TotalEnergies in landmark greenwashing trial in France
Environmental groups took TotalEnergies to court Thursday in a landmark Paris trial, accusing the French oil and gas giant of misleading consumers with ads that overstate its climate commitments and fossil fuel transition.
It is the first such case in France targeting a major energy company and could set a legal precedent for corporate environmental advertising, which is starting to face tighter regulations in the European Union.
The civil case stems from a March 2022 lawsuit by three environmental groups accusing TotalEnergies of "misleading commercial practices" for saying it could reach carbon neutrality while continuing oil and gas production.
The plaintiffs took that legal route as "greenwashing", or the act of claiming to be more environmentally responsible than in reality, is not specifically covered under French law.
Starting in May 2021, TotalEnergies advertised its goal of "carbon neutrality by 2050" and touted gas as "the fossil fuel with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions".
At the time, the company had changed its name from Total to TotalEnergies to emphasise its investments in wind turbines and solar panels for electricity production.
The plaintiffs allege that TotalEnergies made around 40 "false advertisements" in their lawsuit.
"For the average consumer, it is impossible to understand that TotalEnergies is actually expanding fossil fuel production," said Clementine Baldon, a lawyer for the NGOs.
The company's strategy "will not help the energy transition", Baldon told the court.
"It delays it, even prevents it, and it contributes to putting the objectives of the Paris accord at risk," she added, referring to the international agreement aimed at curbing climate change.
TotalEnergies maintains it has not engaged in misleading commercial practices.
Moreover, it insists that the messages are part of its institutional communications regulated by financial authorities and not consumer law.
It has also argued the NGOs are misusing consumer protection rules to challenge its corporate strategy, and that no consumer organisation is party to the case.
The NGOs said the Paris court will rule on the legality of ads presenting natural gas as essential to the energy transition.
Climate experts say methane leaks from the gas industry have a powerful warming effect on the atmosphere.
- Correcting ads -
Environmental groups in recent years have turned to the courts to establish case law on companies misleading consumers by appearing more eco-friendly than they are.
In Europe, courts ruled against Dutch airline KLM in 2024 and Germany's Lufthansa in March over misleading consumers about their efforts to reduce the environmental impact of flying.
In Spain, utility Iberdrola failed to secure a conviction against Spanish oil and gas company Repsol over similar allegations of "false" environmental claims.
A greenwashing case against Australian oil and gas producer Santos, challenging its claim to be a "clean fuels" company, has been ongoing since 2021.
Other fossil fuel companies, under pressure from advertising regulators or legal complains, have had to scrap or correct ad campaigns.
Shell, for example, received a warning in the UK and had to stop promoting "carbon-neutral" gasoline in several countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Canada.
New European laws now ban vague, generic environmental claims such as "green" or "100 percent natural" product, and aim to require brands to more strictly substantiate environmental claims on labels and in advertising.
TotalEnergies has said it plans to show that its messages "about its name change, strategy and role in the energy transition are reliable and based on objective, verifiable data".
nal/ak/lth/rl
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
America the Fortress
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Past leaders have imagined the United States as a 'shining city upon a hill,' a melting pot, a 'beacon to the world.' Donald Trump is working toward a different vision: the United States as a fortress. Late Wednesday, the White House announced a new version of the travel bans that it had imposed during Trump's first term, barring people from 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from coming to the U.S., and restricting entry from seven others: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (The ban has some exceptions.) Shortly after, he issued a proclamation that bars foreign nationals from entering the country to attend Harvard University—though not other universities, for reasons that are not satisfactorily explained but seem to boil down to Trump's animus toward the school. A judge promptly issued a temporary block on the new rule. (Trump had made the move after she temporarily blocked his previous attempt to prohibit Harvard from enrolling foreign students.) The new travel ban is, if you're keeping score, Trump's fifth, and the widest ranging. The first came on January 27, 2017. In line with his campaign promise to prevent Muslims from entering the United States, it barred entry to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days; suspended refugee admission for 120 days; indefinitely blocked refugees from Syria; and lowered the overall annual cap on refugees. When a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, Trump replaced it with a somewhat narrower one, again running for 90 days, which covered the same countries minus Iraq. Federal courts initially blocked the core parts of that order too, though the Supreme Court allowed it to mostly go forward. Trump issued additional bans in fall 2017 and January 2020, with various changes to the countries covered. Joe Biden rescinded the bans on January 20, 2021. In a video about the new ban, Trump cited 'the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' and said: 'We don't want them.' That message is loud and clear—even to those who aren't formally banned. Horror stories about foreign nationals visiting the U.S. have begun to circulate: Two German teens claimed that they were detained, strip-searched, and deported from Hawaii (U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied their account and alleged that they had entered the country under false pretenses); an Australian ex–police officer said she was locked up while trying to visit her American husband; New Zealand's biggest newspaper ran an article in which an anonymous 'travel industry staffer' encouraged Kiwis not to visit the United States. These anecdotes could exact a cost. The World Travel & Tourism Council, an industry trade group, released a report last month forecasting a $12.5 billion decline in tourist spending in the United States this year. That is not the product of global factors: Out of 184 countries the group studied, the U.S. is the only one expected to see a drop. Other forecasts see a smaller but still huge decline, though so far the data show a major decline only in travel to the U.S. from Canada. The Trump administration's reputation as a host has taken a hit in other ways too. A visit to the White House was once a desirable prize for any foreign leader; now even allies are approaching them with trepidation. After the president ambushed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office meetings—showing a racist and misleading clip, in the latter case—German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly prepared for yesterday's meeting by seeking tips from other world leaders on how to handle Trump. (The encounter was still bumpy at times.) This hostility to foreigners of all sorts is neither an accident nor collateral damage. It's the policy. Trump's xenophobia is long-standing and well documented, but some of his aides have developed this into more than just a reflex of disgust. Vice President J. D. Vance has championed ideas aligned with the 'Great Replacement' theory that Democrats are trying to dilute the existing demographic and cultural mix of the United States with immigrants. 'America is not just an idea,' he said last July. 'It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.' Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 crew, each of whom exerts a great deal of influence over Trump's policies, have pushed not just for stopping illegal immigration and deporting migrants but also for limiting legal immigration. The rare exception that Trump and his aides allow helps make the implied racism in these ideas explicit. The administration has moved to dramatically reduce refugee admissions, but last month, it welcomed a few dozen white Afrikaners from South Africa, whom the White House claims were victims of racial discrimination at home. The administration even seems eager to discourage people from leaving the country. Green-card holders are being arrested and detained while reentering the U.S.; immigration lawyers say the safest course for legal permanent residents is to stay in the country. Trump has also repeatedly expressed a desire to weaken the dollar, which would make it more expensive for Americans to vacation overseas. North Korea is frequently described as a hermit kingdom for its willingness to wall itself off from the rest of the world. Trump has expressed his admiration for and personal bond with Kim Jong Un before, but now he seems eager to emulate Kim's seclusion too. Related: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students How the Trump administration learned to obscure the truth in court Here are four new stories from The Atlantic. What happens when people don't understand how AI works Trump is wearing America down. Inside the Trump-Musk breakup The Super Bowl of internet beefs Today's News The Supreme Court ruled that DOGE members can have access to the Social Security Administration's sensitive records. The Labor Department released numbers showing that job growth was strong but did slow last month amid uncertainty about Donald Trump's tariff policies. The unemployment rate held steady. Five leaders of the Proud Boys, four of whom had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy due to their actions on January 6, 2021, sued the government for $100 million, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated. More From The Atlantic Juliette Kayyem: The new Gaza relief effort was bound to fail. Every election is now existential. As America steps back, others step in. Evening Read Fast Times and Mean Girls By Hillary Kelly In the early spring, I caught a preview at my local Alamo Drafthouse Cinema for its forthcoming stoner-classics retrospective: snippets of Monty Python's Life of Brian; Tommy Boy; a few Dada-esque cartoons perfect for zonking out on, post-edible. The audience watched quietly until Matthew McConaughey, sporting a parted blond bowl cut and ferrying students to some end-of-year fun, delivered a signature bit of dialogue. 'Say, man, you got a joint?' he asked the kid in the back seat. 'Uhhh, no, not on me, man.' 'It'd be a lot cooler if you did,' he drawled. The crowd, including me, went wild. Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused, in which a fresh-faced McConaughey appears as Wooderson, the guy who graduated years back but still hangs with the high-school kids, is that kind of teen movie: eternally jubilance-inspiring. Set in 1976 and released in 1993, it's a paean to the let-loose ethos of a certain decade of American high school. And boy do these kids let loose. Read the full article. Culture Break Watch. The Phoenician Scheme, in theaters, is the latest Wes Anderson film to let modern life seep into a high-concept world. Read. Check out our summer reading guide to find a book for every mood. Play our daily crossword. P.S. In other immigration news, ABC News broke the story this afternoon that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident and Salvadoran citizen whom the Trump administration deported to a Salvadoran Gulag, has been returned to the United States to face criminal charges. The Justice Department acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia's removal was an 'administrative error,' as my colleague Nick Miroff reported, before resorting to ever more absurd claims that he was a member of the gang MS-13. Now Abrego Garcia has been indicted for alleged involvement in a scheme to traffic migrants within the United States. I have no idea if these charges are true; the indictment is relatively brief, and the administration's earlier desperation to pin charges on him is worrying. (The investigation that led to the criminal charges reportedly began only after his removal.) Nevertheless, if the government believes that he committed these crimes, he should be tried in court with due process. As I wrote in April, 'If the people who are getting arrested are really the cold-blooded criminals the executive branch insists they are, saying so in a court of law should be relatively easy.' Now the administration will have a chance to do that, and Abrego Garcia will have a chance to defend himself. — David Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic

2 hours ago
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, newly returned to US, appears in court on charges of trafficking migrants
Mistakenly deported Salvadoran native Kilmar Abrego Garcia appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was brought back to the United States to face criminal charges for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants within the U.S. More than two months after the Trump administration admitted it mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia from Maryland to his native El Salvador, a federal grand jury has indicted him for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants within the United States. A two-count indictment, which was filed under seal in federal court in Tennessee last month and unsealed Friday, alleges Abrego Garcia, 29, participated in a yearslong conspiracy to haul undocumented migrants from Texas to the interior of the country. The return of Abrego Garcia from his native El Salvador follows a series of court battles in which the Trump administration repeatedly said it was unable to bring him back, drawing the country toward the brink of a constitutional crisis when the administration failed to heed the Supreme Court's order to facilitate his return. He made his initial court appearance Friday evening in the Middle District of Tennessee, answering "Yes, I understand" in Spanish when U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes asked him if he understood the charges against him. Judge Homes set a hearing for June 13, where Abrego Garcia will be arraigned on charges and the judge will take up the government's motion to hold him in pre-trial detention on the grounds that he "poses a danger to the community and a serious risk of flight" He will remain in federal custody in Tennessee pending next week's hearing. "If convicted at trial, the defendant faces a maximum punishment of 10 years' imprisonment for 'each alien' he transported," said the government's motion for detention, which also contained an allegation -- not included in the indictment -- that one of Abrego Garcia's co-conspirators told authorities that Abrego Garcia participated in the murder of a rival gang member's mother in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's attorney, in an online press briefing, called the charges against his client "an abuse of power." "They'll stop at nothing at all -- even some of the most preposterous charges imaginable -- just to avoid admitting that they made a mistake, which is what everyone knows happened in this case," said attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. "Mr. Garcia is going to be vigorously defending the charges against him," the attorney said. The decision to pursue the indictment against Abrego Garcia led to the abrupt departure of Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, sources briefed on Schrader's decision told ABC News. Schrader's resignation was prompted by concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons, the sources said. Schrader, who spent 15 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and was most recently the chief of the criminal division, declined to comment when contacted by ABC News. The alleged conspiracy spanned nearly a decade and involved the domestic transport of thousands of noncitizens from Mexico and Central America, including some children, in exchange for thousands of dollars, according to the indictment. Abrego Garcia is alleged to have participated in more than 100 such trips, according to the indictment. Among those allegedly transported were members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, sources familiar with the investigation said. Abrego Garcia is the only member of the alleged conspiracy charged in the indictment. Attorney General Pam Bondi, at a Friday afternoon press conference, thanked Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele for "agreeing to return Abrego Garcia to the United States." "Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country," Bondi said. Bondi said that if Abrego Garcia is convicted of the charges, upon the completion of his sentence he will be deported back to his home country of El Salvador. "The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring," Bondi said. "They found this was his full time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country." In a statement to ABC News, Abrego Garcia's attorney said that he's going to keep fighting to ensure Abrego Garcia receives a fair trial. "From the beginning, this case has made one thing painfully clear: The government had the power to bring him back at any time. Instead, they chose to play games with the court and with a man's life," Sandoval-Moshenberg said. "We're not just fighting for Kilmar -- we're fighting to ensure due process rights are protected for everyone. Because tomorrow, this could be any one of us -- if we let power go unchecked, if we ignore our Constitution." Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who had been living with his wife and children in Maryland, was deported in March to El Salvador's CECOT mega-prison -- despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution -- after the Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13. His wife and attorneys deny that he is an MS-13 member. The Trump administration has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador in March was in error, because it violated a U.S. immigration court order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country, according to immigration court records. An immigration judge had determined that Abrego Garcia would likely face persecution there by local gangs that had allegedly terrorized him and his family. The administration argued, however, that Abrego Garcia should not be returned to the U.S. because he is a member of the transnational Salvadoran gang MS-13, a claim his family and attorneys have denied. In recent weeks, Trump administration officials have been publicizing Abrego Garcia's interactions with police over the years, despite a lack of corresponding criminal charges. After Abrego Garcia's family filed a lawsuit over his deportation, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that ruling on April 10. Abrego Garcia was initially sent to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison but was believed to have later been transferred to a different facility in the country. The criminal investigation that led to the charges was launched in April as federal authorities began scrutinizing the circumstances of a 2022 traffic stop of Abrego Garcia by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, according to the sources. Abrego Garcia was pulled over for speeding in a vehicle with eight passengers and told police they had been working construction in Missouri. According to body camera footage of the 2022 traffic stop, the Tennessee troopers -- after questioning Abrego Garcia -- discussed among themselves their suspicions that Abrego Garcia might be transporting people for money because nine people were traveling without luggage, but Abrego Garcia was not ticketed or charged. The officers ultimately allowed Abrego Garcia to drive on with just a warning about an expired driver's license, according to a report about the stop released last month by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Asked what circumstances have changed since Abrego Garcia was not taken in custody during that traffic stop in Tennessee, Bondi replied, "What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States, and our borders are again secure, and thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia -- this investigation continued with actually amazing police work, and we were able to track this case and stop this international smuggling ring from continuing." Asked by ABC News' Pierre Thomas asked whether this should be seen as resolving the separate civil case in Maryland in which a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said, "There's a big difference between what the state of play was before the indictment and after the indictment. And so the reason why he is back and was returned was because an arrest warrant which was presented to the government and in El Salvador. So there's, there's a big difference there as far as whether it makes the ongoing litigation in Maryland moot. I would think so, but we don't know about this. He just landed today." As ABC News first reported last month, the Justice Department had been quietly investigating the Tenessee traffic stop. As part of the probe, federal agents in late April visited a federal prison in Talladega, Alabama to question Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, a convicted felon who was the registered owner of the vehicle Abrego Garcia was driving when stopped on Interstate 40 east of Nashville, sources previously told ABC News. Hernandez-Reyes was not present at the traffic stop. Hernandez-Reyes, 38, is currently serving a 30-month sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a prior felony conviction for illegal transportation of aliens. After being granted limited immunity, Hernandez-Reyes allegedly told investigators that he previously operated a "taxi service" based in Baltimore. He claimed to have met Abrego Garcia around 2015 and claimed to have hired him on multiple occasions to transport undocumented migrants from Texas to various locations in the United States, sources told ABC News. When details of the Tennessee traffic stop were first publicized, Abrego Garcia's wife said her husband sometimes transported groups of fellow construction workers between job sites. "Unfortunately, Kilmar is currently imprisoned without contact with the outside world, which means he cannot respond to the claims," Jennifer Vasquez Sura said in mid-April. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who flew to El Salvador and met with Abrego Garcia shortly after his deportation, said Friday that the Trump administration had "relented" regarding his return. "After months of ignoring our Constitution, it seems the Trump Admin has relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and due process for Kilmar Abrego Garcia," Van Hollen posted on X. "This has never been about the man -- it's about his constitutional rights & the rights of all." Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally as a teenager in 2012, according to court records. He had been living in Maryland for the past 13 years, and married Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, in 2019. The couple has one child together.


Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
America the Fortress
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Past leaders have imagined the United States as a 'shining city upon a hill,' a melting pot, a ' beacon to the world.' Donald Trump is working toward a different vision: the United States as a fortress. Late Wednesday, the White House announced a new version of the travel bans that it had imposed during Trump's first term, barring people from 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from coming to the U.S., and restricting entry from seven others: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (The ban has some exceptions.) Shortly after, he issued a proclamation that bars foreign nationals from entering the country to attend Harvard University—though not other universities, for reasons that are not satisfactorily explained but seem to boil down to Trump's animus toward the school. A judge promptly issued a temporary block on the new rule. (Trump had made the move after she temporarily blocked his previous attempt to prohibit Harvard from enrolling foreign students.) The new travel ban is, if you're keeping score, Trump's fifth, and the widest ranging. The first came on January 27, 2017. In line with his campaign promise to prevent Muslims from entering the United States, it barred entry to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days; suspended refugee admission for 120 days; indefinitely blocked refugees from Syria; and lowered the overall annual cap on refugees. When a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, Trump replaced it with a somewhat narrower one, again running for 90 days, which covered the same countries minus Iraq. Federal courts initially blocked the core parts of that order too, though the Supreme Court allowed it to mostly go forward. Trump issued additional bans in fall 2017 and January 2020, with various changes to the countries covered. Joe Biden rescinded the bans on January 20, 2021. In a video about the new ban, Trump cited 'the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' and said: 'We don't want them.' That message is loud and clear—even to those who aren't formally banned. Horror stories about foreign nationals visiting the U.S. have begun to circulate: Two German teens claimed that they were detained, strip-searched, and deported from Hawaii (U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied their account and alleged that they had entered the country under false pretenses); an Australian ex–police officer said she was locked up while trying to visit her American husband; New Zealand's biggest newspaper ran an article in which an anonymous 'travel industry staffer' encouraged Kiwis not to visit the United States. These anecdotes could exact a cost. The World Travel & Tourism Council, an industry trade group, released a report last month forecasting a $12.5 billion decline in tourist spending in the United States this year. That is not the product of global factors: Out of 184 countries the group studied, the U.S. is the only one expected to see a drop. Other forecasts see a smaller but still huge decline, though so far the data show a major decline only in travel to the U.S. from Canada. The Trump administration's reputation as a host has taken a hit in other ways too. A visit to the White House was once a desirable prize for any foreign leader; now even allies are approaching them with trepidation. After the president ambushed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office meetings—showing a racist and misleading clip, in the latter case—German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly prepared for yesterday's meeting by seeking tips from other world leaders on how to handle Trump. (The encounter was still bumpy at times.) This hostility to foreigners of all sorts is neither an accident nor collateral damage. It's the policy. Trump's xenophobia is long-standing and well documented, but some of his aides have developed this into more than just a reflex of disgust. Vice President J. D. Vance has championed ideas aligned with the 'Great Replacement' theory that Democrats are trying to dilute the existing demographic and cultural mix of the United States with immigrants. 'America is not just an idea,' he said last July. 'It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.' Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 crew, each of whom exerts a great deal of influence over Trump's policies, have pushed not just for stopping illegal immigration and deporting migrants but also for limiting legal immigration. The rare exception that Trump and his aides allow helps make the implied racism in these ideas explicit. The administration has moved to dramatically reduce refugee admissions, but last month, it welcomed a few dozen white Afrikaners from South Africa, whom the White House claims were victims of racial discrimination at home. The administration even seems eager to discourage people from leaving the country. Green-card holders are being arrested and detained while reentering the U.S.; immigration lawyers say the safest course for legal permanent residents is to stay in the country. Trump has also repeatedly expressed a desire to weaken the dollar, which would make it more expensive for Americans to vacation overseas. North Korea is frequently described as a hermit kingdom for its willingness to wall itself off from the rest of the world. Trump has expressed his admiration for and personal bond with Kim Jong Un before, but now he seems eager to emulate Kim's seclusion too. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic. What happens when people don't understand how AI works Trump is wearing America down. Inside the Trump-Musk breakup The Super Bowl of internet beefs Today's News The Supreme Court ruled that DOGE members can have access to the Social Security Administration's sensitive records. The Labor Department released numbers showing that job growth was strong but did slow last month amid uncertainty about Donald Trump's tariff policies. The unemployment rate held steady. Five leaders of the Proud Boys, four of whom had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy due to their actions on January 6, 2021, sued the government for $100 million, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated. More From The Atlantic Evening Read Fast Times and Mean Girls By Hillary Kelly In the early spring, I caught a preview at my local Alamo Drafthouse Cinema for its forthcoming stoner-classics retrospective: snippets of Monty Python's Life of Brian; Tommy Boy; a few Dada-esque cartoons perfect for zonking out on, post-edible. The audience watched quietly until Matthew McConaughey, sporting a parted blond bowl cut and ferrying students to some end-of-year fun, delivered a signature bit of dialogue. 'Say, man, you got a joint?' he asked the kid in the back seat. 'Uhhh, no, not on me, man.' 'It'd be a lot cooler if you did,' he drawled. The crowd, including me, went wild. Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused, in which a fresh-faced McConaughey appears as Wooderson, the guy who graduated years back but still hangs with the high-school kids, is that kind of teen movie: eternally jubilance-inspiring. Set in 1976 and released in 1993, it's a paean to the let-loose ethos of a certain decade of American high school. And boy do these kids let loose. Culture Break Watch. The Phoenician Scheme, in theaters, is the latest Wes Anderson film to let modern life seep into a high-concept world. Play our daily crossword. P.S. In other immigration news, ABC News broke the story this afternoon that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident and Salvadoran citizen whom the Trump administration deported to a Salvadoran Gulag, has been returned to the United States to face criminal charges. The Justice Department acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia's removal was an 'administrative error,' as my colleague Nick Miroff reported, before resorting to ever more absurd claims that he was a member of the gang MS-13. Now Abrego Garcia has been indicted for alleged involvement in a scheme to traffic migrants within the United States. I have no idea if these charges are true; the indictment is relatively brief, and the administration's earlier desperation to pin charges on him is worrying. (The investigation that led to the criminal charges reportedly began only after his removal.) Nevertheless, if the government believes that he committed these crimes, he should be tried in court with due process. As I wrote in April, 'If the people who are getting arrested are really the cold-blooded criminals the executive branch insists they are, saying so in a court of law should be relatively easy.' Now the administration will have a chance to do that, and Abrego Garcia will have a chance to defend himself. — David