Five years after the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia's former public safety and homeland security chief says challenges remain during large-scale protests and rallies.

Five years after a violent weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, surrounding the white nationalist Unite The Right rally, the commonwealths former homeland security chief says challenges remain in preventing a recurrence.

Some of the very same groups that were involved in Charlottesville stormed the United States Capitol, on Jan. 6, 2021, said Brian Moran, who was Virginias Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, under Gov. Ralph Northam, in a WTOP interview. In 2017, they unmasked themselves.

Moran said lessons were learned about preparing for large-scale gatherings in the wake of Charlottesville weekend, in which hundreds of white nationalists and neo-Nazis marched through the University of Virginia campus with tiki torches. The next afternoon, James Alex Fields drove through a group of counterprotesters, killing Heather Heyer, and injuring dozens more.

Intelligence gathering and dissemination is essential, Moran said, saying the state like others has a fusion center, which was established after Sept. 11, 2011.

According to the fusion center website, A fusion center is a collaborative effort of state and federal agencies working in conjunction with local partners to share resources, expertise, and/or information to better identify, detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist and criminal activity utilizing an all crimes/all hazards approach.

In addition to the agencies charged with gathering intelligence, according to Moran, Its gathered from even individuals see something, say something.

An ongoing challenge is ensuring that the information is shared, since historically there has been some turf-protecting between federal and state agencies.

Its essential those silos and barriers continue to be eliminated, but Im not here to tell you that has been so, Moran said.

In 2017, we were concerned about achieving the right balance, and we didnt want to militarize the streets of Charlottesville, said Moran. In fact, we were sued by the ACLU.

A major problem in security during Charlottesville was the proximity between protesters and counterprotesters, which led to hand-to-hand battle on the streets.

You have to prioritize public safety when you have groups that have demonstrated their proclivity to commit acts of violence, said Moran. You can achieve a reasonable balance where First Amendment rights are respected.

An extensive report by former U.S. Attorney Tim Heaphy, requested by Charlottesville officials after the violence, criticized police planning as inadequate and disconnected. Charlottesville police supervisors failed to provide adequate training to line officers and police planners waited too long to request assistance from state emergency response officials, the report said.

It can be a difficult balance to achieve, when you have thousands on one side and thousands on the other to keep them separate, and to allow them to use the public square, said Moran. Individuals should have the opportunity to express themselves, whether you like or dislike what they have to say.

Moran said courts will recognize and allow certain barriers to occur, to keep opposing groups physically separated.

It can be an inconvenience, for those hoping to engage opponents, Moran acknowledges.

But, youve got to learn from the past, Moran said, which led to local and state police imposing some access restrictions in 2018, on the one-year anniversary of the Unite The Right rally.

Moran pointed to later instances in Virginia, in which the strategy succeeded, including the 2020 and 2021 Lobby Day protests in Richmond.

In 2020 when gun rights groups came to the Virginia Capitol, we had 15,000 people demonstrating for Second Amendment rights. We imposed some restrictions on their access to the capital, said Moran. They were not happy about it, but at the end of the day, everyone went home safely.

Moran said the Richmond protests were proof that a proper balance of free speech and public safety is achievable.

Protesters for and against law enforcement, members of the community, everyone went home safely, and were able to express their views.

Continue reading here:

5 years after Charlottesville violence: What lessons have been learned? - WTOP

Donald Trumps decision to plead the Fifth Amendment Wednesday in response to the New York attorney generals questions about his dealings as a real estate mogul sent many Twitter users down memory lane.

Thats because the former president is famous for disparaging people who invoke their constitutional right to self-incrimination.

For instance, there was that time in 2016 when he told an Iowa rally: The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

This despite taking the Fifth 97 times during his 1990 divorce trial from Ivana to avoid admitting adultery.

Not surprisingly, many Twitter users found the news that he would take advantage of the same amendment he previously trashed to be quite amusing.

And they kept bringing up the past.

Here is the original post:

Twitter Users Remind Trump What He Previously Said About 5th Amendment - HuffPost

REDINGTON BEACH After receiving complaints about door-to-door solar panel canvassers and other unwanted visitors who come knocking on doors, Redington Beach commissioners decided to take action and control solicitation in residential neighborhoods.

Some residents say it has become a problem and a nuisance.

We had some recent problems, so I asked the town attorney to address our ordinance, Mayor David Will told those gathered at the Aug. 3 Town Commission meeting.

City Attorney RobEschenfelder said the city is greatly restricted by First Amendment protections, but it does have some recourse. He said residential front doors have been found by federal courts to be a traditional First Amendment invitation.

Throughout history, it has been understood by society that someone can come and knock on your front door, the city attorney said.

While a municipality cannot regulate core First Amendment speech, which would be political or religious speech, you can regulate charitable solicitations and you can regulate commercial solicitations people trying to sell you a product, Eschenfelder said.

The city plans to focus on strictly enforcing existing state statutes, while adopting some of its own ordinance regulations.

State and county law includes a detailed registration requirement that requires significant information to be on file in order to receive a permit to solicit. That permit has to be carried by the seller, and if the owner asks for it, it has to be displayed to the homeowner, Eschenfelder told commissioners.

In addition, the county permit requires that the solicitor has to leave a business card that includes the name, address and phone number of the parent company, and the name, address and phone number of the solicitor. If they fail to do any of those things, there are criminal penalties that come with violation of both the statutes, he said.

Will indicated he wanted the town to have a local enforcement option. An ordinance was proposed stating that commercial solicitors can only visit a home Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The case law on the First Amendment says when you do a reasonable time, place and manner regulation, you have to leave open adequate alternative means of engaging in the First Amendment speech, he said. The proposed ordinance provides for and addresses a reasonable time, place and manner, the city attorney said.

He added that residents can always post No Trespassing signs. Florida statutes does allow an owner of a home to be able to utilize the trespass statute ... If someone comes to your door and you say leave my property and they dont leave your property, theyre engaging in a first-degree misdemeanor and obviously, you should call the deputy.

While the city attorney initially proposed that soliciting be allowed on Saturdays and until 6 p.m. weekdays, Commissioner Richard Cariello said he would prefer the time frame be from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. because people are eating dinner at 6 p.m. He also advocated that Saturday should be included in the weekend days of rest.

The rest of the commission agreed.

Commissioners unanimously agreed on first reading of the ordinance to permit solicitation Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. only.

A public hearing and final reading on the ordinance changes will likely be Wednesday, Aug. 17.

Originally posted here:

Redington Beach takes aim at door-to-door solicitation - Tampa Bay Newspapers

Imagine an America where you are not permitted to exercise your First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression, where efforts to define and be yourself are policed by or prohibited by a government that is watching your every move an America defined by undemocratic government mandate. In a growing number of states, trans youth are faced with this harrowing scenario simply for being who they are. Florida has taken these efforts to restrict freedom of speech and expression to new extremes, with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) leading the charge.

Through administrative changes by DeSantis, the state of Florida recently issued a direct attack on transgender youth with the publication of dangerous new guidance designed to restrict the ability of children to define and express themselves. This guidance, which stands in direct opposition to best-practice child development principles, has been issued in the wake of a vague Dont Say Gay law that will result in trans kids being outed in schools, perhaps their one safe space. This is the latest attack by conservatives against marginalized people, and they are laser-focused not only on restricting access to life-saving gender-affirming medical care, but also on controlling how trans and gender-diverse people exist in the world.

Meanwhile, DeSantis prepares his own likely presidential run and is showing the nation what his campaign may look like.

Make no mistake: DeSantis unilateral decree, issued without substantial input from Floridas legislature or residents, is an attack on freedom and liberty. He is attempting to prevent American citizens from being able to use their own names, express their own inner selves and exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech. While this guidance and the law are cloaked in the language of restricting social transition or speaking about gender identity, they are very much an attempt to bar children from expressing themselves.

Social transition is a process where transgender and gender-diverse individuals adopt the name, pronouns and gender expression of their identified gender. This process is not clinical in nature but a choice that someone makes in a community with others. When this transition begins, it allows individuals to begin to express themselves publicly and be embraced for who they are by those around them. This can be lifesaving for many trans kids, as it allows them to express their inner self better and grow and develop as the person they know themselves to be.

Conservatives claim that social transition is part of some liberal agenda or fad, when in reality it is simply part of the process of normal human growth and development something the GOP is in clear opposition to.

As a health care provider, I have seen many kids grow up healthy and happy after society got their names, pronouns and clothes right. They knew, while others had to catch up. I recall one little transgender girl who just had to go to Disneyland as a princess after this, she went to school as the girl she always was and flourished. I remember a little transgender boy who knew he was a boy since age 4 and after being accepted for who he was, he lived a life that would have been expected of any other boy his age.

Preventing social transition interferes with the healthy process of trans and gender-diverse kids growing up as their whole authentic selves. It is not a fad. Social transition has positive outcomes for kids, families and communities meanwhile denying children this opportunity is not only cruel, harmful and discriminatory, but it directly contradicts the position of every major medical, nursing or health care society in the United States.

A driving force behind the anti-trans legislation, policies and guidance being proposed by social conservatives is the misguided belief that there are too many LGBTQ+ kids. Instead of accepting that the world has changed and ideas around gender have expanded as more people have felt comfortable coming out and identifying as LGBTQ, social conservatives have responded by championing a dangerous agenda that censors ideas, cracks down on social expression and puts vulnerable children in the crosshairs of grotesque political attacks.

Whats happening in Florida is an example of government overreach at its most dangerous, as it exploits its authority in an unscientific and malicious way to dictate what is considered appropriate medical care and even further, what is an appropriate way for individuals to speak, dress, act and express themselves.

These recent moves by the state of Florida and DeSantis should be concerning to all Americans who believe in freedom of speech and expression. DeSantis will likely be a presidential contender, and this unilateral executive action clearly shows what type of future he and his campaign appear to want for America: one that is destructive to individual liberty and freedom of expression and one which harms those at the margins.

We must speak up and fight back.

Dallas Ducar, NP, is the chief executive officer of Transhealth Northampton. Follow Ducar on Twitter and Instagram: @DallasDucar

See the original post:

How Gov. Ron DeSantis is attacking the freedom and liberty of all Americans - The Hill

One of the first things we do when we sign up for a new website or platform online is to pick a name a username, screen name or handle sometimes unrelated to the name on our government ID. Part of the fun of creating an online persona can be picking a creative or funny pseudonym.

Its not all puns and games though. Anonymity can protect privacy and keep people like whistleblowers and activists safe; it can also shield bad behavior.

How can we balance the right to hide our identity with the potential harms of anonymity?

According to Jeff Kosseff, associate professor in the United States Naval Academy Cyber Science Department and author of The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Protects Online Speech, this question is not new. Anonymous speech really is fundamental to the history of the United States.

In fact, many arguments for independence during the colonial era were made anonymously or pseudonymously with a pen name. So were arguments in support of the Constitution while it was being drafted.

In 1958, the Supreme Court protected the right to associate anonymously , saying the NAACP in Alabama could not be forced to reveal its membership lists. NAACP leaders at the time were regularly targeted with violence. Florida organizer Harry T. Moore and his wife Harriette were murdered in a bombing of their home on Christmas 1951 thought to be motivated by their anti-racist activism. Revealing the names of NAACP members would likely have endangered those members too.

Why do we need anonymity?

According to Kosseff, there are good reasons to protect anonymity. The ability to speak freely can help separate the content of the speech from the identity of the speaker. Sometimes, if people know who the speaker is, they might think differently about the message. Anonymity can lessen this bias.

More importantly, being anonymous can protect vulnerable people. People who need to have a voice but dont have the ability to associate their real name with that speech have a very good reason to want to speak anonymously, Kosseff says.

The civil rights movement provides several examples of how anonymity can help keep people safe, like the NAACP v. Alabama case. In a 1960 case, the Supreme Court protected the right of civil rights activists to call out via an anonymous pamphlet a supermarket that was discriminating against Black customers. Because of resistance to new civil rights laws, activists could have been in danger if they had been forced to reveal their identities.

This right, Kosseff says, has been reaffirmed by liberal and conservative justices . One example is a 1995 case overturning an Ohio law that required election publications to include authors names.

What about anonymity protecting bad actors?

The First Amendment protects anonymity (in most cases). It also protects the right to say unpopular or even abhorrent things (with some exceptions), anonymously or otherwise. You cant just use a subpoena to unmask someone whos been mean to you, Kosseff says. The courts have set a fairly high First Amendment standard for being able to subpoena identifying information of online posters.

Getting rid of anonymous speech online wouldnt prevent disagreeable speech, Kosseff says, because people say bad things using their real names, too. Some research shows that being able to use pseudonyms could have mixed or even positive impacts on online civility .

That said, different platforms have different policies. Some, like Facebook, technically require user profiles to use real names.

Online pseudonyms arent absolute or perfect, either. Criminals can and do get unmasked for speech that is truly beyond the protections of the First Amendment. In criminal cases or instances of speech that isnt protected , like true threats, it can be possible to pursue whos behind the screenname.

What does online anonymity look like around the world?

Kosseff says anonymity online is a spectrum. People can control what level of identifying information that they post online. So, to some extent, its up to everyone to decide if theyll provide no clues as to their identity at all or be fully transparent about who they are. Kosseff notes that its often possible for other users online to compile various facts youve shared about yourself to learn a lot about you even potentially your identity.

Theres also spectrum to how anonymity online is treated legally around the world. In Europe, privacy is a fundamental human right. Legal protections for anonymity there are more grounded in privacy than in free expression arguments. In authoritarian places, anonymity is difficult or prohibited.

Do we need a national privacy law?

One question Kosseff says we should ask is How do we better safeguard identifying information so that people can operate anonymously, and we can preserve the values that really underlie so much of our First Amendment precedent?

A national privacy law, he says, could place less burden on individual users to protect their data and provide much-needed guidance for users on how their data can be shared by companies.

First Five is a monthly column on First Amendment issues produced by The Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by Al Neuharth. First Five is an effort to inform citizens on the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

More:

First Five: How the First Amendment protects anonymous speech online - INFORUM

A bill making its way through the South Carolina legislature would place a near-total ban on abortions, prohibiting the procedure except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

The measure, a draft of which is currently being considered by the state senate's Medical Affairs Committee, would also criminalize helping a person obtain an abortion including providing information about how to obtain an abortion. Under the current bill draft, a person who provides information could be prosecuted if they know the information "will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion" and could face up to 25 years in prison.

Indiana-based attorney James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion rights, helped draft the South Carolina bill.

National Right to Life wants to restore full legal protection to the unborn under the law, Bopp said. Since Roe v. Wade has been overturned, we can now do that.

But some legal experts think parts of the bill are on shaky legal ground and may violate the U.S. Constitution.

This particular law is constitutionally overbroad, Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in First Amendment law, said. It covers speech that is constitutionally protected.

According to Volokh, the "aiding and abetting" portion of the draft bill would have more legal standing if it was narrowly focused on illegal abortions in the state.

If abortion is illegal and Supreme Court has said that it could be made illegal, then that does allow punishing at least certain kinds of speech related to abortion just like this is true with all crimes, he said.

The courts have repeatedly decided speech that encourages or solicits a person to commit a crime is not constitutionally protected, Volokh said. Just like assisting in a robbery could carry criminal penalties, he said, assisting in someones illegal abortion could legally carry penalties, too.

Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western University, said the problem with the South Carolina bill is it doesnt seem to distinguish between illegal and legal abortions.

For example, there's nothing that says specifically that the abortion being facilitated or about which information is given, Hill said. It doesn't say that that has to be an illegal abortion.

That, Hill said, could lead to punishing people who provide information about how to get abortions in other states, like North Carolina, where the procedure is legal.

If the abortion services are legal in those other states, then giving information about that is not normally a crime. And it can't be, Hill said. The states can't generally apply their laws beyond their own borders in that way.

Hill said criminalizing speech about a legal procedure likely violates the First Amendment since its not inciting or encouraging someone to commit a crime.

Bopp, of the National Right to Life Committee, maintains the bill is focused on illegal abortions and is fully constitutional.

South Carolina only has authority over acts committed in their own state," Bopp said. "And this would be an illegal abortion, which means an abortion illegal under the laws of South Carolina. If an actual abortion occurred outside the state, then it's not covered and it can't be covered.

The Medical Affairs Committee has scheduled a full-day of public input on South Carolina abortion legislation post-Roe for Aug. 17. The draft measure could be changed before going before the full state Senate for a vote.

Read more:

Draft version of SC abortion bill raises concern among First Amendment experts - WFAE

LocalThe American flag, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag, and the City of Boston flag, from left, fly outside Boston City Hall. Charles Krupa/Associated Press

By Danny McDonald, The Boston Globe

Following years of controversy and First Amendment litigation that ultimately wound its way to the nations highest court, a flag bearing a red Christian cross is slated to fly outside Boston City Hall later this week. Wednesdays flag-raising will take place three months after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the City of Boston violated the First Amendment rights of Camp Constitution, a Christian group, when city authorities refused to fly the banner outside City Hall in 2017.

In a ruling written by the since-retired justice Stephen Breyer, the high court said that Boston was wrong to deny the group, run by West Roxbury resident Harold Shurtleff, a permit to raise a white banner with a red Christian cross in connection with Constitution Day on Sept. 17, the date the US Constitution was signed in Philadelphia in 1787.

The legal organization Liberty Counsel, which represented Shurtleff in the litigation, said in a Monday press release that the flag will be raised on one of the public flagpoles on City Hall Plaza at 11 a.m. on Wednesday. Mayor Michelle Wus office confirmed Monday the flag-raising ceremony was scheduled for Wednesday, but did not immediately offer further comment.

Finish the story at BostonGlobe.com.

Read the original:

Christian flag at heart of Supreme Court First Amendment case is scheduled to fly at Boston City Hall - Boston.com

Stuart N. Brotman| Guest columnist

Tennessee Voices: A conversation with Stuart Brotman

University of Tennessee atKnoxville media law and journalism professor Stuart Brotman spoke with Tennessean opinion editor David Plazas.

Nashville Tennessean

With high school teachers nationwide now in the process of planning their return to begin a new academic term, a new piece of valuable summer homework for them is recommended. Its the survey results from the Knight Foundation Future of the First Amendment project. This is the eighth such survey conducted since 2004, and it deserves a close reading and a plan of action for when students return to the classroom.

Viewed over time, there can be a sense of optimism that both American high school students and their teachers have maintained a consistency over many years regarding the notion that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. Yet that view now is clouded when they are confronted with offensive or threatening speech. In these instances, the level of support drops below half. And only 57%in this survey indicated that news organizations should be able to publish without government censorship.

Its also revealing that the survey found that gender, raceand ethnicity are related to the willingness of students to say that the First Amendment goes too far. As the Knight Foundation report noted, Students in racial minority groups, women and non-binary students are less likely to feel they are protected by the First Amendment than white and male students.

Hear more Tennessee voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

Two concrete measures can be adopted now by high schools across the country that would help promote a greater understanding and appreciation for the core First Amendment values offreedom of religious thought and practice; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly; and freedom to petition governments about grievances.

First, teachers should incorporate discussion of these fundamental democratic values in a variety of social studies classes. Where possible, a structured course on the First Amendment should be added to the existingcurriculum. The Knight Foundation has found that the latter approach can be especially beneficial, since First Amendment coursework can enhance student support for free speech rights.

As schools begin to focus more on diversity, equityand inclusion concerns, they also should be aware that there may be disparities in perceptions about First Amendment freedoms, as the survey noted. Consequently, any curriculum activities in this area should reflect a level of nuance that addresses the concerns of those who feel excluded. Openly discussing these differences can be a powerful real-time demonstration of why a free speech environment is important not just to some students, but to all.

Recent headlines focus on state and local government pressure to remove certain areas of instruction and discussion from our public schools, including reading selections where uncomfortable topics or language may be included. It would be refreshing to see a comparable level of attention including by parent groups asserting greater influence in what their children are taught devoted to what might be beneficial for students to learn more about, rather than purportedly harmful.

Those who believe increasing inclusive civics education is vital to sustaining a democratic society now have a window of opportunity to voice their support for a more robust First Amendment teaching approach in the upcoming school year.

Stuart N. Brotman is the author of "The First Amendment Lives On." He is a distinguished professor of journalism and electronic media at the University of Tennessee atKnoxville.

Excerpt from:

Let's add the First Amendment to the nation's back-to-school checklist - Tennessean

UNION CITY, Tenn. A nonprofit is hosting a First Amendment Festival at Discovery Park of America.

The festival is being hosted by The Freedom Forum at the park on Sept. 24.

A news release from the park says there will be First Amendment-themed games, trivia, crafts, conversations, music from The Gatlin Brothers, and will also feature special guest Brett Baier, a Fox News anchor.

Discovery Park says admission to the park the day of the First Amendment Festival is free with registration. They say a schedule will be released at a later date.

The park adds that there will be a scavenger hunt, moments to reflect how the First Amendment has been used for you, ways to show and test your knowledge, an artwork installation, and more.

You can read the full news release here. You can register for free tickets here.

Find more local news here.

Visit link:

First Amendment Festival to be held in West Tennessee - WBBJ TV - WBBJ-TV

Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in 2007, has emerged as the workhorse of the Supreme Court's conservatives and has spent his time on the court forcefully shaping its opinions. Nancy Ostertag/Getty Images hide caption

Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in 2007, has emerged as the workhorse of the Supreme Court's conservatives and has spent his time on the court forcefully shaping its opinions.

In the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the names of just a few justices are linked with a single very famous--or infamous--decision. Chief Justice John Marshall for his 1803 decision declaring that the courts have the power to strike down laws that violate the constitution; Chief Justice Roger Taney for the infamous decision in the Dred Scott case, declaring that no African American, enslaved or free, could be a citizen of the United states, a decision that led in part to the Civil War; Chief Justice Earl Warren for his 1954 decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. And now, the name of Samuel Alito is indelibly linked with the court's opinion overturning a half century's worth of decisions declaring that women have a right to abortion.

Alito, unlike Marshall, Taney and Warren, is not chief justice, and he may be little known to the public generally. But he has played a key role on the court, often leading the conservative charge not just on abortion, but for expanded religious rights, against LGBTQ rights, against expanded voting rights, against labor unions, for the death penalty, and more.

The workhorse of the right

Indeed, within a short time of replacing the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, he became something of the workhorse of the right.

On contraception, for instance, he wrote the court's 5-to-4 decision, declaring that closely held, for-profit corporations could refuse, on religious grounds, to comply with a federal law that required employer insurance policies to cover contraception for their employees.

"This court has said time and again that we have no business judging whether any sincere religious belief is valid or reasonable and it would be dangerous if we started down that road," he said in announcing his opinion from the bench in 2014.

He wrote the court's 2010 decision striking down state bans on handguns in the home, declaring the "right to keep and bear arms is implicit in our understanding of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in the traditions of our country."

He wrote the court's 2007 decision declaring that victims of race and sex discrimination on the job could only recover damages dating back 180 days after filing suit, as opposed to when the discrimination began. Congress promptly rebuked the court, amending the anti-discrimination statute to make clear that damages and back pay are to be paid from the date the discrimination begins.

In death penalty cases, Alito has been impatient with attempts to limit capital punishment, in one case writing that any death row inmate who challenges the state's execution method as cruel and unusual punishment, must now come up with an alternative method.

In voting rights cases, he has repeatedly sided with state laws that make it more difficult for people to vote. As he wrote in a 2021 opinion, "Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation" of the Voting Rights Act.

One special Alito crusade focused on public employee labor unions. In particular, he took aim at a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of unions to collect fees from non-union members, as long as the fees were used only for collective bargaining and other non-political activities that benefitted all workers, union and non-union alike. The idea was to prevent non-union workers from being "free-riders" on the backs of the union. But in 2018, Alito, after whittling away at the precedent for more than a decade, even repeatedly inviting challenges, finally managed to overturn it. The First Amendment right of free speech, he said, includes the right not to speak or support a union in any way. "Nonunion members are not free riders at all," he said. "They are captive riders."

The overturning of Roe

Few issues appear to rankle Alito as much as those that directly or indirectly involve religion, and perhaps not incidentally, the modern culture war. As he put it in a July speech, There is a "growing hostility to religion or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors."

The Dobbs decision overturning Roe was his exegesis on abortion and constitutional interpretation. There is no audio of his opinion announcement because the court conveniently abandoned the longtime tradition of these announcements at the height of the epidemic and thereafter, prompting an increasing wave of criticism.

But as Alito explained in his written abortion opinion, the Supreme Court's Roe decision and the decisions that followed, had to be overruled because Roe was "egregiously wrong," the arguments for it "exceptionally weak," and because there was no history or tradition of abortion at the time of the founding or thereafter. There was no evidence, said Alito, "zero," that supported such a right.

Many on the political right hailed the decision as "brilliant," and an example of Alito's approach to the law. "He is not a partisan," said one former Alito clerk. "He just believes that the law is based on rules and rules are rules, regardless of politics."

'He's able to succeed'

Liberal Yale law professor Akhil Amar defends Alito too, maintaining that the justice succeeds by staying within the lines and not overreaching. "He's quiet. He's able to succeed," says Amar.

But others, including some conservatives, disagree. Among them is Sarah Isgur, a former official in the Trump Justice Department, who at one time was a leading member of the conservative Federalist Society. She says the Alito opinion fails the critical test of persuasion because it speaks only to those who agree with him.

"When you have a court that is 6-3 on so many different types of opinions, you can end up with a feeling there there are permanent winners and losers," she says. "And the court when it writes, it needs to write more persuasively to the people who might feel like they're permanent losers."

The question, at this point, she adds, is not whether Roe was correctly decided, but, "Do you overturn a precedent that has been on the books for 50 years--the most famous case probably to most Americans in the country, and it's not even close."

Cornell Constitutional law professor Michael Dorf is more pointed, calling the opinion, "dishonest" because it "so selectively cites history" to argue just one side of a case.

"The judge is supposed to look at it from a more balanced perspective, and that's not what Justice Alito does," Dorf says. "One wonders how so many prior justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, could have found a right to abortion in the constitution and then reaffirmed that right. There's a kind of arrogance to the opinion in the way it proceeds in a one-sided manner."

Isgur adds that Alito's assurances ring hollow when he contends at the end of his opinion that the Dobbs case should not cast doubt on other precedents based on the same reasoning as Roe-- the same-sex marriage opinion, or opinions guaranteeing the right to access contraception, for instance.

That may be, but Alito is part of a court, that, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed in the Dobbs case, is displaying "a relentless freedom from doubt on legal issues."

More:

Samuel Alito, a workhorse on the Supreme Court, shapes its conservative path - NPR