Federal Updates
House and Senate Pass Versions of Farm Bill, House Bill Keeps Harmful Cuts to SNAP
June 21, the House passed its version of the Farm Bill, which included steep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, a.k.a. food stamps), the federal program that supports food security for low-income individuals and families. The bill included strict work requirements that would impact 5 to 7 million SNAP recipients, and also imposes tighter eligibility requirements, which would prevent an estimated 400,000 households from receiving SNAP benefits. Under the House bill, thousands of children may also lose eligibility for free school lunch programs.
A previous version of the bill did not past last month, after House conservatives withheld their vote as leverage for a vote on a strict immigration bill. That immigration bill, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), was voted down, allowing House Republicans to garner enough votes to narrowly pass the Farm Bill despite House Democrat opposition.
On June 28, after a series of last minute amendments threatening SNAP funding and access were proposed and ultimately rejected, the Senate passed their own bipartisan bill by an 83-11 vote that would maintain SNAP funding and increase funding for related job training programs. Members of Congress from both chambers will now go into conference to reconcile the differences between the two bills and produce a final version for Trump’s approval.
FY 2019 House Budget Proposal Renews Attack on Social Safety Net and Reproductive Health
June 19, House Republicans released a budget proposal that includes massive spending cuts including $537 billion in cuts to Medicare and $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other health programs as well as a $2.6 trillion cut to anti-poverty programs. The proposal sets up the reconciliation process, which would allow a potential Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal to pass the Senate with a simple majority of only Republican votes. The bill also includes several policy riders designed to restrict access to reproductive healthcare, including broad new religious refusal language that would allow employers, insurers, and health care providers to deny access to abortion, a provision that would block patients from accessing care at Planned Parenthood health centers and language that restricts access to abortion for people in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention.
Though budget experts believe this proposal is unlikely to pass, it nonetheless paints a clear picture of the draconian and ideologically driven House Republican funding and policy priorities.
Renewed Efforts to Repeal the Affordable Care Act by Administration and Outside Conservative Groups
June 8, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief as part of an ongoing multi-state lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The DOJ stated that the protections for people with pre-existing conditions and the individual mandate of the ACA, which requires everyone to have health insurance, are unconstitutional. As a result, the DOJ will no longer defend that provision from legal challenge.
Before the ACA, insurers were allowed to charge people with chronic and pre-existing conditions higher premiums and even deny coverage altogether. Without these protections and the mandate in place, insurers will once again be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, and the impact will be heaviest for women and girls. A group of conservative think tanks with backing from the administration have also introduced a new effort to dismantle the ACA. The proposal, which is very similar to last year’s defeated Graham-Cassidy bill, would eliminate Medicaid expansion and remove key consumer protections, leaving millions without coverage and access to care.
Immigration Justice
DOJ Narrows Asylum Process for Domestic and Gang Violence Survivors
June 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a ruling in an asylum case that will make it almost impossible for survivors of domestic and gang violence to be granted asylum. Sessions issued the ruling as part of his reversal of an immigration appeals court decision that granted asylum to a Salvadoran woman who had been severely abused by her husband. The Obama administration granted asylum to more individuals seeking refuge as survivors of domestic violence. Yet, Sessions asserts that such “private crimes” are outside the scope of U.S. asylum law.
Asylum seekers go through “credible fear” interviews, where immigration officials must determine whether they have a genuine fear of persecution in their home country. Generally, that persecution is based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. Sessions’ ruling now means that survivors of domestic and gang violence cannot be considered members of a social group for determining asylum eligibility. The ruling is particularly concerning as hundreds of Central American refugees arrived last month at the U.S./Mexico border after fleeing violence in their countries of origin, hoping to start the long and difficult asylum process. One person from the caravan, a transgender woman from Honduras named Roxana Hernández, died in May after being detained in a freezing holding cell for days by immigration enforcement.
Family Separation and Detention Continues
In our May update, we reported the administration was adopting a new “zero tolerance” policy of criminal prosecution for all immigrants who arrive at the U.S./Mexico border. Though it is legal to travel to the border to seek asylum, the violent and xenophobic policy of criminalizing families and individuals seeking safety was created and implemented specifically to deter and punish immigrants from Central America for coming to the U.S. Under the policy, adults were sent to federal jails and were forcibly separated from their children. Since then, more than two thousand immigrant children have been taken from their families and detained in temporary holding facilities. Initially doubling down on the inhumane policy and shifting blame to Congress for resolution, Trump issued an executive order on June 20, after widespread criticism and protest, to supposedly to reunite the families which his policy broke apart. However, the executive order failed to address the plight of the children who have already been separated, and instead lays the groundwork for entire immigrant families to be detained indefinitely together in inherently inhumane conditions. The order is particularly ineffective as a solution because of the long-standing Flores settlement, which prohibits children from being held in immigration detention for more than 20 days.
On June 26, a federal judge in California ordered the reunification of the thousands of families separated under the Trump administration policy and limited future separations as well. The court order comes down as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been mishandling reunification efforts by failing to account for the children in their custody and which families they were separated from. DHS and HHS released a factsheet stating parents will be reunited with their children if they agree to be deported and withdraw their family’s asylum claims. In some cases, even when parents agreed to be deported with their families, they have been deported without their children or their children have been deported without them.
Washington is leading a multi-state lawsuit against the administration for the “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which demands a concrete end to the prosecutions that have led to family separation. On June 30, hundreds of thousands of protestors marched and demonstrated throughout the country on a national day of action to rebuke these harmful policies with calls to abolish ICE and demand an end to the internment of immigrant families.
Conservatives Fail to Pass Harsh Immigration Bills
Before Trump issued his executive order to address the administration-made humanitarian crisis at the border, two Republican-backed immigration bills were introduced in the House. One extremely conservative bill was introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA); the other, called a “compromise bill,” was introduced by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). Both legislators claimed that their bills would end family separation, but instead would have used the urgency of addressing the upending crisis and as a vehicle to push through hardline immigration policy. Ryan’s “compromise bill” would have given Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients a limited path to citizenship but also included $25 billion for a southern border wall; stricter asylum eligibility requirements; would have allowed families to be detained indefinitely; and would have imposed drastic changes to and limits on legal immigration. Goodlatte’s bill failed to pass on June 21, and Ryan’s on June 27.
Administration Seeks to Strip Status from Naturalized Citizens
In January, we included an update about the first naturalized citizen to be stripped of their citizenship status as a result of Operation Janus. The operation hinges on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) failure to use fingerprint records effectively, meaning thousands of people who were granted citizenship before their fingerprints were digitized are now at risk of having that citizenship revoked. On June 11, Director L. Francis Cissna of USCIS announced that the administration would increase scrutiny toward citizens who represent “bad cases” (that might have paperwork discrepancies) and begin denaturalizing them.
Sex Worker Rights
SESTA/FOSTA Response Includes New Sex Worker Bill of Rights
After the misinformed Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking/ Fighting Online Sex Trafficking Acts became law in April, websites and sex workers began taking proactive steps to protect themselves from being charged with “promoting or facilitating prostitution.” The loss of access to platforms that previously allowed sex workers to safely screen clients and advertise online drove sex workers back to the streets, leading to violence and harassment by pimps. The Desiree Alliance Conference, a biennial event for sex workers and sex work advocates, was also cancelled in the wake of SESTA/FOSTA and the escalation of immigration enforcement in the U.S.
Despite these setbacks, organizing for the rights, safety and dignity of sex workers continues; these events culminated in the first national sex workers’ day of action on June 1 and several direct-action events on June 2. On June 23, two dozen sex workers and sex worker rights advocates also attended an emergency strategy meeting in Los Angeles, CA, and drafted the “National Sex-Worker Anti-Criminalization Principles”, a document modeled in the sprit of the Denver Principles, which elevates sex worker autonomy and dignity and the need for sex work decriminalization.
HIV Justice
Lawsuit Brought on Behalf of Sergeant Living with HIV Facing Discharge
May 30, OutServe-SLDN and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sgt. Nick Harrison, a veteran living with HIV who was denied a position as an attorney with the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. Currently, the Pentagon will not allow service members living with HIV to enlist or to be appointed as officers. The Pentagon considers people living with HIV “non-deployable,” meaning not able to participate in combat. Harrison therefore also faces potential discharge as a result of the Trump administration’s “Deploy or Get Out” policy released in February. This new policy aims to discharge all service members who have been non-deployable for the past 12 months or more. Under current U.S. military policy, all service members living with HIV face immediate discharge under “Deploy or Get Out.”
Supreme Court Updates
Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement
June 27, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. Kennedy is the longest-serving member currently on the bench and has long been considered the critical swing vote on the increasingly politically polarized bench. His retirement provides Trump with his second opportunity to appoint a conservative of his choosing. Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments; as a result, the new appointee is likely to have a continuing impact on the court and society for generations to come. Kennedy’s announcement sparked grave concern for civil rights, LGBTQ and reproductive rights advocates about who fear who Trump will select as his successor given the administration’s track record of endangering sexual and reproductive health and rights, civil rights, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights. During his campaign, Trump expressed that if given the opportunity he would appoint a Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Baker Wins
Masterpiece involved a baker in Colorado who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because he claimed to have a religious objection to their union. The baker was initially found in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. However, the baker appealed, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. On June 4, the Justices ruled in favor of the baker, 7 to 2. The ruling itself was narrow and stated that some of the Colorado Civil Rights commissioners should have been more neutral toward the baker’s religious beliefs and that the baker was treated unfairly when the Commission first found that he had discriminated. Overall, the ruling did affirm that religious objections are not enough to justify denying people goods and services.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute: Ohio Voter Purge Stands
June 11, the Court dealt a devastating blow to voting rights by upholding Ohio’s “use-it-or-lose-it” voter purge law, 5 to 4. The law allowed Ohio to remove voters from registration rolls if they did not vote within a 2-year period. After two years, voters received a postcard in the mail asking them to confirm their mailing address; if voters did not respond with a confirmation by the next two federal election cycles (or four years), they were removed from the rolls without further notice. While voter purges like this are illegal under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Court in this case believed that sending the postcard provided enough notice made it legal. The thousands of Ohioans disenfranchised by the purge are disproportionally individuals that were low-income, had a disability, or were people of color.
NIFLA v Becerra: CA FACT Act Struck Down
California’s Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, required anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the state to 1) disclose that they were not medically licensed facilities and 2) post a sign stating that California provides free or low-cost assistance with prenatal care, birth control and other reproductive care, including abortions. On June 26, the Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that the disclosure requirements were likely unconstitutional because they compelled CPCs to go against their anti-choice mission and sent the case back down to the lower courts for reconsideration.
Hawai’i v. Trump: Muslim Ban Upheld
Also on June 26, the Supreme Court upheld the third version of the “Muslim travel ban,” 5 to 4. The conservative majority found that the president’s Islamophobic comments, including calling for a “complete and total shutdown on Muslims coming into the country,” were not sufficient evidence of religious bias to strike down the ban, which used “national security concerns” as its justification. The ban had been in full effect since December, while awaiting this decision, including separating families and denying people the chance to work, travel, study, and receive medical care. Congress has the power to overturn the ban.
Janus v. AFSCME: Court Guts Public Sector Unions, Upholds “Right to Work” Policies
On June 27, in yet another 5 to 4 decision, the Court effectively gutted the political influence of public sector unions by barring them from collecting “agency fees” (also known as “fair share” fees) from employees who decline to join the union but benefit from union negotiations for things like pay increases, benefit improvements, representation and due process in disciplinary matters and other workers’ rights. Citing the practice as unconstitutional under First Amendment, the Court ruled unions are political actors and that the collection of agency fees equates to compelling employees to financially support a political organization that they may not agree with.
Twenty-eight states already have “right to work” laws banning the collection of agency fees. The Economic Policy Institute has repeatedly found that wages are lower in these states for union and non-union workers alike. Without “fair share” fees, the negotiating power of public unions will be diminished, since public employees can no longer be required to contribute to the unions that bargain their wages and working conditions with the employer. They also lead to the weakening and division of unions, as they promote “freeloading” by those who choose to drop their union membership while continuing to get the benefits of the union, which in turn stokes resentment among dues-paying members. Weaker unions have less leverage with employers for negotiating good pay, benefits and working conditions that protect workers from workplace injury, discrimination and harassment.
“Right to work” laws and the conditions created by Janus are—and are intended to be—detrimental to unions’ political power as well, as it forces unions to spend their time and resources on member recruitment and retention as opposed to organizing for improvements on the job or for candidates and policies that uphold their values.
State Updates
Kentucky
June 29, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration acted in an “arbitrary and capricious manner” in approving Kentucky’s Medicaid waiver plan that would impose onerous work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries in the state. Kentucky’s Sec. 1115 waiver plan called “Kentucky HEALTH,” was set to take effect on July 1, but has now been sent back to HHS, allowing Kentuckians to access health services through Medicaid. In their decision, the judge stated that the administration did not adequately consider whether the plan would “help the state furnish medical assistance to its citizens, a central objective of Medicaid.” Kentucky is one of several states to apply for and be granted a Sec. 1115 waiver to impose work requirements and other reporting requirements that would restrict access to care for low-income people.
Missouri
A federal judge in Missouri has upheld the state’s requirement that healthcare providers that dispense medication abortion (abortion pills) be connected to an OB-GYN that would be available 24/7 to assist in case of any complications. The requirement essentially banned medication abortion in several where clinics were unable to find a doctor to be on call. U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips stated that while the requirement had limited medical benefit, it was not a “substantial burden to a large fraction of women seeking a medication abortion.”