So holds the First Circuit in yesterday's decision in Norris v. Cape Elizabeth School Dist., and I think that's exactly the right reading of the Supreme Court precedents (and consistent with other circuits' decisions).

The particular speech in that case was an anonymous "sticky note on a mirror in a Cape Elizabeth High School girls' bathroom that stated 'THERE'S A RAPIST IN OUR SCHOOL AND YOU KNOW WHO IT IS.'" One might argue that this is core political speech, because it's an implicit accusation that the school isn't doing anything about this, but the court's decision makes it unnecessary to draw the political/nonpolitical line. "Because we conclude that Tinker is not limited to political speech, we need not decide if A.M.'s sticky note, understood in the context of her prior activities related to sexual assault activism including her statements to the Cape Elizabeth H.S. school board, was objectively viewed as political."

Read more here:

First Amendment Protections in K-12 Schools Not "Restricted to Only Core Political Speech" - Reason

WASHINGTON U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced today guidance to protect the religious liberty of individuals and institutions participating in Department of Education programs. This action is part of ongoing efforts by the Department to advance religious liberty protections and delivers on President Donald J. Trumps Executive Order 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

This Administration will continue to protect the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of every student, teacher and educational institution across the country, said Secretary DeVos. Too many misinterpret the separation of church and state as an invitation for government to separate people from their faith. In reality, the First Amendment doesnt exist to protect us from religion. It exists to protect religion from government. Todays guidance reaffirms our commitment to protecting our first liberty and ensuring that discriminatory restrictions on access to federal grant funding are no longer tolerated.

This guidance follows recent Supreme Court victories for religious liberty, as Espinozav. Montana Department of Revenueand Trinity Lutheran v. Comercurtailed religious discrimination and thus strengthened protections for religious organizations.

The guidance was drafted pursuant to a directive from the Office of Management and Budget requiring each agency to publish policies detailing how they will administer federal grants in compliance with Executive Order 13798, as well as the Attorney Generals Oct. 6, 2017, Memorandum on Religious Liberty, and the Office of Management and Budgets Jan. 16, 2020, Memorandum.

Notably, the guidance announces a new process by which individuals and organizations can inform the Department of a burden or potential burden on their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to adequately protect their religious liberties while participating in Department programs.

The new guidance also, consistent with First Amendment principles and Department regulations, does the following:

Full text of the guidance can be found here.

Read the original:

US Department of Education Reaffirms Commitment to Protecting the Religious Liberty of Students and Religious Organizations - U.S. Department of...

Appellate court decisions result in winners and losers in any specific case, but the issues involved often are worked through murky gray areas. Consider for example the July 30 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Little v. Reclaim Idaho.

The background is fairly well known in Idaho. The group Reclaim Idaho has been trying to promote an Invest in Idaho tax and schools initiative for the November election ballot. When the pandemic hit and Gov. Brad Littles stay-home order was issued, its petition-gathering which in the normal process has to be done face to face was blocked, which meant a part of Idahos election process also was blocked.

That point, essentially an argument over voting civil rights, went to federal court. Idaho U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered that the state either simply place the proposed initiative on the ballot or allow the group to collect the signatures electronically. The state appealed, and the case with startling speed went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On a 4-2 decision, the court sided with the state, ordering a stay of the Winmill decision.

Story continues below video

The Supreme Court, as often happens, didnt go to the center of the issue the voters-rights matter and it did not specifically reverse the Winmill decision, though it may have felt that way. But whats there is worth considering.

First, the majority decision (written by Chief Justice John Roberts) pointed out that, oddly enough, different federal courts have established different guidelines for what states can and cant do in initiative procedures (one reason the high court might have granted certiorari permission to bring this case to it). It said, the States depend on clear and administrable guidelines from the courts. Yet the Circuits diverge in fundamental respects when presented with challenges to the sort of state laws at issue here. According to the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, the First Amendment requires scrutiny of the interests of the State whenever a neutral, procedural regulation inhibits a persons ability to place an initiative on the ballot. ... Other Circuits, by contrast, have held that regulations that may make the initiative process more challenging do not implicate the First Amendment so long as the State does not restrict political discussion or petition circulation.

The Supreme Court didnt really land on this turf in its Idaho decision, but the majority did focus on the right of the state more than the right of the initiative proponent: The District Court did not accord sufficient weight to the States discretionary judgments about how to prioritize limited state resources across the election system as a whole.

Thats not an unreasonable point, but it leaves a massive gap in how to review something like this. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor zeroed in on balancing harms to stay applicant against harms to respondent in other words, balancing the interests of the state and the initiative backers, rather than simply disregarding the interests of the backers. She acknowledged that allowing the electronic signature would be a burden on the state and counties and it would be but she argued it should be considered in context.

Putting a still finer point on it, The stay granted today puts a halt to their signature-collection efforts, meaning that even if respondents ultimately prevail on appeal, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect enough qualifying signatures by any reasonable deadline for the November ballot. In other words, the delay occasioned by this Courts stay likely dooms to mootness respondents First Amendment claims before any appellate court has had the chance to consider their merits (and, indeed, before this Court has had the chance to consider any potential petition for certiorari).

So in balancing the rights of a state government against those of its voters, the Supreme Courts majority seems to be putting its thumb on the state side of the scale. That may be worth giving some careful thought when you look, as historically we long have, to the nations highest court as a protector of the rights of the American people.

Read the original:

Weighting the scales - Idaho State Journal

To the Editor:

Violence Is Not an Answer, by Chuck Lovell (Op-Ed, Aug. 4), is an insult to the thousands of Portlanders who have been indiscriminately gassed, beaten and shot with crowd-control weapons by the Portland, Ore., police night after night, simply for protesting racist police violence.

Mr. Lovell, the chief of the Police Bureau in Portland, claims that as police officers, our duty is to uphold the rights of anyone to assemble peacefully and engage in free speech. But the police in Portland are making a mockery of the First Amendment by using excessive force, violence and intimidation to suppress free speech in the Black Lives Matter movement.

The A.C.L.U. of Oregon had to sue federal agents and police in Portland for violently attacking journalists and legal observers, as well as medics tending to the very community members whom the police harmed.

Chief Lovell is right that violence is not the answer. That includes police violence. If the police dont want us to take their resources (defund the police), then the Portland police and Mayor Ted Wheeler need to use our communitys resources to heed their own advice, take accountability for their abuses, respect the Constitution and ensure that Black Lives Matter in Portland.

Kelly SimonPortland, Ore.The writer is interim legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Oregon.

To the Editor:

Re The Ghost of Margaret Sanger (column, July 26):

Planned Parenthood has long denounced Margaret Sangers eugenicist beliefs, recognizing the need to engage in anti-racist work as a 104-year-old institution. Covid-19 leaves no confusion about the effects of systemic racism. Yet Ross Douthat conflates the disparate impact of public policy on Black communities with the fundamental right of Black women to control our own bodies. Birthrates do not equal power, unless youre a white supremacist.

Black women know reproductive control began at the auction block, when our ancestors forced reproduction was the engine that drove the American economy. Whether were attacked for having children and needing support, or for having an abortion, were damned if we do and damned if we dont.

Mr. Douthat insinuates that his argument may produce intersectional dilemmas no doctrine can resolve. Our experiences are intersectional, but theres no dilemma: Our bodies are our own, and we wont apologize for it.

Alexis McGill JohnsonNew YorkThe writer is president and chief executive of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Betraying U.S. Forces: A Republican Habit

To the Editor:

Re Trump Says He and Putin Didnt Talk About Bounties (news article, July 30):

President Trump has betrayed American forces by giving Vladimir Putin a free pass on his reported bounty payments to Taliban-linked militants for American lives. Mr. Trumps acquiescence, if motivated by his personal goals, such as Russian electoral interference on his behalf, is treasonous, but not unique. Leaders of the modern Republican Party have repeatedly sought electoral advantage by disregarding the lives of American soldiers and government officials.

In 1968 Richard Nixons team sabotaged talks that might have ended the Vietnam War, because the Democrats would have gotten credit and might have cost Nixon a close election. Similarly, Ronald Reagans campaign and leading Republicans worked to thwart a deal for the release of American hostages in Iran in order to avoid an October surprise that would have helped President Jimmy Carters re-election bid.

Why have G.O.P. leaders shown themselves willing to betray American troops and public servants for partisan gain? The answer seems to lie in a worldview that rejects the principle of a loyal opposition and, quite conceivably, democracy itself. Can they be held to account?

Daniel LieberfeldPittsburghThe writer is a retired professor of history and politics at Duquesne University.

To the Editor:

Re The Limits of Broadband (editorial, July 19), about how many Americans sheltering from Covid-19 are discovering the limitations of the countrys cobbled-together broadband service:

Your editorial correctly declared that high-speed internet connections are a civil rights issue and that service is often unavailable or too expensive in rural communities and low-income neighborhoods.

As the president of Midtel, an upstate New York telecommunications company that serves underserved rural areas, I can say from experience that smart government policies are a key to bridging the digital divide.

New Yorks current policies send mixed messages, discouraging the infrastructure investments necessary to make full connectivity a reality today and into the future.

My company has received more than $15.5 million in state grants to replace our copper network with fiber, enabling us to bring customers fast, reliable and affordable high-speed service. But the state is taxing fiber in the Department of Transportation right-of-way, a space traditional utilities get to use free. This added tax, which we legally cannot pass on to our customers, makes already expensive projects cost-prohibitive.

If New York is indeed serious about closing the digital divide and enabling all New Yorkers to prosper in the new normal, it must enable the industry to make the goal of broadband for all a reality while paving the way for next-generation connectivity.

Jim BeckerMiddleburgh, N.Y.

To the Editor:

I appreciate your Aug. 7 Weekend Arts article 6 Things to Do This Weekend.

I do have a question, though: Remind me what a weekend is?

Marc ChafetzWashington

The rest is here:

Police Violence in Portland Protests - The New York Times