Between 26,000 and 39,000 people in Maryland’s First Congressional District will lose or be denied Medicaid coverage over the next decade because of cuts made to the program in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. Our congressman, Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R-MD01), voted for these cuts and voted to throw tens of thousands of his constituents off Medicaid and snatch away their health insurance.

“Bodily autonomy is once again the dividing legal line between the states, but this time with women’s bodies and lives on the line. And the “states’ rights” proponents have once again set up two sets of laws, with pregnant women likely soon to have no abortion rights or access at all on one side of the state line.” ~Jay Kuo, “Status Kuo” (Substack) In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022 and with the consequential variances in different states’ abortion laws, there are obvious parallels to the pre-Civil War Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. The Fugitive Slave Act (1850) declared that a citizen in a free state was legally required to assist a slave catcher, with heavy fines and imprisonment for those who refused to help or interfered. As authorities today in anti-abortion states — such as Texas — attempt to prosecute a citizen in a pro-choice state for actions that are legal there — i.e., a physician prescribing and mailing abortifacients such as mifepristone and misoprostol — history appears to repeat itself. And the Dred Scott decision (1857) held that a Black person in the U.S. had “no rights that a white man is bound to respect” and ruled that Black persons were less than full citizens. This odious decision highlighted the danger of letting states have different laws when Americans’ rights are affected. In holding that they no longer have the constitutional right to full reproductive health care, women are degraded to second-class citizenship in certain states. When Texas’s elimination of abortions is compared to Maryland's pro-choice laws and regulations, it's obvious that Texas does not offer "equal protection of the laws" for women. This national disconnect reeks of inequality and unfairness and loudly echoes the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. With the impetus supplied by “Project 2025” — the model for Donald Trump’s broad assault on government, law firms, universities, cultural institutions, corporations, health care, labor unions, foreign aid, treaties, Democratic-run cities, etc. — right-wing extremists are undoubtedly considering how to further repress women in the U.S. In addition to denying a woman’s right to full health care, for example, what if former Confederate states decide that women can no longer vote (exactly as they denied the vote to Black citizens under Jim Crow for 100 years)? If state legislatures decide a woman can’t have a driver’s license? Or a checking account? Or a credit card? Or hold a paying job? Or travel unescorted? It’s fearfully and dangerously analogous. As a community organizer, journalist, administrator, project planner/manager, and consultant, Gren Whitman has led neighborhood, umbrella, public interest, and political committees and groups, and worked for civil rights and anti-war organizations.

In a shadow docket ruling which will have a serious negative effect on the nation’s public health research, a fractured Supreme Court once again came to the aid of the Trump administration. By a 5-4 vote, the Court allowed the National Institutes of Health, the largest public funding source for biomedical research in the world, to terminate $783 million in grants previously awarded. National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (August 21, 2025). In a strong dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asserted that just when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints, the Court opts instead to make preventing manifestly injurious government action “as difficult as possible.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s leading funder of biomedical and behavioral research and is, as such, responsible for the discovery of new ways to diagnose, prevent, and treat the most challenging diseases. By congressionally enacted statute, the NIH must make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other public or private institutions to contribute to the effort to “diagnose, treat, and prevent physical and mental diseases.” Various statutory provisions shape the NIH’s discretion in allocating these funds, including ways that recognize the importance of science for the study, healing, and service of a diverse nation. For example, Congress requires the funding of programs designed to assist women who are members of “medically underserved populations, low-income populations, or minority groups.” And it instructs the NIH to make grants in biomedical and behavioral research training for individuals who are “members of minority health disparity populations.” Historically, the NIH has awarded multi-year grants pursuant to established statutory criteria and scientific objectives in recognition that disease research takes time. Also historically, the NIH’s grant selection process has been rigorously scientific. In the past, grant terminations have been extremely rare. The NIH’s implementation of its grantmaking obligations changed dramatically in February 2025, after President Trump signed a trio of executive orders instructing the government to stop diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, “gender ideology” promotion, and covid–19 research. In response, NIH leadership issued a series of directives ordering the termination, en masse, of existing grants that the agency perceived as in tension with the new administration’s policies. Thousands of grants were canceled, including those supporting research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer’s, and cardiovascular disease. A group of individual researchers, doctors, and unions who depend on NIH funding for their research and a coalition of 16 states on behalf of their public universities sued in federal district court in Massachusetts, arguing that the NIH had implemented the executive orders in a manner that violated, among others, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the separation of powers under the Constitution. Following discovery and a bench trial, Judge William Young (a Reagan appointee) determined that both the underlying policy and the grant terminations were “breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the APA. American Public Health Association v. NIH (July 2, 2025). In fact, he found that there was “no reasoned decision-making” at all with respect to the NIH’s abrupt “robotic rollout” of these grant-termination actions. In place of science, the district court found “an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues” and “palpable” racial discrimination of a sort the judge had “never seen” in his 40 years on the bench. Following a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals not to intervene, the administration sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In another shadow docket ruling, four justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) would have rejected the administration’s appeal in full. Four justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) would have granted the administration’s appeal in full. Justice Barrett, casting the deciding vote, split the difference. “My preliminary judgment is that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the grant terminations belong in the Court of Federal Claims, and their APA challenges to the guidance belong in district court.” As a result, the Court granted the government’s request to block that part of Judge Young’s ruling that required NIH to continue to fund the terminated grants. Justice Jackson dissented, asserting that by today’s order, an evenly divided Court neuters judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs on “a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief.” The Court evidently wishes to impose its “cumbersome, multistep judicial-review process” on any grantee that attempts to preserve its research advancements by filing a lawsuit. With potentially life-saving scientific advancements on the line, the Court turns a nearly century-old APA statute aimed at remedying unreasoned agency decision-making into a “gauntlet rather than a refuge.” Justice Jackson lamented the adverse impact on scientific research the Court’s decision will cause. The NIH grantees have detailed the devastating and irrevocable damage to the “symbiotic relationship” between the government and the nation’s research community that an abrupt cessation of funding would cause, not to mention the harm to the global primacy of American science. As Congress recognized when it made the NIH the world’s largest public scientific funder, scientific advancement lifts all boats. As Judge Jackson noted, “the harm is not just to researchers who will lose their livelihoods; vulnerable members of our society will also lose the benefits of their research.” 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.

Donald Trump and Andy Harris’s latest desperate attempt to stop offshore wind off our coast will fail. The Trump administration is threatening to revoke the federal permits for US Wind’s project off our coast. Let’s be clear: this does not kill the project, and it’s unlikely to succeed in court. There’s no legal precedent for pulling back a Construction & Operations Plan (COP) after approval. Once granted, the Bureau of Ocean Energy has never revoked a permit. But if Trump attempts a revocation, it will go straight to court and the courts don’t reward political games. In fact, after the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision last year, agencies can’t just reverse themselves for political reasons; judges strike down such attempts all the time. We’ve seen this play before. Trump demanded a halt to the Empire Wind project in New York and tried to block the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts. But the courts and regulators upheld both projects and both are moving forward today. Trump’s track record is clear: these stunts fail. The truth is, his latest move is nothing more than an attempt to waste our tax dollars and prolong the process, hoping that the delay will cause US Wind to abandon the project. However, history shows that these projects hold up, as they’re built on years of rigorous review, backed by strong permits, and supported by the public. The benefits for the Shore are enormous, a real investment in our Shore and in our future. This project is rebuilding and extending the deteriorated 45-year-old commercial pier in West Ocean City, upgrading it to 625 feet with a concrete deck, jib crane, and wave screen, and adding a new operations & maintenance facility that will generate about 100 full-time local jobs. It also establishes a $20 million Fishing Community Resilience Fund, with $13.5 million allocated for Maryland to support local watermen. That fund will cover 30 years of harbor maintenance — dredging, docking, and shore stabilization — while also providing grants for catch offloading, ice services, gear innovation, seafood marketing, and business development to keep our fishing industry strong for the next generation. The project comprises up to 114 offshore wind turbines, four offshore substations, one meteorological tower, and four cable corridors that bring power to the grid. Onshore, new connections near Millsboro, Del., will feed into the Indian River substation. Together, the project supports nearly 2,700 jobs annually over seven years and delivers more than 2 gigawatts of renewable power, enough to serve 718,000 homes with clean, reliable energy. It doesn’t stop there. US Wind and Haizea Wind Group are opening a 100-acre steel monopile manufacturing facility at Baltimore’s Sparrows Point, bringing union manufacturing back to a historic site. They’re also partnering with Hellenic Cables to build a new undersea cable manufacturing facility at Wagner’s Point, securing the supply chain right here in Maryland. Why should the Eastern Shore give up all these benefits in a desperate attempt to prop up a failing, losing fossil fuel industry? Shore Progress (formerly LSPC) is a nonpartisan civic organization covering the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The organization is committed to building strong communities across the Eastern Shore by building the Progressive movement.

 Wicomico County leaders are considering whether to enter into a controversial federal partnership known as the 287(g) program, sparking questions about its implications for residents and how it could affect the relationship between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. At a recent County Council meeting, confusion about the program led to debate and speculation, with some residents fearing that local deputies would begin rounding up undocumented residents on the street. County Executive Julie Giordano described the effort as a “measured” step, but the proposal has already prompted alarm in community forums, with residents voicing concerns about safety, civil liberties, and the county’s image. Sheriff Mike Lewis explained that the county is exploring only the Jail Enforcement Model, which is limited to the detention center. Under this model, correctional officers trained by ICE would screen people after arrest to determine their immigration status and possibly issue detainers for deportation proceedings. Supporters of 287(g) argue that it helps identify noncitizens with criminal records, but critics warn the program carries serious risks for counties like Wicomico: Erodes Community Trust: When local law enforcement becomes tied to federal immigration enforcement, immigrant residents may fear reporting crimes, serving as witnesses, or seeking help, undermining public safety for everyone. Costly and Inefficient: While ICE provides training, counties often shoulder administrative and legal costs. Studies in other jurisdictions have shown 287(g) can drain local resources without clear benefits. Risk of Racial Profiling: Even under the jail-only model, questions remain about how individuals are flagged and if profiling can be avoided. Civil rights groups have long argued that the program encourages unequal treatment. Limited Impact on Serious Crime: National reviews of 287(g) show that many of those flagged are low-level offenders rather than violent criminals, raising doubts about whether the program delivers on its promise of enhancing safety. Local Process Still Unclear Sheriff Lewis and County Executive Giordano have confirmed they are interested in joining the program, but approval could take several months. The federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must negotiate a memorandum of agreement with the county, and logistical questions remain because the detention center does not fall entirely under the sheriff’s authority. Lewis stressed that Wicomico deputies do not currently partner with ICE to make immigration arrests. “To my knowledge, that has not happened,” he said, clarifying that any prior interactions have involved responding to traffic accidents or assisting when other agencies request aid. For now, Wicomico is in the early stages of consideration. Whether the county proceeds will likely depend not only on federal approval but also on whether community leaders and residents believe the costs and risks outweigh the promised benefits. As the debate continues, one fact remains clear: trust between residents and law enforcement is at stake.