Sierra Club Woes

Many posts have discussed interest groups.  They must often grapple with internal factions.

Robin Bravender at Politico:

The Sierra Club would very much like to be in the news for its efforts to fight the Trump administration on climate change, save endangered species and close coal plants.

But lately, the iconic environmental group’s internal conflict is what’s been making headlines.

It’s a green-on-green food fight that couldn’t come at a worse time for the Sierra Club as the group and its environmental allies struggle to raise cash, worry they’ll be targeted by the Trump administration and scramble to combat environmental policy rollbacks.

The green group fired its boss, Ben Jealous, in August in what quickly devolved into a bitter public breakup. Sierra Club’s board said it fired Jealous “for cause following extensive evaluation of his conduct.” Jealous had been the subject of a sexual harassment complaint although the group hasn’t specified its reasons for the ouster.

Jealous and his allies are fighting back. Civil rights leader Al Sharpton got involved, warning of “serious racial implications” of firing. Jealous says he raised concerns about racial discrimination and retaliation during his tenure. He retained attorneys at a civil rights and employment law firm and said he was fighting the decision to fire him.

This was just the Sierra Club’s latest crisis in recent years.

There was the scorching public revelation that the organization had quietly accepted donations from the natural gas industry. The club grappled with its early leaders’ troubling views on race. Managers quarreled with the staff union. Sierra Club’s leader for a decade, Michael Brune, left in 2021 amid calls for increased diversity and staff complaints about workplace problems.

Influencing, Lobbying, and Shadow Lobbying

Many posts have discussed lobbying, "shadow lobbying," "unlobbying," and "non-lobbying lobbying."

Bruce Mehlman:

Federal lobbying expenditures are tracking to exceed $5 billion in 2025, the highest amount ever (both nominally and inflation-adjusted, though not as a share of GDP). Registered lobbying activities are transparent and highly-disclosed, while broader influence spending is not.

...

While $5 billion is a lot of money, spending on registered lobbying activity is less than half as much as what we spend on Halloween, ~1/3 of what Americans spend at car washes each year and less than 10% of what we annually drop on power boating.

...

Effective influence campaigns aim for information “surround sound.” Lobbying (i.e. person-to-person discussions with policy makers & staff) is one of many activities needed for an impactful influence campaign that shapes the information environment in which policymakers understand and consider issues and determine what is in the best interests of their constituents, values and political ambitions.

...

Influence campaigns regularly tap the talents of lawyers, PR professionals, grassroots organizers, fundraisers, online influencers and countless others, most of whose activities remain undisclosed. Some estimate the size of the “shadow lobbying” community as equal to the number of registered lobbyists, while others argue it is at least 13x as large. Only those who spend at least 20% of their time on federal lobbying activity need to register as official “lobbyists,” with a great many “19%’ers” carefully monitoring their time allocations to remain unregistered / under the RADAR.

Confession

 Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.   

Daniel Payne at Catholic News Agency:

Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law.

A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.

The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”

The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication.

Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.

The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal.

In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.

...

Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.

The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.”

“Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

 

Malevolence and Incompetence at HHS

Many posts have discussed the chaos at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Apoorva Mandavilli and Sheryl Gay Stolberg at NYT:

The Trump administration on Saturday raced to rescind layoffs of hundreds of scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were mistakenly fired on Friday night in what appeared to be a substantial procedural lapse.

Among those wrongly dismissed were the top two leaders of the federal measles response team, those working to contain Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo, members of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, and the team that assembles the C.D.C.’s vaunted scientific journal, The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

After The New York Times reported the dismissals, two federal health officials said on Saturday that many of those workers were being brought back. The officials spoke anonymously in order to disclose internal discussions.

The mistakes rocked an agency already in tumult, and which has been a particular target of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The C.D.C. lost about a third of its staff in April; many were rehired weeks later.

Judges and the Shadow Docket

Many posts have discussed the independence of the judiciary.

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague at NYT:

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

 

Americans Like Veterans

Many posts have discussed veterans.

Jeffrey M. Jones at Gallup:

Americans view prior military service more positively than prior government or business experience when considering political candidates’ credentials.

Fifty-five percent of U.S. adults say that military service on a candidate’s resume makes it much (16%) or somewhat (39%) more likely they’ll vote for that person, compared with 7% who say it discourages them from doing so. Thirty-eight percent say it makes no difference to their vote.

Americans are about as likely to value prior government experience (52%, including 16% much more likely). However, significantly more view government experience negatively (15%) when assessing candidates, giving military service a clear edge when considering the net benefit (percentage more likely minus percentage less likely).

 

Trump and Habeas Corpus

 The Trump administration is snatching people without due process.

Michael Luciano at Mediaite:

On Wednesday, a seemingly MAGA reporter asked Trump, “Have you given any more thought to possibly suspending habeas corpus to not only deal with these insurrectionists across the nation, but also to continue rapidly deporting illegal aliens?”

“Suspending who?” Trump responded.

“Habeas corpus,” came the reply.

“I don’t know,” the president said. “I’d rather leave that to Kristi. What do you think?”

“Sir, I haven’t been part of any discussions on that,” Noem said.

Trump then moved on to a CNN reporter, whom he promptly scolded.

Noem was perhaps not the best person to ask about habeas corpus. Testifying before the Senate back in May, Noem was asked by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) what habeas corpus is.

The secretary responded, “Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to–”

At that point, Hassan interrupted to correct Noem.

“Excuse me, habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people,” Hasan stated

Q: Have you given any more thought to possibly suspending habeas corpus?

TRUMP: Suspending who?

Q: Habeas corpus

TRUMP: I don't know. I'd rather leave that to Kristi. pic.twitter.com/DdjFnoUIrM

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2025