The Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition says over the past two weeks its immigrant defense hotline has seen an uptick in reported ICE detentions.

They say this corresponds with a national shift in ICE activity, including bids for local businesses to cooperate with ICE.

In Maine, the arrests follow a broader trend of targeting Black and brown immigrants, including people navigating immigration proceedings.

The coalition, which represents more than 100 organizations, says it’s ready to protect civil and human rights and is urging immigrants to prepare themselves and their families.

They suggest having the defense hotline ready in case you witness ICE activity, making sure you have important personal documents in case of detention, and reviewing rights around judicial warrants in private spaces, like your home or workplace.

The Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives April 30 could undermine a Massachusetts law aimed at preventing animal cruelty.

The sweeping agricultural bill includes a section called the “Save Our Bacon Act,” which prohibits state and local governments from having farm animal welfare protections that extend to products originating in other states.

The measure specifically targets Massachusetts and California state laws that prohibit certain farm animals from being held in extreme confinement.

Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both Democrats, released a statement opposing the inclusion of the measure in the Farm Bill.

“This is a highly controversial and poisonous policy that ignores the will of the people. These state laws were overwhelmingly supported by a popular vote — they shouldn’t be overridden because of big-dollar lobbying,” the senators said in their statement. “We have significant concerns about the House-passed Farm Bill, including this overreaching and harmful provision that should not be in the Farm Bill and needs to be removed.”

What is Massachusetts’s Question 3?

In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, or an Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, with 78% of the vote.

The measure banned the sale of eggs, veal or pork from animals that were “confined in a cruel manner.” It eliminated enclosures that prevented an animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs or turning around freely.

All of these products sold in Massachusetts must be compliant, regardless of whether the animals were raised on farms in or outside Massachusetts. Therefore, out-of-state farms must comply with Question 3 in order to sell their products in Massachusetts.

The law is similar to California’s Proposition 12, which also lays out specific freedom of movement and minimum floor space requirements for how veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens are kept. It also doesn’t allow the sale of any products from animals confined in ways that don’t meet their standards, including those produced in other states.

What is the Save Our Bacon Act?

The Save Our Bacon Act seeks to block California’s and Massachusetts’s laws on out-of-state producers by saying that no state “may enact or enforce, directly or indirectly, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock other than for covered livestock physically raised in such State or subdivision.”

The legislation would apply to any domestic animal raised for the purpose of human consumption or milk production, but not animals raised primarily for egg production.

Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, originally introduced the Save Our Bacon Act in July 2025. 

“California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 pose a major threat to family farms and food security — both in Iowa and across the country,” she said in a press release at the time. “The Save Our Bacon Act reaffirms livestock producers’ right to sell their products across state lines, without interference from arbitrary mandates.”

The act was added as a section in the Farm Bill, which was then passed by the House on a vote of 224-200. The bill next heads to the Senate, where its fate is unclear as lawmakers both across and within party lines have butted heads on several provisions.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Farm Bill provision threatens Massachusetts animal welfare rules

In a speech last month criticizing a state bill that would permit local governments to impose lower speed limits, New Hampshire state Rep. Thomas Walsh joked about how it was “very tempting” to “run bicycles off the road.” Bob Manley, a resident of the Granite State, sent a version of the following letter to Walsh in protest, and we are printing it to draw larger attention to the blithe way that many Americans demean cyclisxts. The letter has been lightly edited for clarity.

Dear Rep. Walsh,

I am writing to you as a resident of New Hampshire and a frequent cyclist on our state’s roads. I was disturbed and outraged by your statement on the House floor on April 23, 2026. “It is against the law to run over pedestrians,” you said. “It’s against the law to run bicycles off the road, even though it’s sometimes very tempting.”

This is not a harmless remark. It is dangerous, irresponsible and completely inappropriate — particularly coming from the chair of the House Transportation Committee, a position responsible for promoting and protecting the safety for all road users.

As highlighted in a recent piece by Paul Susca and Amanda Gourgue of the Bike-Walk Alliance, New Hampshire faces a troubling and worsening pattern of fatalities that involve pedestrians and cyclists. These are not abstract statistics. These are human beings: neighbors, friends and family members whose lives are permanently altered or cut short altogether.

It is unacceptable for a public official to suggest — even in jest — that harming cyclists is “very tempting.” Doing so sends several dangerous messages: that the safety and wellbeing of cyclists and pedestrians are negotiable; that reckless and aggressive driving is acceptable; and that vulnerable road users do not deserve protection. 

Those of us who ride on New Hampshire’s roads already understand the risks. We experience close passes, endure hostility, and witness moments where a split second determines whether we make it home. We rely on our elected representatives to take these risks seriously, not diminish and normalize them.

Your role demands leadership, accountability, and a commitment to safety. Your comment suggests the opposite.

I urge you to publicly retract your statement, issue a sincere apology and reaffirm your commitment to the safety of all road users — especially those who walk and bike.

More importantly, I urge you to take meaningful action to improve safety on our roads, rather than dismissing or undermining efforts to do so.

We all share these roads. Every person on them deserves to get home safely.

Respectfully,
Bob Manley