Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Featured Stories
Democracy Forward: SEC Drops Policy That Illegally Enabled Companies to Exclude Valid Shareholder Proposals Following Challenge by Investor Representative Groups
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026:
* * *
SEC Drops Policy that Illegally Enabled Companies to Exclude Valid Shareholder Proposals Following Challenge by Investor Representative Groups
Lawsuit Dismissed After SEC Drops Policy Encouraging Companies to Unilaterally Exclude Shareholder Proposals from Company Proxy Materials
Washington, D.C. - A pair of investor representative groups dedicated to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * SEC Drops Policy that Illegally Enabled Companies to Exclude Valid Shareholder Proposals Following Challenge by Investor Representative Groups Lawsuit Dismissed After SEC Drops Policy Encouraging Companies to Unilaterally Exclude Shareholder Proposals from Company Proxy Materials Washington, D.C. - A pair of investor representative groups dedicated tocorporate responsibility and the rights of investors have withdrawn their legal challenge after the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance abandoned a 2025 policy that undermined a long-standing rule governing shareholder proposals.
In a legal challenge filed earlier this year, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) and shareholder representative As You Sow, represented by Democracy Forward, sought to reverse implementation of the 2025 policy, which gave companies an effective rubber-stamp from the SEC to omit shareholder proposals from their proxy statements, preventing investors from presenting and voting on proposals regarding issues directly relevant to a company's long-term performance and risk profile.
In mid-August of this year, the SEC announced a new policy which, while still problematic, eliminated the SEC's rubber-stamp "approval" for companies that omit valid shareholder proposals from their proxy statements. Due to this material reversal in policy, ICCR and As You Sow agreed to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit today.
Unfortunately, the SEC is poised to rescind the 84 year-old shareholder proposal rule entirely. The investor representative groups will continue to fight to preserve their rights during the SEC's upcoming rulemaking process on the shareholder proposal regulation.
"SEC leadership is determined to gut the shareholder proposal process as part of the larger political and ideological attack on any and all sensible guardrails on corporate conduct," said Josh Zinner, ICCR's CEO. "We're grateful for Democracy Forward's efforts in this case, and investors will need to continue to forcefully push back to preserve the eight decades-long SEC mandate to include shareholder proposals in company proxy statements, as well as other critical corporate accountability mechanisms."
"Investor protection is at the heart of the SEC's mission and fundamental to maintaining orderly markets and facilitating capital formation," said Danielle Fugere, President & Chief Counsel of As You Sow. "For over 80 years, the SEC's Rule 14a-8 has given shareholders a practical way to bring issues of risk and return to the attention of other shareholders, company management, and boards; and for 50 years the no-action process has provided the SEC staff with the tools to respond quickly, fairly, and at low cost to challenges to such proposals. The Commission's announced attempt to withdraw Rule 14a-8 leaves both shareholders and issuers with less information and more risk, an outcome that serves no one. We've learned the hard way that ungoverned markets are bad for business."
Rule 14a-8 has been in effect, in various iterations, since 1942. It requires companies to include a shareholder proposal in a company's proxy materials unless the proposal falls within one of the Rule's enumerated exclusions. Under the agency's longstanding no-action process, the SEC staff assesses a company's claim that a proposal should be excluded and the proponent's response. Proponents and companies are not formally bound by the SEC's decisions, but they almost universally respect them as conclusive.
Under the revised process announced by the SEC in 2025 - but recently abandoned - the SEC stated that a company did not need to meet Rule 14a-8's burden of proving that its omission of a shareholder proposal was justified. Instead, the SEC accepted at face value a company's "unqualified representation" that a proposal should be omitted and issued a letter stating that the SEC had "no objection" if the company failed to include the proposal in its proxy statement, without benefit of any consideration by the SEC of the company's claims or the proponent's response. Omitting a proposal from the company proxy prevents shareholders from exercising their rights to submit and vote on proposals that raise concerns about a company's long-term performance and risk profile. The SEC's repeated attempts to silence investors are both legally unsupportable and blatantly undemocratic.
"It is clear that the SEC has only temporarily retreated from its attempt to create an undemocratic hall pass for corporate mismanagement that tells investors to 'sit down and shut up' about how the company they own is managed," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We are honored to work with corporate responsibility advocates to continue to fight for the rights of shareholders to have a say in how the companies they own are managed, and we will remain vigilant in protecting our democracy as this broader effort continues."
The case being dismissed today is ICCR and As You Sow v. SEC et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team at Democracy Forward on this case includes Simon Brewer, Sophie Gelber, Brian Netter, and Victoria Nugent.
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
ICCR is a coalition of faith- and values-based investors who view shareholder engagement with corporations as a powerful catalyst for change. Our statement, "inspired by faith, committed to action" sets forth our pledge to be active owners, and to engage meaningfully with the companies in our portfolios through the process of shareholder engagement that we pioneered more than 55 years ago.
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30+ year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. As You Sow addresses a range of issues that affect shareholder value including climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, biodiversity, racial justice, and workplace diversity. See As You Sow's shareholder resolution tracker.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/sec-drops-policy-that-illegally-enabled-companies-to-exclude-valid-shareholder-proposals-following-challenge-by-investor-representative-groups/
[Category: Political]
* * *
SEC Drops Policy that Illegally Enabled Companies to Exclude Valid Shareholder Proposals Following Challenge by Investor Representative Groups
Lawsuit Dismissed After SEC Drops Policy Encouraging Companies to Unilaterally Exclude Shareholder Proposals from Company Proxy Materials
Washington, D.C. - A pair of investor representative groups dedicated to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * SEC Drops Policy that Illegally Enabled Companies to Exclude Valid Shareholder Proposals Following Challenge by Investor Representative Groups Lawsuit Dismissed After SEC Drops Policy Encouraging Companies to Unilaterally Exclude Shareholder Proposals from Company Proxy Materials Washington, D.C. - A pair of investor representative groups dedicated tocorporate responsibility and the rights of investors have withdrawn their legal challenge after the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance abandoned a 2025 policy that undermined a long-standing rule governing shareholder proposals.
In a legal challenge filed earlier this year, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) and shareholder representative As You Sow, represented by Democracy Forward, sought to reverse implementation of the 2025 policy, which gave companies an effective rubber-stamp from the SEC to omit shareholder proposals from their proxy statements, preventing investors from presenting and voting on proposals regarding issues directly relevant to a company's long-term performance and risk profile.
In mid-August of this year, the SEC announced a new policy which, while still problematic, eliminated the SEC's rubber-stamp "approval" for companies that omit valid shareholder proposals from their proxy statements. Due to this material reversal in policy, ICCR and As You Sow agreed to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit today.
Unfortunately, the SEC is poised to rescind the 84 year-old shareholder proposal rule entirely. The investor representative groups will continue to fight to preserve their rights during the SEC's upcoming rulemaking process on the shareholder proposal regulation.
"SEC leadership is determined to gut the shareholder proposal process as part of the larger political and ideological attack on any and all sensible guardrails on corporate conduct," said Josh Zinner, ICCR's CEO. "We're grateful for Democracy Forward's efforts in this case, and investors will need to continue to forcefully push back to preserve the eight decades-long SEC mandate to include shareholder proposals in company proxy statements, as well as other critical corporate accountability mechanisms."
"Investor protection is at the heart of the SEC's mission and fundamental to maintaining orderly markets and facilitating capital formation," said Danielle Fugere, President & Chief Counsel of As You Sow. "For over 80 years, the SEC's Rule 14a-8 has given shareholders a practical way to bring issues of risk and return to the attention of other shareholders, company management, and boards; and for 50 years the no-action process has provided the SEC staff with the tools to respond quickly, fairly, and at low cost to challenges to such proposals. The Commission's announced attempt to withdraw Rule 14a-8 leaves both shareholders and issuers with less information and more risk, an outcome that serves no one. We've learned the hard way that ungoverned markets are bad for business."
Rule 14a-8 has been in effect, in various iterations, since 1942. It requires companies to include a shareholder proposal in a company's proxy materials unless the proposal falls within one of the Rule's enumerated exclusions. Under the agency's longstanding no-action process, the SEC staff assesses a company's claim that a proposal should be excluded and the proponent's response. Proponents and companies are not formally bound by the SEC's decisions, but they almost universally respect them as conclusive.
Under the revised process announced by the SEC in 2025 - but recently abandoned - the SEC stated that a company did not need to meet Rule 14a-8's burden of proving that its omission of a shareholder proposal was justified. Instead, the SEC accepted at face value a company's "unqualified representation" that a proposal should be omitted and issued a letter stating that the SEC had "no objection" if the company failed to include the proposal in its proxy statement, without benefit of any consideration by the SEC of the company's claims or the proponent's response. Omitting a proposal from the company proxy prevents shareholders from exercising their rights to submit and vote on proposals that raise concerns about a company's long-term performance and risk profile. The SEC's repeated attempts to silence investors are both legally unsupportable and blatantly undemocratic.
"It is clear that the SEC has only temporarily retreated from its attempt to create an undemocratic hall pass for corporate mismanagement that tells investors to 'sit down and shut up' about how the company they own is managed," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We are honored to work with corporate responsibility advocates to continue to fight for the rights of shareholders to have a say in how the companies they own are managed, and we will remain vigilant in protecting our democracy as this broader effort continues."
The case being dismissed today is ICCR and As You Sow v. SEC et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team at Democracy Forward on this case includes Simon Brewer, Sophie Gelber, Brian Netter, and Victoria Nugent.
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
ICCR is a coalition of faith- and values-based investors who view shareholder engagement with corporations as a powerful catalyst for change. Our statement, "inspired by faith, committed to action" sets forth our pledge to be active owners, and to engage meaningfully with the companies in our portfolios through the process of shareholder engagement that we pioneered more than 55 years ago.
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30+ year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. As You Sow addresses a range of issues that affect shareholder value including climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, biodiversity, racial justice, and workplace diversity. See As You Sow's shareholder resolution tracker.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/sec-drops-policy-that-illegally-enabled-companies-to-exclude-valid-shareholder-proposals-following-challenge-by-investor-representative-groups/
[Category: Political]
Democracy Forward: Medicaid Enrollees Challenge Rule Threatening Coverage for People With Serious Health Conditions
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026:
* * *
Medicaid Enrollees Challenge Rule Threatening Coverage for People With Serious Health Conditions
Federal Rule Unlawfully Narrows Protections for People Who are Medically Frail or Have Special Medical Needs
Baltimore - Today, five Medicaid enrollees, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * Medicaid Enrollees Challenge Rule Threatening Coverage for People With Serious Health Conditions Federal Rule Unlawfully Narrows Protections for People Who are Medically Frail or Have Special Medical Needs Baltimore - Today, five Medicaid enrollees, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine,Doctors for America, New Hampshire Medical Society, New Hampshire Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the City of Columbus filed a lawsuit challenging a federal rule that threatens Medicaid coverage for people with serious and chronic health conditions.
The plaintiffs are represented by the National Health Law Program and Democracy Forward. Individual Medicaid enrollees are also represented by state-based legal aid and advocacy organizations including Legal Council for Health Justice (Illinois), Legal Aid of Western Missouri, and Indiana Justice Project.
The lawsuit challenges key provisions of an interim final rule implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's new Medicaid work requirements. The rule narrowly defines who qualifies for the law's medical frailty exclusion, putting people with serious physical and mental health conditions at risk of losing Medicaid because of new reporting and verification requirements, even though Congress categorically excluded medically frail people from the requirements.
Physicians and other health care professionals see firsthand what happens when patients lose coverage and treatment is interrupted. The medical organizations bringing this case represent pediatricians, internal medicine physicians, and other health care professionals who care for people covered by Medicaid. They are challenging the rule because it threatens their patients' access to essential care and interferes with their ability to provide consistent, effective treatment.
"When adults lose health care coverage, children are more likely to lose coverage, and we know even short disruptions in children's coverage can have serious consequences for their overall health, from missed appointments to unfilled prescriptions to trips to the emergency department," said Andrew D. Racine, MD, PhD, FAAP, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "This new rule needlessly puts the health of families and children at risk. Our federal leaders should be advancing policies that make accessing health care as seamless and efficient as possible for families - this rule does the opposite."
"The American College of Physicians is deeply concerned about the impact of work requirements on Medicaid patients. Medicaid beneficiaries are, by definition, individuals with limited incomes and resources. We should not and must not be implementing policies that place this already vulnerable population at increased risk of interrupted treatment, disrupted coverage, or losing healthcare access altogether. As physicians, we are trained to diagnose and treat our patients' medical conditions, not to conduct assessments about a given patient's ability to work. Forcing doctors into the position of making these assessments diverts their time away from providing needed and life-saving health care to patients. Even worse, this puts patients with serious and chronic health conditions health at risk, from a sudden and dramatic loss of needed health care," said Jan K. Carney, MD, MPH, MACP, President of ACP.
"Access to health care is a human right for all, including adolescents and young adults, and public funding is what makes that right real for low-income and vulnerable youth. SAHM is joining this lawsuit because our members cannot stand by while policy decisions jeopardize our patients' health, education, and future well-being," said Ryan Norton, Executive Director of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.
"Physicians know that continuity of care can be the difference between a manageable health condition and a medical crisis and bankruptcy. This rule puts unnecessary bureaucratic barriers between patients and the care they need, including people living with serious and chronic health conditions whom Congress specifically intended to protect," said Meenakshi Bewtra, MD, PhD, MPH, President of Doctors for America. "Patients should not lose their health coverage because they could not navigate another form, verification requirement, or administrative hurdle. Prior attempts at such requirements have resulted in tens of thousands of people losing necessary medical care simply because of the administrative burden. We are a great enough country to provide healthcare especially to our most vulnerable. Doctors for America is joining this challenge because Medicaid policy should help patients stay healthy and connected to care, not create new pathways for eligible people to lose coverage."
"Creating barriers to healthcare coverage for the most vulnerable needlessly puts people's lives at risk and inevitably drives up the cost of care for everyone," said Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein. "These are folks who should be focused on getting the help and care they desperately need, not overcoming even more obstacles. We cannot allow the Trump administration to continue to chip away at Americans' access to quality, affordable healthcare."
"Medicaid is a lifeline, and we will continue to fight policies that put paperwork and bureaucracy between people and the care they need," said Julie Justicz, Executive Director, Legal Council for Health Justice.
"For our client and thousands of Missourians, Medicaid is what keeps their health, and their lives, stable. Losing it doesn't just interrupt care. It takes away the security they build everything else on," said Amber Christ, Executive Director of Legal Aid of Western Missouri. "This rule makes them prove not just that they are medically frail, but that they cannot work, piling on even more paperwork and process. People won't lose their coverage because they are ineligible. They'll lose it over a missing form or a doctor's letter that never arrived."
"Medicaid helps thousands of Indiana residents, providing critical life sustaining healthcare. We are honored to help ensure continued access to health coverage with as few paperwork barriers as possible," said Adam Mueller, Executive Director, Indiana Justice Project.
People living with diabetes, cancer, HIV, substance use disorders, disabling mental health conditions, and other serious or complex medical conditions rely on continuous access to physicians, medications, and treatments. Interruptions in Medicaid coverage can cause people to miss appointments, lose access to medication, experience worsening health, and require more intensive and costly care. Losing coverage can also make it harder-not easier-for people to remain healthy enough to work.
"Implementing a de facto work requirement on medically frail people is a heartless attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to kick those who are most in need of support and betrays Congress' clear instruction to protect people in need," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We are honored to work with this coalition to protect those who need essential healthcare coverage."
"Congress created the medical frailty exclusion to protect people with serious health needs, but the administration's rule turns that protection into yet another obstacle people must overcome," said Jane Perkins, Litigation Director at the National Health Law Program. "The statute does not require medically frail people to prove that their conditions are so debilitating that they cannot meet the work requirement. The statute exempts the medically frail from work requirements and does not authorize CMS to re-introduce it through the backdoor with the new rule. This rule puts access to care and, in some cases, people's lives at risk."
The rule requires people with covered physical, mental, or behavioral health conditions to show that their condition significantly impairs their ability to comply with the work requirement. That additional restriction is not found in the statute and excludes people who have serious health care needs but may not be able to demonstrate the particular form or degree of impairment demanded by the rule.
"Medicaid work requirements do not help people find or keep jobs. They put people's health care at risk," said Jennifer Cannistra, Executive Director of the National Health Law Program. "Every additional verification requirement, form, and submission creates another opportunity for an error or misunderstanding to cost someone their coverage. Past experience shows that many of the people who lose Medicaid are already working or qualify for an exclusion. They lose coverage because of paperwork and administrative barriers, not because they are ineligible."
The Interim Final Rule implementing the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act requires adults in the 40 states and District of Columbia who receive Medicaid through the ACA Medicaid expansion to demonstrate that they have completed a specified number of hours of work or other qualifying activities to obtain or maintain Medicaid coverage. Congress categorically excluded several groups from these requirements, including people who are medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs.
The Administration's rule narrows those protections by adding a back-door work requirement that requires people to establish not only that they are medically frail but also that their condition significantly impairs their ability to meet the work requirements. As a result, people whom Congress intended to protect would be subjected to work and reporting requirements and lose Medicaid coverage.
The case is Taylor et al. v. Kennedy, Jr. et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Health Law Program and Democracy Forward.
The complaint is available here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Taylor-et-al.-v.-Kennedy-Jr.-et-al-Complaint-Sept-18-2026.pdf).
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
The National Health Law Program protects and improves access to health care for low-income and underserved people and works to advance health equity. NHeLP advocates, educates, and litigates at the federal and state levels. www.healthlaw.org
Legal Aid of Western Missouri provides free civil legal assistance to people with limited resources across 40 Missouri counties. We help people stay in their homes, escape domestic violence, and secure the benefits and stability they are entitled to under the law. www.lawmo.org
The Indiana Justice Project is a non-partisan, non-profit legal advocacy organization that uses all available legal tools to ensure equal justice and opportunity for all Hoosiers. We focus on health, housing, and food insecurity. https://www.indianajusticeproject.org/
Legal Council for Health Justice (LCHJ) is a Chicago nonprofit that uses the power of law and policy to advance health justice by protecting the rights of people with disabilities, advocating for children and families with complex health and social needs, and removing legal barriers to healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. https://legalcouncil.org/
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/medicaid-enrollees-challenge-rule-threatening-coverage-for-people-with-serious-health-conditions/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Medicaid Enrollees Challenge Rule Threatening Coverage for People With Serious Health Conditions
Federal Rule Unlawfully Narrows Protections for People Who are Medically Frail or Have Special Medical Needs
Baltimore - Today, five Medicaid enrollees, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * Medicaid Enrollees Challenge Rule Threatening Coverage for People With Serious Health Conditions Federal Rule Unlawfully Narrows Protections for People Who are Medically Frail or Have Special Medical Needs Baltimore - Today, five Medicaid enrollees, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine,Doctors for America, New Hampshire Medical Society, New Hampshire Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the City of Columbus filed a lawsuit challenging a federal rule that threatens Medicaid coverage for people with serious and chronic health conditions.
The plaintiffs are represented by the National Health Law Program and Democracy Forward. Individual Medicaid enrollees are also represented by state-based legal aid and advocacy organizations including Legal Council for Health Justice (Illinois), Legal Aid of Western Missouri, and Indiana Justice Project.
The lawsuit challenges key provisions of an interim final rule implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's new Medicaid work requirements. The rule narrowly defines who qualifies for the law's medical frailty exclusion, putting people with serious physical and mental health conditions at risk of losing Medicaid because of new reporting and verification requirements, even though Congress categorically excluded medically frail people from the requirements.
Physicians and other health care professionals see firsthand what happens when patients lose coverage and treatment is interrupted. The medical organizations bringing this case represent pediatricians, internal medicine physicians, and other health care professionals who care for people covered by Medicaid. They are challenging the rule because it threatens their patients' access to essential care and interferes with their ability to provide consistent, effective treatment.
"When adults lose health care coverage, children are more likely to lose coverage, and we know even short disruptions in children's coverage can have serious consequences for their overall health, from missed appointments to unfilled prescriptions to trips to the emergency department," said Andrew D. Racine, MD, PhD, FAAP, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "This new rule needlessly puts the health of families and children at risk. Our federal leaders should be advancing policies that make accessing health care as seamless and efficient as possible for families - this rule does the opposite."
"The American College of Physicians is deeply concerned about the impact of work requirements on Medicaid patients. Medicaid beneficiaries are, by definition, individuals with limited incomes and resources. We should not and must not be implementing policies that place this already vulnerable population at increased risk of interrupted treatment, disrupted coverage, or losing healthcare access altogether. As physicians, we are trained to diagnose and treat our patients' medical conditions, not to conduct assessments about a given patient's ability to work. Forcing doctors into the position of making these assessments diverts their time away from providing needed and life-saving health care to patients. Even worse, this puts patients with serious and chronic health conditions health at risk, from a sudden and dramatic loss of needed health care," said Jan K. Carney, MD, MPH, MACP, President of ACP.
"Access to health care is a human right for all, including adolescents and young adults, and public funding is what makes that right real for low-income and vulnerable youth. SAHM is joining this lawsuit because our members cannot stand by while policy decisions jeopardize our patients' health, education, and future well-being," said Ryan Norton, Executive Director of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.
"Physicians know that continuity of care can be the difference between a manageable health condition and a medical crisis and bankruptcy. This rule puts unnecessary bureaucratic barriers between patients and the care they need, including people living with serious and chronic health conditions whom Congress specifically intended to protect," said Meenakshi Bewtra, MD, PhD, MPH, President of Doctors for America. "Patients should not lose their health coverage because they could not navigate another form, verification requirement, or administrative hurdle. Prior attempts at such requirements have resulted in tens of thousands of people losing necessary medical care simply because of the administrative burden. We are a great enough country to provide healthcare especially to our most vulnerable. Doctors for America is joining this challenge because Medicaid policy should help patients stay healthy and connected to care, not create new pathways for eligible people to lose coverage."
"Creating barriers to healthcare coverage for the most vulnerable needlessly puts people's lives at risk and inevitably drives up the cost of care for everyone," said Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein. "These are folks who should be focused on getting the help and care they desperately need, not overcoming even more obstacles. We cannot allow the Trump administration to continue to chip away at Americans' access to quality, affordable healthcare."
"Medicaid is a lifeline, and we will continue to fight policies that put paperwork and bureaucracy between people and the care they need," said Julie Justicz, Executive Director, Legal Council for Health Justice.
"For our client and thousands of Missourians, Medicaid is what keeps their health, and their lives, stable. Losing it doesn't just interrupt care. It takes away the security they build everything else on," said Amber Christ, Executive Director of Legal Aid of Western Missouri. "This rule makes them prove not just that they are medically frail, but that they cannot work, piling on even more paperwork and process. People won't lose their coverage because they are ineligible. They'll lose it over a missing form or a doctor's letter that never arrived."
"Medicaid helps thousands of Indiana residents, providing critical life sustaining healthcare. We are honored to help ensure continued access to health coverage with as few paperwork barriers as possible," said Adam Mueller, Executive Director, Indiana Justice Project.
People living with diabetes, cancer, HIV, substance use disorders, disabling mental health conditions, and other serious or complex medical conditions rely on continuous access to physicians, medications, and treatments. Interruptions in Medicaid coverage can cause people to miss appointments, lose access to medication, experience worsening health, and require more intensive and costly care. Losing coverage can also make it harder-not easier-for people to remain healthy enough to work.
"Implementing a de facto work requirement on medically frail people is a heartless attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to kick those who are most in need of support and betrays Congress' clear instruction to protect people in need," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We are honored to work with this coalition to protect those who need essential healthcare coverage."
"Congress created the medical frailty exclusion to protect people with serious health needs, but the administration's rule turns that protection into yet another obstacle people must overcome," said Jane Perkins, Litigation Director at the National Health Law Program. "The statute does not require medically frail people to prove that their conditions are so debilitating that they cannot meet the work requirement. The statute exempts the medically frail from work requirements and does not authorize CMS to re-introduce it through the backdoor with the new rule. This rule puts access to care and, in some cases, people's lives at risk."
The rule requires people with covered physical, mental, or behavioral health conditions to show that their condition significantly impairs their ability to comply with the work requirement. That additional restriction is not found in the statute and excludes people who have serious health care needs but may not be able to demonstrate the particular form or degree of impairment demanded by the rule.
"Medicaid work requirements do not help people find or keep jobs. They put people's health care at risk," said Jennifer Cannistra, Executive Director of the National Health Law Program. "Every additional verification requirement, form, and submission creates another opportunity for an error or misunderstanding to cost someone their coverage. Past experience shows that many of the people who lose Medicaid are already working or qualify for an exclusion. They lose coverage because of paperwork and administrative barriers, not because they are ineligible."
The Interim Final Rule implementing the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act requires adults in the 40 states and District of Columbia who receive Medicaid through the ACA Medicaid expansion to demonstrate that they have completed a specified number of hours of work or other qualifying activities to obtain or maintain Medicaid coverage. Congress categorically excluded several groups from these requirements, including people who are medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs.
The Administration's rule narrows those protections by adding a back-door work requirement that requires people to establish not only that they are medically frail but also that their condition significantly impairs their ability to meet the work requirements. As a result, people whom Congress intended to protect would be subjected to work and reporting requirements and lose Medicaid coverage.
The case is Taylor et al. v. Kennedy, Jr. et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Health Law Program and Democracy Forward.
The complaint is available here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Taylor-et-al.-v.-Kennedy-Jr.-et-al-Complaint-Sept-18-2026.pdf).
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
The National Health Law Program protects and improves access to health care for low-income and underserved people and works to advance health equity. NHeLP advocates, educates, and litigates at the federal and state levels. www.healthlaw.org
Legal Aid of Western Missouri provides free civil legal assistance to people with limited resources across 40 Missouri counties. We help people stay in their homes, escape domestic violence, and secure the benefits and stability they are entitled to under the law. www.lawmo.org
The Indiana Justice Project is a non-partisan, non-profit legal advocacy organization that uses all available legal tools to ensure equal justice and opportunity for all Hoosiers. We focus on health, housing, and food insecurity. https://www.indianajusticeproject.org/
Legal Council for Health Justice (LCHJ) is a Chicago nonprofit that uses the power of law and policy to advance health justice by protecting the rights of people with disabilities, advocating for children and families with complex health and social needs, and removing legal barriers to healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. https://legalcouncil.org/
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/medicaid-enrollees-challenge-rule-threatening-coverage-for-people-with-serious-health-conditions/
[Category: Political]
Democracy Forward: Legal Challenge Highlights New Claims in Effort to Preserve East Potomac Park From Ongoing Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Assault
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026:
* * *
Legal Challenge Highlights New Claims in Effort to Preserve East Potomac Park From Ongoing Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Assault
Updated Complaint Includes New Facts As Work Has Continued on Site Despite Legal Challenge
Washington, D.C. - The DC Preservation League and two local residents are seeking permission to file an updated complaint in their ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * Legal Challenge Highlights New Claims in Effort to Preserve East Potomac Park From Ongoing Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Assault Updated Complaint Includes New Facts As Work Has Continued on Site Despite Legal Challenge Washington, D.C. - The DC Preservation League and two local residents are seeking permission to file an updated complaint in theirlegal effort to protect East Potomac Park and its golf course. The proposed amended complaint challenges the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful and hazardous dumping at the park as part of an effort to convert the public recreation space into an exclusive, high-end golf course. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward Foundation, Lowell & Associates, and Democracy Defenders Fund.
"The DC Preservation League remains committed to preserving and protecting the historic East Potomac Golf Links and East Potomac Park," said Rebecca Miller, Executive Director of the DC Preservation League. "This unique cultural landscape holds a unique place in our city's history. Destroying the Golf Links' historic character and expanding the course to limit other recreational opportunities would undermine Congress's designation that decreed this site will be forever held as a public park for the recreation and pleasure of the people."
"The administration has shown complete disregard for the golfers who have kept East Potomac busy for more than 100 years. This filing is on behalf of everyone who loves and uses this park every day and wants it protected from a transformation nobody asked for," said Alex Dickson, one of the plaintiffs in the matter.
The proposed complaint filed today is an updated version of a complaint first filed in February, and updates the allegations to account for facts that have developed since February, as well as to include additional legal claims. Among the new legal claims are allegations that constructing a new golf course would be erecting a "structure" on the site, in violation of 40 U.S.C. Sec. 8106, which states that a "building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress." The amended complaint also focuses on how the administration's unlawful dumping of debris from the demolition of the East Wing of the White House created a "solid waste disposal site" at East Potomac, violating 54 U.S.C. Sec. 100903(a).
"The Trump-Vance administration is unlawfully implementing a plan to transform East Potomac Park in a way that has already begun to irrevocably harm the quality of the environment, affect historic property, violate the National Parks Service's statutory mandate and other laws, and illegally undermine the park's purpose 'for the recreation and pleasure of the people,'" said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "The administration is clearly breaking multiple laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act to the National Historic Preservation Act, as it pushes forward with its plan and we are proud to work with these organizations and local residents to protect the East Potomac park that they cherish."
"This updated complaint exposes the full scope of the administration's brazen overreach at East Potomac Park, from unlawfully scheming to build on this historic public land to dumping toxic White House debris on the grounds," said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. "We will not stand by while public lands and community health are sacrificed for yet another unlawful vanity project."
The case is DC Preservation League et. al. v. Department of the Interior, et. al. and the legal team at Democracy Forward working on the case includes Will Bardwell, Mark Samburg, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. The team with Lowell & Associates includes Abbe Lowell with support from Norm Eisen and the Democracy Defenders Fund.
Read today's proposed filing here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DCPL_Updated_Complaint.pdf).
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
Lowell & Associates, PLLC provides strategic and principled legal representation across civil, criminal, compliance, congressional and regulatory matters. The firm brings a deep understanding of both the law and the broader context in which our clients operate, serving individuals, businesses and institutions that value experienced counsel and effective advocacy in today's legal environment.
Democracy Defenders Fund brings together a nonpartisan team to work with national, state and local allies across the country to defend in real-time the foundations of our democracy.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/legal-challenge-highlights-new-claims-in-effort-to-preserve-east-potomac-park-from-ongoing-unlawful-trump-vance-administration-assault/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Legal Challenge Highlights New Claims in Effort to Preserve East Potomac Park From Ongoing Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Assault
Updated Complaint Includes New Facts As Work Has Continued on Site Despite Legal Challenge
Washington, D.C. - The DC Preservation League and two local residents are seeking permission to file an updated complaint in their ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * Legal Challenge Highlights New Claims in Effort to Preserve East Potomac Park From Ongoing Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Assault Updated Complaint Includes New Facts As Work Has Continued on Site Despite Legal Challenge Washington, D.C. - The DC Preservation League and two local residents are seeking permission to file an updated complaint in theirlegal effort to protect East Potomac Park and its golf course. The proposed amended complaint challenges the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful and hazardous dumping at the park as part of an effort to convert the public recreation space into an exclusive, high-end golf course. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward Foundation, Lowell & Associates, and Democracy Defenders Fund.
"The DC Preservation League remains committed to preserving and protecting the historic East Potomac Golf Links and East Potomac Park," said Rebecca Miller, Executive Director of the DC Preservation League. "This unique cultural landscape holds a unique place in our city's history. Destroying the Golf Links' historic character and expanding the course to limit other recreational opportunities would undermine Congress's designation that decreed this site will be forever held as a public park for the recreation and pleasure of the people."
"The administration has shown complete disregard for the golfers who have kept East Potomac busy for more than 100 years. This filing is on behalf of everyone who loves and uses this park every day and wants it protected from a transformation nobody asked for," said Alex Dickson, one of the plaintiffs in the matter.
The proposed complaint filed today is an updated version of a complaint first filed in February, and updates the allegations to account for facts that have developed since February, as well as to include additional legal claims. Among the new legal claims are allegations that constructing a new golf course would be erecting a "structure" on the site, in violation of 40 U.S.C. Sec. 8106, which states that a "building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress." The amended complaint also focuses on how the administration's unlawful dumping of debris from the demolition of the East Wing of the White House created a "solid waste disposal site" at East Potomac, violating 54 U.S.C. Sec. 100903(a).
"The Trump-Vance administration is unlawfully implementing a plan to transform East Potomac Park in a way that has already begun to irrevocably harm the quality of the environment, affect historic property, violate the National Parks Service's statutory mandate and other laws, and illegally undermine the park's purpose 'for the recreation and pleasure of the people,'" said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "The administration is clearly breaking multiple laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act to the National Historic Preservation Act, as it pushes forward with its plan and we are proud to work with these organizations and local residents to protect the East Potomac park that they cherish."
"This updated complaint exposes the full scope of the administration's brazen overreach at East Potomac Park, from unlawfully scheming to build on this historic public land to dumping toxic White House debris on the grounds," said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. "We will not stand by while public lands and community health are sacrificed for yet another unlawful vanity project."
The case is DC Preservation League et. al. v. Department of the Interior, et. al. and the legal team at Democracy Forward working on the case includes Will Bardwell, Mark Samburg, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. The team with Lowell & Associates includes Abbe Lowell with support from Norm Eisen and the Democracy Defenders Fund.
Read today's proposed filing here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/DCPL_Updated_Complaint.pdf).
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
Lowell & Associates, PLLC provides strategic and principled legal representation across civil, criminal, compliance, congressional and regulatory matters. The firm brings a deep understanding of both the law and the broader context in which our clients operate, serving individuals, businesses and institutions that value experienced counsel and effective advocacy in today's legal environment.
Democracy Defenders Fund brings together a nonpartisan team to work with national, state and local allies across the country to defend in real-time the foundations of our democracy.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/legal-challenge-highlights-new-claims-in-effort-to-preserve-east-potomac-park-from-ongoing-unlawful-trump-vance-administration-assault/
[Category: Political]
Democracy Forward, Legal Aid, Center for Constitutional Rights File Lawsuit to Vacate New Rule Unlawfully Penalizing Low-Income Immigrants Who Receive Public Benefits
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026:
* * *
Democracy Forward, Legal Aid, Center for Constitutional Rights File Lawsuit to Vacate New Rule Unlawfully Penalizing Low-Income Immigrants Who Receive Public Benefits
New York -- Make the Road New York, the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), and the Association to Benefit Children (ABC), and African Communities Together (AFT) filed a lawsuit against ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * Democracy Forward, Legal Aid, Center for Constitutional Rights File Lawsuit to Vacate New Rule Unlawfully Penalizing Low-Income Immigrants Who Receive Public Benefits New York -- Make the Road New York, the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), and the Association to Benefit Children (ABC), and African Communities Together (AFT) filed a lawsuit againstU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking to vacate an unlawful new rule that will, beginning September 18, deny lawful permanent resident (LPR) status to aspiring immigrants because they or their dependent children receive supplemental public benefits. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, the Legal Aid Society, and the Center for Constitutional Rights
Plaintiffs allege that the new rule and related guidance violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has long reserved a public charge denial for a very small percentage of individuals who are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Instead, the new rule and guidance are designed to punish immigrants, including their children, for receiving even small amounts of nonmonetary supplemental benefits for which they are eligible.
The benefits encompassed by the new policies include health insurance, food assistance, housing assistance, benefits for children like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Head Start, benefits for workers like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, and even Pell grants for college students. None of these benefits, used by citizens and non-citizens alike to build financial security and independence, relate to the type of long-term destitution Congress recognizes as making someone a public charge.
The new policies also give DHS officers unbridled discretion to deny aspiring immigrants LPR status on public charge grounds. The rule is also a barely disguised cover for the administration's racial animus towards non-citizens and their children. The rule will create a massive chilling effect on the lawful, necessary, and appropriate use of public benefits by noncitizens, whether or not they are even subject to the rule, and by their U.S. citizen children.
The reduced access to public benefits is likely to lead to a range of harmful effects on immigrant communities and the public at large, including worse health outcomes, higher prevalence of communicable diseases, as well as increased rates of poverty, food insecurity, housing instability, and homelessness.
"With this rule, more than double the number of New Yorkers will have to choose between receiving benefits that keep a roof over their heads, access to medical care and food on their tables or their ability to become a legal permanent resident," said Julie Brandfield, Director of New York Legal Assistance Group's LegalHealth Unit. "Every year, our medical-legal partnership clinics serve nearly 9,000 hospital patients whose families choose to navigate through the complex immigration system and a web of benefits bureaucracy so that they can continue on their journey to becoming healthy and secure Americans. This new rule change will not only harm the cancer patient fighting for their life or the older adult seeking care as they age; it will also harm our organization's ability to give legal advice and services that ensures the best outcomes for the futures of thousands of New York families."
Rebecca Telzak, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York, said, "The extreme changes to the public charge rule will cause irreparable harm to our country's health and public services. The Trump administration has actively worked to advance policies that further their anti-immigrant agenda and bar immigrants from being able to apply to any immigration benefit. Despite the rule changes not yet in effect, we have witnessed the chilling effect on immigrant communities, and even among those who are categorically exempt or will not be impacted, their fears have led to questioning unnecessary disenrollment from critical public benefits. At its core, this new rule is cruel: at a time when the cost of everything--from food to housing to healthcare--is unbearably high, immigrant families and U.S. citizen children will be punished for accessing these basic necessities."
"This rule is about more than status; it denies our community members access to healthcare, food, and housing, at a time when people across the country are struggling to have their basic needs met," said Diana Konate, Deputy Executive Director of Policy and Advocacy at African Communities Together. "The rule forces families to choose between maintaining a secure status and visiting the doctor. This is an inhumane and costly decision for our country and will have detrimental long-term effects broader than the immigrants it targets."
"No family should have to forgo putting food on the table, getting healthcare, or keeping a roof over their heads because they are pursuing a lawful path to permanent residency," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "Yet that is exactly the unlawful and cruel choice the Trump-Vance administration is trying to force on immigrant families across the country. Congress did not give this administration the power to punish people for accessing supplemental supports for which they and their children are eligible. We are honored to represent our clients alongside our partners in challenging this policy and protecting families and communities from its devastating consequences."
"Tens of thousands of households across the United States currently receive assistance from the government to supplement their wages in this challenging economy," said Susan Welber, Supervising Attorney at The Legal Aid Society. "USCIS and DHS's new rule to deny LPR status to aspiring immigrants solely on the grounds that they or their U.S. citizen children receive any form of non-cash government assistance is both wrong on the law and a blatant attempt to bar low-income immigrants, particularly immigrants of color, from becoming permanent residents. This illegal rule, like the 2019 rule, must be vacated by the court to ensure that all aspiring immigrants remain free to live in the United States and pursue economic success for themselves and future generations without sacrificing the health and well-being of themselves, their families, or their communities."
"The rule is inspired by the tiresome and repeatedly debunked notion that racial minorities disproportionately use public benefits and will drain the nation's coffers," said Angelo Guisado, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "We are all now bearing witness to the Trump administration's vindictive crusade to remake the United States. Time and again we see that it is the poor, the Black and Brown, or the immigrants who suffer most -- here it is a trifecta."
The case is Make the Road New York et al. v. USCIS et al., and the legal team at Democracy Forward includes Ryan Cooper, Joel McElvain, and Elena Goldstein.
Read the filing here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ECF-1-Complaint.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/democracy-forward-legal-aid-center-for-constitutional-rights-file-lawsuit-to-vacate-new-rule-unlawfully-penalizing-low-income-immigrants-who-receive-public-benefits/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Democracy Forward, Legal Aid, Center for Constitutional Rights File Lawsuit to Vacate New Rule Unlawfully Penalizing Low-Income Immigrants Who Receive Public Benefits
New York -- Make the Road New York, the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), and the Association to Benefit Children (ABC), and African Communities Together (AFT) filed a lawsuit against ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on Sept. 18, 2026: * * * Democracy Forward, Legal Aid, Center for Constitutional Rights File Lawsuit to Vacate New Rule Unlawfully Penalizing Low-Income Immigrants Who Receive Public Benefits New York -- Make the Road New York, the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), and the Association to Benefit Children (ABC), and African Communities Together (AFT) filed a lawsuit againstU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking to vacate an unlawful new rule that will, beginning September 18, deny lawful permanent resident (LPR) status to aspiring immigrants because they or their dependent children receive supplemental public benefits. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, the Legal Aid Society, and the Center for Constitutional Rights
Plaintiffs allege that the new rule and related guidance violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has long reserved a public charge denial for a very small percentage of individuals who are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Instead, the new rule and guidance are designed to punish immigrants, including their children, for receiving even small amounts of nonmonetary supplemental benefits for which they are eligible.
The benefits encompassed by the new policies include health insurance, food assistance, housing assistance, benefits for children like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Head Start, benefits for workers like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, and even Pell grants for college students. None of these benefits, used by citizens and non-citizens alike to build financial security and independence, relate to the type of long-term destitution Congress recognizes as making someone a public charge.
The new policies also give DHS officers unbridled discretion to deny aspiring immigrants LPR status on public charge grounds. The rule is also a barely disguised cover for the administration's racial animus towards non-citizens and their children. The rule will create a massive chilling effect on the lawful, necessary, and appropriate use of public benefits by noncitizens, whether or not they are even subject to the rule, and by their U.S. citizen children.
The reduced access to public benefits is likely to lead to a range of harmful effects on immigrant communities and the public at large, including worse health outcomes, higher prevalence of communicable diseases, as well as increased rates of poverty, food insecurity, housing instability, and homelessness.
"With this rule, more than double the number of New Yorkers will have to choose between receiving benefits that keep a roof over their heads, access to medical care and food on their tables or their ability to become a legal permanent resident," said Julie Brandfield, Director of New York Legal Assistance Group's LegalHealth Unit. "Every year, our medical-legal partnership clinics serve nearly 9,000 hospital patients whose families choose to navigate through the complex immigration system and a web of benefits bureaucracy so that they can continue on their journey to becoming healthy and secure Americans. This new rule change will not only harm the cancer patient fighting for their life or the older adult seeking care as they age; it will also harm our organization's ability to give legal advice and services that ensures the best outcomes for the futures of thousands of New York families."
Rebecca Telzak, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York, said, "The extreme changes to the public charge rule will cause irreparable harm to our country's health and public services. The Trump administration has actively worked to advance policies that further their anti-immigrant agenda and bar immigrants from being able to apply to any immigration benefit. Despite the rule changes not yet in effect, we have witnessed the chilling effect on immigrant communities, and even among those who are categorically exempt or will not be impacted, their fears have led to questioning unnecessary disenrollment from critical public benefits. At its core, this new rule is cruel: at a time when the cost of everything--from food to housing to healthcare--is unbearably high, immigrant families and U.S. citizen children will be punished for accessing these basic necessities."
"This rule is about more than status; it denies our community members access to healthcare, food, and housing, at a time when people across the country are struggling to have their basic needs met," said Diana Konate, Deputy Executive Director of Policy and Advocacy at African Communities Together. "The rule forces families to choose between maintaining a secure status and visiting the doctor. This is an inhumane and costly decision for our country and will have detrimental long-term effects broader than the immigrants it targets."
"No family should have to forgo putting food on the table, getting healthcare, or keeping a roof over their heads because they are pursuing a lawful path to permanent residency," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "Yet that is exactly the unlawful and cruel choice the Trump-Vance administration is trying to force on immigrant families across the country. Congress did not give this administration the power to punish people for accessing supplemental supports for which they and their children are eligible. We are honored to represent our clients alongside our partners in challenging this policy and protecting families and communities from its devastating consequences."
"Tens of thousands of households across the United States currently receive assistance from the government to supplement their wages in this challenging economy," said Susan Welber, Supervising Attorney at The Legal Aid Society. "USCIS and DHS's new rule to deny LPR status to aspiring immigrants solely on the grounds that they or their U.S. citizen children receive any form of non-cash government assistance is both wrong on the law and a blatant attempt to bar low-income immigrants, particularly immigrants of color, from becoming permanent residents. This illegal rule, like the 2019 rule, must be vacated by the court to ensure that all aspiring immigrants remain free to live in the United States and pursue economic success for themselves and future generations without sacrificing the health and well-being of themselves, their families, or their communities."
"The rule is inspired by the tiresome and repeatedly debunked notion that racial minorities disproportionately use public benefits and will drain the nation's coffers," said Angelo Guisado, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "We are all now bearing witness to the Trump administration's vindictive crusade to remake the United States. Time and again we see that it is the poor, the Black and Brown, or the immigrants who suffer most -- here it is a trifecta."
The case is Make the Road New York et al. v. USCIS et al., and the legal team at Democracy Forward includes Ryan Cooper, Joel McElvain, and Elena Goldstein.
Read the filing here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ECF-1-Complaint.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/democracy-forward-legal-aid-center-for-constitutional-rights-file-lawsuit-to-vacate-new-rule-unlawfully-penalizing-low-income-immigrants-who-receive-public-benefits/
[Category: Political]
CoPIRG Foundation: Victory - Colorado Air Quality Leaders Vote Again to Cut Oil and Gas Emissions
DENVER, Colorado, Sept. 20 -- The Colorado Public Interest Research Group Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Victory: Colorado air quality leaders vote again to cut oil and gas emissions
Approved proposal will bring healthier, cleaner air
DENVER - The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) voted on Friday in favor of a proposal to cut harmful pollution from oil and gas operations in the state. The new policy requires operators to use readily available technology to further reduce preventable methane and ozone-forming emissions at oil and gas facilities across Colorado ... Show Full Article DENVER, Colorado, Sept. 20 -- The Colorado Public Interest Research Group Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Victory: Colorado air quality leaders vote again to cut oil and gas emissions Approved proposal will bring healthier, cleaner air DENVER - The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) voted on Friday in favor of a proposal to cut harmful pollution from oil and gas operations in the state. The new policy requires operators to use readily available technology to further reduce preventable methane and ozone-forming emissions at oil and gas facilities across Coloradowithin the next two years. CoPIRG Foundation, along with many other clean air advocates, had urged decision makers to adopt the proposal.
The Denver Metro/North Front Range region has suffered from some of the highest ozone pollution in the country in recent years. Among the areas with the worst ozone pollution are surprising locations such as Chatfield State Park, the town of Evergreen, South Table Mountain in Golden and Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The health impacts of ozone include lung damage, worsening of existing respiratory conditions such as asthma and cardiovascular disease.
The oil and gas sector is one of the top contributors to ozone pollution in Colorado. The AQCC's vote this week will update requirements regarding enclosed combustion devices, flares, closed vent systems, vapor recovery units and more. The decision represents the third and final in a series of votes to meet or exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "OOOOc" rule to reduce methane and other pollutants from oil and gas operations.
In response to today's vote, CoPIRG Foundation Clean Air Advocate Kirsten Schatz issued the following statement:
"The 60+ high ozone days this summer were a stark reminder that Colorado has a homegrown air pollution problem that isn't going away on its own. Understandably, wildfire smoke often dominates the headlines in Colorado, but we must also acknowledge we face a severe, homegrown air quality crisis from ozone pollution. Thankfully, solutions are available and with today's vote, our state leaders have taken another step toward making our air safe to breathe. Especially when better, cleaner technology is available, we should no longer tolerate preventable releases of harmful pollution into our air."
* * *
Original text here: https://pirg.org/colorado/media-center/victory-colorado-air-quality-leaders-vote-again-to-cut-oil-and-gas-emissions/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Victory: Colorado air quality leaders vote again to cut oil and gas emissions
Approved proposal will bring healthier, cleaner air
DENVER - The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) voted on Friday in favor of a proposal to cut harmful pollution from oil and gas operations in the state. The new policy requires operators to use readily available technology to further reduce preventable methane and ozone-forming emissions at oil and gas facilities across Colorado ... Show Full Article DENVER, Colorado, Sept. 20 -- The Colorado Public Interest Research Group Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Victory: Colorado air quality leaders vote again to cut oil and gas emissions Approved proposal will bring healthier, cleaner air DENVER - The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) voted on Friday in favor of a proposal to cut harmful pollution from oil and gas operations in the state. The new policy requires operators to use readily available technology to further reduce preventable methane and ozone-forming emissions at oil and gas facilities across Coloradowithin the next two years. CoPIRG Foundation, along with many other clean air advocates, had urged decision makers to adopt the proposal.
The Denver Metro/North Front Range region has suffered from some of the highest ozone pollution in the country in recent years. Among the areas with the worst ozone pollution are surprising locations such as Chatfield State Park, the town of Evergreen, South Table Mountain in Golden and Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The health impacts of ozone include lung damage, worsening of existing respiratory conditions such as asthma and cardiovascular disease.
The oil and gas sector is one of the top contributors to ozone pollution in Colorado. The AQCC's vote this week will update requirements regarding enclosed combustion devices, flares, closed vent systems, vapor recovery units and more. The decision represents the third and final in a series of votes to meet or exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "OOOOc" rule to reduce methane and other pollutants from oil and gas operations.
In response to today's vote, CoPIRG Foundation Clean Air Advocate Kirsten Schatz issued the following statement:
"The 60+ high ozone days this summer were a stark reminder that Colorado has a homegrown air pollution problem that isn't going away on its own. Understandably, wildfire smoke often dominates the headlines in Colorado, but we must also acknowledge we face a severe, homegrown air quality crisis from ozone pollution. Thankfully, solutions are available and with today's vote, our state leaders have taken another step toward making our air safe to breathe. Especially when better, cleaner technology is available, we should no longer tolerate preventable releases of harmful pollution into our air."
* * *
Original text here: https://pirg.org/colorado/media-center/victory-colorado-air-quality-leaders-vote-again-to-cut-oil-and-gas-emissions/
[Category: Political]
ALG Hosts Discussion At GOP Midterm Convention On Sept. 10 On Lawfare, Dark Money And Foreign Influence
FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
ALG Hosts Discussion At GOP Midterm Convention On Sept. 10 On Lawfare, Dark Money And Foreign Influence
*
Sept. 3, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government today announced a discussion on lawfare, dark money and foreign influence targeting U.S. economic infrastructure critical to national security at the Dallas, Texas GOP Midterm Convention on Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.:
GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION
LAWFARE * DARK MONEY * FOREIGN INFLUENCE * POLITICAL ... Show Full Article FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release: * * * ALG Hosts Discussion At GOP Midterm Convention On Sept. 10 On Lawfare, Dark Money And Foreign Influence * Sept. 3, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government today announced a discussion on lawfare, dark money and foreign influence targeting U.S. economic infrastructure critical to national security at the Dallas, Texas GOP Midterm Convention on Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.: GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION LAWFARE * DARK MONEY * FOREIGN INFLUENCE * POLITICALABUSE
Join Americans for Limited Government for a timely discussion on the growing use of lawfare, dark money, and politically motivated abuses by foreign adversaries like China, progressive politicians and activist organizations to target critical infrastructure, data centers, manufacturing, power plants, rare earth minerals and energy development including oil, shale and natural gas.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, this event will examine how foreign actors, political opponents and other well-funded outside groups are using the legal system, nonprofit organizations, litigation, and dark-money networks to influence elections, target political adversaries, and advance progressive political agendas that are targeting critical aspects of the U.S. economy vital to national security as President Trump engages in reindustrialization.
The Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act, H.R. 2675, would prohibit or require disclosure of certain foreign-backed litigation funding arrangements. The Litigation Transparency Act, H.R. 1109, would require parties in federal civil cases to disclose when outside financiers have a financial stake in litigation. In addition, President Donald Trump could issue an executive order under the Corporate Transparency Act for the Treasury Department to designate litigation funders as entities required to report their beneficial owners and also under the Bank Secrecy Act to trigger additional reporting requirements -rooting out foreign influence in American courts.
KEY TOPICS
* Lawfare and politically motivated litigation
* Dark-money networks and progressive funding
* Abuses of government and political power
* The role of foreign actors, activist NGOs and outside organizations targeting economy and endangering national security
* What these tactics mean for the 2026 midterm elections
* Strategies for greater transparency and accountability as Congress and the President consider action
EVENT DETAILS
Hosted by:
Americans for Limited Government
Location:
The Henry Dallas
2301 N Akard St.
Dallas, TX 75201
Time:
10:00 AM - 1:00 PM
GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION
Join fellow conservative leaders, activists, policymakers, and concerned citizens for an important conversation about protecting political freedom, economic and national security, transparency and the rule of law. Breakfast will be served.
RSVP: robert@getliberty.org
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/09/alg-hosts-discussion-at-gop-midterm-convention-on-sept-10-on-lawfare-dark-money-and-foreign-influence/
(TNSmrp)
* * *
ALG Hosts Discussion At GOP Midterm Convention On Sept. 10 On Lawfare, Dark Money And Foreign Influence
*
Sept. 3, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government today announced a discussion on lawfare, dark money and foreign influence targeting U.S. economic infrastructure critical to national security at the Dallas, Texas GOP Midterm Convention on Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.:
GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION
LAWFARE * DARK MONEY * FOREIGN INFLUENCE * POLITICAL ... Show Full Article FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release: * * * ALG Hosts Discussion At GOP Midterm Convention On Sept. 10 On Lawfare, Dark Money And Foreign Influence * Sept. 3, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government today announced a discussion on lawfare, dark money and foreign influence targeting U.S. economic infrastructure critical to national security at the Dallas, Texas GOP Midterm Convention on Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.: GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION LAWFARE * DARK MONEY * FOREIGN INFLUENCE * POLITICALABUSE
Join Americans for Limited Government for a timely discussion on the growing use of lawfare, dark money, and politically motivated abuses by foreign adversaries like China, progressive politicians and activist organizations to target critical infrastructure, data centers, manufacturing, power plants, rare earth minerals and energy development including oil, shale and natural gas.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, this event will examine how foreign actors, political opponents and other well-funded outside groups are using the legal system, nonprofit organizations, litigation, and dark-money networks to influence elections, target political adversaries, and advance progressive political agendas that are targeting critical aspects of the U.S. economy vital to national security as President Trump engages in reindustrialization.
The Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act, H.R. 2675, would prohibit or require disclosure of certain foreign-backed litigation funding arrangements. The Litigation Transparency Act, H.R. 1109, would require parties in federal civil cases to disclose when outside financiers have a financial stake in litigation. In addition, President Donald Trump could issue an executive order under the Corporate Transparency Act for the Treasury Department to designate litigation funders as entities required to report their beneficial owners and also under the Bank Secrecy Act to trigger additional reporting requirements -rooting out foreign influence in American courts.
KEY TOPICS
* Lawfare and politically motivated litigation
* Dark-money networks and progressive funding
* Abuses of government and political power
* The role of foreign actors, activist NGOs and outside organizations targeting economy and endangering national security
* What these tactics mean for the 2026 midterm elections
* Strategies for greater transparency and accountability as Congress and the President consider action
EVENT DETAILS
Hosted by:
Americans for Limited Government
Location:
The Henry Dallas
2301 N Akard St.
Dallas, TX 75201
Time:
10:00 AM - 1:00 PM
GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION
Join fellow conservative leaders, activists, policymakers, and concerned citizens for an important conversation about protecting political freedom, economic and national security, transparency and the rule of law. Breakfast will be served.
RSVP: robert@getliberty.org
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/09/alg-hosts-discussion-at-gop-midterm-convention-on-sept-10-on-lawfare-dark-money-and-foreign-influence/
(TNSmrp)
'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage
FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release:
* * *
'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage
*
July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same:
"The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of the ... Show Full Article FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release: * * * 'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage * July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same: "The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of theafternoon. It's about time. Nobody likes the constant clock changes. The fact is that under current law, there was never a way to opt out of standard time whereas states were permitted to opt out of daylight savings time if they really wanted to, as Arizona and Hawaii do. School districts can always have starting bells later to compensate if there is concern about later sunrises during the winter months, although it's worth noting almost all districts are already on Christmas vacation during the shortest days. Clearly, based on the House vote, and unanimous passage of practically identical legislation by the Senate in 2022, and the President's support, daylight savings time is far more popular. But really, it's just let's pick a time and stick with it. Compromise if needs be: shave a half hour off standard time. Anything's better than the clock changes, and the early sunsets in the winter are frankly depressing. But the bill's fine the way it is. It is time for the Senate to immediately take up this common sense, bipartisan legislation, stop switching the clocks and let the sun shine into the evening for good."
For media availability contact Americans for Limited Government at media@limitgov.org.
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/07/its-about-time-alg-praises-house-passage-of-sunshine-protection-act-urges-senate-passage/
* * *
'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage
*
July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same:
"The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of the ... Show Full Article FAIRFAX, Virginia, Sept. 20 [Category: Government/Public Administration] -- Americans for Limited Government posted the following news release: * * * 'It's About Time': ALG Praises House Passage Of Sunshine Protection Act, Urges Senate Passage * July 15, 2026, Fairfax, Va.-Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising the House for passing the Sunshine Protection Act and urged the Senate to do the same: "The House has finally passed legislation that will end standard time once and for all. No more sunsets in the middle of theafternoon. It's about time. Nobody likes the constant clock changes. The fact is that under current law, there was never a way to opt out of standard time whereas states were permitted to opt out of daylight savings time if they really wanted to, as Arizona and Hawaii do. School districts can always have starting bells later to compensate if there is concern about later sunrises during the winter months, although it's worth noting almost all districts are already on Christmas vacation during the shortest days. Clearly, based on the House vote, and unanimous passage of practically identical legislation by the Senate in 2022, and the President's support, daylight savings time is far more popular. But really, it's just let's pick a time and stick with it. Compromise if needs be: shave a half hour off standard time. Anything's better than the clock changes, and the early sunsets in the winter are frankly depressing. But the bill's fine the way it is. It is time for the Senate to immediately take up this common sense, bipartisan legislation, stop switching the clocks and let the sun shine into the evening for good."
For media availability contact Americans for Limited Government at media@limitgov.org.
***
Original text here: https://getliberty.org/2026/07/its-about-time-alg-praises-house-passage-of-sunshine-protection-act-urges-senate-passage/