Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us with a small monthly donation via Patreon or PayPal.

Image via frgdr Blog. Hebrew lettering in background spells names of places in Europe where Jews were exterminated.

Elections Alberta affirmed that it received the petition, “A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence,” and signature sheets from a “pro-sovereignty” group, Stay Free Alberta. The group told the CBC News that it has collected over 301,000 signatures, significantly more than the 178,000 threshold. The proposed referendum will ask voters: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

On April 10, Justice Shaina Leonard of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench granted a temporary stay, barring the Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure from verifying the petition. She accepted that the lack of consultation could cause irreparable harm to First Nations, including Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation and Blood Tribe. The First Nations welcomed the decision. Following the stay, the verification cannot take place until the court completes the judicial review.

There are other doubts on the legality of the petition. On Dec. 6, 2025, the same court heldthat the referendum proposal is unconstitutional. Justice Colin Feasby found that the proposal does not guarantee Charter rights or Aboriginal and Treaty rights to the same extent as the provided by Constitution Act, 1982. However, an amendment to the Citizen Initiative Act (CIA) came into effect on Dec. 11. It removes the provision requiring a referendum proposal to be compatible with the aforementioned rights. A “transitional provision” also ensures that the amendment applies to the referendum proposal, which predated the amendment. In granting the stay, Leonard agreed that the constitutionality of the CIA amendment and the potential applicability of the previous ruling are serious questions to be adjudicated.

Meanwhile, pro-unity group Forever Canadian claimed that it had already received over 404,000 signatures in support of the province remaining in Canada.

In related news, Elections Alberta is investigating a breach of the provincial voter list. On April 30, the authority revealed that the Republican Party of Alberta provided the voter list to a pro-sovereignty Centurion Project Ltd., which then publicized the list. While the provincial Election Act allows political parties to access the list, it strictly forbids distributing the list to a third party.

McClure said the authority was unable to investigate sooner because the recent Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, heightened the threshold for for opening an investigation from “grounds to warrant” to “reasonable grounds.” Similarly, the provincial privacy commissioner Diane McLeod said Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act does not regulate political parties. They both called for reforms to their empowering statutes to strengthen accountability.

From JURIST, May 7. Used with permission.

Note: Prime Minister Mark Carney has admonished the US not to interfere in the Alberta independence drive, telling reporters in January: “We expect the US administration to respect Canadian sovereignty.” This comes in response to reports that leaders of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project met with Trump administration officials. British Columbia Premier David Eby also sharply criticized the meetings, saying they amounted to “treason.” Carney and Eby were also responding to an aggressive online campaign—including AI-produced “slopaganda”—in support of Alberta becoming the “51st state.” However, while much of this propaganda comes from the US, reports indicate that some of it is being produced in Russia as well. (Politico, El Pais, NBC, The Hill, CBC, CBC)

See our last report on the struggle in Alberta, and our podcast, “MAGA-fascism and the struggle in Canada”

Photo: Magalie L’Abbe via Alberta Politics

The organizations report that the administration in April re-arrested and forcibly transferred to third countries people who had previously been granted withholding of removal by US immigration judges and had prevailed on habeas petitions challenging the legality of their detention. The report documents an attempted transfer of individuals to Libya last year in violation of a court order then in effect.

Approximately 16,000 of the documented transfers have been to Mexico. That figure includes thousands of individuals the administration failed to acknowledge in a March 5 disclosure to a federal court. Roughly 1,400 additional people have been sent to 20 other countries, including Eswatini, South Sudan and Uganda. A March 2026 agreement with Costa Rica provides for regular weekly transfers.

The tracker reports that the administration has paid at least $44 million to receiving governments in connection with the agreements and has used the threat of third-country transfer to pressure detained immigrants into abandoning their legal claims.

Separately, the tracker reports that government attorneys have filed motions to “pretermit,” or dismiss without merits review, thousands of pending asylum cases in immigration court on the basis of Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Uganda. Citing data compiled by immigration advocacy group Mobile Pathways from Executive Office for Immigration Review records, the tracker counts nearly 9,500 such pretermissions as of February 2026. The following month, the Department of Homeland Security directed Immigration & Customs Enforcement attorneys to stop filing new pretermission motions but did not withdraw those already pending.

The administration has invoked a range of statutory and constitutional authorities to justify the transfers, including the Alien Enemies Act, and the suspension-of-entry provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Federal judges have held several uses of those authorities unlawful, including in challenges to expulsions of Venezuelans to El Salvador and to forced transfers of people with final removal orders carried out without notice or an opportunity to raise fear-based claims.

From JURIST, May 5. Used with permission.

See our last report on the third-country deportations.

See our podcast “MAGA-fascism and the struggle in Libya”

Photo: Venezuelan deportees in Honduras. Credit: ICE via Wikimedia Commons

At issue in the appeal was whether Chief Dsta’hyl could make a defense on the ground that he was acting in accordance with a co-existing Indigenous legal order. Chief Justice Leonard Merchand, writing for the three-judge panel, held that the court would recognize the defense if violating a court injunction was a last resort. However, as the defendant could have challenged the injunction, the court found that violating the injunction was not necessary to uphold the Wet’suwet’en law of trespass.

In his concluding remark, Chief Justice Merchand wrote:

Indigenous law has been denied, supressed [sic], and at times outlawed, for over a century in Canada. Canadian law has a role to play in undoing that harm and is learning to make space for Indigenous legal orders in various ways. But that work does not include allowing parties, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, to breach court orders.

In 2019, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued an injunction banning protests in the construction area of the Coastal GasLink pipeline project. Defying the injunction, Chief Dsta’hyl organized a blockade in an attempt to halt the construction in 2021. At trial, he contended that the protests were necessary to uphold the traditional Wet’suwet’en law of trespass and fulfill his duties as a chief to preserve and protect their yintah (territory). The trial judge rejected the defense, holding that it was an impermissible “collateral attack” on the injunction.

When the trial judge found Chief Dsta’hyl guilty of contempt, Amnesty International declaredhim Canada’s first prisoner of conscience. The group contended that the 60 days of house arrest were an unjustified criminal penalty for his work to protect Indigenous rights and the environment. In 2023, the group also published a report, accusing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of conducting arbitrary arrests, harassment, intimidation and unlawful surveillance of the Wet’suwet’en and their allies that were incompatible with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Nationwide protests erupted in 2020 against the pipeline project. While Coastal Gaslink claimed that it had reached agreements with 20 elected First Nation councils, the Wet’suwet’en maintained that the Hereditary Chiefs who retained authority in the region had not agreed to the construction. According to Indigenous lawyers Kate Gunn and Bruce McIvor, the elected band councils only had the decision-making authority on reserve lands under the federal Indian Act. The project, also situated in the traditional unceded territories of the Wet’suwet’en beyond the reserve lands, was said to have violated the right to free, prior and informed consent of the Wet’suwet’en.

From JURIST, April 30. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last report on the Indigenous struggle in British Columbia.

Image: Front Line Defenders

The surreal spectacle of ex-FBI director James Comey surrendering to federal authorities to face charges of threatening Donald Trump over an innocent Instagram post illustrates the line between a mere conservative and an actual fascist. CounterVortex chief ranter Bill Weinberg had a personal run-in with Comey back when he was a federal prosecutor. Later, as FBI chief, Comey was accused of trying to prejudice the electorate against Hillary Clinton—only to be himself targeted by the Trump Justice Department. The absurdity of the latest charges against Comey are obvious to anyone who has worked in the restaurant industry. Trump should indeed be eighty-sixed—through legal and constitutional means, such as impeachment, 25th Amendment invocation, or nullification of his illegitimate election. And, indeed, sent to face war crimes charges at The Hague. In Episode 326 of the CounterVortex podcast, Weinberg says: Yes, #8647! Fuckin’ A!

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us with a small monthly donation via Patreon or PayPal.

Screenshot via, inter alia, CNN

The ruling in Pacito v. Trump stated that the president has broad discretion to restrict the entry of non-citizens when it is necessary to protect national interests under federal immigration laws. The court found that the president likely has the legal authority, pursuant to 8 USC § 1182(f), to suspend the entry of non-citizens, including refugees. The statute gives the president the ability to suspend the entry of “all aliens or any class of aliens” whose entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The ruling was partly based on the US Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which gave the president broad discretion to make immigration decisions.

Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit did affirm the district court’s preliminary injunctions in part, particularly in regard to refugees already in the country and domestic organizations aiding refugees. The appellate court concurred with the district court that, while the president is in charge of border control, the executive branch is not at liberty to dismantle domestic programs that Congress has mandated the government to execute. The appellate court ruled that the district court did not err in its findings that the government likely violated the law when it failed to provide refugees with “reception and placement” services. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the government has a mandatory duty under 8 USC § 1522 to provide refugees with the aforementioned services as long as Congress has allocated the funds for the program.

The appellate court also concurred with the district court that the government likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it unilaterally terminated the cooperative agreements with resettlement organizations. The Ninth Circuit held that the government did not provide a “reasoned explanation” for the terminations and did not consider the “serious reliance interests” of refugees and those aiding them who have organized their lives around the aforementioned government contracts.

Refugees and refugee resettlement organizations filed the lawsuit challenging a January 2025 executive order signed by President Trump, which suspended refugee resettlement programs in the United States. The lawsuit, filed in a federal district court in Washington state, won a preliminary injunction requiring the government to continue aspects of the refugee program. The government appealed the decision, stating that the refugee program was within the president’s legal authority.

The dispute may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court if the parties seek further review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

From JURIST, March 6. Used with permission.

Photo: Grace Deng/Washington State Standard

In the statement, the Law Society stressed that interpreting legislation is a constitutional function of courts. While the provincial executive may disagree with the courts’ statutory interpretation, the statement urged politicians to respect judicial powers and independence. The statement concluded by urging the government to reconsider the proposed amendment of the DRIPA. The Canadian Bar Association issued a similar appeal on Jan. 21.

The statement follows remarks by David Eby, premier of British Columbia, at the provincial Natural Resources Forum on Jan. 20. In his remarks, he accused the courts of creating “real confusion about what DRIPA is about and what reconciliation means in practice.” He added that reconciliation—a relationship between the Canadian, provincial and First Nations governments by which shared sovereignty is negotiated—is not for the courts to appropriate. He signaled the government’s intention to amend DRIPA to reflect “legislative intent” and protect private property rights by limiting the role of the courts in reconciliation efforts.

In 2025, the province witnessed two landmark rulings relating to Aboriginal rights and title. The BC Supreme Court held in August that the Cowichan Tribes have established Aboriginal title in the city of Richmond. It follows that the fee simple interests—a freehold interest in land—on the Cowichan Title Lands are unjustified infringements on Aboriginal title and therefore defective. While the court held that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests can coexist on the same piece of land, the government is required to negotiate an arrangement with the Cowichan Tribes over these lands. The court ordered that such arrangements be reached within 18 months.

In December, the BC Court of Appeal held that the provincial mineral tenure system—allowing registration of mineral rights online without notifying or consulting the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht nations—is impermissible under DRIPA, which commits the province to upholding principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Conservative BC lawmaker Scott McInnis issued a call to repeal DRIPA after the rulings.

Premier Eby rejected outright repeal, stating that DRIPA has allowed development projects to move forward without prolonged litigation. He added that repealing DRIPA would not accelerate such projects or attract investment. He reaffirmed that reconciliation with the First Nations and the recognition of Aboriginal title are the province’s constitutional obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unanimous consensus of the provincial legislature in 2019.

First Nations, however, objected to the possible DRIPA amendment. Marilyn Slett, chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, told the CBC that DRIPA, co-developed by the provincial government and First Nations, provides for trust, stability and economic certainty. The BC Assembly of First Nations similarly warned that amending DRIPA and appealing the court rulings could harm the relationship between the First Nations and the government.

From JURIST, Feb. 3. Used with permission.

See our last reports on Aboriginal title cases in British Columbia.

Similar mining laws are also at issue in Saskatchewan and Ontario.

Photo: Wikipedia

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 $1.25 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2.50 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $6.25 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 61 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 62!

Image: TruthSocial

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on the US to ensure that its immigration policies comply with international law, citing reports of arbitrary detentions, family separations, and dehumanizing treatment. And Democratic lawmakers demanded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem answer for a growing death toll in immigration detention since President Donald Trump took office for his second term.

The medical examiner in El Paso County found this week that Geraldo Lunas Campos, a 55-year-old Cuban migrant held at a local Homeland Security detention camp, died of asphyxiation on Jan. 3—a homicide. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) initially saidCampos died after staff “observed him in distress.” The Washington Post reported witness testimony that camp guards had choked him to death.

The homicide finding adds to intensifying controversy over deaths involving ICE, following the fatal shooting of Renee Good, 37, by an ICE officer in Minneapolis.

The UN’s Türk said that individuals are being detained “sometimes violently” at hospitals, places of worship, schools, and homes, “often solely on mere suspicion of being undocumented migrants.” He noted that children are missing school and medical appointments out of fear of family separation.

“States have the authority to establish their national migration policies, but this needs to be carried out in full accordance with the law,” Türk said. “Adhering to due process is crucial to the legality and legitimacy of any policy.”

Türk’s statement comes amid declining public support for ICE. A New York Times/Siena University poll of 1,625 registered voters conducted Jan. 12-17 found that 61% of voters believe ICE tactics have “gone too far,” including 71% of independents and 19% of Republicans. Across the political spectrum, just 26% of voters thought the enforcement tactics used by ICE were “about right.”

In his statement, Türk also called for an independent investigation into deaths in ICE custody, adding that 30 people are reported to have died in the agency’s custody since President Donald Trump took office for his second term on Jan. 20, 2025. This marks the highest figure since 2004, and there have already been a further six deaths reported in ICE custody so far this year.

The ICE detainee death reporting website lists only 18 deaths for fiscal year 2025, which ended Sept. 30, but the page has not been updated since October and does not yet include figures for fiscal year 2026. More than 65,000 people are currently in ICE custody, a two-thirds jump since Trump took office. This figure includes 1,700 children, and reports of harsh conditions include contaminated food, limited access to clean drinking water, and inadequate medical care.

Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Noem on Dec. 22 demanding answers about what they called a “callous disregard for human life” by Homeland Security, the federal department that oversees ICE. The letter, signed by 13 House members led by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, counted 53 total deaths in ICE or Customs & Border Protection (CBP) custody since Trump took office. It also alleged that Homeland Security attempted to deport two witnesses to Campos’ death while the investigation remained open. Homeland Security maintains that Campos attempted to take his own life and resisted staff who intervened. Lawmakers demanded documentation on all custody deaths, medical staffing levels, and mental health screening protocols by Feb. 5.

From JURIST, Jan. 23. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo: Paul Goyette in Chicago via Wikimedia Commons

The report, entitled Ringing the Alarm Bells: Rising Authoritarian Practices and Erosion of Human Rights in the United States, ties these areas of concern largely to the policies of President Donald Trump. They range from threats to freedom of speech and protest, to the erosion of anti-discrimination protections. The report finds that a key test of democratic resilience will be the federal midterm elections of November 2026, with many early signals pointing to mounting threats to the right to vote.

Limitations on press freedom include the removal of the credentials for the Associated Press for White House events, after the agency refused to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” as well as the removal of press passes for reporters at the Pentagon who refused to comply with policies mandating the publishing of only approved materials. The courts have now restored the Associated Press’ credentials, but Pentagon reporters have since turned in their press passes and not returned.

The report notes other areas of concern for free speech, including the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who federal agents arrested and attempted to deport. The Trump administration maintains that Khalil’s visa was granted as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The case has generated a series of court decisions and is still ongoing.

The report also discusses the moment that President Trump federalized the California National Guard to deploy to Los Angeles to support police operations against protests over US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, and later sent in 300 US Marines to curb the protests.

The report identifies militarization in domestic law enforcement as an area of concern, a primary example being the deployment of the National Guard to US cities, including in Los Angeles and Washington DC—both of which municipal governments objected to the National Guard presence. Trump withdrew the National Guard troops after meeting reversals in the courts, but has since threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and redeploy under emergency powers.

A final alarm bell the report raises is a decrease in anti-discrimination protections, noting the Trump administration’s executive actions against transgender people. Amnesty International called Trump’s actions an attempted “erasure” of transgender identity. The report also notes the administration’s removal of the LGBTQ+ option in the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, and cuts to funding of institutions based on transgender policies.

Amnesty International USA executive director Paul O’Brien stated that these US actions “mirror the global pattern Amnesty has seen and warned about for decades.”

From JURIST, Jan. 20. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo: Chad Davis