All posts created by nancy.wolanski@unitedwayri.org

The United Way of Rhode Island provides free meeting space for RI nonprofits.

There is a conference room, which seats about 60 auditorium style, or about 30-35 with tables in a U shape.

The Godley Room can accommodate about 12 people around a conference table. (It was previously larger, but has been split for half to be used for staff space.)

Use of the space is dependent on availability of the room, as well as a United Way staff "host" to be in the building during the community use. This is not an issue during regular business hours, but can impact the ability to use the space after hours or on the weekend.

The risk of a partial government shutdown is increasing as we approach the January 30 deadline. Congress must either enact another Continuing Resolution (CR) or full spending bills, or it risks a partial government shutdown that would impact 75% of the federal discretionary budget.

Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) is reportedly trying to find a compromise that would allow the Senate to enact its spending bills by the January 30 deadline and avoid a partial shutdown. He is encouraging the Administration to work directly with Senate Democrats to negotiate administrative policy changes (ie. not legislative changes) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations so that Congress can enact the six remaining spending bills as currently written. It is unclear whether any promises made by the Administration would satisfy Democrats' concerns.

If the Senate were to make changes to the spending bill for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it would guarantee at least a short-term partial shutdown. The House is currently on recess until Monday, February 2, the soonest it could vote on another spending package unless House leadership agreed to call back its members early.

While Democrats have proposed stripping DHS funding from the legislative package, this change could only occur if all 100 Senators agreed, and several Senate Republicans would likely block that approach.

The Senate is slated to vote on the legislative package - including DHS funding, but without the policy changes Democrats are advocating for - on Thursday.

The Foundation supports select nonprofit organizations that align with our core focus areas. This includes a broad array of initiatives that address food insecurity and have a clear community focus and provide entrepreneurial skills to help individuals participate in the farm-to-fork economy.

https://www.conagrabrands.com/our-company/conagra-brands-foundation/community-impact-grants

What legal rights do you have in encounters with ICE?

By Louis Jacobson January 22, 2026 - POLITIFACT (Poynter Institute)

Videos of confrontations between Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Minneapolis residents have flooded social media, showing some of the 3,000 officers who are deployed in the city stopping, questioning and detaining residents.

In one case, immigration agents escorted a U.S. citizen who is a grandfather of Hmong ancestry out of his house in his underwear in freezing weather. In another case, a father of a 5-year-old girl was briefly detained and zip-tied after he said a federal agent falsely accused him of not being a U.S. citizen because of his accent. The agency is also under scrutiny for reportedly dispatching a 5-year-old boy to knock on the front door of his home to lure relatives outside before agents then took the child into custody.

The events have sparked protests and prompted confusion over what ICE is legally allowed to do in public and private locations. Are there limits on when and how ICE can approach or detain you? Does the law differentiate between encounters in public versus a private space, such as a home? And is the Supreme Court becoming more tolerant of aggressive ICE actions?

Legal experts weighed in on the public’s constitutional protections from immigration stops and detentions.

What rights do people have when approached by ICE?

Federal law gives immigration agents the authority to arrest and detain people believed to have violated immigration law. But everyone — including immigrants suspected of being in the U.S. illegally — is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

"All law enforcement officers, including ICE, are bound by the Constitution," said Alexandra Lopez, managing partner of a Chicago-based law firm specializing in immigration cases.

The Fourth Amendment doesn’t stop ICE from trying to deport people who have broken immigration law, but it has traditionally constrained the agency. The more extensive an enforcement action is, the higher the bar for immigration officers to justify their actions.

For example, officers can question someone in a public place, but more extensive interactions — such as a brief detention that’s not a formal arrest — require a "reasonable suspicion" that someone has committed a crime or is in the U.S. illegally, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Reasonable suspicion "has to be more than a guess or a presumption," said Michele Goodwin, a Georgetown University law professor. To meet this standard, a reasonable person would need to suspect that a crime was being committed, had been committed or would be committed.

Agents must meet an even higher bar to arrest someone. They need "probable cause," which generally requires enough evidence or information to suggest a person has committed a crime.

What is a "Kavanaugh stop"?

Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled that racial or ethnic profiling is unconstitutional. But a recent opinion by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh gave ICE increased discretion to use race as a factor for stopping and questioning people.

In the 2025 case Noem v. Perdomo, Kavanaugh was one of six justices who voted to stay a lower court ruling in favor of plaintiffs challenging federal immigration enforcement tactics in Los Angeles. Kavanaugh wrote that "apparent ethnicity" could be used as a "relevant factor" in determining reasonable suspicion, as long as it was combined with other factors and not used on its own.

Before Kavanaugh wrote this, courts had "often ruled that agents could not stop someone just because they ‘looked like an immigrant’ or were in a high-crime area," Lopez said. But if immigration officers follow Kavanaugh’s guidance, "it gives ICE a lot more discretion and justification to profile."

Critics of Kavanaugh’s opinion "argue that the ‘relevant factor’ language invites abuse, opening the door to ethnic profiling," said Rodney Smolla, a Vermont Law and Graduate School professor.

But Kavanaugh’s opinion was not co-signed by other justices, and it came from a procedural ruling rather than a substantive one, so its legal impact might be limited. The Supreme Court "has not made a definitive ruling on ‘Kavanaugh stops’ and their permissibility," said Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor.

Somin and other legal analysts have said Kavanaugh appeared to dial back his support for race or ethnicity as a factor when he wrote a different opinion several months later, in Trump v. Illinois, which stopped the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Illinois.

Do people’s rights differ inside their homes versus in a public space? The Supreme Court has generally ruled that, unless a resident grants consent, law enforcement cannot enter a private home without a warrant signed by a judge, which requires the government to provide evidence showing probable cause.

"This means a person inside the house generally need not open the door, need not converse with the agent, and may require the agent to slip the warrant under the door or hold it to a window," Smolla said. There are some exceptions, such as if an officer encounters a violent crime in progress, or someone needing medical care.

Securing a judicial warrant is time consuming and is typically reserved for high-priority cases in which people are suspected of crimes beyond immigration violations, Lopez said. "It’s much easier for ICE to arrest individuals in public," she said.

In the past, federal immigration officers typically would not forcibly enter homes if they only had an administrative warrant issued by ICE itself, without a judge’s approval. Some lower courts have ruled in the past that entering homes without a judicial warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

Specific ICE officials have authority to issue administrative warrants. The warrants require "probable cause to believe" that the person named in the warrant is subject to removal. But they are not reviewed by anyone in the judicial branch.

A leaked ICE memo approved entering homes without consent using an administrative warrant alone, as long as a final order of removal has been issued, The Associated Press reported Jan. 22.

The AP, citing a whistleblower disclosure, said the memo has been used to train new ICE officers, and "those still in training are being told to follow the memo’s guidance instead of written training materials that actually contradict the memo."

The May 12, 2025, memo, signed by ICE acting director Todd Lyons, said the Department of Homeland Security "has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence" but added that "the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose."

If this policy were to be challenged in court, it’s unclear whether it would be ruled constitutional.

What can people do if they think ICE has infringed on their Fourth Amendment rights?

If you believe that your rights were violated, perhaps causing an injury or property loss, your options for suing for compensation are limited.

Unlike many state laws, federal law generally prohibits civil lawsuits against federal officials for violating people’s rights. A 1971 Supreme Court decision briefly loosened these prohibitions, before tightening them again.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley’s law school, and Burt Neuborne, a New York University emeritus law professor, wrote, "In one case, the Supreme Court held that people who had been illegally thrown off the Social Security disability rolls and were left without income could not sue, even though they had been given no due process. In another, the court declared that a man dying of cancer after the prison repeatedly denied him any medical care could not sue."

David Rudovsky, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said there might be an opportunity to sue under a different law, the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Still, he said, plaintiffs would face a steep challenge: "It’s not an easy path, and most people can’t afford to retain a lawyer."

Our Sources Congressional Research Service, "Immigration Arrests in the Interior of the United States: A Primer," June 13, 2025

Congress.gov, "Overview of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures," accessed Jan. 22, 2026

8 USC 1226

8 USC 1357

8 CFR 287.5

8 CFR 287.8

Oyez, "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics," 1971

U.S. Supreme Court, "Florida v. Royer," 1983

U.S. Supreme Court, "Noem v. Perdomo," 2025

U.S. Supreme Court, "Trump v. Illinois," 2025

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, "Cotzojay v. Holder," 2013

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, "Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey," 2008

Department of Homeland Security, sample arrest warrant, accessed Jan. 22, 2026

Legal Information Institute, definition of reasonable suspicion, accessed Jan. 22, 2026

Legal Information Institute, definition of probable cause, accessed Jan. 22, 2026

Bhavleen K. Sabharwal Law Office, "The Supreme Court Signals a Rolling Back of ICE’s Power to Arrest and Detain in Trump v. Illinois," Jan. 7, 2026

Erwin Chemerinsky and Burt Neuborne, "Renee Good’s Family Should Be Able to Sue the Officer Who Killed Her," Jan. 14, 2026

David French, "An Old Theory Helps Explain What Happened to Renee Good," Jan. 18, 2026

Vox.com, "How the Supreme Court paved the way for ICE’s lawlessness," June 24, 2025

Associated Press, "Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says," Jan. 21, 2026

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, memo, May 12, 2025

CNN, "Federal agents’ aggressive moves in Minneapolis and St. Paul, visualized," Jan. 22, 2026

New York Times, "ICE Arrest of a Citizen, Barely Dressed, Sows Fear in Twin Cities," Jan. 21, 2026

Email interview with Cheryl Bader, Fordham University law professor, Jan. 21, 2026

Email interview with Rodney Smolla, law professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, Jan. 20, 2025

Email interview with Ilya Somin, George Mason University law professor, Jan. 20, 2026

Email interview with Michele Goodwin, Georgetown University law professor, Jan. 20, 2026

Email interview with Alexandra Lopez, managing partner of the law firm Cunningham Lopez LLP, Jan. 20, 2026

Interview with David Rudovsky, University of Pennsylvania law professor, Jan. 21, 2027

https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jan/22/ice-immigration-legal-rights-fourth-amendment/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=flipboard%2Fmagazine%2F10+For+Today

The article outlines the gaps in prosecuting federal officials for violating state laws and argues that despite skepticism that state and local prosecutors can do so, they can.

This May Be the Only Path to Accountability for the Minneapolis Shootings

New York Times, Jan. 26, 2026

By Barry Friedman and Stephen I. Vladeck

Mr. Friedman (N.Y.U.) and Mr. Vladeck (Georgetown) are law professors.

In the wake of another fatal shooting by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, many people are wondering what can be done. The answer has been right in front of us all along.

Despite the incredulity with which some legal observers meet the idea, state and local prosecutors can prosecute federal officials for violating state criminal laws. Prosecutors should be gathering and securing evidence and seriously considering filing charges — sooner rather than later.

Not every prosecution will succeed, and all will face obstacles that are built into our legal system. But critically, bringing these state and local prosecutions could produce deterrent effects that are so desperately needed now.

U.S. law, at least theoretically, provides a range of options for holding government officers accountable; the problem is that many of those options are unavailable in practice where federal officers are concerned.

Consider, for instance, federal criminal prosecution — which should be an option for federal officers who commit murder. As recently as 2019, the first Trump administration told the Supreme Court that federal criminal prosecution would be the appropriate remedy in cases in which an officer used lethal force without justification.

But the current administration didn’t investigate the Jan. 7 killing of Renee Good, and it has already stated that the Department of Homeland Security (which has no experience investigating law enforcement shootings) will run the investigation into the killing of Alex Jeffrey Pretti. A future president could potentially pursue charges for an offense — like the recent shootings of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti — that has no statute of limitations. But that assumes President Trump won’t first pardon the responsible officer(s).

What’s more, a series of decisions by the Supreme Court has made it all but impossible to hold federal officers liable for damages in federal lawsuits for violating our constitutional rights — such as in a February 2020 decision involving a Border Patrol agent who shot and killed an unarmed teenager without provocation.

Instead, the historical backstop for a lack of federal accountability, going all the way back to the founding, has been state law. States prosecuting federal officers for crimes committed in the course of their federal duties would certainly face complications, but those hurdles would not be insurmountable.

One such complication: The federal officer charged by state prosecutors for a crime committed while on duty could move any such case to a federal court. But that would simply change the courthouse (and the judge and the jury pool). State prosecutors would still be seeking to enforce state law — which, among other things, means that any conviction would not be subject to the president’s pardon power.

A second potential hurdle to clear: A federal officer defendant could argue that he’s entitled to what’s known as “Supremacy Clause immunity.” Vice President JD Vance, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, have all claimed that this immunity is absolute, but they’re all wrong. As highly regarded (and conservative) former Judge Michael McConnell wrote on behalf of the Denver-based federal appeals court in 2006, “a federal officer is not entitled to Supremacy Clause immunity unless, in the course of performing an act which he is authorized to do under federal law, the agent had an objectively reasonable and well-founded basis to believe that his actions were necessary to fulfill his duties.”

In other words, the ability to prosecute federal law enforcement officers who commit state crimes in the course of their duties would turn on whether a reasonable officer in their position would have believed that their actions were necessary to fulfill their duties. That standard may be appropriately strict, to maintain federal authority when it is needed (think of federal protection for civil rights protesters in the 1960s), but at least based on the videos so many of us have seen, it should not be impossible.

Nor should state and local prosecutors think this power to bring charges under state law exists — or should exist — only when the offense results in a death. Every day, Americans are seeing an unending stream of videos showing federal officers destroying property, pepper-spraying individuals on a whim and using what at least appear to be excessive degrees of force. Many, if not most, of these acts are potential violations of state criminal laws. If those crimes are not “reasonable and well-founded” in light of federal duties, the officers can be convicted and penalized, even jailed.

What prosecutors should be doing now is what Minnesota prosecutors did after the murder of Renee Good: establishing online portals to which individuals can upload their videos and other evidence. Will there be a flood of evidence? Yes. Will it all justify prosecution? No. Will some offenders be charged? We can’t say for sure, but it looks to us like the answer ought to be yes, and that’s true even if the final result is not a conviction. (That, after all, is why we have trials and juries.)

If federal officers understood that they could and might well be held liable for outrageous conduct, they might think twice before engaging in it. The ultimate goal is bringing to justice those who have engaged in blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional conduct. But what is needed immediately — urgently — is deterring such conduct from happening going forward. Federal officers who are wearing masks to obscure their faces (and those who aren’t) must understand that they will be held accountable if and when they break the law.

We are arguing only for compliance with the Constitution. No one should disagree with that. As history teaches, that requires more than just the good graces of the executive branch.

In the future, a better solution would be for Congress to legislate a comprehensive and robust scheme of civil remedies for federal officers who break the law. But until and unless that happens, the alternative can’t be nothing.

And so it falls to state and local governments to build the record for criminal indictments in cases in which they are warranted — and to be the last line of defense for holding the federal government accountable, just as they’ve been since the founding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/opinion/minneapolis-shooting-ice-accountability.html

Help Your Patients and Clients Reach Their Health Goals in 2026

Help your patients and clients prevent type 2 diabetes by referring them to Ready for Health, a no-cost diabetes prevention program through the Community Health Network. Fill out this referral form to get started.

Ready for Health is offered locally by RIDOH partners including Brown University Health Community Health Institute, RI Nutrition Therapy, and Progreso Latino! Listen to how Tom, a diabetes prevention program participant, took some small steps towards big changes in this brief video.

The Rhode Island Foundation held information sessions in January about their 2026 Community Opportunities.

Access slide deck from the presentation here.

You can find additional information, application details, and program-specific updates mentioned on the webinar on the RI Foundation website — please continue to check rifoundation.org as new opportunities become available for 2026.

For general inquiries, please contact: info@rifoundation.org

Dear Friends,

Like so many Rhode Islanders, I am deeply grateful for our state’s nonprofit organizations and leaders. From social service providers and artists to educators and healthcare professionals, these mission-focused teams aspired to improve the lives of each person they served in 2025, despite significant headwinds.

In last year’s New Year Message, I foresaw substantial changes coming, fueled by new federal policies, workforce shortages, inflation and supply chain disruptions, and shifts in the funding landscape. Those forecasts came true with frightening upheaval and created an overwhelming sense of uncertainty not only in the sector but for individuals. On more than 90 site visits in 2025, we heard consistently about this collective experience and how it has affected outcomes.

These conversations were sobering and reinforced why Champlin takes so seriously its role as a consistent, transparent funding partner with a clear focus.

Champlin understands and is happy to ensure that the spaces where critical services are delivered are safe, accessible, innovative, and well-maintained. When external pressures mount, as they did in 2025, we know operating and program expenses often take precedence. But capital investments are essential and often harder to raise funding for. If there is one message we want to convey for 2026, it is that addressing deferred maintenance can make for a very compelling application to The Champlin Foundation. We are not a funder looking for the next big thing—especially in this climate. This is why we encourage applicants to reach out with questions so we can help assemble the strongest application possible.

At the same time, we know that for some organizations, a change of facility may be a necessity. In the coming year, we will again be offering our capacity building seminars on facility planning, construction project management, and capital campaigns. There are many organizations doing this work well, and we will continue to highlight those success stories on our website so other nonprofits can learn and adopt effective solutions.

Capital projects are, by their very nature, longer-term investments, whether in buildings or equipment. Because of this, the Foundation looks beyond the basic project specs to support organizations that think strategically and work collaboratively.

Nationally, we are seeing a growing trend toward substantive nonprofit partnerships, including organizations merging or sharing space and services. It is encouraging to see nonprofits considering new ways to increase efficiency in service of their missions. The Westerly Land Trust, for example, is using Champlin funds to clear and prepare open land that the Jonnycake Center of Westerly will farm, ultimately providing food to families in need. These are two distinct organizations, yet their goals are aligned. They realized that they could achieve more, together.

In a state as small as Rhode Island, we believe that there are more productive partnerships like that within reach, and we encourage our grantees to consider the possibilities. We recognize these are often complex decisions—decisions that require not only the bold vision of a chief executive, but the leadership and buy-in of an engaged board of directors.

I’ll offer no predictions for 2026 but instead restate my immense gratitude for the people who carry forward this work of providing help and inspiring hope. The Rhode Island nonprofit community is resilient, and the services they provide are absolutely essential to the health, strength, and well-being—physical and

emotional—of our state. Thank you to all who work for, volunteer with, and donate to our nonprofit partners; your extraordinary support has never been more important.

With deep appreciation,

Nina Stack

Executive Director

Risk of a Partial Government Shutdown

Update from National Council of Nonprofits

After the tragic killing of a second protestor in Minnesota, Congress may be heading towards a partial federal government shutdown, as Senate Democrats threaten to withhold their votes for any spending package that includes funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Congress and the White House have until January 30 to either extend the current Continuing Resolution (CR) or enact full-year spending bills, or it risks a partial government shutdown.

As of now, Senate Republicans are still planning to hold a vote this week on a legislative package with six spending bills, including one for DHS. Democrats, on the other hand, have called for the Senate to move forward with enacting the five spending bills where there is widespread agreement, so that only funding for DHS would be held up if they cannot reach an agreement.

The remaining six spending bills amount to about 75% of all discretionary federal funding, so the impact of a partial government shutdown would be directly felt by nonprofits. The six funding bills include: Labor-HHS-Education, Transportation-HUD, Financial Services, Foreign-State, Defense, and Homeland Security.

Senate Republicans need to garner support from seven of their Democratic colleagues to overcome the filibuster and enact the spending package. Several Senate Democrats, however, who previously voted to end the government shutdown in the fall — including Sens. Cortez Masto (D-NV), Durbin (D-IL), Kaine (D-VA), King (I-ME), Rosen (D-NV) and Warner (D-VA) — have said they'll oppose DHS funding unless policy changes are made. Other moderate Senate Democrats voiced concerns about DHS but did not explicitly commit to withholding their votes.

If the Senate agrees to make changes to the DHS spending bill, the House of Representatives would have to take up and vote to approve the bill again. Because the House is currently out of session this week, congressional leaders would have to call them back to D.C. - an action made more difficult by the massive snowstorm.

From the Latino Policy Institute:

Our Vision for 2026: A More Equitable Rhode Island

The Latino Policy Institute is a leading voice for equity, opportunity, and dignity for Rhode Island’s Latino communities. In 2026, we are mobilizing around five strategic pillars to architect an inclusive future where every family has the tools to thrive.

This year, we are advancing legislative solutions that:

Strengthen Democracy: Expanding civic engagement and representation.

Protect and Ensure Healthcare Access: Closing the gap in access, affordability, and quality of care for all.

Advance Education: Ensuring every student has a pathway to success. Protect Families: Safeguarding the rights of our immigrant neighbors.

Build Economic Opportunity: Creating a resilient economy that works for all workers.

Check out our legislative goals and priorities:

DEMOCRACY & VOTING RIGHTS Same-Day Registration -- Eliminate the 30-day deadline to allow simultaneous registration and voting.

RI Voting Rights Act -- Codify protections against voter suppression and mandate statewide language accessibility.

HEALTH EQUITY & ACCESS Pathway to Coverage -- Create a state-funded safety net for residents excluded from federal aid (H.R. 1), regardless of status.

Marketplace Affordability -- Establish a State Premium Coverage Program to offset rising costs and lost federal tax credits.

Behavioral Health -- Increase reimbursement rates for bilingual providers to expand culturally responsive mental health care.

Medicaid Defense -- Protect current eligibility and funding from federal rollbacks.

EDUCATIONAL EQUITY

Support & Access to Bilingual Education (SABE) Act -- Invests $950,000 annually to expand high-quality PK–12 dual language programs, strengthen the bilingual and world language teacher pipeline, and target support to districts with high concentrations of multilingual learners.

Rhode Island Public Schools’ Funding Formula Reform -- Modernize the state funding formula by redefining “full funding” to account for essential cost drivers, including transportation and educator pension expenses.

IMMIGRATION

364 Day Bill -- Adjust misdemeanor sentencing to prevent minor offenses from triggering mandatory deportation.

Rhode Island Works -- Remove the 5-year wait for Legal Permanent Residents and adjust cash assistance.

Safe Court Access -- Prohibit civil immigration arrests in courthouses to protect due process for victims and witnesses.

ECONOMIC EQUITY

Paid Family Leave -- Work towards expanding access and increasing wage replacement rates so essential workers can afford to care for their families while making family definitions more inclusive.

We have a long and challenging year ahead, but our incredible partners and coalitions encourage us to remain strong and hopeful.

We hope you will remain connected to LPI throughout the work ahead. Your partnership and support are essential to our mission and work.

For more information, contact info@thelatinopolicy.org.