The plaintiffs’ lawyers—from the MacArthur Justice Center, the ACLU of Illinois and Chicago law firm Eimer Stahl—charge that federal authorities have violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause by imposing unreasonable conditions of confinement. They also allege violations of an administrative regulation prohibiting coercion to induce waiver of rights. They further allege a violation of the Sixth Amendment in denial of detainees’ right to counsel.

According to the complaint, unreasonable conditions at the Broadview facility include overcrowding, an unsanitary environment, sleep deprivation, and privacy violations. Holding cells are said to be overcrowded with dozens of detainees, with people forced to sleep on plastic chairs or the concrete floor in the freezing cold and with lights on all night.

The advocates also assert that detainees lack access to adequate medical care; they receive no medical intakes, and cannot obtain prescriptions and routine medication. The complaint further describes poor sanitation, with clogged toilets, and blood and other human fluids in the sinks and on the floor, stating that “the facility is a breeding ground for illness to spread.”

An additional concern is detainees’ lack of privacy. Plaintiffs said they are forced to use a toilet inside their crowded holding cell, which is visible to detainees of the opposite sex by large windows, and to officers by video surveillance.

Other allegations regarding conditions of confinement include use of excess force, verbally insulting detainees, and denial of food and water. Administrators are also accused of blocking Congress members from accessing the facility, despite “Congress’s explicit oversight authority over such facilities.”

Plaintiffs also accuse facility administrators of coercing detainees to sign paperwork that many “do not understand, and that relinquishes their rights and purports to allow [them to be deported] without ever seeing an immigration judge.”

“By blocking access to detainees inside Broadview, Defendants have created a black box in which to disappear people from the US justice and immigration systems,” the complaint states. “Incommunicado detention is not tolerated in our democracy… This case asks the Court to enforce compliance with these obligations by ordering ready access to counsel and humane conditions of confinement. Plaintiffs ask this Court to order Defendants to stop flouting the law inside Broadview.”

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin denied the conditions alleged in the complaint: “All detainees are provided with three meals a day, water, and have access to phones to communicate with their family members and lawyers. No one is denied access to proper medical care. There is a privacy wall around the toilet for detainees.”

Broadview is meant to be a holding facility where people are held for a several hours in cells that occupy only a portion of the first floor. However, the advocates accuse federal authorities of “warehousing people at Broadview for days on end” or sometimes weeks since their launch of Operation Midway Blitz. Homeland Security states that the operation is designed to target undocumented immigrants in Illinois who have been protected by Gov. JB Pritzker’s “sanctuary policies.” It was launched in honor of Katie Abraham, a Chicago-area woman killed earlier this year by a drunk driver who happened to be an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala.

From JURIST, Nov. 2. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our podcast on the ICE raids in Chicago.

Photo: Paul Goyette/Flickr

Spikes in the price of food and fuel since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022 have contributed to popular privation and unrest worldwide. But the spark for the Indonesia eruption brings together questions of labor conditions for app workers and the reign of automotive terror on urban streets across the planet. These questions have sparked popular protest in recent years from New York City to China to Italy and Bangladesh. Consciously making the connections between these questions points to the potential for global revolution against car culture and robotocracy as well capitalist austerity.

Image via Twitter

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 70 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 71!

Photo: Partonez via Wikimedia Commons

From The New Humanitarian, March 6

Photo:  Mohamed Soulaimane al-Astal/TNH

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 68 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 69!

Photo: rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, Calif. Credit: Tmy350 via Wikimedia Commons

Two days earlier, Trump told Fox News, speaking of Ukraine: “They  may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday.” This explicit endorsement of Russian annexation of Ukraine came with a demand for a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to compensate for US military aid: “I told them that I want the equivalent like $500 billion worth of rare earth. And they’ve essentially agreed to do that so at least we don’t feel stupid. Otherwise, we’re stupid. I said to them… ‘We have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money.'” (Politico, CNN, NYT)

Trump also broached this in comments from the Oval Office on Feb. 3: “We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine, where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earths and other things. We want a guarantee.” (NYT)

Nor is it just the notoriously mercurial Trump. Concomitant with Hegseth’s comments in Brussels, new US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said US access to Ukraine’s minerals must be part of a “partnership with the government and people of Ukraine, that will provide, once this conflict is over…a long-term security shield for all Ukrainians.” (Reteurs)

And Zelensky, now very poorly positioned, expressed openness to such a swap in an interview with Reuters Feb. 7, showing reporters a newly declassified map of Ukraine’s mineral deposits and saying: “If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it.”

Ukraine holds huge deposits of rare earth elements and other strategic minerals—from lithium to titanium to uranium—which are vital to the world’s energy and high-tech industries. These prominently include the electric cars produced by Trump’s de facto “co-president” Elon Musk.

Among Musk’s line of e-vehicles is an Armored Tesla Cybertruck being provided to the US government under a $400 million contract with the State Department. Although this deal was approved under the Biden administration, we may nonetheless assume it will not be among the programs eliminated as “waste” by Musk’s quasi-governmental Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). (Electrek)

Musk’s Tesla broke ground in 2023 on a massive lithium refinery near Corpus Cristi, Texas. In announcing the project, Musk refered to lithium as “the new oil.” (Truflation)

The premium on Ukraine’s strategic minerals is elevated by China’s perceived design to establish control over the planet’s rare earth elements. Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as “critical,” and they have never been exploited. However, as Zelensky has been quick to emphasize, nearly 20% of Ukraine’s mineral resources are in areas under Russian occupation. (Foreign Policy, Reuters)

See our last report on the global struggle for lithium.

The controversial law, passed in November, enables the Ontario provincial government to bypass municipal approval processes in regulating bike lanes. Advocates argue that the legislation undermines local decision-making and public consultation while endangering cyclists by allowing abrupt removal of critical bike lane infrastructure.

The advocacy group’s legal filing claims that bike lanes are essential for the safety and well-being of cyclists in a city where vehicle traffic poses significant risks. They contend that the removal of bike lanes without public input endangers lives and violates Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Bronwyn Roe, an Ecojustice lawyer representing the challengers, said:

Bill 212 is an arbitrary and dangerous piece of legislation that violates the section 7 Charter-protected rights to life and security of the person. Countless studies show that bike lanes save lives. Removing them, without replacement routes in place and with no evidence that doing so will address traffic concerns, locks in irresponsible car-dependence and is not in the best interest of communities. We are challenging Bill 212 and the removal of bike lanes in Toronto because the Ontario government cannot be allowed to put the lives of Toronto cyclists and Ontarians at risk.

Proponents of the legislation, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, argue that it provides flexibility to address local traffic concerns and streamline decision-making processes. Ford’s government has emphasized the need to prioritize vehicular traffic flow in urban areas, which they argue has been disrupted by the proliferation of bike lanes in Toronto.

The cycling group, however, views the legislation as part of a broader trend of provincial overreach into municipal affairs. They argue that bike lanes are not just a matter of convenience but a public health necessity, particularly as cycling becomes an increasingly popular mode of transportation in Toronto.

This legal challenge comes amid heightened debates over urban planning and public safety in Ontario. Critics of the law warn that the removal of bike lanes could exacerbate road safety issues and discourage environmentally sustainable transportation options.

This development follows other recent legal challenges against provincial legislation in Ontario, including disputes over housing developments on protected lands and the use of the “Notwithstanding Clause” to override Charter protections. It also comes as Toronto prepares to enhance its Vision Zero strategy, which aims to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries.

From JURIST, Dec. 12. Used with permission.

Photo: Hallgrimsson via Wikimedia Commons

In much more depressing news that grimly illustrates China’s embrace of the dystopian car culture pioneered by the USA, at least 35 people were killed and many more injured Nov. 11 when an apparently distraught motorist ploughed into a large group of local residents engaged in physical exercises on a sports field in the southern city of Zhuhai, Guangdong province. The motorist, himself gravely wounded, was detained. (BBC News, NBC)

See our last report on the ongoing crackdown on dissent in China.

Photo via Instagram

Amid all this, small efforts at Jewish-Arab co-existence by the besieged peace camp within Israel point to the potential for the ongoing protests against Netanyahu to take on an explicit anti-war character. Similarly, small steps by cities around the world to expand space for the human organism and human-powered transport begin to challenge the hegemony of the fossil-fuel economy. In Episode 245 of the CounterVortex podcast, Bill Weinberg makes the case that such measures, however seemingly modest, constitute a countervortex to humanity’s general downward spiral toward devastating war, ecological collapse and fascism.

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month) via Patreon—or $2 per podcast ($10 per month) to become a special offer Supporter, or $5 per podcast ($25 per month) to become a Major Rant Enabler. We now have 69 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 70!

Six First Nations from northern Ontario announced Aug. 12 the initiation of a lawsuit challenging the provincial Mining Act, arguing that the legislation infringes upon their treaty rights and other guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The central contention is that the Act enables prospectors and mining companies to stake claims on Crown lands, including traditional Indigenous territories, without prior consultation, due to a digital claim-staking process that was introduced in 2018. This mechanism allows claims to be registered online within minutes, without the knowledge of affected First Nations.

The First Nations bringing the challenge are the Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Aroland First Nation, Attawapiskat First Nation, Fort Albany First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation, and the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. In the application filed last week all six unanimously calledfor an amendment to the legislation and for all pending claims to be voided.

“The Ontario Mining Act is a piece of racist legislation that bulldozes over First Nations lands and rights,” Chief June Black of the Apitipi Anicinapek First Nation told reporters. “It says to the world that the land in Ontario is free for the taking and drilling and blowing up. These are not your lands to give away, Ontario.”

The legal action comes amid Ontario’s ongoing mining exploration boom, driven by the provincial government’s push to provide critical materials to supply the electric vehicle manufacturing economy, especially lithium in the Ring of Fire region of the James Bay lowlands. Currently, approximately 2,000 active claims have been registered in the Ontario Mining Lands Administration System. Both the Ontario Mining Ministry and Ontario Attorney General have declined to comment on the case.

The lawsuit follows similar legal actions in Canada, including a 2023 landmark decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court, in which the provincial government’s mineral claim system was found to violate Indigenous rights, requiring the government to effectively incorporate Indigenous consultation. Additionally, similar legal action was initiated by Grassy Narrows First Nation this July, seeking a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to declare the Mining Act unconstitutional.

From Jurist, Aug. 13. Used with permission.

Note: In a related case concerning Indigenous treaty rights in Ontario, the Supreme Court of Canada found for First Nations last month.

See our last reports on the global struggle for lithium.

Photo: Attawapiskat First Nation Office. Credit: Paul Lantz via Wikipedia