Jan. 6 Capitol riot: DOJ must weigh whether to charge Trump – USA TODAY

Happy Monday, OnPolitics readers.

Good news out of the White House today: President Joe Biden's COVID-19 symptoms are "almost completely resolved," according to a statement released by the White House physician.

Biden, who tested positive for the virus last Thursday, is experiencing some residual nasal congestion and slight hoarseness,Kevin O'Connor, physician to the president, said.

"The president continues to tolerate treatmentwell," O'Connor said. "He will continue Paxlovidas planned. He is experiencing no shortness of breath at all."Biden completed hisfourth full day of Paxlovid, an anti-viral treatment, on Sunday.

O'Connor added that Biden'spulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate andtemperature remain "absolutely normal."

The president is continuing to work in isolation at the White House.

On Monday, Biden virtually addressedtheNational Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and later met withbusiness executives and labor leaders to push for the Senate's approval of the Chips Act, a bill to boost the semiconductor industry.

It's Amy and Chelsey with today's top stories out of Washington.

The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol hasmeticulously outlined former President Donald Trump's involvement in events leading up to and on the day of the insurrection. But are the revelationsenough for the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against Trump and his top aides?

Though lawmakers are calling for charges against the former president and at least one federal judge said Trump and members of his team "more than likely broke the law," legal experts saythere is little evidence of an aggressive federal investigation against him.

There are also hurdles to pressing charges. For instance,Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and law professor at the University of Michigan, said the committee heard "overwhelming evidence" showing Trump was repeatedly told he lost the election and that he nonetheless pressured Vice President Mike Pence and state officials to overturn the results. Trump also knew the mob was armed when he urged supporters to go to the Capitol, according to committee testimony.

But the evidence is almost all one-sided, McQuade argued. Prosecutors would also have to anticipate how the Trump team would defend itself against the allegations.

Here, there are significant drawbacks to criminal charges, such as creating the appearance of a political motivation by DOJ, which could lead to civil unrest or even civil war," McQuade said.

Legal experts say a charge of inciting a riot or inciting an insurrection would be one of the best avenues for prosecution because the facts are not in dispute. Trump urged attendees athis "Stop the Steal" rally on the morning of the insurrectionto fight for him by marching on the Capitol.to storm the Capitol.He did not tell them to storm the Capitol.

But whether his fiery speech is protected under the First Amendment is in dispute, say legal experts.

I think the Justice Department would be somewhere in the ballpark of being able to charge the former president based on what is known publicly, said Mariotti Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor now at Thompson Coburn LLP.

Trump, DeSantis showdown over Florida: Possible frontrunners in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis both courted potential Florida voters as each spoke at different events Saturday night.

Want this news roundup in your inbox every night?Sign up for the OnPolitics newsletterhere.

What Russian President Vladimir Putin once thought of as a quick victory has transformed into a monthslong war as Ukrainian forces fend off heavy Russian artillery attacks in eastern and southern Ukraine. Sunday marked five months since Russias invasion of Ukraine began.

Western nations have condemned Putins invasion of its smaller neighbor, accusing Russia of war crimes and imposing several rounds of sanctions. Ukrainianforces are engaged in intense fighting in the Luhansk and Donetsk territories as Russia aims to gain control of the Donbas region.

Kherson, Mariupol among Ukrainian territories under Russian control: After efforts to take Ukraines capital Kyiv stalled, the Kremlin shifted its focus on the resource-rich industrial Donbas region, made up of the Luhansk and Donetsk territories.

Russian forces have made gains in southern and eastern Ukraine, including Luhansk, after Ukrainian troops retreated from the city of Sievierodonetsk.

U.S. gives more than $7 billion in aid to Ukraine: The United States has authorized more than $7 billion in military, humanitarian and security assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion, in addition to aid the European Union and other NATO allies have sent.

Ukraine, Russia sign deal to export grain: Ukraine, one of the world's largest exporters of wheat, and Russia signed separate agreements with Turkey and the United Nations to allow the export of Ukrainian grain, as well as Russian grain and fertilizer, stuck in Black Sea ports since the beginning of the war. Shipments of grain and other agricultural products have been halted since Russias invasion.

Don't give up on your dream home just yet : As the housing market cools, some buyers are getting a second chance to grab their first choice. -- Amy and Chelsey

See the rest here:

Jan. 6 Capitol riot: DOJ must weigh whether to charge Trump - USA TODAY

A majority thinks Trump is to blame for Jan. 6 but won’t face charges, poll finds – NPR

Supporters cheer as President Donald Trump addresses them during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that a majority of respondents blame Trump for the attack on the Capitol that followed the rally, but that a slightly larger majority don't think he'll face charges. Samuel Corum/Getty Images hide caption

Supporters cheer as President Donald Trump addresses them during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that a majority of respondents blame Trump for the attack on the Capitol that followed the rally, but that a slightly larger majority don't think he'll face charges.

Ahead of a prime-time January 6th Committee hearing Thursday, a majority of Americans are paying attention and blame former President Donald Trump for what happened that day in 2021, but don't think he will be prosecuted, according to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

A majority of independents (55%) and 4 in 5 Democrats, but less than half of Republicans (44%), said they are paying at least some attention to the hearings.

A majority (57%) said Trump is to blame a great deal or a good amount for the Capitol riot, including 92% of Democrats and 57% of independents, but just 18% of Republicans. The 57% overall figure is up slightly and within the 4.1 percentage-point margin of error from last December (53%).

Half of respondents said they think Trump should be charged with a crime, including 9 in 10 Democrats but only 10% of Republicans. Independents are split, 49% to 46%.

Six in 10 respondents said they don't think Trump will face any charges.

There has been only some, if any, movement in people's views of what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Half called it an insurrection and a threat to democracy, statistically unchanged from December.

A quarter, including 40% of Republicans, described it as an unfortunate event, but one in the past, so no need to worry about it anymore.

About 1 in 5, including another 40% of Republicans, said it was a political protest protected under the First Amendment.

Notably, a majority of independents (52%) now say it was an insurrection and a threat to democracy, up 9 points from December.

The hearings haven't seemed to budge Republicans' views, though. In December, just 10% said Jan. 6 was an insurrection and threat to democracy. Now it's 12% statistically unchanged.

Thursday night's hearing, which the committee says is its last, at least for now, will focus on what Trump was doing and not doing while the Capitol was under attack.

As a voting issue, the hearings don't appear to be breaking through, either.

The top issue overall continues to be inflation, which is at its highest point in decades, with Republicans and independents overwhelmingly saying so.

For Democrats, abortion is the top motivating issue right now, with the Jan. 6 hearing second, followed by guns and health care. Inflation is fifth on the list for Democrats.

These hearings don't look like a game changer for this year's midterms, with inflation continuing to be a top concern for swing voters.

But this all might be more relevant to how people vote in the next presidential election, with Trump openly talking about running again.

In this survey, Trump is still viewed highly unfavorably. Just 38% have a favorable opinion of him, and 58% have an unfavorable one.

Biden's favorability wasn't assessed in this survey, but his is marginally better than Trump's on average in other polls.

Trump, though, sees an opening against Biden, whom he sees as weak. Biden's approval rating is just 36% in this survey, his lowest in the Marist poll since taking office. That's largely because of a lack of enthusiasm among Biden's own party.

In these polarizing times, it's hard for a candidate to do well without his base fully behind him.

For all the buzz that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has gotten, he has some work to do on his name identification 33% viewed him favorably and 39% unfavorably, but 28% didn't have an opinion of him or didn't know who he was.

Former Vice President Mike Pence is also eyeing a potential run, but his ratings aren't much better than Trump's just 37% viewed him favorably and 50% unfavorably.

Meanwhile, January 6th Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, the Republican from Wyoming, who has openly defied Trump, is viewed favorably by just 13% of Republicans, but 60% of Democrats.

She was viewed favorably overall by 34% of respondents and unfavorably by 43%, and almost a quarter weren't sure or hadn't heard of her.

The survey of 1,160 adults was conducted July 11 through 17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. Respondents were reached using live callers via cellphone and landline.

Go here to read the rest:

A majority thinks Trump is to blame for Jan. 6 but won't face charges, poll finds - NPR

Gov. Newsom Criminalizes the First Amendment NSSF – National Shooting Sports Foundation

July 15, 2022

By Matt Manda

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsoms new law to ban firearm advertising attractive to minors has criminalized First Amendment freedom of speech. Its not a law protecting children as the governor frames it.

Those who are backing this industry can no longer market to our children. The idea that we even have to do this is ridiculous, Gov. Newsom decried on Twitter. This law by the way goes into effect immediately. Because decent human beings, people with common sense, know that we should not be allowing this kind of disgusting marketing to go on another day.

Gov. Newsom held a .22-caliber youth model rifle and called it a weapon of war while pointing it directly at the cameraman.

What the governor and his handlers refuse to accept is his intentional and ill-conceived law is not a gun control law but is one restricting the First Amendment. Therein lies his greatest problem.

The law, AB 2571, prohibits firearm industry businesses, including gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, retailers and ranges, from advertising or marketing any firearm-related product, as defined, in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. State authorities are the arbiters determining if an advertisement is attractive to minors.

Bearing Arms Cam Edwards labelled the law as hog wash.

The fact that California Democrats seem to be targeting youth shooting sports specifically, if not explicitly, is evidence that this new law isnt about reducing firearm access to youth, Edwards wrote. That is what Gov. Newsom has in mind. Its not about stopping criminal firearm violence. Its not about holding criminals accountable for their crimes. Its always been about limiting the rights of law-abiding Californians.

Under the new law, potentially offending ads will include caricatures that reasonably appear to be minors or cartoon characters used to promote firearm-related products. That could be the use of images or depictions of minors in marketing materials. The law specifically forbids ads in publications created for the purpose of reaching an audience that is predominately composed of minors.

Californias new law would impose a $25,000 minimum penalty for sponsoring any adult-supervised youth shooting event. That includes the states Department of Fish and Wildlifes hunter education courses. Boy Scout target shooting merit badges could even be included.

While the law targets youth hunting, safe and responsible firearm education and more, as much as Gov. Newsom would like it to be, its not about the Second Amendment. Its about the freedom of speech First Amendment.

Now that Gov. Newsom signed this law, testimony at the state legislature in opposition to it regarding the laws premise is more relevant.

First Amendment Scholar Professor Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, testified in opposition to the bill while it was being considered in the states legislature.

Prof. Volokh slammed the bill as an attack on Free Speech rights, saying, I think even the bill as proposed to be amended would be unconstitutional, for three reasons: One, it would cover fully protected political speech, not just commercial advertising; Two, even as to commercial advertising, the law is unconstitutionally vague: It covers any ads that are attractive to minors, even if they are equally attractive to legal adult buyers; and Three, the law also covers constitutionally protected commercial advertising, such as the use of caricatures of minors or cartoon characters in ads that are clearly targeted at adults who lawfully buy guns that their children could use for legal hunting or target shooting.

There are already lawsuits filed, including by Second Amendment gun rights groups and pro-hunting youth recreational shooting organizations. Still, California Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, said his office will, take any and all action under the law to defend Californias commonsense gun laws.

Gov. Newsoms efforts to impose more gun control is not surprising. Its always been about doing what he can to crush Second Amendment rights. Now, hes stepping on First Amendment rights to show he sees no limit to his anti-gun agenda. Its Gov. Newsoms new blatant and unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.

You may also be interested in:

Its the Crime. Political Leaders Must Face Reality.

What If Lawmakers Could be Sued Like They Want to Sue the Gun Industry?

Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Top Stories

Here is the original post:

Gov. Newsom Criminalizes the First Amendment NSSF - National Shooting Sports Foundation

How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus – The Atlantic

A recent investigation of eight abortion-rights supporters at American University, in Washington, D.C., offers yet more evidence that college administrators and diversity-and-inclusion bureaucratssome of whom undermine free speech as if their job duties demanded itneed new checks on their power.

This matter began in May, shortly after the Supreme Courts draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization leaked, prompting numerous law students at American to join an online chat about the impending diminution of abortion rights. One student fretted about whether conservatives would overturn other precedents conferring rights to buy contraception, or to marry a partner of the same sex or of a different race. What are they going to go after next? the student wrote. Griswold? Obergefell? Loving?

A classmate replied, As a Republican, I find it insulting that conservatives would be thought of as overturning peoples civil rights. After another classmate interjected, Can we shut the fuck up about personal opinions while people process this? the Republican student responded. I find it interesting how the call to silence our personal opinions happens after I defended my deeply-held religious beliefs and yet nobody has mentioned that same sentiment about the pro-abortion posts. The discussion was deeply offensive to both me and my Greek Orthodox faith, he declared. On a campus that adequately valued students free speech, thats where the matter would have ended, with everyone having expressed their opinion.

Instead, the offended Republican student filed a harassment complaint. Then the Office of Equity and Title IX at American sent a formal letter to eight students alerting them that all were under investigation for allegedly harassing a classmate on the basis of his political affiliation and religious beliefs, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free-speech-advocacy group that took up the accused students cause.

Conor Friedersdorf: Why I cover campus controversies

Cases like this underscore the problem with administrators, often operating within or in conjunction with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies, who investigate speech on behalf of any complaining party no matter how weak their underlying claims. Some of the most easily offended university students in America have become adept at characterizing any speech they dislike as if it creates an unsafe, discriminatory, or hostile climate, or else constitutes harassment or even violence; and many of the accused find that being investigated in such cases is a punishment in itself.

Thats why, last month, I proposed a way to rein in such investigations: Universities should empower their faculty to check administrators and DEI staffers who undermine freedom of speech. If professorsor perhaps representatives chosen by professorscould sanction and, in extreme cases, terminate anyone who violates First Amendment rights or free-expression policies, administrators would have a powerful new incentive to avoid speech-chilling excesses. Administrators and DEI officials can, of course, be disciplined or fired by higher-ranking university bureaucrats, but they are essentially unaccountable to the scholars and students whose expression they are stifling. Faculty members are more likely than bureaucrats to understand that free speech is essential to academic freedom. On many campuses, when administrators have infringed on faculty or student rights, professorsespecially law professors steeped in First Amendment lawhave been unafraid to speak up.

Conor Friedersdorf: Professors need the power to fire diversity bureaucrats

A spokesperson at American argued in an email to me that universities are legally required to review all discririmination complaints and added that during the fact-finding process, no adverse action is taken by the university against any individuals. He went on to say that Americans Office of Equity and Title IX reviews only those matters related to a viable claim of discrimination and does not investigate matters related solely to disagreements based in speech.

But Alex Morey, a FIRE attorney who wrote to the university on the accused students behalf, lambasted Americans approach. This is absurd, he stated. Theres nothing even approaching harassment or discrimination in the chat. American cannot let its process for investigating actual discrimination and harassment be weaponized to investigate students opinions, but thats exactly whats happening. One of the accused students, Daniel Brezina, was similarly incredulous. I cant believe American is investigating us for having a frank discussion about abortion access, he said in a statement released by FIRE. This is going to have a massive chilling effect on honest discussions at the school. What good could possibly come of that? The investigation dragged into July before the students were told that they were not ultimately found responsible and would escape punishment.

Genevieve Lakier: The great free-speech reversal

When students can be investigated on the thinnest of pretexts and risk punishment for poorly defined transgressions, the safe approach is to self-censor rather than engage in exchanges on any sensitive subject. College administrators are seldom, if ever, punished for violating free-speech rights, even as they face significant incentives to expand the size and scope of their bureaucracies and to placate the aggrieved to avoid protests or negative publicity.

In recent weeks, Ive discussed my proposed solution to this problem with a variety of people in higher educationsome of whom, I should note, reject it entirely. I must disagree with the grounding premise that DEI administrators are serving to squash free speech and expression of University faculty members, Maria Dixon Hall, the chief diversity officer at Southern Methodist University, told me by email, noting that more senior administrators are typically calling the shots. She added, Inclusion is challenging to operationalize and enforce. But unfortunately, DEI Officers are made scapegoats by those on each side who feel we have too much power or not enough.

I say that the Princeton professor Robert George has it right. In an email to me, he noted that universities have rules, some of which protect free speech. University officials who violate those rules by trampling others free expression should not be exempt from punishment, he suggested.

George wrote,

Their rule-breaking should be treated no differently than the rule-breaking of faculty members, students, or anyone else in the community. Whats more, freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression are so foundational and central to the mission of universities that violations of peoples rights in this area need to be treated as extremely serious offenses subject to sanctions in line with those typically imposed on students and faculty for plagiarism, for example, or other serious acts of academic dishonesty.

At present, few institutions, if any, recognize overzealous speech investigations as serious transgressionsincluding in instances when courts rule that college administrators violated the legal rights of faculty, students, or members of the public.

Even among college professors who find the status quo unsatisfactory, there are doubts about whether empowering faculty to discipline administrators is a viable or optimal solution. Michael Behrent, a history professor at Appalachian State University, in North Carolina, believes diversity is an important goal, and that diversity officials can be useful, but that their current approach does result in efforts to undermine academic freedom. I think your basic idea is correct, namely, that there should be a mechanism for holding administrators accountable so that they respect academic freedom and free speech rights, he told me in an email. The problem is that what you propose is almost completely unrealistic in the current university environment in the US Its virtually inconceivable to imagine a modern university that would grant faculty the kind of authority you describe. I cant even imagine such a proposal lending itself to discussion. It would be rejected outright. This is not reflective of your proposal, but of the current situation in higher education.

Others feared that if my proposal were put into practice, faculty members might ally with administrators against free speech, or fail to protect free speech. Professors have incentives to avoid antagonizing the university brass. DEI officials, after all, are part of a sprawling administrative bureaucracy that, as Dan Eisenberg, a University of Washington professor, notes, has substantial powers in many different areas of campus, such as deciding where money goes to support raises, new hires, teaching assistants, research, retention, and lab space. If an administrator lies, cheats or steals, I might not want to go after them to the fullest extent the system permits, Eisenberg explains. I might get the particular administrator to have to publicly admit their wrongdoing and face some consequences, but if they or their allies stay in power, I might lose more over the long term. Many academics spend decades at the same institution.

Conor Friedersdorf: The threat to free speech, beyond cancel culture

Any effort to empower scholars against university bureaucrats would need to take account of those potential pitfalls. But all thats required to test out my approach is one institution willing to experiment, probably over the objection of administrators. In California, where I live, reform of the flagship state university system could be achieved by state legislators, the University of California Board of Regents, or a ballot initiative. I would urge the UC system to create an Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression Commission, which might be composed of, say, 15 First Amendment experts chosen by the law faculties of UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Hastings, UC Irvine, and UC Davis.

Any time administrators wanted to open an investigation into the speech of a faculty member or student based on someone elses complaint, they would need approval from the commission. Members would analyze the speech in question to determine if the speecheven if accurately described by the complainantwould nevertheless be allowed under the First Amendment or university policy. If so, the matter ends there, and administrators are denied permission to act. As Morey told me, When its painfully obvious that the only issue is a matter of students exercising their expressive rights, the only appropriate response is to stop any proceedings lest they chill speech. Even notifying students theyre being investigated for protected speech can chill them from expressing themselves in the future.

If this approach works for the UC system, other universities might well mimic it. The commission could also review complaints from faculty or students who allege that University of California administrators or staff abrogated their freedom of expression or academic-freedom rights, with any faculty member serving on the commission recusing themselves on any matter that originates on their home campus to safeguard against perverse incentives. Administrators would be subject to investigation and sanction for violating the law or policy, enjoying due process and appeals rights as strong as whatever they offer students.

Of course, any public-university system could try a similar approach. And any private college could experiment with variations adapted to its size and needs. I wish several institutions would try different experimental variations, because new threats to intellectual freedom keep emerging.

At the University of Washington, for example, the computer-science professor Stuart Reges is suing administrators, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by encouraging faculty to include land acknowledgments in course syllabi and then punishing him when they disagreed with the viewpoint that he expressed. (Reges, who views land acknowledgments as empty and performative, wrote, I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.) If a court finds in Regess favor, wouldnt it be better if representatives of the faculty had some way to sanction the relevant administratorsas compared with a system where administrators can violate a persons rights without themselves suffering any professional consequences?

Im not suggesting that sanctioning misbehaving administrators and diversity bureaucrats should be a scholarly communitys only defense against excessive investigations. The academics whom I consulted proposed a range of alternative or complementary measuressuch as faculty unionization and the careful cultivation of ties with the press and First Amendment lawyersby which professors can at least protect their own academic freedom and at best promote a broader culture of free expression.

Do professors want to be newly empowered, or continue ceding control over the university to administrators? That, to me, is the biggest question about the approach I propose: not whether faculty could eventually win a fight to wield some check on free-speech violations by administrators, but rather, whether faculty care enough to claw back power. When it comes to free speech, do enough members of the professoriate care to do the work?

Read more from the original source:

How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus - The Atlantic

Grading the SCOTUS: Originalism Rules, and That’s a Good Thing – Heritage.org

The three words that best describe the Supreme Courts decisions this term are text, history and tradition. If thats one word too many, try this: Originalism Rules! And thats a good thing.

The court considered several important constitutional cases this term. The split in most of these cases was six-to-three, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberal justices in dissent.

In the biggest case,Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, a five-justice majority ruled the Constitution has no right to obtain an abortion. This overturnedRoe v. Wade(1973) andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey(1992).

Nearly 50 years ago, Justice Byron White, in hisRoedissent, wrote that the errant ruling represented an exercise of raw judicial power. Similarly, John Hart Ely, an eminent scholar who supported abortion rights, stated thatRoewas not constitutional law and g(ave) almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

>>>5 Monumental Cases That Highlighted the Supreme Courts 2021-2022 Term

Those views were reflected in the majority opinion forDobbs, written by Justice Samuel Alito. He noted that the right to an abortion is not in the Constitutions text, nor was it part of our nations history or traditions. Indeed, virtually every state outlawed abortion when the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were ratified.

The court also decided on an important Second Amendment case,NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the six-to-three majority opinion, striking down a New York law requiring law-abiding citizens who passed a background check to demonstrate a special needbeyond a general desire to defend oneselfbefore being permitted to carry a firearm outside the home.

The court said that such a restriction was not supported bydrumroll pleaseeither the amendments text or the nations historical traditions. The court further stated that the amendment was the product of an interest balancing by the people and that it was improper for a court to engage in a judge-empowering interest-balancing inquiry once the protections of the amendment had been properly invoked.

In an important religious liberty case,Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the six-justice majority opinion ruling that a school violated the free exercise and free speech rights of a high school football coach when it fired him for offering a silent post-game prayer at midfield. The court relied uponyou guessed ithistorical practices and the original meaning of the First Amendments text in reaching its decision.

The court also finally declared that the courts much-criticized three-part test for analyzing Establishment Clause cases, promulgated inLemon v. Kurtzman(1971)which Justice Antonin Scalia once described as some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buriedwas indeed dead.

The court also sided with religious adherents in other significant religious liberty and free speech cases, includingCarson v. Makin,Shurtleff v. City of Boston, andRamirez v. Collier. Senator Ted Cruz also won a significant victory against the Federal Election Commission in which the court, again by a six-to-three vote, held that an FEC rule violated the First Amendment rights of candidates wishing to make personal loans to their own campaigns to engage in pure political speech.

And inNFIB v. OSHA,West Virginia v. EPAandAlabama Assoc. of Realtors v. HHS, the court (again via 6-3 votes) held that separation-of-powers principles require Congress to speak clearly before an administrative agency consisting of unaccountable bureaucrats can exercise nearly unlimited power over decisions of great economic and political significance.

>>>Supreme Courts Ruling in West Virginia v. EPA Delivers Win for Self-Government, Affordable Energy

In his dissenting opinion in the infamous case ofDred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Benjamin Curtis stated: When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men who, for the time being, have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their views of what it ought to mean.

During this momentous term, the court made great strides toward interpreting the Constitution with fidelity and restoring the rights of all Americans to govern themselveswith the exception of those few individual rights that are delineated in our Constitution or firmly rooted in our nations historical traditionsdebating, persuading and deciding contentious issues directly or through their elected representatives.

In terms of interpreting and adhering to the Constitution, I give the court an A-plus.

See the original post here:

Grading the SCOTUS: Originalism Rules, and That's a Good Thing - Heritage.org

What happens when you have a beef with a judge? – Iowa Capital Dispatch

It was not in the menu, but there was a heaping helping of irony served up one evening last week at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining at Mortons steakhouse. Demonstrators were outside, intent on ensuring he left with indigestion and not just a full belly.

At the center of this dinnertime dust-up was the right to choose interposed next to the right to chew. That is part of an ongoing debate over where such protests are appropriate.

The demonstrators oppose the Supreme Courts recent decision ending the Constitutions guarantee that women have a right to an abortion under certain circumstances.

That issue was front and center outside Mortons just as it has been in demonstrations in dozens of communities across the United States, including Iowa. People have peacefully gathered to express their views on the decision to end Roe vs. Wades protections for women.

Kavanaugh has been the target of many protesters, not only because he was one of the votes in favor of overturning Roe, but also because he assured us during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2018 that Roe was an important legal precedent that has been reaffirmed many times.

Whether you support the courts recent decision or not, we should all agree peaceful demonstrations are one of the freedoms that need to be protected in the United States. Of course, it is ironic how peoples views of the appropriateness of demonstrations and picketing change as the issues change.

About the demonstration at Mortons:

Critics of the Supreme Courts decision jumped on the symbolism of the reaction to the encounter on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant. At the same time,critics of the demonstration focused on the issue of people invading Kavanaughs privacy and keeping him from dining in peace.

Mortons management criticized the unruly behavior of the protesters. The restaurant statement caused some supporters of the demonstrators to choke on the assertion that the rights of restaurant patrons should not be infringed upon.

Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner, the restaurant said.

While some people were angered by the intrusions into the private lives of Supreme Court justices, other people mocked such concerns by using language similar to that in the Supreme Courts decision.

Alexandra Petri, a Washington Post columnist, wrote: The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution.

But there was much more at stake than steak in the demonstration outside Mortons.

There is that matter of peoples right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of their grievances, two foundations of the First Amendment. And there is the question of whether public officials like the justices should have to live by the same rules they set for the rest of us to follow.

This is where another helping of irony gets served up.

Some of the supporters of the Supreme Courts abortion decision have been vocal critics of demonstrators marching in front of the justices homes. These critics have expressed concern for the safety of the jurists and their families. They also have said the homes of justices should be off limits so the officials can go about their lives free of harassment.

There is irony, because the Supreme Court has for many years put the large public plaza in front of its own building off-limits to demonstrators. And in the weeks leading up to the abortion ruling, the court established a much larger buffer zone around its building, with an 8-foot-tall fence to keep demonstrators farther away.

Contrast that with the Supreme Courts past decisions in which the justices concluded that even a 35-foot-wide buffer zone around abortion clinics was an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment rights of abortion opponents to express their views and confront doctors and patients.

In a 1988 case, the court did uphold the constitutionality of a Wisconsin law that prohibited targeted picketing outside peoples houses. The issue then was protesters carrying baby killer signs who gathered outside the homes of doctors.

But the tables have turned now.

Then, it was people who were pro-choice who wanted targeted picketing banned. Now, it is people who are pro-life who support a ban on picketing outside homes of people like Brett Kavanaugh.

Then, it was doctors and employees of abortion clinics who feared for their safety. Now, it is judges and their families who have that fear. And both groups concerns are legitimate.

Through the years, several doctors and clinic employees have been murdered by pro-life zealots. Last month, a retired Wisconsin judge was killed in his home by man he had sent to prison a decade ago. Five days later, an armed man was arrested in the middle of the night outside Kavanaughs house.

There are other places to peacefully express our views without clogging the sidewalks in front of peoples homes, leaving occupants to fear a wacko might be in the group. Thats true whether a Supreme Court justice lives there or whether its an employee of an abortion clinic.

This is where common sense should come in.

Go here to see the original:

What happens when you have a beef with a judge? - Iowa Capital Dispatch

How The First Amendment Will Protect Us From Our Gun Crisis – Above the Law

Back in my day, I remember when The Church and The State at least pretended to operate in separate spheres. While you could debate over if the Pledge of Allegiance had us mouthing praise to a nation under a Christian God, it definitely wasnt under something secular like a Groove. In the olden times, the Elephant People espoused the importance of different spheres of action. It was a big selling point, actually. The state was supposed to make limited policy decisions that actually impacted people pave roads and maintain the prison population via the trifecta that is the War on Drugs, over-policing in communities of color, and strong on law and order rhetoric. Oh, and pardon turkeys. Presidents love doing that crap. The Church was supposed to do the rest: give thoughts and prayers, feed the homeless usually on the condition that they receive those thoughts and prayers, etc.

Now that the Supreme Court has made a bigger waste of the Establishment Clause than whatever amount of money Sony dedicated to making Morbius, things have gone topsy turvy. Given that the right to prayer includes pressuring people into being a part of your free exercise against their will, you should expect these once-separate spheres to coincide in strange ways. Like Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett forgoing law making and opting instead for the power of prayer to cull mass shootings.

Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, during aFox Newsappearance on Wednesday, suggested that expelling demons could be a way to cut back on mass shootings.

Bennett, who served as education secretary under President Ronald Reagan, weighed in on the function of red flag laws like those in Illinois that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Bennett, during hisFox News appearance, said parents, schools and police officers are among the people who can pay more attention to potential red flags for mass violence. But, you know, you may need an exorcist, too, he suggested. Bennett added that young men accused of mass shootings have deeply spiritual problemsIts a deeply spiritual void, I think, that these young men have in their hearts and their souls, and I think it needs to be addressed, Bennett said.

Finally, someone has the answers! It is not a good answer a bad one, even but it is one! And it is spreading like umm Im trying to make a metaphor about replicating bits of fish and loaves of bread. The juices arent flowing so please just take this Hail Mary and a tweet for good measure.

I think Louie is on to something. If prayer is the answer, it has to mean something drastic must be done. And quickly. Because prayer definitely wasnt enough to prevent a White supremacist from opening fire and killing nine churchgoers in the House of the Lord back in 2015. Or the 26 killed in a mass shooting at a San Antonio church. Or the three killed in at a church potluck. Or any one of the 314 mass shootings from this year.

Others have different solutions to Americas mass murder problem:

Although opponents of sensible gun controlthe kind that prevails throughout most of the civilized worldcontinue to put the spotlight on the shooters motivations or unstable mental states, these are cynical diversions from the one obvious truth: The common thread in all of the countrys revolting mass shootings is the absurdly easy access to guns. The science is clear: Restrictions work, and its likely that even more limitations would save thousands of livesMake protest signs. Start marching. Push lawmakers to finally break the partisan gridlock that has made moments of silence a regular observance. The National Rifle Association and its minions must be defeated. Its up to us because the victims of gun violence are tragically and devastatingly not here to protest themselves.

That said, Science.org is probably just some leftist fake media outlet anyway. All that data and peer-reviewed research aint nothing on our Second Amendment and a good Our Father. Prayer and policing doors are the only defense this country has against firearms, after all. And if you dont like it, you can get out.

Wildfire! Its spreading like wildfire! Why didnt I just say that earlier?

We Know What The Problem Is [Science]Fox News Commentator Implies Exorcists Can Curb Mass Shootings [Huff Post]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord in the Facebook groupLaw School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim,a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email atcwilliams@abovethelaw.comand by tweet at@WritesForRent.

More:

How The First Amendment Will Protect Us From Our Gun Crisis - Above the Law

Supreme Court prayer ruling proves my grandmother was right about First Amendment – Fox News

Former coach wins court case over prayer

Former high school football coach Joe Kennedy and member of Kennedys legal team Jeremy Dys respond to victory at the Supreme Court in his case on Fox News @ Night.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

When I read the U.S. Supreme Courts recent decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the one that allowed the school football coach to pray on the field after the game, I thought of my maternal grandmother, Minnie Manger. As I look back, it turns out that "Baba," as we called her, played a large part in the formation of my understanding of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Baba emigrated from Central Europe to the United States at the beginning of the last century in pursuit of religious freedom and economic opportunity. She found both in abundance here, and that is why Baba was one of the most patriotic Americans I ever knew. Her five children worked their way up the American ladder of economic opportunity. None of them went to college, but each of 10 grandchildren did and then went on to live successful lives that were unlimited by their Jewish faith or observance. In 2000, one of her grandsons was even nominated by the Democratic Party for vice president of the United States.

Baba was proud of all that family achievement, but I think she was most emotionally grateful for the religious freedom America gave her. She once told me that I probably could not appreciate how much it meant to her that on Sabbath when she walked to synagogue services in Stamford, Connecticut, instead of being the target of verbal abuse or worse, as she had been in the "old country," here her Christian neighbors would stop and say, "Good Sabbath, Mrs. Manger."

HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL COACH SCORES BIG WIN AT SUPREME COURT OVER POST-GAME PRAYER

Once during my youth, there was a local controversy in which a group of people protested the presence of a nativity scene in a public park near Babas house. She told me she did not understand the protest, explaining that the presence of that nativity depiction in the park clearly meant something spiritual to the people who put it up, and she respected that, but it did not in any way compromise the wonderful religious freedom she enjoyed in America. So why would she oppose it?

The Supreme Court is seen Wednesday, June 29, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

In that response, Baba captured what I believe is the meaning of the First Amendments religion clauses. If government action does not compromise freedom of religion, in any way, that government action is not prohibited. The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Therefore, it seems to me (and I think would to Baba if she were still alive) that because Coach Joseph Kennedys prayers after the game did not limit anyones freedom of religion or anyones freedom not to be religious,they were not an establishment of religion, as prohibited by the Constitution.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

"Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion for the Supreme Court majority. And he added (perhaps to reassure people that he was not establishing Coach Kennedys Christian religion but only protecting his right to pray) that if the Bremerton School System could fire the coach for his prayers on the field, "a school could fire a Muslim teacher for wearing a head scarf in the classroom or prohibit a Christian [or observant Jewish] aide from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

At law school, I was taught that over time Supreme Court decisions could slide on a "slippery slope" from what their authors intended to unacceptable applications. In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch has put up some strong roadblocks against such sliding, and we must, as always, depend on future Supreme Courts to understand that the great goal of the First Amendment is to protect freedom of religion, and that the prohibition of the establishment of a religion is in the Constitution to protect every Americans freedom of religion, not to banish religious expression from American life, as my Baba understood and taught me.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JOE LIEBERMAN

Joseph Lieberman is chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). He was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 and a U.S. senator from Connecticut, 1989-2013.

Read more here:

Supreme Court prayer ruling proves my grandmother was right about First Amendment - Fox News

A woman who won’t back down: The First Amendment is alive and well in Michigan – Daily Kos

Carravallah is many things. Shes a mother, a wife, a friend, a daughter, a sister, and an American who, like anyone else who calls the United States home, enjoys the protection of the First Amendment right to free speech.

When she posted signs in her yard, she started documentingit on thesocial media app TikTok and in her videos, she is seen smiling at her husband who isfilming while she paints and while music is played on a loopfrom her front porch. The music Carravallah played to accompany her signs after Roe fellwas the unapologetic song currently trending for content creators on TikTok by artist Leikeli47. It features thedeclaration: Its my pussy I can do what I want, Im a big girl now.

The police were called to Carravallahshome, and a trio of officers warnedher that she could be cited for disturbing the peace though she is legally permitted to play music from her home in herneighborhood from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.One neighbor on her blockcalledthe police on hertwice in 24 hours. Another neighbor called once.Police have visited her home multiple times since the signs went up.

Carravallah had less than 1,000 followers on the app before her post on June 27. She now has 53,000 and counting andher initial post has since racked up over 1 million views.

Other videosthat followed have gone viral too, including one postwith over 5 million viewswhere Carravallah is seen skipping whimsically on her sidewalk while holding a protest sign. Text overlaid at the bottom of the video states: Me on my way to paint a sign that says well see how you really feel about abortion after I f*ck your husband.

Carravallah is aware that her language is strong. But she makes no apologies for it and believes she is speaking out on a matter ofpublic concern and on an issue that has now infringed the rights of millions, including rightsto religious freedom.

I have a sister-in-law who is Jewish and this rulingnow, for Jewish girls in states with trigger laws, means their freedom of religion is being impeded, she said.

Under the Jewish faith, feelings on abortion are not a monolithbut overwhelmingly, the right to abortion access is acceptedas a value of the religious tradition and especially when there is a threat to themothers life. With Roe overturned, some Jewish organizations are pushing back by launching lawsuits challenging the ruling while othersdid sobefore the high courts decision was issued. TheCongregation L'Dor Va-Dor in Boynton Beach, Florida, for example, sued in early June, saying that Floridas 15-weekabortion ban signed by Governor Ron DeSantis this April "discriminates against Jews, the mentally ill and those who do not share the views of fundamentalist Christianity."

Carravallah is deeply disturbed by the Christian religious doctrine she believes now fiercely grips the court.

So, Ill put a sign up that says Fuck your god if your god is going to do this to women and girls in my country. Then you can look at my sign. You can all look at my sign. Everybody can look at my sign, she said.

Beforethe Supreme Courts ruling last month, Carravallah described her relationship with her neighbors in hermiddle class suburban community as amicable and warm. She was just another mom on the block who, on occasion, would receive invites to join her neighbors for friendly gatherings that she happily attended.

Her protest changed that.

And her decision to document her experience on TikTok hasgenerated a flood of hateful messages towards her online and other forms harassment likethe doxxing of her address.

When she first putup the signs, Carravallah told Daily Kos, no one on her block was around or outside. But in short order, she said, neighbors who opposed the language started showing up andstanding around to record her. This went on for multiple days and the hate started to flow onlineforcing Carravallah to field a deluge of character attacks on her as both aperson and mother. She documented multipleattempts to doxx her personal address.

Undeterred, Carravallah kept recordingher protest and the accompanying police response, as well her neighbors response on TikTok for a few days.

Then she received a notice in the mail. A petition for a personal protective order, or, in lay terms, a restraining order, something typically used to prevent stalking.The order was filed by a neighbor in an attempt to havethe mother of three remove hersigns featuring therisqu language and to stop appearing outside of her own home to protest.

Carravallahseeks to terminate that order, arguing she has at least one right not yet overturned by the high court: The First Amendment.

And now the American Civil Liberties Union has stepped in to help.ACLU cooperating attorneys Mark and Allison Kriger and ACLU senior staff attorney for ACLU of MichiganPhilip Mayorare representing Carravallah.

In a phone interview this week, Mark Kriger told Daily Kos he was confident Carravallah is perfectly within her rights and helped herfile amotion to dismiss the restraining order. And if they lose that fight, he said, they will appeal.

All of the activity Amanda engaged in was protected under the First Amendment, Kriger said beforenoting several precedents established both in the state of Michigan and in the Supreme Courts1971 ruling, Cohen v. California.

In that case, Paul Robert Cohen, a young person opposed to the Vietnam War,entered a courtroom in Los Angeles in 1968 sporting a t-shirt that proclaimed: Fuck the Draft! Stop the War!.

He was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. Cohen served 30 days in jail after being convicted. He appealed the ruling but lost aftera California appellate court found it reasonable to presume that his clothing could spark violence. But when the states supreme court refused to hear his appeal, Cohen ran it up another rung to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an opinion led by then-Justice John Marshall Harlan, Cohensconviction was overturned in a 5-4 decision.

One mans vulgarity is anothers lyric, Harlan famously wrote in the ruling.

Harlanadded:Government officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.

Like Cohens, Carravallahs languagewas provocative, too. But there is no supporting evidence to suggest her protest poses a threat or something worse, according to Kriger.

Kriger said he believes her case is doubly strong against any would-be challengers because all of the perceived vulgarity was confined to the borders of her own property.

Shes speaking on a political issue that has occupied the consciousness of this country for 50 years now and I think the Michigan courts have consistently ruled this is a First Amendment-protected activity, he said.

One of those cases isa 2018 matter decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals known as TM vs. MZ.

Two politically-minded neighbors with an acrimonious past tangled with each other online after a falling out. One of the defendants, identified only as MZ, postedan onslaught of accusations in public onlineforums about TMs family, character, parenting abilities, alleged drug use andcriminal past and more. MZ even went so far as to publicly accuse TM of child abduction and made derogatory comments about TMs son who had recently died.

TM filed a personal protective order, alleging stalking and threats tolife.Theprotective order was initially granted and it featured a stipulation that MZ bebarred from making any further comments targeting TM. But MZ appealed, arguing that the neighbors annoyance didnt rise to the level of defamation as allegednor was there any evidence to suggest that real violence was being threatened.

We do not disagree with [TM] or the trial court that [MZ]s statements often were inappropriate, at times crude, and even sometimes, with respect to the death of [TMs] son, offensive, wrote Michigan Court of Appeals JudgePeter Riordan. Inappropriate, crude and offensive language, however, is not necessarily excepted from constitutional protection. For that reason, we cannot addopt the trial courts preference to treat a [personal protective order], which in this case is a prior restraint on [MZs speech], as a means to help supplement the rules that we all live in a society by. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution demands that we not treat such speech-based injunctions so lightly.

And then theres people like Leo Weber, Carravallah recalled, a onetime mayoral candidate in Livonia, Michigan.

In 2020, Weber, a supporter of former President Donald Trumps, posted anti-LGBTQsignage on his front lawn with full blown slurs. The signs read: Fags R Sicko and Fags R Evil See Gen. 18.20 Sodom & Gomorrah. If I catch you, I will kill you!

Neighbors upset by the signs complained to local police and wereinformed that Weber could leave them up because they were not targeting a specific person by name and therefore, were protected under the First Amendment. Livonia Mayor Maureen Miller Brosnan publicly condemned Webers signs but acknowledged she could not force him to remove them. There was not any city ordinance in place that could stopWeber from writing exactly what he did. Another ordinance that forbade an excess of signage in the front yard could curb some of WebersFirst Amendment activity, but not all of it.

An ACLU staff attorney at the time, Jay Kaplan, urged the city to denounce Webers signs publicly since they couldnt be removed and further asked local police to emphasize publicly that violence towards members of the LGBT+ community would not be tolerated.

After Carravallah went viral on TikTok, her video was seen by Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat. Dingell shared it withfellow Michigan lawmaker and Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

Carravallahs joy in the video, dancing in her pink bathing suit, was more than palpable, Tlaib told Daily Kos in a phone interview.

The first thing I thought, especially when you take such a courageous position in your community and your neighbors and folks are obviously in disgareementyou know, Ive been thereI didnt want her to feel alone, Tlaib said.

Tlaibs staff did some digging and found Carravallah, who is one of her constituents.

Shes amazing. She very much believes this is her absolute right, especially because this is her home and her property, Tlaib said. This is her way of standing up for the right to control her body and say it.

Tlaib is an attorney as well as lawmaker and is well versed with how protest functions.

I know for a fact she has a constitutional right to express herself in this way. Whats disturbing is we know of previous incidents where folks were vulgar, putting up signs that were hateful and full of divisive language and so forth. Here she is just saying, absolutely not, this is my body, I have a right to do this, Im upset, and its still coming from a place of joy, Rep. Tlaib said.

On Friday, President Joe Biden issued an executive order instructing the Department of Health and Human Services to protect access to reproductive health care services like abortion. On its face, the order vows to safeguard and expand access to abortion and emergency contraceptives. Itcalled too for privacy rights to be protected for those who use period tracker appsand called for the creation of a task force that would involve multiple agencies including the Department of Justice. Bidencalled on Congress to codify Roe but that is an uphill battle with a bleak future for now.

Tlaib said she wants the nation to move with urgency because there are lives, here and now, on the line.

This has already created a crisis where women will die if they dont have access to abortion care. So I hope we understand thatthis is about saving lives. Again, I dont onlywant, obviously, statements around executive orders but implementation. Weve got tomake sure that whatever the intent here is, and I know its well-intended, that we make sure folks on the ground understand that, she said.

In Michigan, one of the states largest health care institutions known as BHSH System, told its employees after Roe was overturned that it would only provide abortions to save the life of the mother per a 1931 state law that solely permitted abortions in this instance.

But within 48 hours BHSH backpedaled, saying it would reinstate abortions whenever medically necessarybecause there were still legal questions floating around about the 1931 law.

The law is not in effect and abortion is still legal in Michigan, according to Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. County prosecutors opposed to abortion have vowed to see the 1931 ban enforced.

But a push to see the right to abortion access locked into the states constitution has gained huge traction. An initiative in Michiganknown asReproductive Freedom for All is on track to appear on ballots this November after amassing nearly 800,000 signatures as of July 8.That ballot initiative, if activated,would repeal the 1931 abortion ban and is widely considered to be a record-breaking petition in the state.

Tlaib praised Governor Whitmer, who, she said,did not even hesitate to use the courts to make sure that shes protecting the women in our country and those who can get pregnant.

As for Amanda Carravallah, Tlaib said she is proud of a constituent who has refused to be cowed and has expressed herself peacefully in the process.

Carravallah is part of the movement to protect the rights of her fellow Americans and it doesnt begin or end with what happens at a federal level, but what happens on a local level, the lawmaker said.

What we have access to in our democracy is self-determination, Tlaib said.Amanda does not deserve to be bullied orintimidated by those that disagree with her. We are a democracy. We have diverse opinions. People have shared values but they also have different kinds of interpretations of those values. But Ill tell you this, Amanda doesnt deserve the kind of treatment shes been getting in her community. If anything, folks should welcome that kind of engagement in our country because not every country allows this kind of freedom of expression and we have to protect it.

Read the rest here:

A woman who won't back down: The First Amendment is alive and well in Michigan - Daily Kos

New Arizona Law Will Make it Illegal to Film Within Eight Feet of Police – Reason

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a bill into law Wednesday that will make it illegal to film the police within eight feet.

The legislation, H.B. 2319, makes it a misdemeanor offense to continue filming police activity from within eight feet of an officer after receiving a verbal warning. The bill originally restricted filming the police from no closer than 15 feet away, but it was amended after criticisms.

There are also exceptions for filming the police in a private residence, during a traffic stop, and for the subject of a police encounter. But the law qualifies those exceptions, saying they apply only if the person recording is "not interfering with lawful police actions," or "unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interfering in the law enforcement activity or that it is not safe to be in the area and orders the person to leave the area."

Interfering with police, or obstruction of justice, is one of the most frequently cited justifications for frivolous and retaliatory arrests.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona opposed the legislation, saying it "lacks specificity and gives officers too much discretionmaking it the bill more apt to protect bad cops who want to hide misconduct than those who are doing their job properly with a bystander recording nearby."

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. John Kavanagh (RFountain Hills), wrote in a March op-ed that he introduced it "because there are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents, and they get dangerously close to potentially violent encounters."

"I can think of no reason why any responsible person would need to come closer than 8 feet to a police officer engaged in a hostile or potentially hostile encounter," Kavanagh wrote. "Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary and unsafe, and should be made illegal.

T. Greg Doucette, a criminal defense attorney who also specializes in free speech law, told Reason in February that there are constitutional problems with the law.

"Can you be arrested for standing still while wearing a GoPro under this statute?" Doucette asked. "It seems the answer here is yes, which would violate the First Amendment (since standing still isn't interfering with an officer's duties)."

The First Amendment right to film the police has been upheld by several federal appeals courts, as Reason's Billy Binion has reported:

The right to film government officials in public has been at the center of a slew of legal challenges over the last few decades. And several federal appeals courtsincluding the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 11th Circuitshave ruled that it is indeed an activity protected by the First Amendment.

It was also established in the 9th Circuitwhere Arizona is locatedalmost 30 years ago, in a 1995 decision where the court ruled that a cop violated the Constitution when he physically sought to stop a man from videotaping a public protest in 1990.

The National Press Photographers Association, joined by numerous media outlets and press freedom groups, issued a letter in February opposing the bill. They declared that the legislation"violates not only the free speech and press clauses of the First Amendment, but also runs counter to the 'clearly established right' to photograph and record police officers performing their official duties in a public place."

While civil liberties groups say recording the police is both protected and crucial for government accountability, lawmakers in some states have been trying to make it harder for citizens to do it. In addition to Arizona, the South Carolina and Florida legislatures have also introduced bills over the past two years to restrict the ability to film the police.

State legislators should be less concerned with cops' feelings and more concerned about citizens' right to document how armed government agents go about their business. Giving officers another discretionary offense to slap on someone who annoys them will lead only to more confusion and more censorship.

See the article here:

New Arizona Law Will Make it Illegal to Film Within Eight Feet of Police - Reason