Slide showing "Data Journalist Pain Chart"
Fun term at #NICAR26 lightning talks from @kylieclifton.bsky.social: Pivot table curious
06.03.2026 22:33
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Slide showing "Data Journalist Pain Chart"
Fun term at #NICAR26 lightning talks from @kylieclifton.bsky.social: Pivot table curious
Title slide that reads "How to make your charts go up and to the right"
Excited to give a lightning talk soon at #NICAR26 on how to make any chart go up and to the right. It's a little bit silly, like many lightning talks.
Now there's an actual live link to this job posting for a data analyst at @inquirer.com
inquirer.rec.pro.ukg.net/PHI1500PHILI...
Job posting for data analyst at The Philadelphia Inquirer
If you're at #NICAR26 and have questions about this job on the job board, I'm happy to talk! It's a role on my old team. (I'm not involved in hiring, though.)
And of course, also great insights and advice from the whole panel on working with reporters and editors who are excited about what's possible now, and training them to do it safely. #NICAR26
In session on editing AI-powered journalism (code and stories), @meghanhoyer.bsky.social has had some great lines:
"That's not a story; that's a blob"
"Trying to keep people from yeeting things into the paper"
#NICAR26
This story, from @natezuke.bsky.social, is absolutely wild. A trans woman who never changed her gender marker was issued a letter invalidating her license. At the DMV they cut up her license, which had an "M" marker.
www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-new...
New post!
Many Americans hold contradictory opinions on the same policies. Question wording effects can swing opinions by 20+ points on immigration, the budget, and transgender rights.
That's a problem for people who interpret polls for a living.
www.gelliottmorris.com/p/many-ameri...
Our Immigration team posted 37 new timeline entries this week. See our briefing for a capsule update: unbreaking.org/blog/briefing/
My Dad ( @philhaslanger.bsky.social ) wrote about the four times he met Rev. Jesse Jackson, between 1968 and 1988, and how that helped shape him. In the picture, he's the one on the left with glasses. pastorphilsplace.blogspot.com/2026/02/jess...
NEW FROM ME: The deportation plane stuck in the blizzard took off this morning after 31 hours, but not before exposing a much bigger problem with exceedingly long delays on ICE flights.
With exclusive interviews and photos taken by local ICE flight watchers. gillianbrockell.ghost.io/ice-deportat...
3-day snow forecast map of Philadelphia and South Jersey, showing most regions in the 12-24 inch of snow band.
Highly recommend the snow forecast maps in the @inquirer.com live blog: www.inquirer.com/weather/live... Built by @sstirling.bsky.social
Today's print Chicago Sun-Times is wrapped with a 20-page special section on the death of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Here's where to look for the paper. www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/v...
📣 Our judicial election guide for the March 2026 primary is here! We spent months researching each candidate’s background, legal experience, political connections, conduct, and more — all so you can make informed decisions about who should be a Cook County judge. buff.ly/O4cRnL6
Image text: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COALITION FOR SPIRITUAL AND ) PUBLIC LEADERSHIP; FR. LARRY ) DOWLING; SR. JEREMEY MIDURA; FR. ) DENNIS BERRY; FR. DAN HARTNETT; and ) MICHAEL N. OKIŃCZYC-CRUZ ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 25 C 14168 ) v. ) ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; MARCOS ) CHARLES; RUSSELL HOLT; RODNEY S. ) SCOTT; GREGORY BOVINO; PAMELA ) BONDI; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ) DONALD J. TRUMP ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) against defendants, requesting access to minister to migrants and detainees in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) facility in Broadview, Illinois (“Broadview”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ denial of their access to Broadview violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. For the reasons below, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) in part. A. Standing Because defendants raise the issue, the court briefly addresses standing. Plaintiffs’ theory of standing in relation to its RFRA claim is straightforward. Plaintiffs are asserting their own religious rights and the religious rights of detainees and migrants at Broadview. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights. Instead, defendants argue that “plaintiffs lack standing to assert the rights of the detainees.” Because the preliminary injunction here is based on plaintiffs’ RFRA claims asserted on their own behalf, the court need not reach the third-party standing issues
![Partial Image text:
B. Preliminary injunction
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Of these
four factors, “[t]he two most important considerations are likelihood of success on the merits and
irreparable harm.” Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 85 F.4th 1175, 1188 (7th Cir. 2023). In
establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiff “need not demonstrate likelihood
of success by a preponderance of the evidence,” but must “nevertheless make a ‘strong’ showing
that reveals how it proposes to prove its case.” Id. In addition, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must show more than “a mere possibility of irreparable harm.” Id.
1. Likelihood of success on the merits
The court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their
RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise
of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-
1(a). The statute provides a single exception that applies if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: “(1) is in is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do
Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430 (2006) (explaining that RFRA adopted a “strict scrutiny test”).
The court finds that the government has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of
religion.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7422wlmkminudypjv6cywlzl/bafkreick6pkilnwl6ogeuuudgylh5ouxpl7waic4nqmd5kuhoudztt2mb4)
Partial Image text: B. Preliminary injunction To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Of these four factors, “[t]he two most important considerations are likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.” Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 85 F.4th 1175, 1188 (7th Cir. 2023). In establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiff “need not demonstrate likelihood of success by a preponderance of the evidence,” but must “nevertheless make a ‘strong’ showing that reveals how it proposes to prove its case.” Id. In addition, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show more than “a mere possibility of irreparable harm.” Id. 1. Likelihood of success on the merits The court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb- 1(a). The statute provides a single exception that applies if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: “(1) is in is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430 (2006) (explaining that RFRA adopted a “strict scrutiny test”). The court finds that the government has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.
![Partial image text:
Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an
important religious practice. Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic
immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is
itself not essential to the practice.”1 RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice
substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened
is “essential.” West v. Radtke, 48 F.4th 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that the assessment of
whether a burden is substantial does not focus on “the centrality of the religious practice in
question”). The Seventh Circuit has “identified three ways plaintiffs can prove that a law or
regulation substantially burdens their religious practice.” Soc’y of Divine Word v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 129 F.4th 437, 450 (7th Cir. 2025). Plaintiff can show that the
law or regulation, “(1) compelled them to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental
tenets of their religious beliefs, (2) put substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior and
to violate their beliefs, or (3) bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering
a religious exercise effectively impracticable.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, defendants’ denial of
plaintiffs’ access to Broadview satisfies at least the third category. Defendants’ bar on plaintiffs’
visitation to Broadview is fundamentally responsible for rendering plaintiffs’ religious practice
of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable.
Because plaintiffs have shown that defendants have substantially burdened their exercise
of religion, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the burden is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7422wlmkminudypjv6cywlzl/bafkreigzeav3gcog7eung3drosx3lsxl6kzxhx6i7kpwgulfe67oohsvoy)
Partial image text: Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an important religious practice. Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is itself not essential to the practice.”1 RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened is “essential.” West v. Radtke, 48 F.4th 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that the assessment of whether a burden is substantial does not focus on “the centrality of the religious practice in question”). The Seventh Circuit has “identified three ways plaintiffs can prove that a law or regulation substantially burdens their religious practice.” Soc’y of Divine Word v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 129 F.4th 437, 450 (7th Cir. 2025). Plaintiff can show that the law or regulation, “(1) compelled them to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs, (2) put substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior and to violate their beliefs, or (3) bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering a religious exercise effectively impracticable.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, defendants’ denial of plaintiffs’ access to Broadview satisfies at least the third category. Defendants’ bar on plaintiffs’ visitation to Broadview is fundamentally responsible for rendering plaintiffs’ religious practice of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable. Because plaintiffs have shown that defendants have substantially burdened their exercise of religion, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Partial image text: 3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The court agrees with plaintiffs that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor. The govt makes no argument about the balance of equities. As plaintiffs note, Broadview allowed plaintiffs’ religious visitation to Broadview for years before reversing course relatively recently. With reasonable notice and communication, addressing legitimate security and safety concerns, allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees does not pose any undue hardship on the govt. The court also agrees with plaintiffs that the injunction is in public interest. Allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees will improve the condition of those detained at Broadview. Again, the govt makes no argument about public interest. Consequently, the court finds that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. *** Having determined that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction, and taking into consideration the parties’ arguments and representations in today’s hearing, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion in part and orders the following: 1. Defendants are directed to allow plaintiffs to access the Broadview facility on Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2026, to offer ashes and Communion for those who desire it. The parties are directed to meet and confer to establish an appropriate protocol for the purposes of safety and security with regard to the Ash Wednesday services. 3. Based on the parties’ representations during today’s proceedings, the court directs them to meet and confer with regard to plaintiffs’ religious ministry at the Broadview facility after Ash Wednesday, including: (1) personal interactions between plaintiffs and detainees; and (2) the ability of plaintiffs to engage in prayer outside of the Broadview facility and in view of the detainees.
New: District Judge Robert Gettleman issued an order yesterday mandating clergy be allowed inside the Broadview, IL ICE facility on Feb. 18 to offer those inside ashes and communion for Ash Wednesday.
Gettleman found the govt has "substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion."
unraveled is *two* people, doing work that much bigger newsrooms aren't
The two children who returned to MN today say they saw one of their Valley View schoolmates at a detention center in TX. This is a child whose family was last in contact with the school on January 9. No one has known where they were until now.
New — I spoke to eight people who were present at the ICE protest on Saturday in Portland, Oregon when federal agents deployed tear gas and rubber bullets into a crowd of families, children, elderly and disabled people, and their pets.
These are their stories:
He was just standing there observing/filming. ICE agent initiates physical contact, pushing him toward side walk.
(reposted to clarify description)
Hm Gmail filters seem suddenly completely busted
Tomorrow's front page of the Minnesota Star Tribune: Jan. 24, 2026
Anti-ICE protesters fill the streets of downtown Minneapolis during an "ICE Out" rally on Jan. 23.
📷️ Alex Kormann/The Minnesota Star Tribune
Continuing coverage: bit.ly/3ZsrBxQ
Reminiscent of how they removed mention of trans people at the Stonewall National Monument
Look at this: @inquirer.com has digitally preserved the interpretative signage removed by NPS, and used annotations to explain what specifically was flagged before removal. This keeps the content publicly accessible (for now) while doing newsworthy reporting
www.inquirer.com/news/philade...
The sun rises over Chicago as temperatures plummet, with wind chills around -30 degrees, Friday, Jan. 23, 2026. | Tyler Pasciak LaRiviere/Sun-Times
If you’re worried your polling place might be disrupted, one constructive step you can take is volunteering as a poll worker. It’s a hands-on way to help ensure the election runs smoothly—and it gives you direct access to the people who can explain what security measures are in place.
Please don't brag about how your community would *theoretically* handle ICE/CBP better than Minneapolis. I know that you think it is funny, boasting about how your part of the world is so tough that you'd send ICE/CBP packing. Just wait to see how you will be judged.
At this point, it’s definitely the pope.
Surface weather map
Temperatures will be cold for today's #Bears game in Chicago, but the game will end before the Arctic cold front passes later tonight. Even colder air arrives behind the front along with gusty winds.
In just the past three hours — just in my neighborhood — there's been a legal observer pepper sprayed in the face and another observer stopped by an ICE agent who then printed out a map of their home address & threatened arrest.
So yeah that federal judge's order isn't doing shit to slow them down.