TOPEKA, Kansas Republican lawmakers look determined to take on the Biden administrations insistence that employers pressure their workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Legislature meets in a special session next week to engage in battle with the federal government over the vaccine mandates. But courts will likely have the final say on if the mandate is legal, and some factions worry such bold action to fight mandates could further atrophy the state's ability to respond to public health crises.

This week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration paused enforcement of its own temporary emergency standard requiring companies with 100 employees or more to mandate that workers either get vaccinated or submit to regular testing.

Legislative leaders waited until the emergency standard was in place to call a special session. But now that the rule is in legal limbo, its unlikely the Republicans who dominate the Legislature will abandon plans to give workers the freedom to dodge the mandates simply by invoking religious objections. Or drop other proposals offered in the spirit of civil liberties and aimed to undercut the federal mandates.

Were not going to let the Biden Administration force businesses to play God or doctor and determine whether a religious or medical exemption is valid or not, Republican Senate President Ty Masterson said in a statement announcing the session. Were going to trust individual Kansans.

Conservative legislators in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wyoming and North Dakota have already completed special sessions and passed bills aimed at nullifying new federal mandates.

Lawmakers in Florida passed a bill that would fine businesses $10,000 per violation if they didnt offer a number of exemptions to their employees. The governor in Wyoming signed only one of the 20 bills that were written during the special session a law that gives his office $4 million dollars to challenge federal vaccine mandates. Four of the states, including Kansas, will elect governors next year.

The New York Times reports Kansas lawmakers are among legislators across the country that passed more than 100 laws that limit state and local health powers. State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year modifying the Kansas Emergency Management Act to shift power away from local public health officials and the governor and toward elected county commissioners.

Yet even if the federal mandate is struck down, new state laws making changes to religious exemptions in Kansas could transform the legal and public health systems for years to come.

It seems like the bills are drafted to let the exemptions swallow the rule, said Sharon Brett, legal director of the Kansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Brett said theres no freedom of religion provision in the First Amendment that allows a person to put another person in danger by practicing their religion.

If employers have incentives to skimp on verifying the sincerity of an employee who invokes a religious exemption the way such things are subject to challenge in avoiding military service, for instance Brett said that would mark a fundamental change.

It basically gives a two-tiered system of justice, Brett said, where the religious rights of people in free society are upheld over public safety.

That sends a really difficult and unfortunate signal about who we are, and how we uphold the First Amendment in this country, she said.

New laws strengthening religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines could also wind up undercutting laws on the books requiring vaccinations for school-aged children.

It sets a precedent, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, the chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. It's particularly concerning for childhood vaccinations.

He cited previous national measles outbreaks where some people garnered religious exemptions and remained unvaccinated. In cases like that, Plescia said, public health officials have often been able to lobby religious leaders to convince them of the good vaccines would do in their communities.

But in this case, he said some of these religious exemptions arent really something that religions themselves are even calling for.

State and local health officials face this political and legal fight when theyre already besieged by the pandemic. Thats made it harder to campaign against new laws that could have far-reaching effects on a range of vaccinations.

Theres not a clear sort of national advocate who can step in, Plescia said.

Meanwhile, he said groups like the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council have drafted model legislation adopted by legislatures across the country.

Abigail Censky is the political reporter for the Kansas News Service. You can follow her on Twitter @AbigailCensky or email her at abigailcensky (at) kcur (dot) org.

The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio focused on health, the social determinants of health and their connection to public policy.

Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org.

Follow this link:

Kansas lawmakers look to undercut federal vaccine mandates, and that worries public health officials - KCUR

Michael Flynn, Donald Trumps first national security adviser, was widely condemned after calling for the establishment of one religion in the US.

Religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment to the US constitution, which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Regardless, at a rally staged in San Antonio on Saturday by the Christian nonprofit news media network American Faith, Flynn said: If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God.

In response, the Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, said: These people hate the US constitution.

Mark Hertling, a retired general and media commentator, called Flynn, himself a retired general, an embarrassment to the US army.

His words are disgusting, Hertling said.

On Sunday, the veteran reporter Carl Bernstein told CNN that Flynn, as one of the knaves and fools and dangerous authoritarian figures with whom Trump surrounded himself in and out of office, was saying out loud things that have never been said by an aide or close associates to the president of the United States.

Bernstein added: It should be no surprise to know that Michael Flynn is saying the kind of things that he is saying, but whats most significant here is that much of the Republican party something like 35% in in exit polls said they favour Trump because Christianity is being taken away from them.

So Michael Flynn is not that far away from huge numbers of people in this country.

Flynn is no stranger to controversy. Fired from a senior intelligence role by Barack Obama, he became a close aide to Trump before resigning as national security adviser after less than a month in the role, for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians.

Flynn pleaded guilty to one criminal charge under Robert Muellers investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow, a plea he sought to withdraw before receiving a pardon from Trump.

He has since emerged as an influential figure on the far right, linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory and appearing to advocate armed insurrection.

In San Antonio, Flynn called the indictment of another Trump ally, Steve Bannon, over the investigation of the Capitol attack, an abuse of freedom of speech another first amendment freedom.

The Capitol was attacked on 6 January by Trump supporters seeking to overturn his election defeat. Flynn is himself the subject of a subpoena from the investigating House committee. On Friday, he told Fox News he had nothing to hide.

In Texas, Flynn called the House investigation a crucifixion of our first amendment freedom to speak, freedom to peacefully assemble.

His remarks about religion attracted support from a prominent contender in a vicious party fight for a Republican Senate nomination in Ohio.

Josh Mandel, a former Ohio state treasurer, tweeted: We stand with General Flynn.

Mandels own religion has been the subject of debate and controversy. In September, the Forward published an op-ed which asked if he was obscuring his Jewishness in order to appeal to far-right Christian voters.

In response, Mandel described himself as a Proud American. Proud Jew. Proud Marine. Proud Zionist. Everything Democrats hate.

Mandels religion was the subject of a controversial attack ad from another Republican hopeful, Mark Pukita, who denied charges of antisemitism.

Amid criticism of his support for Flynn, Mandel said freedom of religion [is not equal to] freedom FROM religion. He also said: America was not founded as a secular nation.

Read more:

Trump ally Michael Flynn condemned over call for one religion in US - The Guardian

Last month, Glenn Youngkin, Virginia's Republican governor-elect, targeted Toni Morrison's "Beloved" in a campaign ad that featured a parent upset that the 1987 novel was taught to her son when he was a high school senior.

It is not the only book of Morrison's, a Black woman, to be challenged in some communities and as the debate over education again heats up, books have become a flashpoint around the U.S.

A wide variety of books have been challenged or banned for a wide variety of reasons, according to the American Library Association, which keeps a running list of the most challenged books in libraries and schools.

Most of the books on the 2020 list the most recent available are challenged, banned or restricted due to alleged "LGBTQIA+ content," "anti-police messages," themes of race, "divisive language" and "sexually explicit language," according to the ALA.

Deborah Stone, director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told CBS News there appears to be an organized effort to challenge books that deal with two broad topics: racism or Black American history and the LGBTQ community.

Stone said campaigns to ban books may be spreading more easily due to social media, and ALA has seen different people from different communities use the same language when arguing against books a clue that they got the idea from someone else, possibly online.

She said campaigns to ban books are usually a coordinated effort by activists targeting school boards.

Books with themes about race are often banned under the "false claim" of critical race theory, Stone said. "We're talking about works of literature, we're talking about individuals talking about their experiences in society not critical race theory," she said. "But there's a real effort to limit and restrict access to these materials."

Critical race theory acknowledges racial disparities that have persisted in U.S. history and offers an academic framework to understand how racism is reinforced in U.S. law and institutions.

There is no evidence it is taught in K-12 schools, but its tenets have inspired dozens of states to pass laws that ban critical race theory, which often makes it easier for parents to successfully campaign against certain books.

Under Texas' new law banning critical race theory in the classroom, teachers cannot discuss the idea that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex."

Jerry Craft's "New Kid," a book about an African American boy going to a new school that is majority White, "is not in any way racist or critical race theory," and has won literary awards, Stone said. But parents in Katy, Texas successfully stopped an October appearance by Craft, and had "New Kid" temporarily removed from the school "by simply saying it represented critical race theory," she said.

"It is inappropriate instructional material," Bonnie Anderson, a former candidate for the Katy Independent School Board, told CBS affiliate KKTV in October about the book. "They are pointed at White children displaying microaggressions to children of color. The books don't come out and say, 'We want White children to feel like oppressors,' but that is absolutely what they will do."

Another parent, Omerly Sanchez, told KKTV her elementary school-aged son loved the book. "He said it was funny," Sanchez said.

Like other laws that ban critical race theory, a new law in Tennessee bans teaching any concepts that would make someone feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or distress solely because of the individual's race or sex," and prohibits lessons that suggest anyone, based on their race or sex, is "inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."

Sharon Roberson, the president and CEO of the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, denounced the law. In a letter to the Tennessee Department of Education, Roberson said it will have harmful effects on children's education and society as a whole.

"The intention is really to put us in this war against each other. For people to say that if you discuss these issues this is going to cause harm to children, whereas teachers are trained to teach and if you really want your students to have the advantage of a global society that we're in, they're going to have to know their history," Roberson said.

Stone said it's not just books with themes of race that are often challenged. "Coming of age" books that depict puberty, sexuality or sex acts are commonly considered "obscene" even though these themes are just one part of the book, and the concern often misrepresents the piece of literature as a whole.

"'Beloved' is one of the best examples of that that's in the headlines right now it isn't pornographic or obscene, it just deals with sex," she said.

The book, which is set in the Reconstruction era and vividly portrays the horrors of slavery and its legacy, contains passages that are violent and sexually explicit.

Republican lawmakers across Texas are working to enforce a ban on what they consider "divisive concepts."

Republican State Representative Matt Krause put together a list of 850 books he believes should be banned, including "Rainbow, a first book of Pride," aimed at young readers, and "Underneath It All: A History of Women's Underwear," aimed at young adults. Krause, a candidate for Texas attorney general, sent a letter to Texas school districts asking them to report how many books from the list they currently make available to students.

Krause also asked districts to identify any other books that may include: human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, AIDS, sexually explicit images or material that "might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex," according to CBS Dallas. CBS News has reached out to a representative for Krause for comment and is awaiting response.

Another Republican state lawmaker in Texas, Jeff Cason called on the state's attorney general to investigate school districts that have sexually explicit books in their library. One of the books he deemed inappropriate is "Gender Queer," by Maia Kobabe,which its publisher describes as a "useful and touching guide on gender identity."

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott echoed Krause and Cason's concerns and asked the Texas Association of School Boards to remove books from school libraries that could be what he called "pornographic" or "obscene."

Stone said books "that reflect the lives of LGBTQIA persons and families," are often targeted as "obscene" or "pornographic" which they are often not. "You might not be the audience, your child might not be the audience, but more often than not, there is an audience for the books and often they are desperately needed," she said.

Parents of students in North Hunterdon High School in New Jersey also challenged books with LGBTQ themes such as "Gender Queer" and another coming-of-age novel, "Lawn Boy," according to My Central Jersey.

At a Hamilton County School Board meeting in Tennessee, parents turned out in large crowds over challenges to books on the reading lists for grades 8 through 12, including Angie Thomas' "The Hate U Give," CBS affiliate WDEF-TV reports.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia, school officials asked the superintendent to ban four books "Lawn Boy," "Gender Queer," "A Lesson Before Dying" by Ernest Gaines and "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for "pornographic content," according to The Virginian-Pilot, which obtained copies of their email to the superintendent.

Stone said censorship that forbids the reading of a certain book is a violation of library users' First Amendment rights. She also said every parent has a right to raise concerns about a book. "It's part of the First Amendment as well, the right to petition," she said.

ALA encourages libraries and school boards to hear concerns about books, but to also have a "reconsideration policy" in place that asks petitioners if they've actually read the book in its entirety and what the basis of their complaint is, Stone said.

Just because someone says a book is obscene or inappropriate, doesn't mean it actually is, Stone said. "It just means it doesn't meet their values or needs."

Trending News

Caitlin O'Kane is a digital content producer covering trending stories for CBS News and its good news brand, The Uplift.

Read the original post:

"Beloved" isn't the only book parents have challenged. From critical race theory to obscenity, here's how and why books get targeted. - CBS...

A far-right paramilitary organization has found success in recruiting law enforcement officers in Americas largest cities.

Thats according to a recent investigation from NPR, which found this information through leaked records.

The investigation shows active officers in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago on membership rosters, with Chicago showing the greatest representation of the three. In the Chicago Police Department, they found 13 active members in the group, the Oath Keepers.

Odette Yousef, domestic extremism correspondent at NPR who reported on the story, said the Oath Keepers have an appeal to law enforcement and ex-military members because of one of the groups core ideas: to protect constitutional rights against all enemies foreign and domestic. That idea of leaving service, but still committing to upholding that value can be very appealing, she added.

The concern that gets raised around having police officers or sheriffs designate themselves as interpreters of the law, the ones who can decide whether something is constitutional or not, raises some concerns around whether they are in fact applying the law equally and whether they are applying the law as it has been interpreted by the courts, Yousef said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the Oath Keepers as one of the largest far-right antigovernment groups in the U.S. today. Theyve existed since 2009, but the Jan. 6 insurrection has intensified scrutiny of the group. At least 21 people who have been charged in the attack also are alleged to have ties to the group.

The Chicago Police Department responded to NPR saying they launched an investigation and that hile CPD members have the First Amendment right to express their personal views, the Department has strict rules of conduct prohibiting members from engaging in any behavior that would impede the Departments efforts to achieve its goals or discredit the Department.

WTTW News also reached out to the Chicago Police Department who replied that no one was available for an interview at this time.

See the original post:

NPR Investigates Ties Between Police and Far-Right Groups - WTTW News

It is time for Attorney General Merrick Garland and the FBI to lay their cards on the tableand fastor else they will find themselves enveloped in a burgeoning scandal that will further damage their already-teetering reputation and in a way that will do lasting damage to free speech.

In a recentletter, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Garland thatinformation receivedfrom a whistleblower has called into question the accuracy and completeness oftestimonythat Garland gave before the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 21.

This is serious business.

It is no secret that many parents are upset, and understandably so, about the fact that their young children are beingtaughtcritical race theory, with teachers making students stand in privilege circles, dividing them into categories of oppressor and oppressed based solely on their skin color and ethnicity, compelling white students to apologize for their whiteness, assigning students to read highly politicized books and essays promoting the controversial1619 Projectand the view that our society is systemically racist, and other things of that ilk.

>>>Merrick Garland Abuses His Authority To Suppress Dissent

Promoters of critical race theory are unapologetic and respond, as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recentlydid, I dont think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.

Suffice it to say, they are not pleased that school board races have been getting more national and local attention than ever before, and parents across the country have been making their displeasure known in articles, in letters to the editor, and at public meetings.

Not content to make their case in the court of public opinion, the National School Boards Association took things to an entirely new and completely inappropriate level.

In a Sept. 29letterto President Joe Biden, the president and the interim executive director and chief executive officer of the National School Boards Association informed the president that Americas public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.

Citing a few examples of disturbances at school board meetings by individuals who were upset about mask mandates and critical race theory curriculaall of which were, presumably, ably handled by state and local authorities or by the school boards themselvesand stating that such incidents were impacting the delivery of educational services to students and families, the letter implored Biden to deploy the Justice Department, the FBI (including its national Security Branch and Counterterrorism Division), the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Secret Service (including its National Threat Assessment Center) to combat this supposed scourge.

The letter stated, without providing support, that extremist hate organizations were showing up at school board meetings, and that these protests should be characterized as equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.

The letter stated that federal law enforcement authorities should employ the full array of tools at their disposal, including the Patriot Act, against these perpetrators of domestic terrorism.

In amemorandumissued shortly thereafter (and in a series of internal emails that werewrittenprior to the memorandum), the president of the National School Boards Association informed its state association officers and executive directors about the letter and added that it had been actively engaged with the White House and the Department of Justice, among others, for several weeks about the growing threats to its members.

The memorandum went on to claim that [i]n response to its letter, the attorney general issued a memorandum ordering all U.S. Attorney Offices and local FBI offices to reach out to local and state law enforcement officials to coordinate efforts.

Issued only days after the National School Boards Association letter to Biden, theGarland memodated Oct. 4 and issued to FBI Director Chris Wray, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the head of the departments Criminal Division, and all 93 U.S. attorneysstated that the Justice Department would shortly be announcing a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel and directed the recipients to convene meetings with local leaders within 30 days to discuss strategies to address the situation and to open lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

The backlash was immediate. During his Oct. 21 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Garland admitted that while he didnt have any details about the number of threats that had been made against school officials, heacknowledgedreading the National School Boards Association letter and relying upon its representation that there has been a spike in violent conduct and threats against school officials. He also stated, We read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence.

Garland admitted, though, that he could not imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorists.

He further testified, I do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitute domestic terrorism. Its not even a close question. It is this testimony that Jordan now claims was false or, at least, misleading, although Jordan acknowledges that perhaps Garland did not know when he testified about the actions the FBI had taken in response to his memo.

The day after Garland testified before the House, the National School Boards Associationapologizedfor its Sept. 29 letter and stated that there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.

A week later, on Sept. 27, Garland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to back down. He informed its members that he stood behind his memo,statingthat it did not say to begin prosecuting anybody, and that it had nothing to do with politics.

Garlandsaidhe did not rely on the National School Boards Association letter in preparing and issuing his memorandum, andaddedthat he didnt think its reasonable to read this memo and think its chilling anyones rights.

In his letter, Jordan informed Garland that he had received a memorandum from an FBI whistleblower, dated the day before Garlands testimony before the House Judiciary, in which two high-ranking FBI officials informed all of its field offices:

As a result [of the Garland memo], the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICALS, to track instances of related threats. We ask that your offices apply the threat tag to investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. The purpose of the threat tag is to help scope this threat on a national level and provide an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective engagement with law enforcement partners at all levels.

Jordan continued that [t]his disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special-interest group against concerned parents.

Perhaps. There is, of course, a big difference between investigating an actual threat of physical violence against someone and investigating a concerned parent who expresses his or her views at a school board meeting.

If, in fact, the FBI has no evidence of any threats of physical violence and is applying this tag to upset parents who show up at school board meetings to express their displeasure, that would be outrageous and heads should roll.

If, on the other hand, the FBI has lots of information about actual threats or instances of physical violence against school officials, that would be very different.

So far, at least, the onlyprominent exampleof anyone making a threat at a school board meeting that has been disclosed did not involve a concerned parent threatening a school board official, a teacher, or a school administrator.

Rather, it involved a supporter of critical race theory, who irately informed parents that if they continued to complain about the indoctrination to which their children are being subjected, he would return next time with over 1,000 soldiers ready to go who are locked and loaded.

The FBI has responded to all this bysayingthat it has never been in the business of investigating parents who speak out or policing speech at school board meetings, and we are not going to start now, and that it remains fully committed to preserving and protecting First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech.

In other words, nothing to see here, just move along.

Nope. Not this time. Not good enough. Not even close.

The FBIs reputation is in serious jeopardy. Recent reports of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse and credible claims that the upper echelons of the FBI hierarchy acted in a highly partisan manner in connection with its investigation of former President Donald Trump and many of those who worked on his campaign or in his administration have shaken the publics confidence in the most powerful law enforcement agency in this country.

>>> Critical Race Theory

Additionally, there is a dark period in the FBIs history in which it conducted a covert counter-intelligence surveillance programdubbedCOINTELPROin which it infiltrated and discredited domestic political organizations and individuals that were engaged in First Amendment-protected political speech and activities, but which the FBI deemed to be subversive. The public needs to be reassured in a convincing and prompt manner that history (including recent history) is not repeating itself, and that the FBI is not just doing the bidding of a powerful political ally of the Biden administration.

So far, at least, the biggest threats that the public has seen is the threat of a massive chilling effect on those who want to exercise their First Amendment rights and the threat to the Department of Justices and the FBIs reputation.

The public needs to be reassured that parents who speak up at school board meetings about their childrens education are not going to find themselves in an FBI database with a threat tag next to their names or, even worse, find themselves under investigation or placed in handcuffs and dragged away by federal authorities.

Garland and Wray should return to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to answer some tough questions about all of this.

Likewise, the FBI should disclosewith as much specificity as possiblehow many threat cases it is investigating, the precise nature of the alleged threats, the federal crimes that may be implicated, and why the bureau believes that state and local authorities are incapable or insufficient to investigate these cases.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Follow this link:

Are Parents Being Tagged as Domestic Terrorists by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards - Heritage.org

RELIST WATCH ByJohn Elwood on Nov 17, 2021 at 1:58 pm

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court continues to churn through its relisted cases. On Monday, the court disposed of two more. Petitioner Robyn Morgan got happy news: the Justices decided they wanted Taco Bell or, at least, they wanted to hear that Taco Bell employees petition in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 21-328, claiming that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has improperly applied a higher standard for proving a defendant has waived arbitration than it applies to other contract clauses. But it was bad news for Volkswagen as the court denied review of both its petitions arguing that the Clean Air Act preempts state and local governments from regulating car manufacturers post-sale updates to vehicle emissions systems, the twice-relisted Volkswagen Group v. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County,20-994, and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Ohio, ex rel. Yost, 21-312. Whats the opposite of Fahrvergngen?

The justices have relisted just one new case this week: Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 21-248. The case addresses the ability of North Carolina legislators to intervene to defend the states voter-ID law from lawsuits under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. After the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (and several local NAACP branches) challenged the law, the president pro tempore of the state senate and the speaker of the state house of representatives (both Republicans) sought to intervene in the case as state agents under state law. The district court denied intervention without prejudice, noting that the state attorney general (a Democrat) was already defending the lawsuit on behalf of the state, and applying the presumption that the state defendants would adequately defend the law. Six weeks later, the legislative leaders filed a renewed motion for intervention, arguing in part that the attorney general had not vigorously defended the law. The district court again denied intervention. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the legislative leaders renewed motion for intervention, vacated the district courts order, and remanded for reconsideration of the leaders request. But the 4th Circuit, acting en banc, later affirmed the district courts denial of the legislators attempt on the ground that the state attorney general was adequately defending the law.

In their petition, the legislators argue that the appellate courts are divided about whether a legislator seeking to intervene in a case under a state law must prove that the states interest is not adequately represented. They also allege that courts disagree about what standard of review applies to a decision on a motion to intervene as of right. They continue to argue that the state attorney general is not adequately defending the law. The state defendants have filed a brief opposing cert, and the NAACP respondents waived their right to respond. While the court could grant review without calling for a response from all respondents, the courts more common practice is to call for a response from all respondents before granting review. So there may be more to come here. [Disclosure: My law firm, Arnold & Porter, is among the counsel to the NAACP in this case.]

Thats all on the relist front for this week. Well likely be off next week because the court wont be having a conference next week because of Thanksgiving. Its still early, but everywhere you look, you see people from up north wearing red suits with white fur trim deciding who has been naughty or nice. Im talking, of course, about the Canadian Supreme Court.

Stay safe!

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 21-248Issues: (1) Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the states interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant; (2) whether a district courts determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion; and (3) whether petitioners Philip Berger, the president pro tempore of the state senate, and Timothy Moore, the speaker of the state house of representatives, are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation.(relisted after the Nov. 12 conference)

Arlenes Flowers Inc. v. Washington, 19-333Issues: (1) Whether a state violates a floral designers First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech by forcing her to take part in and create custom floral art celebrating same-sex weddings or by acting based on hostility toward her religious beliefs; and (2) whether the free exercise clauses prohibition on religious hostility applies to the executive branch.(certiorari petition relisted after the Jan. 10, 2020, Jan. 17, 2020, Jan. 24, 2020, Feb. 21, 2020, and June 24, 2021 conferences; rehearing petition relisted after the Sept. 27, 2021, Oct. 8, Oct. 15, Oct. 29, Nov. 5 and Nov. 12 conferences)

Knight v. Pennsylvania, 20-7805Issue: Whether a state may require a defendant to present an IQ score of 75 or below that was documented prior to age 18 to have his intellectual disability claim considered as a basis to disqualify him from the death penalty, when this requirement is contrary to clinical standards for diagnosis and contrary to multiple decisions where the Supreme Court has granted relief to petitioners who lacked any such documentation.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, and Nov. 12 conferences)

Holcombe v. Florida, 21-53Issues: (1) Whether a criminal defendant establishes an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects counsels representation when the attorney engages in joint and dual representation i.e., simultaneously representing both the defendant and a key prosecution witness during a trial; (2) whether the presumed prejudice conflict of interest standard applies when the prosecutor (rather than defense counsel) puts the trial judge on notice at the beginning of a trial of defense counsels conflict of interest a conflict which is described by the prosecutor as not waivable and the judge thereafter fails to inquire into the nature and scope of the conflict.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, and Nov. 12 conferences)

Trustees of the New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, 21-164Issues: (1) Whether civil authorities violate the First Amendment when they engage in their own interpretation of church doctrine to overrule a churchs determination that a particular official is a minister and, if so, whether summary reversal is appropriate; (2) whether, in the alternative, the Supreme Court should grant, vacate, and remand in light ofFulton v. City of Philadelphia, because Virginia has enacted a system of individual exemptions to its property tax law, and the city may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to [the Church] without compelling reason.(rescheduled before the Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 conferences; relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, and Nov. 12 conferences)

Read this article:

Legislative intervention to defend a law - SCOTUSblog

I have a poster in my basement with a quote from Albert Einstein, which states, Education is not the learning of facts but the training of the mind to think.

Im not going to lie. Those words weighed heavily on my mind as I purposely tuned into Netflix to watch Dave Chappelles The Closer special. I have never really been a fan of Chappelle because I didnt have cable, so I never saw any of his shows. Then this latest special came out and caused such outrage from a certain segment of our society that my curiosity was piqued.

Unlike many folks who profess to not be judgmental, I was in that mindset. I wanted to see and judge for myself the basis for all the hoopla being raised. One hour and 12 minutes later, I can affirm with 100% certainty that I stand with Dave, even though I personally didnt care for the way Chappelle tossed the word nigga about. In the Ivory soap reality (99.9% pure), the words fool, idiot, moron or brother could have easily replaced his usage of the n-word at various times and not lost any of the effects of his commentary.

However, what Chappelle did in that special was to juxtapose certain realities that we are not supposed to think about next to the propaganda we are being fed! His special was educating us in the most kiss (keep it simple stupid) method there is. I found myself nodding my head in agreement while also experiencing several light-bulb moments. I even laughed at some of the stuff. What Chappelle had masterfully accomplished was to educate us so that we gave deep thought to certain realities.

Thinking, as the great Einstein once stated, makes us more educated on the subject so that the wool cant be pulled over our eyes. Thinking also gives us the opportunity to judge the different sides of a controversy. The ironies that Chappelle set forth also triggered my indignation buttons. As an example, rapper DaBaby kills a man in Walmart, and its really no big deal. His career continues without missing a beat. But DaBaby expresses musings that offend the gay community, and he is immediately shut down, his appearance at concerts cancelled, and made to apologize. Is that not a situation that should be pondered? At whose feet should the responsibility for becoming indignant be placed in the former? Its the age-old battle of tolerant versus non-tolerant and where one falls in between the two.

If the current cancel culture continues to thrive, why do we have a First Amendment that gives us freedom of speech? And if the current Chappelle controversy is about anything, its the ability of a comedian to offer humor, ponderings and musings without the swift sword of the cancel culture shutting them down.

The presumed power of cancel culture may be at a crossroads finding out just how far it can go or if it has met its limit from those with education who take offense at its burgeoning display of power.

And that is good. Because any power that goes unchecked can become the exact monster it was created to prevent.

Arlene Jones is an Austin resident and writes a weekly column in our sister publication, the Austin Weekly News.

See the article here:

Einstein, Chappelle and the First Amendment - Wednesday Journal

Letter writer Mark Spears writes that The Mint restaurant offered a meal discount for saying what he calls a vulgar slur against Present Joe Biden, which he says comes from the far right.

He is incorrect. The slur is being said by all three parties: conservative, liberal and independent. Apparently he does not remember history. Kathy Griffin on May 30, 2017, offered up a mock severed and bloody head of then-President Donald Trump. It was more shocking and graphic than a verbal slur being reminiscent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria beheading videos, which were not mock but the real thing.

Griffin went much further than the degradation of the level of discourse, as Spears writes.

We have faced differences in thinking on politics since before the American Revolution, with the Whigs and the Tories. Differences in opinion have and will continue to exist. Its what made, and makes, our country great. Our country enjoys the First Amendment. Lets keep it civil and, most of all, correct without name-calling.

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.

Read the rest here:

Letter to the editor: Our country enjoys the First Amendment, so let's keep it civil - Summit Daily News

Whether you can exercise your First Amendment rights freely depends, in some cases, on where you live and what judges happen to hear your plea, should you try to seek accountability for government reprisal against your civil liberties.

One such case is that of Priscilla Villarreal, a journalist in Laredo, Texas, who in 2017 was arrested after publishing two stories that ruffled feathers in the community: one surrounding a U.S. Border Patrol agent who committed suicide, the other which confirmed the identity of a family who had died in a fatal car crash.

Villarreal was no stranger to breaking stories with sensitive details on her Facebook page, which currently boasts over 190,000 followers. Nor was she cozy with local law enforcement, having cultivated a reputation as a citizen journalist whofocuses on police misconduct and the justice system in videos she posts online infused with colorful commentary.She once live-streamed a video of an officer choking someone during a traffic stop, for example, and she drew the ire of a district attorney after publicly rebuking him for dropping an arrest warrant for someone accused of animal abuse.

But Villarreal found herself in a jail cell after breaking those two relatively benign stories concerning deaths in the community, charged with two third-degree felony counts of "misuse of official information" under Texas Penal Code 39.06(c). That she asked for and obtained the information in typical journalistic fashionfrom the Laredo Police Department (LPD) itselfdidn't matter to the cops, who zeroed in on Villarreal as the first person they would ever seek to prosecute under that Texas statute.

The charges were eventually dismissed as baseless and the law ruled unconstitutionally vague. But those officers were given qualified immunity for violating her First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and 14th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained her, thus preventing her from holding them accountable in civil court. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from facing civil suits if the precise way they went about violating your rights was not "clearly established" by the courts at the time.

Yet in a testament to the subjectivity of the decisions surrounding what should be objective liberties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Monday rejected the lower court's reasoning, removing qualified immunity from the cops on the bulk of Villarreal's claims and permitting her to state her case before a jury.

"This is not just an obvious constitutional infringementit's hard to imagine a more textbook violation of the First Amendment," wrote Judge James C. Ho. "If the freedom of speech secured by the First Amendment includes the right to curse at a public official, then it surely includes the right to politely ask that official a few questions as well." Villarreal asked those questions of LPD Officer Barbara Goodman, who of her own free will provided the journalist with the information she requested.

The 5th Circuit likewise sided with Villarreal on her wrongful arrest claim, as well as her allegation that the cops violated the Equal Protection Clause to selectively enforce the law against her.

Much about the decision is noteworthy. Ho, for one, is by no means known for his opposition to qualified immunity; the judge previously said that police officers must retain the protections in order "to stop mass shootings." So it's significant that Ho emphasized that the 5th Circuit need not find a nearly indistinguishable precedent in order to show that the constitutional right at issue was "clearly established"which is often the defining element of a qualified immunity case, and the reason why the doctrine has greenlit so much egregious government misconduct, like stealing, assault, and property damage.

To support his position, Ho cited the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Taylor v. Riojas, which dealt with a group of prison guards who originally received qualified immunity after forcing a naked inmate into two deplorable cells swarming with human feces and raw sewage. The Supreme Court overturned that grant of qualified immunity and rejected the notion that the victim could not sue simply because he couldn't pinpoint a ruling that matched his experience almost identically.

That's not necessary here either, said Ho: The constitutional violation is just that absurdly apparent.

"Crucially, the decision also says that officers can't hide behind obviously unconstitutional statutes," says Jaba Tsitsuashvili, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that filed an amicus brief in support of Villarreal. "In other words'we were just enforcing the law' is not a categorical defense against a civil lawsuit for violating" a constitutional right.

Perhaps ironically, the 5th Circuit's decision Monday coincided with the Supreme Court declining to hear Frasier v. Evans, a case in which a group of Denver police officers received qualified immunity after conducting a warrantless search of a man's tablet in an attempt to delete a video he took of the officers beating a suspect during an arrest for an alleged drug deal.

Put more bluntly, the way you exercise your First Amendment rights may or may not be protected based solely on where you live and which federal circuit court you are subject to. The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits have all confirmed what might be obvious to most: that the government cannot exact revenge on you for filming police on duty, a lever used to hold them to account. In some places, however, they can indeed retaliate and evade accountability for that, toojust as Villarreal almost missed her opportunity to do so, had the 5th Circuit not overturned the lower court's decision.

"It creates this territorially arbitrary vindication of rights, where if you're in one state you may be able to vindicate a constitutional right," says Tsitsuashvili, "but if you happen to be in a neighboring state that sits in a different judicial circuit, you won't have any recourse for essentially the exact same behavior."

Link:

Cops Arrested Her for Exercising Her First Amendment Rights. They Got Qualified Immunitybut the Appeals Court Wasn't Having It. - Reason

The University of Kentucky is increasingly the first choice for students, faculty and staff to pursue their passions and their professional goals. In the last two years, Forbes has named UK among the best employers for diversity, and INSIGHT into Diversity recognized us as a Diversity Champion four years running.UK is ranked among the top 30 campuses in the nation for LGBTQ* inclusion and safety. UK has been judged a Great College to Work for" threeyears in a row, and UK is among only 22 universities in the country on Forbes' list of "America's Best Employers." We are ranked among the top 10 percent of public institutions for research expenditures a tangible symbol of our breadth and depth as a university focused on discovery that changes lives and communities. And our patients know and appreciate the fact that UK HealthCare has been named the states top hospital for five straight years. Accolades and honors are great. But they are more important for what they represent: the idea that creating a community of belonging and commitment to excellence is how we honor our mission to be not simply the University of Kentucky, but the UniversityforKentucky.

See the original post here:

2021 State of the First Amendment Address Scheduled for Nov. 17 - UKNow