Congressman Andy Harris is facing a steady stream of criticism on social media following his vote against releasing the full files related to Jeffrey Epstein in July. The House of Representatives blocked the release of the files on a 211 to 210 vote. Since his vote, commenters on nearly every post from Congressman Harris’s official Facebook page have repeatedly raised the issue, questioning his decision and asking for an explanation. The comments are often similar in wording and appear across different topics, from agriculture updates to health care policy. In addition to individual commenters, local advocacy pages such as Decency for District 1 have been highlighting Harris’s vote since July 31. The page has consistently called for greater transparency, arguing that constituents deserve to know why their representative opposed making the records public. Despite the visible online pushback, no major Eastern Shore news outlet has yet reported on Harris’s vote or the public response to it. Neither local television stations nor regional newspapers have published stories on the controversy, leaving the discussion largely confined to social media platforms. The Epstein files vote has drawn national attention in recent weeks, as lawmakers in both parties have faced questions about whether more information should be released. In a town hall at Chesapeake College, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen talked about the importance of transparency and the need to release the files; he offered an amendment in the Senate to force the release. Rep. Harris, the Eastern Shore’s lone representative in Congress, has not issued a public statement addressing his position beyond his recorded vote. For now, the conversation remains one-sided. Constituents continue to press the question online, while traditional media outlets in the district have yet to engage with the story. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.

Donald Trump promised he would lower costs on Day One. A lot of people believed him. (Some still do.) But instead of addressing the economic concerns that got him elected, he pushed his One Big Beautiful Bill into law. Instead of lowering the cost of energy and groceries for regular folks, his OBBB gives handouts to the rich. The Democratic National Committee has put together a website that details all the ways we lose and the rich guys win. They’re calling it the Trump Tax. Here’s what they have to say. Nationally,

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It applies to all seizures of a person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in an immigration context, except at the border, the Fourth Amendment prohibits immigration enforcement officers to make detentive stops unless they are aware of “specific articulable facts that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the person detained may be illegally in the country. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on “generalizations” that, if accepted, would cast suspicion on large segments of the law-abiding population. On June 6, 2025, federal law enforcement arrived in Los Angeles to participate in what federal officials have described as “the largest Mass Deportation Operation . . . in History.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents and officers were sent to join officers from the Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to carry out “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, California. This operation involved teams of three to five agents who temporarily detained individuals in public places such as streets, sidewalks, and publicly accessible portions of businesses, and made arrests for immigration violations. On July 2, five individual plaintiffs and three membership associations sued twelve senior federal officials, who share responsibility for directing federal immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Perdomo v. Noem (C. D. Cal). The complaint asserts that by an ongoing policy and/or practice, detentive stops in the Central District of California were being conducted without reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. Reviewing the evidence offered by the plaintiffs in support of an injunction pending further litigation, the district court found that circumstances surrounding the stops were coercive enough that the interactions were not consensual. The district court also found that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed in showing that seizures were based only upon four enumerated factors” or a subset of them. Those factors were (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; (3) presence at a particular location; and (4) the type of work one does. The district court then concluded that in the context of the Central District of California, those four enumerated factors — even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and “do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.” Moreover, the court determined that, despite there being no evidence of an “official policy” of making stops based only on the four factors and without reasonable suspicion, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendants’ agents were routinely doing so. Premised on these conclusions, on July 11, the district enjoined the defendant officials from relying solely on the factors below, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop: Apparent race or ethnicity; Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; Presence at a particular location (e.g., bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.); or The type of work one does. The administration appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which refused to intervene. Perdomo v. Noem (July 28). The three judge panel determined that “a characteristic common to both legal and illegal immigrants does little to arouse reasonable suspicion.” In the U.S. generally, apparent Hispanic or Latino race or ethnicity generally has limited probative value, because large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Speaking Spanish and speaking English with an accent are likewise characteristics that apply to a sizable portion of individuals lawfully present in this country. As to location, the Supreme Court has made clear that an individual’s presence at a location that illegal immigrants are known to frequent does little to support reasonable suspicion when U.S. citizens and legal immigrants are also likely to be present at those locations. US v. Brignoni (1975). Like location, the type of work one does is at most “marginally relevant” to establishing reasonable suspicion, even if it is work commonly performed by immigrants without legal status. Evidence that a particular employer is employing a large number of undocumented workers does not create reasonable suspicion as to each individual employee. On August 7, the administration once more sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In doing so, the Solicitor General asserts that the injunction entered puts “a straitjacket on law-enforcement efforts.” Although this case arises out of ICE activities in Southern California, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will have obvious implications for the practices of ICE agents nationwide. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes. 

Across the U.S. food supply chain, more than one in five jobs is carried out by immigrants, the equivalent of 14 million workers across the sector. But many of these foreign-born workers — regardless of legal status — are afraid that they’ll be swept up in the administration’s illegal and cruel arrest, detention, and deportation actions. So, they’ve started staying home. The long-term effects of losing a substantial portion of the workforce will send a shock through the industry: crops will not be harvested, livestock will not be processed, grocery shelves will thin out, restaurants and food trucks will close, and food will get more expensive than it already is.

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge is threatened by federal budget and staffing cuts. We are fortunate to have this unspoiled, undeveloped public land in Kent County. More than 70,000 people visit ENNWR annually for recreation and to enjoy its natural beauty. In April, Common Sense for the Eastern Shore published an article asking for help in spreading the word about the threat to ENNWR. The need for support in the face of this threat still exists. If you’d like to know more and would like to pitch in to help, Citizens Connect is holding an informational session: Monday, August 18, 5-6:30 pm Unitarian Universalists of the Chester River, 914 Gateway Dr, Chestertown The presentation and discussion will be led by members of the Board of Directors of Friends of Eastern Neck, Bill Burton, president, and Bonnie Ford, vice president. The session will cover how drastic budget cuts to the US Fish & Wildlife Service jeopardize the health of the refuge and threaten its survival. Without adequate staff, Eastern Neck could be “shuttered," public access curtailed, and the Visitors Center closed. Invasive plants would grow unchecked, migratory waterfowl would be at risk, and hunts would end.