motherjones--2020-07-08--Trump and DeVos Say They’ll Withhold Money From Schools for Not Re-Opening. Can They?

The Trump administration spent its Wednesday not so much using the bully pulpit as throwing it at the heads of America ’ s school officials , threatening to withhold federal funds from school districts if they refuse to reopen .
An education law professor tells Mother Jones that it ’ s a hollow threat without any legal basis , but that there are still gray areas in which the White House could maneuver .
On Twitter , Trump on Wednesday threatened to withhold federal funds from school districts if they refuse to reopen .
He added that he disagreed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools , which includes dismissing school when COVID outbreaks occur , enforcing social distancing within classes , limiting sharing , and conducting daily health checks , among other recommendations .
He called the guidance “ very tough & expensive.
” On Fox News , DeVos told Tucker Carlson that the Education Department is “ seriously considering ” withholding federal funds , blaming “ adults who are fear-mongering and making excuses ” for not reopening .
She added that they need to “ turn their attention on what is right for students and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and three other states sued the Education Department on Tuesday , alleging that it wrongfully interpreted the CARES Act to divert public dollars to private schools . )
And on Wednesday , as the CDC announced it would alter its guidance on reopening schools next week , Vice President Mike Pence said during a White House coronavirus task force briefing that additional relief funds should be conditioned on whether school buildings open .
Given the federal government ’ s hands-off approach to addressing the coronavirus as infections spike throughout the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and state public health departments to navigate how to reopen schools for the safety of teachers , administrators , and kids .
“ This is not helpful .
The fact that yesterday they ratcheted up the pressure on them to reopen without committing a single dollar toward that reopening is totally unfair and dangerous , ” says Sasha Pudelski , advocacy director at AASA , The School Superintendents Association .
“ They have , aside from doctors , the most difficult job in America right now .
This is not an easy thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to do it in a way that it is safe enough .
They ’ re trying to do the best they can to mitigate what they can.
” The federal government can ’ t simply withhold federal funds from districts , billions of which go toward poor and special education students , for not opening their schools on time .
Derek W. Black , an education law professor at the University of South Carolina and author of Schoolhouse Burning : Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy , says there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is proposing .
I spoke with Black , who has litigated school desegregation and education funding lawsuits while at the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , about what the Trump administration legally can and can ’ t do , and whether what ’ s legal actually matters .
The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity .
When I reached out to you about whether the federal government could withhold money from districts that refuse to reopen , you wrote me : “ There is no obvious lever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are maybe some gray areas they could leverage.
” What did you mean ?
The general principle overarching everything in education and elsewhere is that if they ’ re going to withhold money or say that there ’ s a condition of receiving money , they have to be crystal clear about those [ conditions ] in advance .
The state or district has to know that we will lose money if we do X , right ?
Any time that they ’ ve tried to withhold funds without that , courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make up stuff after the fact .
This comes into play with No Child Left Behind—like , were you violating a specific provision ?
Did you know that you ’ d lose money if you violated etc , etc .
So when I looked at the current situation , yeah , the federal government has the ability to withhold funds , but there have to pre-articulate reasons why .
It seems like an obvious requirement .
There are no stated requirements that say , “ Hey , you must open school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Hey , your school must be live.
” So if what we ’ re talking about is live instruction versus online , there ’ s nothing that strikes me as being spelled out in any federal statute that says to receive federal funds , your instruction has to be live rather than online .
This can ’ t be true as a practical matter , because we know that there are some online charters and whatnot .
But if what the federal government means is you have to open , as in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instruction , well , then maybe there ’ s some gray area there .
The way that money goes out to schools is based on headcount , and so I suppose the federal government could take this position that the state doesn ’ t have a headcount because there are no students ’ heads to be counted .
I don ’ t want to put ideas in their head .
I don ’ t know if that ’ s what they ’ re already thinking .
That would be a creative basis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that federal funds are tagged to specific start dates , either .
As long as you are running your education system at some point over the calendar year and you have these kids in school , then you should be eligible for the federal funds .
In fact , some of the federal funds go out based upon census data as opposed to precise headcount .
I ’ m struggling to see how they could do that .
I don ’ t see any statutory basis to distinguish online and in-person .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government doesn ’ t have the power to dictate when it starts or ends .
It feels like the president is saying , “ If you don ’ t open schools for in-person instruction , we will withhold money.
” I don ’ t think there ’ s any statutory basis to say if you ’ re not physically open , we can ’ t fund you .
There is a variety of what you might call qualitative standards under which they can hold funds .
The qualitative standards would be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complying with IEPs for special education students .
You ’ re not delivering services to them .
Or we gave you federal funds to provide supplemental services of low-income students , and you ’ re not providing them.
” But that ’ s a much harder case to make .
First of all , we know that public schools are running around and feeding kids right now , so to suggest that they ’ re not doing that is wrong .
But for the president to take that position , it seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a school district-by-district basis and actually affirmatively establish that there are several services that we ’ re paying you to provide that you ’ re not providing .
But online versus in-person doesn ’ t answer the question all by itself of whether states are providing those services .
And I ’ m not defending the schools .
I think that they need to be doing as much as possible for kids .
I ’ m just saying , in terms of federal authority , they ’ ve got to establish a violation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the statute would be , oh , you ’ re having online versus in-person .
The violation would be , you ’ re not providing special education services , you ’ re not providing language services , you ’ re not providing lunch , you ’ re not providing supplemental reading instruction to low-income kids .
Those would be the basis to withhold federal funds .
So they have to point to some civil rights violation .
If they are not providing X , Y , Z services for poor students or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when there are grounds for pulling money .
Or didn ’ t administer , you know , standardized tests for the 2020-2021 school year , because that is a condition of the federal funding .
You must spend money to administer these accountability systems .
So that would be a basis for withholding funds .
Sorry for being pejorative , they don ’ t deal in nuance in this administration .
But if you follow the giving of coronavirus aid to private schools , they clearly don ’ t care what statute says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t surprise me that they are saying they might actually refuse to cut checks .
To move to the next level , could they do this ?
Yeah , they could because it takes the US Treasury and Department of Education to send a check .
If the president or DeVos says , “ Don ’ t send the check , ” then the check won ’ t flow .
And at that point , now we ’ ve got litigation because my position would be that the federal government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed by Congress dictate that they receive .
What precedent is there for the federal government to withhold money from schools ?
I think that paints a crystal-clear picture of what an enormous , egregious step this would be .
The federal government has withheld federal funding only in a couple of instances from states .
During school desegregation , one of the conditions of receiving federal funds is to comply with nondiscrimination statutes .
And you had Southern school districts , of course , refusing to desegregate .
And the department threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got the overwhelming majority of them moving in the right direction .
That ’ s not to say that they did everything right .
They ’ re moving in the right direction .
But in terms of ones that actually just refused , until the very end , there were only a couple of school districts that absolutely refused to do anything .
So the federal government said , “ Look , we ’ re not going to give you your federal funds.
” So that happened .
You may recall a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , towards the end of the Obama administration , we had a school district outside of Chicago that was refusing to comply with the department ’ s interpretation of sexual orientation and transgender equality .
They said , “ Look , this discrimination based on sexual orientation violates sex discrimination , ” and the district said , “ We disagree and we ’ re going to keep pushing it right up to the edge of the department holding funds , ” and then the district folded .
There are extreme examples of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comply with anti-discrimination—really the only instances that we ’ ve seen federal funds withheld .
We ’ ve seen the federal government go back and try to get money back from states after the fact .
So the federal government already gave them money , and then they found out that they had spent it fraudulently or incorrectly .
There ’ s been some of that , but nothing wide-scale or consistent .
It ’ s very rare .
What kind of money can get withheld ?
You might divide up money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what you might call program-specific requirements .
So the No Child Left Behind Act , what is now the Elementary and Secondary Education Act , has a number of requirements around administering tests .
Even the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is broken up into multiple parts .
So Title I , for instance , would be poor kids , and there ’ s a certain chunk of money— $ 14.5 billion generally a year—for that .
So if you ’ re not testing and following all that , you could lose your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds in there—Title II , which is about teacher training .
You wouldn ’ t lose your teacher training money just because you missed a Title I requirement .
You sort of break down money into pockets and the requirements for each one .
And then you have the overarching anti-discrimination principles .
So , like , Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination ; Title IX of the Education Amendments of ’ 74 prohibit sex discrimination ; then you ’ ve got a disability , etc , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just withhold all your money because those say no federal-fund recipients can engage in race discrimination .
That is the other curious ambiguity in the administration ’ s position .
The only clear provisions that allow an across-the-board withholding of funds are really these anti-discrimination principles .
The rest of it is program-specific , which I said earlier would require them to go in and actually establish that , hey , you ’ re not complying with the specific requirements of this particular program , and you just lose it on a program-by-program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not going to reopen in August .
What grounds , then , would the federal government have ?
Can they make a clear case that by not reopening , you ’ re violating these statutes ?
The question is , how do we define reopening ?
Do we define it as physically reopening or online reopening ?
I don ’ t see any basis for saying the failure to physically reopen is automatically a basis for withholding federal funds .
The day at which you open is a matter of local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about is , I don ’ t open it all , I still wonder what the basis would be , because I don ’ t think schools are going to remain permanently closed .
The fact that they delay opening is not a condition .
The specific date at which you start your school is not a condition of federal funding mean , no .
I mean , look at it now .
We know for a matter of fact that Northern schools tend to start after Labor Day .
Southern schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never put Northern schools in jeopardy .
So if Southern schools want to delay until after Labor Day or delay two weeks , there are no provisions in federal law that dictate the date at which schools open .
To me , it ’ s still not obvious .
I think the federal government had to establish that they didn ’ t offer a school for the entire school year or for a substantial school year before they could terminate funding .
I don ’ t think that changes in start date would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I saw a tweet from Andrew Ujifusa out at Education Week , where he talked about how a lot of the money that can be used for the next school year started going out on July 1 .
What grounds does the federal government have to essentially take away money that ’ s already being distributed ?
The federal government pays for an overall product , you might say , and that product is the delivery of a year ’ s worth of education .
The federal government does not specify the how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ultimately , that ’ s up to the state .
So there ’ s no reason the federal government on July 1 wouldn ’ t cut checks because they know that the school basically got a year to do its job .
And so they just give them that money in advance so they can do that job .
The federal government ’ s got to establish that states aren ’ t going to do their job or haven ’ t done their job .
And a specific date upon which they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually do or don ’ t do their job .
To me , it is federal overreach and abuse of power to suggest that the federal government can dictate the minutiae of education policy .
Maybe they should , in some distant future , pass a statute that gives the federal government that power .
But as of today , that power still rests with state education officers .
What does it tell you about the president ’ s approach to the reopening process that he is taking this stance ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s taken on reopening the economy .
For the most part , the president has shown no interest at all in public schools for the last four years and even during his campaign .
His only real interest has been in private school vouchers .
So the only time that he shows an interest in public schools is when he sees them somehow connected to his economic agenda .
But the fact that he sees a connection between the two doesn ’ t give him or the secretary of education the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of like they want what they want , and it really ties back to equitable services under the CARES Act .
Betsy DeVos has been told no on vouchers for four years , and the CARES Act says nothing about vouchers .
But she wants what she wants , and so she tries to exercise power , which she doesn ’ t have , under the CARES Act to force states to give money to private schools .
They want what they want and don ’ t really care whether the law stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confront people in life and government who just want what they want , regardless of what the law requires , you intimidate those people into giving up power or conceding to power that doesn ’ t actually exist .
And so , with the equitable services stuff the past few months , you saw state educational commissioners afraid to publicly say that Betsy DeVos was wrong , and they weren ’ t gon na follow her ruling because they were afraid she would withhold their money illegally or not , and they just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legal fight .
What we have now is potentially another situation , which is , if you think that the president and secretary of education are willing to trample on your rights , then maybe you just do what they want to prevent them from trampling on your rights .
There is this danger that people won ’ t stand up for their own rights .
By not standing up for their own rights , they lose them to bullies .

The Trump administration spent its Wednesday not so much using the bully pulpit as throwing it at the heads of America’s school officials, threatening to withhold federal funds from school districts if they refuse to reopen. An education law professor tells Mother Jones that it’s a hollow threat without any legal basis, but that there are still gray areas in which the White House could maneuver.
On Twitter, Trump on Wednesday threatened to withhold federal funds from school districts if they refuse to reopen. He added that he disagreed with the CDC’s guidance for reopening schools, which includes dismissing school when COVID outbreaks occur, enforcing social distancing within classes, limiting sharing, and conducting daily health checks, among other recommendations. He called the guidance “very tough & expensive.”
On Fox News, DeVos told Tucker Carlson that the Education Department is “seriously considering” withholding federal funds, blaming “adults who are fear-mongering and making excuses” for not reopening. She added that they need to “turn their attention on what is right for students and for their families.” (California, Michigan, and three other states sued the Education Department on Tuesday, alleging that it wrongfully interpreted the CARES Act to divert public dollars to private schools.) And on Wednesday, as the CDC announced it would alter its guidance on reopening schools next week, Vice President Mike Pence said during a White House coronavirus task force briefing that additional relief funds should be conditioned on whether school buildings open.
Given the federal government’s hands-off approach to addressing the coronavirus as infections spike throughout the country, superintendents have focused on consulting with governors and state public health departments to navigate how to reopen schools for the safety of teachers, administrators, and kids. “This is not helpful. The fact that yesterday they ratcheted up the pressure on them to reopen without committing a single dollar toward that reopening is totally unfair and dangerous,” says Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director at AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “They have, aside from doctors, the most difficult job in America right now. This is not an easy thing to figure out how to reopen schools and to do it in a way that it is safe enough. They’re trying to do the best they can to mitigate what they can.”
The federal government can’t simply withhold federal funds from districts, billions of which go toward poor and special education students, for not opening their schools on time. Derek W. Black, an education law professor at the University of South Carolina and author of Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy, says there is no precedent for what the Trump administration is proposing.
I spoke with Black, who has litigated school desegregation and education funding lawsuits while at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, about what the Trump administration legally can and can’t do, and whether what’s legal actually matters. The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
When I reached out to you about whether the federal government could withhold money from districts that refuse to reopen, you wrote me: “There is no obvious lever for them to do so, though there are maybe some gray areas they could leverage.” What did you mean?
The general principle overarching everything in education and elsewhere is that if they’re going to withhold money or say that there’s a condition of receiving money, they have to be crystal clear about those [conditions] in advance. The state or district has to know that we will lose money if we do X, right? Any time that they’ve tried to withhold funds without that, courts have struck it down. You can’t make up stuff after the fact. This comes into play with No Child Left Behind—like, were you violating a specific provision? Did you know that you’d lose money if you violated etc, etc.
So when I looked at the current situation, yeah, the federal government has the ability to withhold funds, but there have to pre-articulate reasons why. It seems like an obvious requirement. There are no stated requirements that say, “Hey, you must open school on day X,” or, “Hey, your school must be live.” So if what we’re talking about is live instruction versus online, there’s nothing that strikes me as being spelled out in any federal statute that says to receive federal funds, your instruction has to be live rather than online. This can’t be true as a practical matter, because we know that there are some online charters and whatnot.
But if what the federal government means is you have to open, as in you have to have online or live instruction, well, then maybe there’s some gray area there. The way that money goes out to schools is based on headcount, and so I suppose the federal government could take this position that the state doesn’t have a headcount because there are no students’ heads to be counted. I don’t want to put ideas in their head. I don’t know if that’s what they’re already thinking. That would be a creative basis. But again, I’m not sure that federal funds are tagged to specific start dates, either. As long as you are running your education system at some point over the calendar year and you have these kids in school, then you should be eligible for the federal funds. In fact, some of the federal funds go out based upon census data as opposed to precise headcount. I’m struggling to see how they could do that. I don’t see any statutory basis to distinguish online and in-person. If the kids are enrolled, the federal government doesn’t have the power to dictate when it starts or ends.
It feels like the president is saying, “If you don’t open schools for in-person instruction, we will withhold money.”
I don’t think there’s any statutory basis to say if you’re not physically open, we can’t fund you. There is a variety of what you might call qualitative standards under which they can hold funds. The qualitative standards would be, “Well, you’re not complying with IEPs for special education students. You’re not delivering services to them. Or we gave you federal funds to provide supplemental services of low-income students, and you’re not providing them.” But that’s a much harder case to make. First of all, we know that public schools are running around and feeding kids right now, so to suggest that they’re not doing that is wrong. But for the president to take that position, it seems to me they would have to go on a school district-by-district basis and actually affirmatively establish that there are several services that we’re paying you to provide that you’re not providing. But online versus in-person doesn’t answer the question all by itself of whether states are providing those services.
And I’m not defending the schools. I think that they need to be doing as much as possible for kids. I’m just saying, in terms of federal authority, they’ve got to establish a violation of the statute. So the violation of the statute would be, oh, you’re having online versus in-person. The violation would be, you’re not providing special education services, you’re not providing language services, you’re not providing lunch, you’re not providing supplemental reading instruction to low-income kids. Those would be the basis to withhold federal funds.
So they have to point to some civil rights violation. If they are not providing X, Y, Z services for poor students or special education students, that’s when there are grounds for pulling money.
Or didn’t administer, you know, standardized tests for the 2020-2021 school year, because that is a condition of the federal funding. You must spend money to administer these accountability systems. So that would be a basis for withholding funds. Sorry for being pejorative, they don’t deal in nuance in this administration. But if you follow the giving of coronavirus aid to private schools, they clearly don’t care what statute says or doesn’t say. It doesn’t surprise me that they are saying they might actually refuse to cut checks. To move to the next level, could they do this? Yeah, they could because it takes the US Treasury and Department of Education to send a check. If the president or DeVos says, “Don’t send the check,” then the check won’t flow. And at that point, now we’ve got litigation because my position would be that the federal government is illegally withholding money from states that laws passed by Congress dictate that they receive.
What precedent is there for the federal government to withhold money from schools?
I think that paints a crystal-clear picture of what an enormous, egregious step this would be. The federal government has withheld federal funding only in a couple of instances from states. During school desegregation, one of the conditions of receiving federal funds is to comply with nondiscrimination statutes. And you had Southern school districts, of course, refusing to desegregate. And the department threatened them with withholding funds, and that got the overwhelming majority of them moving in the right direction. That’s not to say that they did everything right. They’re moving in the right direction. But in terms of ones that actually just refused, until the very end, there were only a couple of school districts that absolutely refused to do anything. So the federal government said, “Look, we’re not going to give you your federal funds.” So that happened.
You may recall a similar instance, about four or five years ago, towards the end of the Obama administration, we had a school district outside of Chicago that was refusing to comply with the department’s interpretation of sexual orientation and transgender equality. They said, “Look, this discrimination based on sexual orientation violates sex discrimination,” and the district said, “We disagree and we’re going to keep pushing it right up to the edge of the department holding funds,” and then the district folded. There are extreme examples of districts digging in their feet and refusing to comply with anti-discrimination—really the only instances that we’ve seen federal funds withheld. We’ve seen the federal government go back and try to get money back from states after the fact. So the federal government already gave them money, and then they found out that they had spent it fraudulently or incorrectly. There’s been some of that, but nothing wide-scale or consistent. It’s very rare.
What kind of money can get withheld?
You might divide up money withholding into two categories: One is what you might call program-specific requirements. So the No Child Left Behind Act, what is now the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, has a number of requirements around administering tests. Even the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is broken up into multiple parts. So Title I, for instance, would be poor kids, and there’s a certain chunk of money—$14.5 billion generally a year—for that. So if you’re not testing and following all that, you could lose your Title I funds. There are other funds in there—Title II, which is about teacher training. You wouldn’t lose your teacher training money just because you missed a Title I requirement. You sort of break down money into pockets and the requirements for each one.
And then you have the overarching anti-discrimination principles. So, like, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination; Title IX of the Education Amendments of ’74 prohibit sex discrimination; then you’ve got a disability, etc, etc. As to those they could just withhold all your money because those say no federal-fund recipients can engage in race discrimination. That is the other curious ambiguity in the administration’s position. The only clear provisions that allow an across-the-board withholding of funds are really these anti-discrimination principles. The rest of it is program-specific, which I said earlier would require them to go in and actually establish that, hey, you’re not complying with the specific requirements of this particular program, and you just lose it on a program-by-program basis.
There are districts saying we’re not going to reopen in August. What grounds, then, would the federal government have? Can they make a clear case that by not reopening, you’re violating these statutes?
The question is, how do we define reopening? Do we define it as physically reopening or online reopening? I don’t see any basis for saying the failure to physically reopen is automatically a basis for withholding federal funds. The day at which you open is a matter of local discretion. If what we’re talking about is, I don’t open it all, I still wonder what the basis would be, because I don’t think schools are going to remain permanently closed. The fact that they delay opening is not a condition. The specific date at which you start your school is not a condition of federal funding mean, no. I mean, look at it now. We know for a matter of fact that Northern schools tend to start after Labor Day. Southern schools start in mid-August nowadays. That has never put Northern schools in jeopardy.
So if Southern schools want to delay until after Labor Day or delay two weeks, there are no provisions in federal law that dictate the date at which schools open. To me, it’s still not obvious. I think the federal government had to establish that they didn’t offer a school for the entire school year or for a substantial school year before they could terminate funding. I don’t think that changes in start date would be the basis for terminating funding.
I saw a tweet from Andrew Ujifusa out at Education Week, where he talked about how a lot of the money that can be used for the next school year started going out on July 1. What grounds does the federal government have to essentially take away money that’s already being distributed?
The federal government pays for an overall product, you might say, and that product is the delivery of a year’s worth of education. The federal government does not specify the how, when, and where of that. Ultimately, that’s up to the state. So there’s no reason the federal government on July 1 wouldn’t cut checks because they know that the school basically got a year to do its job. And so they just give them that money in advance so they can do that job.
The federal government’s got to establish that states aren’t going to do their job or haven’t done their job. And a specific date upon which they start has no bearing upon whether they actually do or don’t do their job. To me, it is federal overreach and abuse of power to suggest that the federal government can dictate the minutiae of education policy. Maybe they should, in some distant future, pass a statute that gives the federal government that power. But as of today, that power still rests with state education officers.
What does it tell you about the president’s approach to the reopening process that he is taking this stance? It’s a similar stance that he’s taken on reopening the economy.
For the most part, the president has shown no interest at all in public schools for the last four years and even during his campaign. His only real interest has been in private school vouchers. So the only time that he shows an interest in public schools is when he sees them somehow connected to his economic agenda. But the fact that he sees a connection between the two doesn’t give him or the secretary of education the power to do anything. It’s sort of like they want what they want, and it really ties back to equitable services under the CARES Act. Betsy DeVos has been told no on vouchers for four years, and the CARES Act says nothing about vouchers. But she wants what she wants, and so she tries to exercise power, which she doesn’t have, under the CARES Act to force states to give money to private schools. They want what they want and don’t really care whether the law stands in their way.
But when you confront people in life and government who just want what they want, regardless of what the law requires, you intimidate those people into giving up power or conceding to power that doesn’t actually exist. And so, with the equitable services stuff the past few months, you saw state educational commissioners afraid to publicly say that Betsy DeVos was wrong, and they weren’t gonna follow her ruling because they were afraid she would withhold their money illegally or not, and they just didn’t want to get into a legal fight. What we have now is potentially another situation, which is, if you think that the president and secretary of education are willing to trample on your rights, then maybe you just do what they want to prevent them from trampling on your rights. There is this danger that people won’t stand up for their own rights. By not standing up for their own rights, they lose them to bullies.


motherjones--2020-07-08--Uber-Backed California Ballot Initiative “Would Create a Permanent Underclass of Workers”

The California ballot measure backed by Uber , Lyft , and Doordash and slated to appear on the ballot this November would exempt gig companies from a new law tightening the rules on who is and isn ’ t a contractor .
Proposition 22 would also “ create a permanent underclass of workers , ” according to a new report by the Partnership for Working Families and the National Employment Law Project .
A spokesperson for Prop 22 calls the study a piece of “ unabashed campaign propaganda.
” The backdrop of the debate is AB 5 , which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to consider their drivers as full employees , not contractors , and thus eligible for overtime pay , health benefits , and paid time off—a historic victory for workers in tech ’ s backyard .
In exempting rideshare and delivery companies from AB 5 , the initiative , called the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act , does not repeal the law but sidesteps it .
Under a provision called “ Protecting Independence , ” Prop 22 gives “ app-based drivers ” the freedom to work for “ transportation network companies ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provision of law ” if the worker has control of their hours and ability to turn down work .
The “ any other provision of the law ” would be AB 5 , which codified an employment test that ’ s used in labor codes around the country .
The test requires more for independent contractor status than just ability to set one ’ s own hours .
In carving out gig delivery workers , Prop 22 guarantees a number of new benefits to contractors to make up for non-employee status : discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnings floor .
The gig companies have offered this as a “ new progressive framework , ” as Uber calls it .
The idea is that the gig model is not misclassification of workers without benefits but innovative job creation in need of a few tweaks to add benefits traditionally tied to employment .
But researchers have said these benefits come far short of the slew of protections offered by full employment under the law , and even block out core protections , while masquerading as an upgrade .
“ These companies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one purpose : protect corporate wealth and power at the expense of worker health , safety , and dignity , ” the researchers write .
Take driver ’ s pay .
Prop 22 states that drivers would earn at least 120 percent of the local minimum wage—a pay bump .
But NELP estimates that passing Prop 22 would actually decrease wages by $ 500 a week .
The discrepancy is in defining hours worked .
Uber ’ s proposition uses “ engaged time , ” which only includes the time when “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivery request to when the app-based driver completes that rideshare request or delivery request.
” NELP says wait time , the time when drivers are looking for riders to pick up , should be included too .
This can lead to widely different estimates of how much drivers are paid per hour .
The Prop 22 campaign promise to give full-time drivers health benefits has the same flaw , says the report .
While the initiative says it drivers who work 25 hours a week or more will get a 100 percent health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premiums , the report estimates drivers would actually need to work “ more than 39 hours a week ” for that benefit .
Employment would offer an easier road to healthcare , researchers say .
Similarly , discrimination protections , the report says , are actually better if you ’ re employed .
And the same goes for the much-touted “ flexibility ” of deciding one ’ s own schedule .
“ Real flexibility at work means having access to real paid time off , ” says Rebecca Smith of the National Employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there would be no guarantee of paid sick leave , paid family leave , or unemployment compensation .
Crucially , the measure would also prevent local municipalities from setting their own standards for how gig drivers are treated .
By creating a statewide standard , cities would not be able to pass local ordinances to boost driver pay or guarantee health protections , as happened in San Francisco when the city council passed a sick pay rule in early April .
And , by keeping drivers from full employment , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers did want to form a union , says Ray Fuentes , a co-author of the report , it would need approval from seven-eighths of the state legislature .
Meanwhile , Attorney General Xavier Becerra is currently suing to force Uber and Lyft to actual enforce AB 5 and employ their fleet of independent contractors as full employees—with the benefits required in California of unemployment insurance and paid sick leave—as soon as possible .
The conditions of gig worker have only gotten worse during the pandemic .
Yet large gig companies have consolidated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a food delivery service , for $ 2.65 billion .
And it acquired Cornershop , an international grocery delivery app , with plans to expand even more .
With more consolidation , workers have less opportunities to move between apps—switching from Postmates to Uber if the pay is better .
If there is only Uber , you have to deliver for them .
“ I have constantly seen my wages decrease while their profits grow , ” said Carlos Ramos , a Lyft driver affiliated with Gig Workers Rising .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The California ballot measure backed by Uber, Lyft, and Doordash and slated to appear on the ballot this November would exempt gig companies from a new law tightening the rules on who is and isn’t a contractor.
Proposition 22 would also “create a permanent underclass of workers,” according to a new report by the Partnership for Working Families and the National Employment Law Project. A spokesperson for Prop 22 calls the study a piece of “unabashed campaign propaganda.”
The backdrop of the debate is AB 5, which, at least in theory, forced gig companies to consider their drivers as full employees, not contractors, and thus eligible for overtime pay, health benefits, and paid time off—a historic victory for workers in tech’s backyard. In exempting rideshare and delivery companies from AB 5, the initiative, called the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, does not repeal the law but sidesteps it.
Under a provision called “Protecting Independence,” Prop 22 gives “app-based drivers” the freedom to work for “transportation network companies” without full employment “notwithstanding any other provision of law” if the worker has control of their hours and ability to turn down work. The “any other provision of the law” would be AB 5, which codified an employment test that’s used in labor codes around the country. The test requires more for independent contractor status than just ability to set one’s own hours.
In carving out gig delivery workers, Prop 22 guarantees a number of new benefits to contractors to make up for non-employee status: discrimination protections, health benefits, and an earnings floor. The gig companies have offered this as a “new progressive framework,” as Uber calls it. The idea is that the gig model is not misclassification of workers without benefits but innovative job creation in need of a few tweaks to add benefits traditionally tied to employment.
But researchers have said these benefits come far short of the slew of protections offered by full employment under the law, and even block out core protections, while masquerading as an upgrade.
“These companies have created a noxious combination that serves only one purpose: protect corporate wealth and power at the expense of worker health, safety, and dignity,” the researchers write.
These gig companies refuse to obey the law when it comes to providing benefits to workers. It’s no surprise that they’re now backing #Prop22, which would undo decades of labor protections in CA: https://t.co/v25vumadgn #RiggingTheGig #NoOnProp22 #SickofGigGreed pic.twitter.com/mzB6ozi5V8 — California Labor Federation #BlackLivesMatter (@CaliforniaLabor) July 7, 2020
Take driver’s pay. Prop 22 states that drivers would earn at least 120 percent of the local minimum wage—a pay bump. But NELP estimates that passing Prop 22 would actually decrease wages by $500 a week. The discrepancy is in defining hours worked. Uber’s proposition uses “engaged time,” which only includes the time when “an app-based driver accepts a rideshare request or delivery request to when the app-based driver completes that rideshare request or delivery request.” NELP says wait time, the time when drivers are looking for riders to pick up, should be included too. This can lead to widely different estimates of how much drivers are paid per hour.
The Prop 22 campaign promise to give full-time drivers health benefits has the same flaw, says the report. While the initiative says it drivers who work 25 hours a week or more will get a 100 percent health subsidy based on averaging Affordable Care Act premiums, the report estimates drivers would actually need to work “more than 39 hours a week” for that benefit. Employment would offer an easier road to healthcare, researchers say.
Similarly, discrimination protections, the report says, are actually better if you’re employed. And the same goes for the much-touted “flexibility” of deciding one’s own schedule. “Real flexibility at work means having access to real paid time off,” says Rebecca Smith of the National Employment Law Project. Under the ballot measure, there would be no guarantee of paid sick leave, paid family leave, or unemployment compensation.
Crucially, the measure would also prevent local municipalities from setting their own standards for how gig drivers are treated. By creating a statewide standard, cities would not be able to pass local ordinances to boost driver pay or guarantee health protections, as happened in San Francisco when the city council passed a sick pay rule in early April. And, by keeping drivers from full employment, it would effectively bar workers from unionizing. If workers did want to form a union, says Ray Fuentes, a co-author of the report, it would need approval from seven-eighths of the state legislature.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Xavier Becerra is currently suing to force Uber and Lyft to actual enforce AB 5 and employ their fleet of independent contractors as full employees—with the benefits required in California of unemployment insurance and paid sick leave—as soon as possible.
The conditions of gig worker have only gotten worse during the pandemic. Yet large gig companies have consolidated and expanded. Uber bought Postmates, a food delivery service, for $2.65 billion. And it acquired Cornershop, an international grocery delivery app, with plans to expand even more. With more consolidation, workers have less opportunities to move between apps—switching from Postmates to Uber if the pay is better. If there is only Uber, you have to deliver for them.
“I have constantly seen my wages decrease while their profits grow,” said Carlos Ramos, a Lyft driver affiliated with Gig Workers Rising.


motherjones--2020-07-08--Mary Trump and Me: The Source Who Got Away

It came as a surprise .
On Tuesday afternoon , a reporter tweeted a photograph of the first page of the “ acknowledgements ” in the new revelatory memoir by Donald Trump ’ s niece , Mary Trump , Too Much and Never Enough : How My Family Created the World ’ s Most Dangerous Man .
And there I was at the top of the list , with her thanking “ David Corn at Mother Jones for your kindness.
” Immediately , colleagues , reporters , tweeters , and others began asking me to explain this prominent shout-out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his family are still trying to block ) .
A few people on the Internet speculated I had ghost-written the work .
Nope .
I had done nothing regarding the book .
I had been unaware it was in the works , until the news broke a few weeks ago .
But I did know Mary Trump ’ s story .
And I did know here was a journalistic coup that had eluded me .
Toward the end of the 2016 campaign , I was pursuing Trump-related stories that had not received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these tales , which Mother Jones had reprised in a short post , focused on a dramatic Trump family lawsuit .
After Fred Trump ( Donald ’ s father ) died in 1999 , Mary and Fred Trump III , the adult children of Fred Trump Jr. ( Donald ’ s deceased brother , who was known as Freddy ) , sued Donald and two of his siblings .
Mary and Fred ( who was known as Fritz ) claimed they and their families had been unfairly cut out of much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) valued between $ 100 million and $ 300 million—and they accused Donald and those siblings of engaging in “ fraud and undue influence.
” What made this story more tragic was that as retaliation for the lawsuit Donald Trump and these siblings ( Robert and Maryanne ) terminated the medical coverage for Fritz ’ s family , even though he had an infant son who had recently been born with a rare neurological disorder that had led to medical bills topping $ 300,000 .
At the time , Donald Trump huffed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we said , ‘ Why should we give him medical coverage ? '
” This piece of Trump family lore did not receive much media attention during the 2016 race .
A New York Times article about Freddy , who was eight years older than Donald , who battled alcoholism , and who died at the age of 43 in 1981 , focused more on what Trump had learned from his brother ’ s tragic life than on the lawsuit ; it contained one passing reference to Mary .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure during the campaign .
So at this late stage I went looking for her .
Who knew what she had to say about her uncle ?
A database search showed she lived on Long Island and was a registered Democrat .
I located several possible phone numbers and called each , leaving messages for her .
This was days before the election .
As Mary notes in her book , I was one of three reporters to contact her during the campaign .
The two others were from Frontline and Inside Edition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me I was the only journalist to whom she had responded .
She explained that she had long read my work and wanted to at least say hello .
That seemed promising .
But then she quickly noted that she could not say anything on the record about Donald Trump or the family .
She hinted that there was a financial reason for this , and I took it mean that her and Fritz ’ s families could be punished by Trump if she publicly denigrated her uncle .
And it was clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him was derogatory .
( Mary did sign a non-disclosure statement in 2001 as part of the settlement of the lawsuit regarding her grandfather ’ s estate . )
As we talked , Mary didn ’ t hide how upset she was .
She was aghast that Trump had a chance of becoming president .
She explained that he was a psychologically broken man who would be a threat to the nation as president .
She blamed this on Fred Sr. , who she said had destroyed her father .
( Freddy had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take over the family real estate business and opted to become a pilot . )
Donald Trump had watched his father demolish his older brother , and that trauma had warped his character .
It was a fascinating insider ’ s account of a family cauldron that had yielded the mean-spirited , bullying , vengeful , bigoted , dishonest , insecure , narcissistic Donald Trump .
But I could use none of this material .
Still , I listened , as Mary vented and described the horror she had experienced watching Trump become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of millions .
For her , this was a personal nightmare .
She fervently hoped it would all be over within days .
It was a long call .
She said she would stay in touch .
( I have received permission from a representative of Mary Trump to report on our interactions . )
Three days after Trump was elected , Mary emailed me .
She was devastated .
It wasn ’ t just that a damaged man had won .
She was despondent that so many Americans were not repulsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ignorance , bigotry , cruelty , and dishonesty .
Trump reaching the White House had been unimaginable , she noted .
And her heart was broken .
She feared the American experiment was in danger of failing .
( On election night , she had tweeted , “ This is one of the worst nights of my life .
What is wrong with this country ?
” ) She pointed out that she now had to think if there were anything she could do to mitigate the damage .
She said she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she considered how to be an effective voice against Trumpism .
She also thanked me for being kind and hearing her out , even though everything was still off the record .
We talked again and exchanged emails .
Should she do an interview ?
Print ?
Television ?
With me ?
Should she publish a statement ?
Should she associate herself with an organization opposing Trump ’ s policies ?
Weeks after the election , she was still unsure whether to go public .
I checked in occasionally , obviously hoping that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me on the record .
But she still hadn ’ t reached any decisions .
Months passed .
I kept sending her notes .
Sometimes she replied ; sometimes she didn ’ t .
When she did , she explained that this was a tough stretch for her .
She sent me a congratulatory email when I published a book in 2018 .
At one point , she informed me she might be visiting Washington , DC , and raised the possibility of a meeting .
But that never happened .
When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in October 2018 revealing that Donald Trump and his family had engaged in massive tax fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars , I emailed Mary .
She agreed it was a stunning story but didn ’ t say much else .
I suspected she knew more .
But I didn ’ t guess she was deeply involved .
In her book , she describes how she had retrieved loads of family tax records from the documents involved in her lawsuit over Fred Trump ’ s estate and handed them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had come knocking on her door .
She recounts that she had finally been moved to act after watching “ our democracy disintegrating and people ’ s lives unraveling because of my uncle ’ s policies.
” And she writes , “ In the past , there had been nothing I could do that would be significant enough , so I hadn ’ t tried very hard.. .It wasn ’ t enough for me to volunteer at an organization helping Syrian refugees ; I had to take Donald down.
” In early May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was the big story that had gotten away .
We had never met .
I had not succeeded in persuading her to share her secrets with the public .
And as the coronavirus pandemic raged , with Trump now more a danger to the nation than anytime in his presidency , I figured I ’ d take another stab .
I emailed her to see how she and her family were doing .
“ I imagine it must be very difficult to watch all this from your perspective , ” I wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks later , the reason for her silence became obvious : Trump ’ s niece would soon be publishing a book about the family dysfunction that produced Donald Trump .
“ Now I understand , ” I wrote her .
So I failed as a journalist .
I never nabbed the Mary Trump story .
But it was hers to tell in the fashion and at the time that was right for her .
And now she finally has her say .
A source close to Mary tells me that she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was empathetic when she was undergoing a terrible time .
Of course , that ’ s what a reporter is supposed to do when trying to win over a source who could deliver a helluva blockbuster .
But I did feel her pain , and I appreciated the difficulty of her situation .
I tried to nudge her without being a pest .
That didn ’ t work , and it does burn to know that Mary had access to records showing the Trump clan acted as a criminal enterprise .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scoop—is a fine consolation prize .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It came as a surprise. On Tuesday afternoon, a reporter tweeted a photograph of the first page of the “acknowledgements” in the new revelatory memoir by Donald Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man. And there I was at the top of the list, with her thanking “David Corn at Mother Jones for your kindness.” Immediately, colleagues, reporters, tweeters, and others began asking me to explain this prominent shout-out in the yet-to-be-released book (which Donald Trump and his family are still trying to block). A few people on the Internet speculated I had ghost-written the work.
Nope. I had done nothing regarding the book. I had been unaware it was in the works, until the news broke a few weeks ago. But I did know Mary Trump’s story. And I did know here was a journalistic coup that had eluded me.
Toward the end of the 2016 campaign, I was pursuing Trump-related stories that had not received sufficient attention during the race. One of these tales, which Mother Jones had reprised in a short post, focused on a dramatic Trump family lawsuit. After Fred Trump (Donald’s father) died in 1999, Mary and Fred Trump III, the adult children of Fred Trump Jr. (Donald’s deceased brother, who was known as Freddy), sued Donald and two of his siblings. Mary and Fred (who was known as Fritz) claimed they and their families had been unfairly cut out of much of Fred Sr.’s estate—then (under)valued between $100 million and $300 million—and they accused Donald and those siblings of engaging in “fraud and undue influence.” What made this story more tragic was that as retaliation for the lawsuit Donald Trump and these siblings (Robert and Maryanne) terminated the medical coverage for Fritz’s family, even though he had an infant son who had recently been born with a rare neurological disorder that had led to medical bills topping $300,000. At the time, Donald Trump huffed, “When [Fritz] sued us, we said, ‘Why should we give him medical coverage?'”
This piece of Trump family lore did not receive much media attention during the 2016 race. A New York Times article about Freddy, who was eight years older than Donald, who battled alcoholism, and who died at the age of 43 in 1981, focused more on what Trump had learned from his brother’s tragic life than on the lawsuit; it contained one passing reference to Mary. In fact, Mary never emerged as a source or figure during the campaign. So at this late stage I went looking for her. Who knew what she had to say about her uncle?
A database search showed she lived on Long Island and was a registered Democrat. I located several possible phone numbers and called each, leaving messages for her. This was days before the election. As Mary notes in her book, I was one of three reporters to contact her during the campaign. The two others were from Frontline and Inside Edition. She returned my call and told me I was the only journalist to whom she had responded. She explained that she had long read my work and wanted to at least say hello.
That seemed promising. But then she quickly noted that she could not say anything on the record about Donald Trump or the family. She hinted that there was a financial reason for this, and I took it mean that her and Fritz’s families could be punished by Trump if she publicly denigrated her uncle. And it was clear that all she had to say about him was derogatory. (Mary did sign a non-disclosure statement in 2001 as part of the settlement of the lawsuit regarding her grandfather’s estate.)
As we talked, Mary didn’t hide how upset she was. She was aghast that Trump had a chance of becoming president. She explained that he was a psychologically broken man who would be a threat to the nation as president. She blamed this on Fred Sr., who she said had destroyed her father. (Freddy had defied his father’s wishes to take over the family real estate business and opted to become a pilot.) Donald Trump had watched his father demolish his older brother, and that trauma had warped his character.
It was a fascinating insider’s account of a family cauldron that had yielded the mean-spirited, bullying, vengeful, bigoted, dishonest, insecure, narcissistic Donald Trump. But I could use none of this material. Still, I listened, as Mary vented and described the horror she had experienced watching Trump become a presidential nominee and a hero for tens of millions. For her, this was a personal nightmare. She fervently hoped it would all be over within days. It was a long call. She said she would stay in touch. (I have received permission from a representative of Mary Trump to report on our interactions.)
Three days after Trump was elected, Mary emailed me. She was devastated. It wasn’t just that a damaged man had won. She was despondent that so many Americans were not repulsed by Trump’s racism, misogyny, ignorance, bigotry, cruelty, and dishonesty. Trump reaching the White House had been unimaginable, she noted. And her heart was broken. She feared the American experiment was in danger of failing. (On election night, she had tweeted, “This is one of the worst nights of my life. What is wrong with this country?”) She pointed out that she now had to think if there were anything she could do to mitigate the damage. She said she would be willing to meet, as she considered how to be an effective voice against Trumpism. She also thanked me for being kind and hearing her out, even though everything was still off the record.
We talked again and exchanged emails. Should she do an interview? Print? Television? With me? Should she publish a statement? Should she associate herself with an organization opposing Trump’s policies? Weeks after the election, she was still unsure whether to go public. I checked in occasionally, obviously hoping that she would eventually agree to speak to me on the record. But she still hadn’t reached any decisions.
Months passed. I kept sending her notes. Sometimes she replied; sometimes she didn’t. When she did, she explained that this was a tough stretch for her. She sent me a congratulatory email when I published a book in 2018. At one point, she informed me she might be visiting Washington, DC, and raised the possibility of a meeting. But that never happened.
When the New York Times published a bombshell article in October 2018 revealing that Donald Trump and his family had engaged in massive tax fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, I emailed Mary. She agreed it was a stunning story but didn’t say much else. I suspected she knew more. But I didn’t guess she was deeply involved. In her book, she describes how she had retrieved loads of family tax records from the documents involved in her lawsuit over Fred Trump’s estate and handed them over to the Times reporters, who had come knocking on her door. She recounts that she had finally been moved to act after watching “our democracy disintegrating and people’s lives unraveling because of my uncle’s policies.” And she writes, “In the past, there had been nothing I could do that would be significant enough, so I hadn’t tried very hard.. .It wasn’t enough for me to volunteer at an organization helping Syrian refugees; I had to take Donald down.”
In early May, I thought about Mary Trump. She was the big story that had gotten away. We had never met. I had not succeeded in persuading her to share her secrets with the public. And as the coronavirus pandemic raged, with Trump now more a danger to the nation than anytime in his presidency, I figured I’d take another stab. I emailed her to see how she and her family were doing. “I imagine it must be very difficult to watch all this from your perspective,” I wrote. There was no response. A few weeks later, the reason for her silence became obvious: Trump’s niece would soon be publishing a book about the family dysfunction that produced Donald Trump. “Now I understand,” I wrote her.
So I failed as a journalist. I never nabbed the Mary Trump story. But it was hers to tell in the fashion and at the time that was right for her. And now she finally has her say.
A source close to Mary tells me that she was highly appreciative that I listened to her and was empathetic when she was undergoing a terrible time. Of course, that’s what a reporter is supposed to do when trying to win over a source who could deliver a helluva blockbuster. But I did feel her pain, and I appreciated the difficulty of her situation. I tried to nudge her without being a pest. That didn’t work, and it does burn to know that Mary had access to records showing the Trump clan acted as a criminal enterprise. Yet being publicly cited for kindness—while not a scoop—is a fine consolation prize.


motherjones--2020-07-08--The Supreme Court Just Struck a Huge Blow to Obamacare’s Birth Control Requirement

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Trump administration rule that lets employers deny women free birth control coverage in health insurance plans on moral or religious grounds .
The Affordable Care Act mandated that employers provide free contraceptive care as part of their health insurance plans , but it included an exception for employers with religious affiliations .
When employers alerted the government to their objections to providing health insurance coverage , the insurance companies , rather than the employers , would be forced to cover those costs .
As my colleague Hannah Levintova reported when the rule was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s new rule expands this exemption , allowing virtually any organization , not just a religious one , to opt out of the mandate if they feel contraception coverage violates their religious beliefs or “ moral convictions ” —a much broader ( and murkier ) standard than before .
The new rule also strips out the provision requiring employers opting out of birth control coverage to notify the government they are doing so ; now they ’ re only required to notify employees of a change in their insurance plans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover contraception if it violates their religious or moral beliefs .
The Supreme Court ’ s conservative majority ruled that the Trump administration “ had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections.
” Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer did not join the conservative justices ’ majority opinion , but did decide to send the case back to lower courts .
Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented .
According to the Washington Post , the ruling could strip 70,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraceptive care .
As my colleague Patrick Caldwell reported in 2018 , the Obamacare provision saved women massive amounts of money on contraception , bringing the amount of women who payed for at least part of their birth control down from 22.7 percent in 2012 to just 2.7 percent by 2016 .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Trump administration rule that lets employers deny women free birth control coverage in health insurance plans on moral or religious grounds.
The Affordable Care Act mandated that employers provide free contraceptive care as part of their health insurance plans, but it included an exception for employers with religious affiliations. When employers alerted the government to their objections to providing health insurance coverage, the insurance companies, rather than the employers, would be forced to cover those costs.
As my colleague Hannah Levintova reported when the rule was first issued in 2017:
The Trump administration’s new rule expands this exemption, allowing virtually any organization, not just a religious one, to opt out of the mandate if they feel contraception coverage violates their religious beliefs or “moral convictions”—a much broader (and murkier) standard than before. The new rule also strips out the provision requiring employers opting out of birth control coverage to notify the government they are doing so; now they’re only required to notify employees of a change in their insurance plans. Insurance companies could also themselves refuse to cover contraception if it violates their religious or moral beliefs.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that the Trump administration “had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections.” Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer did not join the conservative justices’ majority opinion, but did decide to send the case back to lower courts. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
According to the Washington Post, the ruling could strip 70,000 to 126,000 women of access to free contraceptive care. As my colleague Patrick Caldwell reported in 2018, the Obamacare provision saved women massive amounts of money on contraception, bringing the amount of women who payed for at least part of their birth control down from 22.7 percent in 2012 to just 2.7 percent by 2016.


motherjones--2020-07-08--“Vexing and Heartbreaking”: Facebook’s Civil Rights Auditor Finally Delivers a Verdict

Over the last two years , the relationship between civil rights groups and social media goliath Facebook has , like a roller coaster , been full of ups , plunging downs , unexpected turns , and dizzying about-faces .
Advocates have experienced highs of optimism , believing Facebook would take the rights and experiences of minority communities seriously , only to plummet to valleys of disillusion when the company would later betray that trust .
Today , Facebook released a comprehensive civil rights report two years in the making .
When it was conceived , the project embodied the activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential for progress .
Now , as it is released , the relationship between racial justice advocates and the tech giant have reached a new low , with Facebook under fire for allowing recent false and hateful statements from President Donald Trump to remain on the platform .
The decision gutted the company ’ s own progress and undermined confidence that the company will ever take hate speech , voter suppression , or other civil rights priorities seriously .
The audit acknowledges this “ seesaw of progress and setbacks ” in an introduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside civil rights expert who led the project .
Despite notable areas of improvement , Murphy , who formerly led the ACLU ’ s legislative office in Washington , lamented that Facebook has still not fully embraced a pro-civil rights outlook .
“ With each success the Auditors became more hopeful that Facebook would develop a more coherent and positive plan of action that demonstrated , in word and deed , the company ’ s commitment to civil rights .
Unfortunately , in our view Facebook ’ s approach to civil rights remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the audit process has been meaningful , and has led to some significant improvements in the platform , we have also watched the company make painful decisions over the last nine months with real world consequences that are serious setbacks for civil rights , ” Murphy writes in the report , an assessment that echoes civil rights advocates ’ own complaints .
The past several weeks have illustrated this very shift .
When Trump falsely tweeted that voting by mail would unleash massive fraud , Twitter fact-checked the tweet .
By contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to condemn Twitter , all but announcing that his company would protect messages spreading such disinformation .
When Trump reacted to protests over the death of George Floyd by tweeting the words of a racist sheriff from the 1960— “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” —Twitter tagged the post for glorifying violence .
Zuckerberg allowed the same words to stand on Facebook , where the president ’ s post generated more than 250,000 likes and tens of thousands of comments and shares .
The danger of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the comments that unfurl beneath them .
Supporters respond to allegations of mail-in ballot fraud by promising to vote in person despite the pandemic .
When Trump claimed the US had the lowest death rate from coronavirus , supporters responded by writing the coronavirus is a hoax .
But the audit itself found that allowing Trump ’ s posts to stay on the platform has even more pervasive effects .
“ After the company publicly left up the looting and shooting post , more than five political and merchandise ads have run on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ looters ’ and ‘ ANTIFA terrorists ’ can or should be shot by armed citizens , ” the report notes , indicating that the company should have detected and removed the ads before they “ collectively received more than two hundred thousand impressions.
” Advocates ’ frustration at these latest developments—just months ahead of the 2020 elections and in the midst of a protest movement sparked by police brutality— led them to organize an advertising boycott of Facebook .
The effort , dubbed Stop Hate for Profit , has prompted hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which earns its billions— $ 77 billion in 2019—from ad revenue .
Facebook ’ s agreement to commission the audit marked the culmination of years of civil rights organizations working cooperatively with Facebook to address inequities on the platform , an inside strategy featuring multiple meetings governed by non-disclosure agreements where advocates worked to educate executives and appeal to their moral sensibilities .
But the final report lands just as many of these same activists have largely abandoned the inside track , instead pushing outside action designed not to appeal to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its bottom line .
Throughout the report ’ s 89 pages , the same theme comes through again and again .
Small steps have been taken , but they need to be made systemic rather than piecemeal , mandatory rather than voluntary , broad rather than narrow .
While the audit could serve as a roadmap to building a more responsible and inclusive platform , for that to happen , as both activists and the auditors explain , the company would have to build a corps of civil rights experts empowered to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would abide by .
That hasn ’ t happened .
Advocates agree with that assessment .
“ They ’ ve fallen short of the bold action we need , ” Steven Renderos , executive director of MediaJustice , a group on the frontlines with Facebook for years .
“ People of color are not better off than they were two years ago when the civil rights audit started .
Facebook has chosen to adopt incremental changes that have been insufficient for big problems like the spread of disinformation , hateful activities and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Renderos and other advocates highlight the company ’ s faltering enforcement—and Zuckerberg ’ s determinative role—when it comes to one Facebook user in particular : Donald Trump .
“ The positive changes Facebook has taken on like its voter suppression policies have been undermined by inconsistent applications of those rules towards Donald Trump , ” he says .
“ Those are decisions that are being made at the senior leadership levels at Facebook and point to a more significant problem , the lack of robust and permanent civil rights infrastructure at Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving forward.
” As Mother Jones reported last year , Facebook resisted advocates ’ efforts to address discrimination issues on the platform or a long time , including calls for such an audit .
But after a series of high profile public relations crises—the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealing improperly obtained user data was used to target voters , Russia ’ s use of the platform to help elect Trump , the product ’ s role in sparking a genocide in Myanmar—Facebook agreed to a civil rights audit in 2018 .
But just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times reported that Facebook had hired a Republican opposition research firm to discredit its critics , including Color of Change , one civil rights organizations that had lobbied for the audit .
The firm , Definers Public Affairs , had sought to tie the non-profit to billionaire philanthropist George Soros , whose status as a rightwing boogeyman often carries the tinge of anti-Semitism .
Facebook had not only gone after a civil rights group , but it had done so by fueling the type of bigotry that civil rights groups trying to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallout of the Definers revelation , Facebook recommitted to the audit .
COO Sheryl Sandberg became more engaged and optimism climbed .
In September of 2019 , Facebook and Color of Change together organized a summit on discrimination in technology , a new peak in collaboration between Facebook and the civil rights community .
But two days before it began , Facebook announced a shocking policy : it would allow politicians to lie in posts and advertisements .
Without warning , the company had driven a truck-size loophole through its efforts to contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Facebook is saying : If you are a politician who wishes to peddle in lies , distortion and not-so-subtle racial appeals , welcome to our platform , ” Vanita Gupta , who runs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights , wrote at the time .
This was the beginning of a new phase in the advocates ’ struggle with Facebook , as the company began to walk back its own policies in order to appease the president and his allies .
The audit criticizes the approach , assailing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incendiary posts to stay online as “ vexing and heartbreaking ” and representing “ significant setbacks for civil rights.
” Not all of Facebook ’ s failures are explained by a deference to Trump , as there are other areas in which the company has simply refused to make significant improvements .
One of those is anti-Muslim activity , which civil rights advocates believe has repeatedly fallen through the cracks .
“ Facebook is enabling violence and genocide against Muslims , ” said Farhana Khera , executive director of Muslim Advocates , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Facebook and a key driver of the audit report , in response to the final report .
Among the group ’ s unaddressed demands is the need for a policy banning the use of Facebook to organize events intended to terrorize Muslims and other at-risk communities .
“ This audit is illuminating but it is ultimately meaningless if Facebook does not agree to take dramatic and substantial steps to address the many failures outlined in the report , ” she says .
Hate speech and harassment also remain an issue , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and predictive technology to remove hate speech .
While the report notes that in March 2020 , 89 percent of removals “ were identified by…technology before users had to report it , ” Black users have found their discussions of racism have been taken down for including phrases like “ white men ” —a sign that Facebook ’ s predictive technology censors communities of color more than their harassers .
Other modest steps by the company to improve content moderation and hone its definition of hate speech have not reached Facebook users who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter activists , who share stories of constant harassment and violent threats that remain on the site .
The problem is illustrated in Facebook ’ s refusal to broadly define white nationalism or harassing content , which allows hateful users to get the same point across by tweaking works .
In one example flagged by the audit , Facebook ’ s ban on “ white nationalism ” and “ white separatism ” only applies to the use of those precise words , and therefore “ does not prohibit content that explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those exact phrases.
” As reporters poured over an embargoed copy of the report Tuesday night , many of the advocates who pushed for the audit were filling their inboxes with another round of statements expressing disappointment toward Facebook , this time following a meeting they had with Zuckerberg about the demands of the boycott .
“ It was abundantly clear in our meeting today that Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook team is not yet ready to address the vitriolic hate on their platform , ” the action ’ s leaders announced Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old defense of white supremacist , antisemitic , islamophobic and other hateful groups on Facebook.
” At Facebook , reform can only be as effective as its leader allows it to be .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Over the last two years, the relationship between civil rights groups and social media goliath Facebook has, like a roller coaster, been full of ups, plunging downs, unexpected turns, and dizzying about-faces. Advocates have experienced highs of optimism, believing Facebook would take the rights and experiences of minority communities seriously, only to plummet to valleys of disillusion when the company would later betray that trust.
Today, Facebook released a comprehensive civil rights report two years in the making. When it was conceived, the project embodied the activists’ hope for the company’s potential for progress. Now, as it is released, the relationship between racial justice advocates and the tech giant have reached a new low, with Facebook under fire for allowing recent false and hateful statements from President Donald Trump to remain on the platform. The decision gutted the company’s own progress and undermined confidence that the company will ever take hate speech, voter suppression, or other civil rights priorities seriously.
“Facebook’s approach to civil rights remains too reactive and piecemeal.”
The audit acknowledges this “seesaw of progress and setbacks” in an introduction, written by Laura Murphy, the outside civil rights expert who led the project. Despite notable areas of improvement, Murphy, who formerly led the ACLU’s legislative office in Washington, lamented that Facebook has still not fully embraced a pro-civil rights outlook. “With each success the Auditors became more hopeful that Facebook would develop a more coherent and positive plan of action that demonstrated, in word and deed, the company’s commitment to civil rights. Unfortunately, in our view Facebook’s approach to civil rights remains too reactive and piecemeal.”
“While the audit process has been meaningful, and has led to some significant improvements in the platform, we have also watched the company make painful decisions over the last nine months with real world consequences that are serious setbacks for civil rights,” Murphy writes in the report, an assessment that echoes civil rights advocates’ own complaints.
The past several weeks have illustrated this very shift. When Trump falsely tweeted that voting by mail would unleash massive fraud, Twitter fact-checked the tweet. By contrast, Facebook CEO Zuckerberg went on Fox News to condemn Twitter, all but announcing that his company would protect messages spreading such disinformation. When Trump reacted to protests over the death of George Floyd by tweeting the words of a racist sheriff from the 1960—“when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—Twitter tagged the post for glorifying violence. Zuckerberg allowed the same words to stand on Facebook, where the president’s post generated more than 250,000 likes and tens of thousands of comments and shares.
The danger of Trump’s posts is obvious just by looking at the comments that unfurl beneath them. Supporters respond to allegations of mail-in ballot fraud by promising to vote in person despite the pandemic. When Trump claimed the US had the lowest death rate from coronavirus, supporters responded by writing the coronavirus is a hoax. But the audit itself found that allowing Trump’s posts to stay on the platform has even more pervasive effects. “After the company publicly left up the looting and shooting post, more than five political and merchandise ads have run on Facebook sending the same dangerous message that ‘looters’ and ‘ANTIFA terrorists’ can or should be shot by armed citizens,” the report notes, indicating that the company should have detected and removed the ads before they “collectively received more than two hundred thousand impressions.”
Advocates’ frustration at these latest developments—just months ahead of the 2020 elections and in the midst of a protest movement sparked by police brutality— led them to organize an advertising boycott of Facebook. The effort, dubbed Stop Hate for Profit, has prompted hundreds of companies to pull ads from the platform, which earns its billions—$77 billion in 2019—from ad revenue.
Facebook’s agreement to commission the audit marked the culmination of years of civil rights organizations working cooperatively with Facebook to address inequities on the platform, an inside strategy featuring multiple meetings governed by non-disclosure agreements where advocates worked to educate executives and appeal to their moral sensibilities. But the final report lands just as many of these same activists have largely abandoned the inside track, instead pushing outside action designed not to appeal to the company’s conscience, but to its bottom line.
The auditors detail “painful decisions” by Facebook “with real world consequences that are serious setbacks for civil rights.”
Throughout the report’s 89 pages, the same theme comes through again and again. Small steps have been taken, but they need to be made systemic rather than piecemeal, mandatory rather than voluntary, broad rather than narrow. While the audit could serve as a roadmap to building a more responsible and inclusive platform, for that to happen, as both activists and the auditors explain, the company would have to build a corps of civil rights experts empowered to make decisions that CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg would abide by. That hasn’t happened.
Advocates agree with that assessment. “They’ve fallen short of the bold action we need,” Steven Renderos, executive director of MediaJustice, a group on the frontlines with Facebook for years. “People of color are not better off than they were two years ago when the civil rights audit started. Facebook has chosen to adopt incremental changes that have been insufficient for big problems like the spread of disinformation, hateful activities and the criminalization of people of color on Facebook.”
Renderos and other advocates highlight the company’s faltering enforcement—and Zuckerberg’s determinative role—when it comes to one Facebook user in particular: Donald Trump. “The positive changes Facebook has taken on like its voter suppression policies have been undermined by inconsistent applications of those rules towards Donald Trump,” he says. “Those are decisions that are being made at the senior leadership levels at Facebook and point to a more significant problem, the lack of robust and permanent civil rights infrastructure at Facebook that can continue to tackle these issues moving forward.”
As Mother Jones reported last year, Facebook resisted advocates’ efforts to address discrimination issues on the platform or a long time, including calls for such an audit. But after a series of high profile public relations crises—the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealing improperly obtained user data was used to target voters, Russia’s use of the platform to help elect Trump, the product’s role in sparking a genocide in Myanmar—Facebook agreed to a civil rights audit in 2018.
But just a few months later, the New York Times reported that Facebook had hired a Republican opposition research firm to discredit its critics, including Color of Change, one civil rights organizations that had lobbied for the audit. The firm, Definers Public Affairs, had sought to tie the non-profit to billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whose status as a rightwing boogeyman often carries the tinge of anti-Semitism. Facebook had not only gone after a civil rights group, but it had done so by fueling the type of bigotry that civil rights groups trying to get off the platform.
“This audit is illuminating but it is ultimately meaningless if Facebook does not agree to take dramatic and substantial steps.”
In the public fallout of the Definers revelation, Facebook recommitted to the audit. COO Sheryl Sandberg became more engaged and optimism climbed. In September of 2019, Facebook and Color of Change together organized a summit on discrimination in technology, a new peak in collaboration between Facebook and the civil rights community. But two days before it began, Facebook announced a shocking policy: it would allow politicians to lie in posts and advertisements. Without warning, the company had driven a truck-size loophole through its efforts to contain hate, voter suppression, and misinformation. “Facebook is saying: If you are a politician who wishes to peddle in lies, distortion and not-so-subtle racial appeals, welcome to our platform,” Vanita Gupta, who runs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, wrote at the time. This was the beginning of a new phase in the advocates’ struggle with Facebook, as the company began to walk back its own policies in order to appease the president and his allies. The audit criticizes the approach, assailing the decision to allow Trump’s recent incendiary posts to stay online as “vexing and heartbreaking” and representing “significant setbacks for civil rights.”
Not all of Facebook’s failures are explained by a deference to Trump, as there are other areas in which the company has simply refused to make significant improvements. One of those is anti-Muslim activity, which civil rights advocates believe has repeatedly fallen through the cracks. “Facebook is enabling violence and genocide against Muslims,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a group has been among the earliest critics of Facebook and a key driver of the audit report, in response to the final report. Among the group’s unaddressed demands is the need for a policy banning the use of Facebook to organize events intended to terrorize Muslims and other at-risk communities. “This audit is illuminating but it is ultimately meaningless if Facebook does not agree to take dramatic and substantial steps to address the many failures outlined in the report,” she says.
Hate speech and harassment also remain an issue, as Facebook has increasingly relied on artificial intelligence and predictive technology to remove hate speech. While the report notes that in March 2020, 89 percent of removals “were identified by…technology before users had to report it,” Black users have found their discussions of racism have been taken down for including phrases like “white men”—a sign that Facebook’s predictive technology censors communities of color more than their harassers. Other modest steps by the company to improve content moderation and hone its definition of hate speech have not reached Facebook users who experience harassment and hate, such as Black Lives Matter activists, who share stories of constant harassment and violent threats that remain on the site. The problem is illustrated in Facebook’s refusal to broadly define white nationalism or harassing content, which allows hateful users to get the same point across by tweaking works. In one example flagged by the audit, Facebook’s ban on “white nationalism” and “white separatism” only applies to the use of those precise words, and therefore “does not prohibit content that explicitly espouses the very same ideology without using those exact phrases.”
As reporters poured over an embargoed copy of the report Tuesday night, many of the advocates who pushed for the audit were filling their inboxes with another round of statements expressing disappointment toward Facebook, this time following a meeting they had with Zuckerberg about the demands of the boycott. “It was abundantly clear in our meeting today that Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook team is not yet ready to address the vitriolic hate on their platform,” the action’s leaders announced Tuesday night. “Zuckerberg offered the same old defense of white supremacist, antisemitic, islamophobic and other hateful groups on Facebook.” At Facebook, reform can only be as effective as its leader allows it to be.