.

Myanmar citizens march in protest against the military coup in Mandalay, Myanmar, on Sunday, February 28, 2021. Despite a civil war continuing in the Asian nation, the Trump administration on Monday announced it was terminating temporary protection status for Myanmar. File Photo by Xiao Long/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 25 (UPI) — The United States announced it was ending deportation protection for those from civil war-torn Myanmar, the latest nation to have Temporary Protected Status terminated amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of TPS for Myanmar on Monday, saying it will be in effect in 60 days, on Jan. 26.

Some 3,670 Myanmar nationals were in the United States under the TPS program, according to the National Immigration Forum nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.

The previous Biden administration designated Myanmar for TPS in May 2021 in response to civil conflict that erupted in the country following the Feb. 1, 2021, military coup. The designation has been repeatedly renewed until Monday.

According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners in Myanmar, the junta has killed at least 7,488 people, with 30,013 others arrested, and nearly 22,700 still detained.

Since the coup began, more than 275,000 Myanmar nationals have sought refuge or asylum in neighboring countries, according to United Nations statistics.

In terminating deportation protections for those from Myanmar, Noem said the situation in the country “has improved enough that it is safe for Burmese citizens to return home” and conditions no longer meet TPS statutory requirements.

“Burma has made notable progress in governance and stability, including the end of its state of emergency, plans for free and fair elections, successful cease-fire agreements and improved local governance contributing to enhanced public service delivery and national reconciliation,” she said in a statement.

The announcement comes less than a week after the United States co-sponsored a resolution on the situation facing minorities in Myanmar, with Michael Heath, U.S. senior adviser for East Asian and Pacific affairs, stating they “remain deeply concerned” by evidence of human rights violations and abuses continuing to be committed by both the military and other armed groups engaged in the civil war.

The Trump administration has sought to end TPS for nine country, affecting more than 675,000 immigrants in the United States, according to Carolyn Tran, executive director of Communities United for Status and Protection.

President Trump’s pledge to terminate temporary legal protections for Somalis living in Minnesota is triggering fear in the state’s deeply rooted immigrant community, along with doubts about whether the White House has the legal authority to enact the directive as described.

In a social media post late Friday, Trump said he would “immediately” strip Somali residents in Minnesota of Temporary Protected Status, a legal safeguard against deportation for immigrants from certain countries.

The announcement was immediately challenged by some state leaders and immigration experts, who characterized Trump’s declaration as a legally dubious effort to sow fear and suspicion toward Minnesota’s Somali community, the largest in the nation.

“There’s no legal mechanism that allows the president to terminate protected status for a particular community or state that he has beef with,” said Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

“This is Trump doing what he always does: demagoguing immigrants without justification or evidence and using that demagoguery in an attempt to take away important life-saving protections,” she added.

The protection has been extended 27 times for Somalis since 1991, with U.S. authorities determining that it was unsafe for people already in the United States to return to Somalia.

The Trump administration could, however, move to revoke the legal protection for Somalis nationally. But that move would affect only a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of Somalis living in Minnesota. A report produced for Congress in August put the number of Somalis covered by TPS at 705 nationwide.

“I am a citizen and so are [the] majority of Somalis in America,” Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat born in Somalia, said in a social media post Friday. “Good luck celebrating a policy change that really doesn’t have much impact on the Somalis you love to hate.”

Still, advocates warned the move could inflame hate against a community at a time of rising Islamophobia.

“This is not just a bureaucratic change,” said Jaylani Hussein, president of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “It is a political attack on the Somali and Muslim community driven by Islamophobic and hateful rhetoric.”

In his social media post, Trump claimed, without offering evidence, that Somali gangs had targeted Minnesota residents and referred to the state as a “hub of fraudulent money laundering activity.”

Federal prosecutors have in recent weeks brought charges against dozens of people in a social-services fraud scheme. Some of the defendants are from Somalia.

Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, has noted that Minnesota consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.

“It’s not surprising that the president has chosen to broadly target an entire community,” Walz said Friday. “This is what he does to change the subject.”

Community advocates say that the Somali diaspora in Minnesota has helped to revitalize downtown corridors in Minneapolis and plays a prominent role in the state’s politics.

“The truth is that the Somali community is beloved and long-woven into the fabric of many neighborhoods and communities in Minnesota,” Altman said. “Destabilizing families and communities makes all of us less safe and not more.”

As part of a broader push to adopt hard-line immigration policies, the Trump administration has moved to withdraw various protections that had allowed immigrants to remain in the United States and work legally.

That included ending TPS for 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians who were granted protection under former President Biden. The Trump administration has also sought to limit protections previously extended to migrants from Cuba and Syria, among other countries.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

BILLINGS, Mont. — President Trump’s administration moved Wednesday to roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live, reviving a suite of changes to Endangered Species Act regulations during the Republican’s first term that were blocked under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The changes include the elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule” that automatically protects animals and plants newly classified as threatened. Government agencies instead would have to craft species-specific rules for protections, a potentially lengthy process.

Environmentalists warned the changes could cause years-long delays in efforts to save species such as the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl and North American wolverine.

“We would have to wait until these poor animals are almost extinct before we can start protecting them. That’s absurd and heartbreaking,” said Stephanie Kurose with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The proposals come as extinctions have accelerated globally because of habitat loss and other pressures. Prior proposals during Trump’s second term would revise the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act and potentially bypass species protections for logging projects in national forests and on public lands.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the administration was restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent while respecting “the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.”

The changes answer long-standing calls for revisions to the 1973 Endangered Species Act from Republicans in Congress and industries including oil and gas, mining and agriculture. Those critics argue the law has been wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth.

Another change proposed Wednesday tasks officials with weighing potential economic impacts when deciding what habitat is crucial to the survival of a species.

“These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense,” Burgum said in a statement.

The Interior Department was sued over the blanket protection rule in March, by the Property and Environment Research Center and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The two groups argued the rule was illegal and discouraged states and landowners from assisting in species recovery efforts.

PERC Vice President Jonathan Wood said Wednesday’s proposal was a “necessary course correction” from the Biden administration’s actions.

“This reform acknowledges the blanket rule’s unlawfulness and puts recovery back at the heart of the Endangered Species Act,” Wood said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

The California Supreme Court rejected a 1st Amendment challenge to a state law that protects the rights of gay and transgender people in nursing homes and forbids employees of those sites from using the wrong pronouns to address a resident or co-worker.

The ruling, handed down Friday, holds that violations of the LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights are not protected by the 1st Amendment because they relate to codes of conduct in what is in effect a workplace and a home.

“The pronouns provision constitutes a regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects speech,” the court ruled.

The opinion reversed an appeals court ruling that held provisions in the 2017 law relating to patient pronouns and names could impede an employee’s freedom of speech. Five justices signed on to the main opinion; two signed on to a concurrence. There were no dissents.

“All individuals deserve to live free from harmful, disrespectful rhetoric that attacks their sense of self, especially when receiving care necessary for their continued well-being,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a written statement commending the ruling. “State law prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. I am glad that the California Supreme Court agrees with us on the importance of these protections and has affirmed their constitutionality.”

The group challenging the law, Taking Offense, asserted in its lawsuit that the provision mandating that long-term care facilities use people’s chosen pronouns amounts to “criminalizing and compelling speech content.”

Taking Offense described itself in court documents as a group opposing efforts “to coerce society to accept transgender fiction that a person can be whatever sex/gender s/he thinks s/he is, or chooses to be.”

The court ruled that the LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights “will be violated when willful and repeated misgendering has occurred in the presence of a resident, the resident hears or sees the misgendering, and the resident is harmed because the resident perceives that conduct to be abusive.”

The LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights is enforced by a section of California’s Health and Safety Code. Penalties can range from civil fines to criminal misdemeanor prosecutions — the potential for criminal penalties was a major element of Taking Offense’s argument. The court’s decision noted that other protections for long-term care facility residents have long carried both civil and criminal penalties.

“It seems apparent that the Legislature does not intend for such criminal penalties to be imposed except as a last resort, in the most egregious circumstances,” wrote the decision’s author, California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

The opinion made comparisons to other free-speech decisions with similar elements, such as the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston could not force St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers to include them.

“By contrast, the present case does not involve any analogous creative product or expressive association,” Guerrero wrote, concluding that the California law is instead regulating people’s conduct.

Duara writes for CalMatters.