The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a federal lawsuit against the City of La Crosse on behalf of Joy Buchman, a licensed mental health professional and owner of Kinsman Redeemer Counseling Center, LLC (Kinsman). The suit challenges the citys ordinance that penalizes medical or mental health professionals if they express certain prohibited viewpoints relating to sexual orientation or gender identity when counseling their minor patients.The ordinance would, for example, require professional counselors to either affirm the decision of any minor patient to transition to a new gender identitydespite ongoing, good-faith disagreements among professionals on whether and under what circumstances such transitions should take placeor remain silent.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District in Wisconsin, urges the court to declare that La Crosse has no authority to prohibit speech it dislikes, forcing medical and mental health experts to choose between advancing the citys perspective or facing financial and professional ruin.

WILL Quote: WILL Deputy Counsel, Anthony LoCoco, said, The City of La Crosse is under the mistaken impression that it can simply punish citizens who dare to voice officially disfavored viewpoints on public issues of critical importance.The First Amendment prohibits exactly this kind of big-government bullying. Attempts to falsely paint as hateful those who share good-faith disagreements on matters going to the core of what it means to be human wont salvage the Citys position.

Client Quote: Licensed counselor and owner of Kinsman, Joy Buchman, said, My mission as a counselor is to provide healing and guidance to anyone who comes to me for help. Government officials should not be allowed to police the private conservations I have with clients in need and then punish me for saying something they dont like.

Background: WILL sent apublic letterto the La Crosse Common Council back in August, warning that Ordinance No. 5220 violates free speech, religious liberty, and due process guarantees in the state and/or federal constitutions, among other legal problems. The letter explained why the prohibitions in the original ordinance unconstitutionally restricted the speech of clergy, parents, and licensed mental health counselors. The broad ban was impermissibly vague and also preempted by state law.

However, the City of La Crosse passed an amended version of the ordinance last month, 8-4 with one abstention. The new ban is limited to medical and mental health professionals but continues to restrict significant amounts of speech on issues of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. If medical and mental health professionals engage in any efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, the Chief of Police and other city officials or employees can issue citations of up to $1,000 per violation. Those who do not follow the ordinance may also face a potential referral to the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services for further investigation and possible sanction.

The Lawsuit: The lawsuit principally alleges that the City of La Crosse has no power to pick and choose which viewpoints are permissible or impermissible in counselor-patient discourse, preventing Ms. Buchman from counseling in a manner consistent with her professional and religious views.The lawsuit also argues that the statute violates free exercise protections, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by state law.

The lawsuit requests the Court enter a declaratory judgement that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Constitution, and is preempted by state law. The suit also urges the court to bar the City of La Crosse from enforcing the Ordinance, and award the Plaintiff nominal damages, costs, and attorneys fees.

Read More:

Here is the original post:

WILL Sues City of La Crosse Over Ordinance Violating the First Amendment - Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a Save America rally on Oct. 1, 2022 in Warren, Michigan. (Photo by Emily Elconin/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump threatened to sue the Pulitzer Prizes board, administrator and members for defamation less for what they wrote, but for the reporting that they lauded during the time of Russia investigation.

By ratifying the 2018 prizes awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Board and its individual members are participating in and perpetuating the absurdly false and defamatory narrative contrived by the Presidents political opponents: that he and his campaign somehow colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to gain advantage in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and thereafter maintained some nefarious connection with Russian elements during the presidential transition and Trump administration (the Russia Collusion Hoax), his attorneys R. Quincy Bird and Jeremy D. Bailie wrote.

The former presidents other attorneys John P. Rowley III and John S. Irving had asked the board in July to withdraw the 2018 prizes, and the Pulitzer board refused that request, issuing a statement that no subsequent facts discredited the prizes that they bestowed. The new letter labels that statement of confidence in their judgment as defamatory.

The Pulitzer boards statement is embedded in Trumps legal threat.

Trump demanded that the board issue a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction within five days, or potentially face a lawsuit against the body and its members.

First Amendment exports scoffed at theory that bestowing honors on news coverage can be defamatory.

Just cartoonishly vexatious, expert Ken White, known by the legal nom de plume Popehat, told Law&Crime.

Trump tried, and spectacularly failed, to sue more than two dozen people in a vast racketeering suit. More than dismissing the case, a federal judge roasted the complaint as trying to substitute length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances for legal merit. The former presidents lawyer Alina Habba vowed to appeal, but his legal team is currently staring down sanctions motions in that case.

Special counsel Robert Muellers report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections did not find a chargeable criminal conspiracy between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Mueller did, however, find that Russia wanted Trump to win the race and the campaign welcomed that help. He also found that Trumps conduct to stymie the probe repeatedly met every prong of the federal obstruction statute. The special counsels office brought charges against 34 people and entities, resulting in eight guilty pleas and a conviction at trial. Numerous Russian-based defendants remain at large, and Muellers report found that an associate of Trumps campaign chair Paul Manafort handed internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a man identified by a GOP-led Senate committee as a Russian intelligence operative.

Yet time and again, Trump has returned or threatened to return to the courts for a judicial determination that the probe that convicted several of his cronies was, in fact, a massive hoax. Each time to date has failed.

Legal experts believe that, if Trumps lawyers actually file this threatened lawsuit, their latest effort would be no more effective than the others.

Hes talking about suing people for a subjective evaluation by a prize organization of whether or not they think stories are inaccurate, White noted. There is no plausible way that that can be a provably false statement of fact. It is a statement of opinion and analysis and commentary on multiple different levels. The only thing this is about is fundraising, gesturing to the base and being a thug, frankly.

White added that he would have assumed the former presidents litigation threat against the Pulitzer board was empty, until Trump actually sued CNN for using the phrase Big Lie and airing segments comparing him to Adolf Hitler.

As a First Amendment lawyer and advocate, White appraised that lawsuit as completely frivolous and contemptible, noting that they are statements of opinion rather than inaccurate factual assertions.

The letter from Trumps counsel indicates that any lawsuit may be filed in the state of Florida, which has a muscular anti-SLAPP statute. Short for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, anti-SLAPP law punishes lawsuits designed to chill free speech.

Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner, who now practices media law as a partner with the firm Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC, said the Sunshine State statute makes sanctions compulsory in certain instances.

If you file a defamation or similar claim against somebody for speaking on a matter of public interest and your claim is dismissed on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment because there are no facts to support it the court has no discretion: It must award attorneys fees to the winning side as a sanction, Epner told Law&Crime.

Thats chargeable, not against the losing attorneys, but against the losing client, he added.

Even if a court awards sanctions in a hypothetical suit, some legal experts like White believe it wont deter Trump from filing lawsuits with little legal merit.

Trump went out fundraising the day after he filed that incredibly abusive defamation suit against CNN, and I have no doubt that he is raising a lot more money than hes going to be sanctioned for even if you lose it as an anti-SLAPP motion, White said.

In light of the financial and other incentives, White noted, stronger deterrence than attorneys fees is needed.

If youve got a situation where you have unethical attorneys and youve got financial incentives to file meritless lawsuits to drive contributions, and votes and clicks then youve got absolutely nothing standing between people and frivolous lawsuits, he continued. And thats a real problem.

Epner believes Trumps emphatic defeat in his RICO case might turn the tide, should sanctions motions abound.

You get enough of these sanctions, all of a sudden, you actually do have the rarest of animals: a potentially meritorious disbarment situation, Epner said. Trumps recent lawsuit that was filed against CNN seems to me to be a similar press-release-as-a-lawsuit. I fully expect that that will be dismissed and attorneys fees will be awarded to the prevailing defendants.

CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor from the Southern District of New York, demurred in predicting whether or what kinds of sanctions may be imposed, if Trumps attorneys filed the lawsuit but she felt comfortable with a different prognostication.

Much more predictable is that a lawsuit like this would fail, she said.

Read the legal threat from Trumps lawyers to the Pulitzer Board, here.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more:

Trump Threat to Sue Pulitzer Board Is 'Vexatious': Lawyer - Law & Crime

As we head toward the 2022 elections, it is a safe bet that few Americans can identify the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, even though its one of the most significant amendments. Ratified on April 8, 1913, it completely changed the balance of power in our federal system.

The amendment provided for the direct popular election of U.S. senators. That sounds non-controversial now, but it meant taking the power away from state legislatures that were originally given the authority to choose the senators representing their state in Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution.

If you took civics in high school or you look up the definition of checks and balances, it is always referred to as the system that provides our three branches of the federal governmentthe legislative, judicial and executivewith separate powers that can be used to check the power of the other branches, ensuring that no one branch becomes too powerful. This is a horizontal balance of power that applies within the federal government.

But what civics teachers and others seem to have forgotten in the more than 100 years that the 17th Amendment has been in place is that the original design of the Constitution in Article I gave state governments an essential, second vertical check on the power of the federal governmentthe authority of state legislatures to pick the senators representing their states.

>>>How FTC v. Walmart Has Become Walmart v. Fourth Branch of Government

As the Heritage Guide to the Constitution explains, the Framers intended to protect the interests of states as states and the mode of election impelled senators to preserve the original federal design and to protect the interests not only of their own states, but, concomitantly, of the states as political and legal entities within the federal system.

Alexander Hamilton emphasized this at the New York ratifying convention in 1788 when he said that senators will constantly look up to the state governments with an eye of dependance and, if they wanted to be reelected by state legislators, they, would have a uniform attachment to the interests of their several states. In other words, they would be wary of imposing unfunded mandates on state governments or taking other actions that extended the power of the federal government into areas traditionally within the authority of the states.

As Mark Levin succinctly explained in The Liberty Amendments, the original method of electing U.S. senators that provided state governments with direct input in the national government was not only an essential check on the new federal governments power, but also a means by which the states could influence congressional lawmaking.

Despite all of this, the amendment was ratified in fewer than 11 months and in overwhelming numbersin the 36 states that ratified it, only 191 opposing votes were cast.

The 17th Amendment was the result of the rise of Progressivism, pushed by intellectuals and social reformers who believed that our constitutional system of government was outdated and needed to be reformed. It was designed to enhance the authority of the central government and expand the size and power of a federal bureaucracy that could orchestrate the changes they believed would lead to a new utopia, while diminishing the power of state governments to contest those changes.

When the 17th Amendment was combined with the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, and which was ratified earlier that same year, the federal government had the ability to drastically increase its spending and power without considering the interests of the states or the effects on the sovereign authority of the states.

>>>Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

The 17th Amendment critically altered the balance of power between state governments and the federal government, to the detriment of the states. States no longer had a legislative venue, or any venue, to influence directly the course of the federal government, Mr. Levin says.

It is impossible to conceive that the Constitution would have been ratified without this essential feature preserving the balance of power between the states and the federal government. With direct elections, senators have no incentive to protect state governments and state budgets at the expense of the enormous, bloated volume of federal programs and spending that is leading us down the road to financial insolvency.

Could this be changed? Should it be changed back? These are questions that prompt vigorous debate. But the likelihood that American voters would support going back to the original system and losing their ability to directly elect U.S. senators seems very slim. So, while we can recognize the structural damage this amendment has caused, what happened more than a century ago will probably remain unaltered.

Read more:

17th Amendment Weakened Balance of Power Between States, Federal Government - Heritage.org

Your free speech is on the docket during this Supreme Court term Oct 14, 2022 by Casey Mattox

October is the best month of the year. Its a fact. The weather is the best, the leaves are changing, football is in full swing, and the U.S. Supreme Court returns to session.

The Court has only filled about half of its case load for the 2022-2023 term. And it already looks like a significant year for free speech at the Supreme Court.

Here are the cases Im watching:

Can Colorado compel a web designer to design custom websites celebrating same-sex marriage contrary to the artists sincerely held religious beliefs?

Background:Colorado and lower courts agreed that they were compelling 303 Creatives owner, Lorie Smith, to speak. Colorado also agreed that Smith doesnt discriminate on the basis of the customers classifications, including sexual orientation, but decides on her clients based on the requested content.

In other words, she serves customers regardless of their orientation for various projects. But she declines to create tailored website content for views that go against her own. Nevertheless, the 10th Circuit held that the compelled speech here was justified by Colorados interest in combatting discrimination.

Free Speech Implications:As my AFP colleague Cindy Crawfordwrotelast year,

Displacing long-held understanding of First Amendment protection of free speech to compel speech on demand whenever government declares that certain messages must be delivered would place all expressive professionals at risk.

And Smith partnered with Jack Phillips (you might recognize his name fromMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commissionor from recentlybeing sued again) to write aUSA TODAY op-ed, asserting that no one should be forced to speak messages that violate their core convictions.

Although not principally a First Amendment case, this case could affect free speech online, as its related to the legal protection afforded to social media platforms and search engines.

And with the Courts decision to hear a similar case,Twitter v. Taamneh, the Courts decisions in these cases could significantly affect the platforms liability for their users speech and thus how they moderate user content.

Background:After Nohemi Gonzalez was killed in a 2015 ISIS terrorist attack, her family sued Google, claiming that YouTube (which is owned by Google) hosted videos in which ISIS radicalized viewers and incited violence. Google pointed to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in its defense, a law that shields platforms from liability for their users speech online.

Free Speech Implications:Withother major cases working their way to the Court dealing with state laws regulating social media platforms, these cases and 303 Creative (applying of a state law to production of website content) are likely to have broader implications for the future of free speech online. See the sevenprinciples for reforming Section 230 that dont include policing online speech.

Finally, the Court is being asked to take up an intriguing case about parody that also gets at a major problem for anyone seeking to hold government accountable for violating First Amendment rights qualified immunity.

Yes, the same legal doctrine that is most often associated with police officers use of force applies to all kinds of government officials even university officials decisions to censor student speech. AsIve written before, qualified immunitymust end. But the underlying First Amendment issues are also interesting.

Background:After Anthony Novak created a parody Facebook page to make fun of his local police department, the police department charged him with a felony and searched his apartment. After Novak was found not guilty by a jury, he tried to file a civil rights lawsuit against the officers, but the 6th Circuit granted the police officers qualified immunity.

Free Speech Implications:If the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that an individual can mock the government without fear of being arrested, as the Institute for Justice hasnoted.

If we must continue the judicially invented doctrine of qualified immunity, it should not apply where government officials were under no threat and had to make no split-second judgment and nevertheless undermined First Amendment rights.

One fun note about Novak v. City of Parma: The Onion, a satirical website, filed a friend-of-the-court brief,thats well worth a read: Americans can be put in jail for poking fun at the government? This was a surprise to Americas Finest News Source and an uncomfortable learning experience for its editorial team.

The brief also called the federal judiciary total Latin dorks. I mean, veritas.

See more here:

Your free speech is on the docket during this Supreme Court term - Americans for Prosperity

petitions of the week ByKalvis Golde on Oct 14, 2022 at 6:10 pm

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions were watching is available here.

In a case that prompted satirical news outlet The Onion to file its first-ever amicus brief in the Supreme Court, an Ohio man sued police for violating his constitutional rights when they arrested him for creating a Facebook page parodying the local police department. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether those officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Anthony Novak, a resident of Parma, Ohio, created a Facebook page with the same name, cover photo, and profile picture as the city police departments page. In the 12 hours Novaks page was live, it went viral thanks to six satirical posts announcing, for example, a new hiring initiative strongly encouraging minorities not to apply and a no means no fair at which residents could remove their names from the sex-offender registry by completing a series of puzzles.

After obtaining a warrant to investigate the owner of the page, police arrested Novak under an Ohio law that makes it a felony to disrupt, interrupt, or impair police operations. Novak was acquitted at trial. He then sued the officers who arrested him for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity. Before taking down the page, Novak had copied a disclaimer posted on the departments real Facebook page decrying the fake account and deleted user comments that his own page was a parody. Because no court case has clearly established that those actions are protected speech, the 6th Circuit held, the officers could reasonably believe that some of Novaks Facebook activity was not parody protected under the First Amendment.

In Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio, Novak asks the justices to clarify when qualified immunity is available if the justification for probable cause relies on speech. He argues that his arrest was retaliation for his speech, and that the officers conduct was an obvious constitutional violation not entitled to qualified immunity. Novak also points out that the 6th Circuit originally sided with him at an earlier stage in the case: Imagine if The Onion, Judge Amul Thapar wrote, were required to disclaim that parodical headlines are, in reality, false.

Answering that call, The Onion filed an amicus brief in support of Novaks petition from the court of appeals subsequent ruling for the officers. In urging the court to take up the case, the magazine tells the justices that the 6th Circuits ruling threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onions writers paychecks.

Donziger v. United States22-274Issues: (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) authorizes judicial appointments of inferior executive officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointments clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Pavlock v. Holcomb22-282Issues: (1) Whether a judicial taking under the Fifth and 14th Amendments is a cognizable cause of action; and (2) whether a property owner who is deprived of property under the authority of a state court decision may seek prospective injunctive relief in federal court to halt encroachment on their property by state officials acting under the authority of that decision.

Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio22-293Issues: (1) Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case has previously held the particular speech is protected; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.

County of Ontario, New York v. Gunsalus22-294Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in refusing to extend the holding ofBFP v. Resolution Trust Corp.to a lawfully conducted tax foreclosure, where New York tax foreclosure law provides for ample notice, opportunity to cure and judicial oversight of the process, and where there is no evidence of a clear and manifest intent by Congress to allow11 U.S.C. 548to impinge upon the important state interests in securing real estate titles and collecting real property taxes.

More:

With The Onions support, satirist asks court to revive lawsuit against police who arrested him - SCOTUSblog

The amendment would basically add Tennessees Right to Work law to the state Constitution.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. For the first time in recent history, Tennessee voters have a chance to make four big changes to the states Constitution.

Amendment 1 is all about your right to work. The amendment would basically add Tennessees Right to Work law to the state Constitution.

Our state law was established more than 70 years ago in 1947. Tennessee is one of 27 states and Guam that have given workers a choice when it comes to union membership, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Because the Right to Work is already a state law, many Republicans and Democrats disagree on whether or not it should be added to the State Constitution.

If its added to the Constitution, it would make it harder for anyone to unravel our right to work status, said Rep. Tom Leatherwood. Right now, they would just need to change a law. It makes it easier for the state to defend our right to work status if the federal government tried to strike down our law.

It's already in statute, said Rep. G.A. Hardaway. It's unnecessary. It clutters the Constitution and our constitution is not a document to be trifled with.

Some are not a fan of the state law.

Just recently, seven Starbucks employees say they were fired for trying to form a union in Memphis. A federal judge had to step in and ruled in favor of the employees. Because of that, some people question whether the right to work law even really protects workers.

What does this amendment do to us? Any of us out in the workforce? It's not good because you have no protection, said Rep. Joe Towns.

Some believe that state law protects people and companies.

I think it protects people in general, it protects workers, said Rep. Leatherwood. And, yes, it could definitely be viewed as not protecting, but maybe making a balance between employers and unions.

It comes down to this, do you like Tennessees current Right to Work law? If you do, this amendment will protect it. However, if you dont and this amendment passes, it will be much harder to change it in the future.

Either way, thats your decision and your choice on Election Day. Early voting starts October 19. Election Day is November 8.

See the article here:

How Amendment 1 on the November ballot could affect your 'Right to Work' in Tennessee - WATN - Local 24

Baltimore County and the state would each pay $50,000 under a settlement reached with a woman who argued her First Amendment rights were violated when county officials attempted to dissuade her from filing rape charges.

The state Board of Public Works must still approve the states share of the settlement payment. According to an online agenda, the matter will be considered at the boards Oct. 26 meeting. The county is paying $50,000, said Erica Palmisano, spokeswoman for the county executives office.

The settlement was first announced last month, days before the case was set to go to trial in U.S. District Court. But the settlement amount was not made public.

If approved by the board later this month, the settlement would conclude the yearslong legal battle over the handling of rape allegations by the countys top prosecutor Scott Shellenberger and the county police department.

The case stems from an incident in 2017, when the woman was a college student. The Baltimore Sun does not typically identify individuals who say they are survivors of sexual assault.

The woman, then a Towson University student, has said an assault took place when she and another female student were in an apartment with three University of Maryland Baltimore County baseball players.

Daily

Get your morning news in your e-mail inbox. Get all the top news and sports from the baltimoresun.com.

Both women told police they had blacked out or passed out and were sexually assaulted by the men. The men have said the acts were consensual.

The Baltimore County States Attorneys Office declined to bring charges against the men, and so the woman opted to attempt to bring charges against them herself, by filing a statement of charges with the court commissioner. Her first try failed, but after her second attempt, a different commissioner charged the men with rape and sex offenses in 2018.

But before officials could deliver the criminal summonses, Shellenberger dispatched police officers to the womans home, according to her legal filing. Once there, they spoke with her grandmother, and stated that she risked facing criminal charges of her own if she pursued the charges against the men. Ultimately, prosecutors dropped the charges against the men.

The womans account was included in a broader class-action lawsuit filed by several women against Baltimore County and UMBC. But in 2020, U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow threw out all of the claims except hers.

Her case, focused on possible First Amendment violations, was allowed to go forward. In a rare move last year, Chasanow denied immunity for Shellenberger, opening the door for a trial or a settlement in the womans case.

The three baseball players received $150,000 each from the university in a defamation case, after they were named in an article about the assault allegations by the campus newspaper, The Retriever. The university is under a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into its Title IX compliance and response to sexual harassment complaints.

Shellenbergers record on sexual misconduct allegations was questioned frequently during his recent reelection bid. Ultimately, Shellenberger won a narrow victory over his first primary challenger since his election in 2006.

See the original post here:

$100K settlement reached in lawsuit over Baltimore County's handling of sexual assault case - Baltimore Sun

EMILY LIU/The Sun

The Haddonfield School District Board of Education meeting on Oct. 13 was a work session to review the agenda for an action meeting Thursday.

In a response to prior discussions, board member Lynn Hoag said a new form has been released and made available for parents to opt their students out of health, sex-ed, family life and dissections courses. Assistant Superintendent Gino Priolo explained what happens when a parent wants to opt their student out of a course other than what is listed and in accordance with New Jersey law.

Sometimes parents might want to opt out of something that goes beyond the scope of whats required by statute, and the process there is to schedule a meeting with the principal and have an open dialogue about understanding the unique concerns that might be brought and talk factually about what is or isnt part of the curriculum or being presented, Priolo explained.

Once those two views are heard, the principal will follow with what options are available in that case.

The opt-out form is available on the district website under Parents and lists a Parents statement of conflict with conscious form, in addition to the districts position on the right to opt out.

Up for second reading at the next board meeting will be two policies. The first is on bias crimes or bias-related acts that had previously omitted a phrase requiring the district to notify the borough police department and the bias investigation officer for the county prosecutors office when a bias crime or bias-related act has been committed. Though there had been discussion about the ramifications of reporting minors for unintentional acts, the language has been reincluded in the update for the policy.

The resolution on the agenda list(s) reasons that the board might oppose these changes, said Hoag, though none were seen on the draft of the policy available on the district website.

Additionally, the board will vote on an update to Policy 2240 on controversial issues, which was discussed by the equity council in addition to the policy committee.

In response to community feedback, the committee removed the section that read, In the discussion of any issue, a teacher may express a personal opinion, provided the expression is characterized as personal opinion and does not attempt to persuade students to the teachers point of view from the updated policy.

Central to our research surrounds the First Amendment right of teachers, the board wrote in a statement on the matter. We consulted with the school districts solicitor and our policy consultant, Strauss Esmay Associates. Our research concluded that removing the phrase, a teacher may express a personal opinion from the policy would not violate the First Amendment rights of teachers and is supported in case law.

Up for introduction on first reading at Thursdays meeting will be an updated dress code for district and support staff members more specific than what was in place.

(This is) just cleaning up and updating, Hoag noted. We all got a little relaxed during COVID, so this is just to encourage professionalism in attire.

The new regulations deem the following items inappropriate for a staff member to wear: ripped or torn jeans; shorts, sweatpants or workout attire; T-shirts with writing, images and advertising brands; strapless shirts and dresses; beach wear; and hats or head coverings, unless approved for medical or religious reasons.

Board member David Siedell questioned whether teachers wearing shirts that support the l district or other Haddonfield-related attire would be considered advertising or branding, and Priolo suggested a grace period for teachers who might need to make adjustments to their wardrobes.

During the boards committee of the whole meeting, members discussed the purpose and aim of the equity council. While no decisions were made, the board revisited the context behind the councils creation and acknowledged the work it has done to engage the community and lead to more inclusivity and understanding.

Thursdays board meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the high-school library.

See original here:

Haddonfield board of ed to vote on updated policies at next meeting - The Sun Newspapers

Quinta Jurecic discussed former President Trumps consistent pattern of attempting to stymie the Mueller investigation, the work of the House select committee to investigate Jan. 6 and the Justice Departments Mar-a-Lago investigation, and the legal implications for the ongoing investigations now that Trump is no longer president.

Hyemin Han shared the Justice Department's opening brief in the Eleventh Circuit for an appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon's Sept. 5 order appointing a special master to oversee privilege claims of documents seized during the Aug. 8 search of former President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence. It asked the Eleventh Circuit to vacate Cannons order in its entirety with instructions to dismiss the case.

Han also shared the Justice Departments Oct. 11 response in opposition to former President Trumps Oct. 4 application to the Supreme Court for a partial vacatur of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuits Sept. 21 order allowing the Justice Department to resume use of materials it has been previously enjoined from using in a Sept. 5 order by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

William Appleton shared a livestream of the Jan. 6 Select Committees Oct. 13 hearing, announced as the final one. The Lawfare team also hosted a Twitter Spaces on the hearing at 5 p.m. ET.

Hadley Baker shared an episode of Lawfare No Bull which featured audio from the Jan. 6 committees ninth public hearing:

Benjamin Wittes sat down for a conversation with Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein, and Molly Reynolds on Twitter Spaces to discuss the ninth Jan. 6 select committee hearing, the subpoena of Donald Trump, how this all could impact the upcoming midterm elections, and the performance of the committee given the constraints it faced:

Katherine Pompilio shared former President Donald Trumps letter in response to the House select committees decision to issue him a subpoena seeking information about his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Han also shared the Biden-Harris administrations first National Security Strategy which details the administrations enduring vision for the U.S. in the coming decade, its views on investment priorities, the administrations global priorities, and a breakdown of the administration's national security strategy by region.

Stewart Baker, Nick Weaver, Matthew Heiman, and Brian Fleming sat down to discuss the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, the criminal conviction of Ubers CSO Joe Sullivan, new export restrictions on U.S. technology and its implications for U.S.-China trade relations, a Russian hack and leak operation, and more:

Henry Farrell and Bruce Schneier discussed the U.S. Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Controls sanctions of Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency and money-laundering platform, and the implications for cryptocurrency regulation if decentralized autonomous organizations like Tornado Cash are afforded First Amendment protections.Jordan Schneider sat down for a conversation with Kevin Wolf, partner at Akin Gump, to discuss the U.S. Commerce Department's new export control regulations, what the regulations mean for the global semiconductor industry, and if the regulations are even enforceable:

Chenny Zhang discussed the possibility of the American drug industry experiencing a similar manufacturing crisis as the semiconductor industry due to the increasing likelihood of industry consolidation, the difficulties of the regulatory approval process and its impacts on innovation, and the importance of the U.S. bioeconomy for national security.

Russell Buchan and Joe Devanny responded to a recent Lawfare article on the U.K.s cyber strategy and emphasized the need for a nuanced and incremental development of that strategy to achieve the responsible and democratic use of cyber power.

Han sat down for a conversation with Alexander Downes, professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University, to discuss the history of foreign-imposed regime change, what lessons can be learned from past foreign-imposed regime changes, and why, when it actually works, its success doesnt last very long:

Tyler McBrien sat down with Beln Carrasco Rodrguez and Tom Southern of the Center for Information Resilience to discuss their research into how Russia establishes and strengthens occupational rule, the Russian playbook for control, and the ways that forced assimilation may or may not be working:

Benjamin Wittes sat down for a conversation with Svitlana Khytrenko, a Ukrainian student who escaped Kyiv in March, to talk about her experiences as a refugee, her life in Poland, and her feelings about the Russian invasion:

Jordan Schneider sat down for a conversation with Kamil Galeev to discuss the prospects of nuclear war, the stability of the Russian state, Moscows grip on annexed regions, Putins future viability, and more:

Katherine Yon Ebright discussed an obscure counterterrorism authority used to create and control proxy forces across Africa and Asia, its intersection with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and argued that the executive branchs current interpretation may have gone beyond its previous representations to Congress and the public.

Caleb Johnson and Yang Liu provided a summary of President Joe Bidens Oct. 7 executive order which laid out a framework in which the government can conduct signals intelligence activities; establishes a three-layer redress mechanism to address potential violations of privacy, civil liberties, or law; and also fulfills prior commitments to provide higher privacy protections and a more durable basis for future trans-Atlantic data flows.

Renee DiResta and John Perrino discussed the new history of U.S. military information campaigns, how it illustrates the challenges of reaching and influencing online audiences, and argued for a U.S. policy of radical transparency in the information ecosystem in contrast to the opaque policies and disinformation campaigns of authoritarian adversaries such as Russia.

David Priess sat down for a chat with Jordan Taylor, historian and author of Misinformation Nation: Foreign News and the Politics of Truth in Revolutionary America. They discussed the persistence of misinformation, the origins and limits of newspapers in colonial America, the Illuminati scare of 1798-99, and more:

McBrien also reviewed Sierra Pettengills documentary Riotsville, U.S.A. (2022) which illustrates the history of police militarization in the United States, the legacies of the Kerner Commission, and the importance of investigating the origins of repressive social forces.

Wittes also sat down with Jurecic, Rozenshtein, and Scott R. Anderson to discuss the current state of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the two cases recently taken up by the Supreme Court relating to Section 230, and what the correct interpretation of 230if there is onemight look like:

Rozenshtein, Jurecic, and Anderson also sat down with Ashley Deeks, professor of law at the University of Virginia Law School, to discuss some of the weeks big national security news including: developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Saudi Arabias decision to cut oil production, and the Supreme Court's decision to take up two cases related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:

And that was the week that was.

Original post:

The Week That Was - Lawfare

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 18. Early voting runs from Oct. 26 to Nov. 5. Heres what you need to know.

West Virginians will go to the polls to elect two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, state delegates, state senators, and in many places, new county and city officials. Plus, there are four proposed changes to the West Virginia Constitution. If voters approve them, the amendments will let churches incorporate and give more power to the state Legislature to modify property taxes, set education policy, and conduct impeachment trials without state court interference.

To register to vote in West Virginia, you must:

You can search for your voter registration information on the Secretary of States website by entering your name and date of birth.

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 18, 2022. You can register online, by mail or in person. You will need a valid ID in order to vote; heres a list of acceptable IDs. Note that first-time voters may be asked to provide additional identification with their current name and address.

You can search for your polling place on the Secretary of States website by entering your name and date of birth.

Deadline to register: Oct. 18, 2022

Early voting starts Oct. 26 and goes through Nov. 5. Heres a list of early voting locations and times.

Election Day: Tuesday, November 8, 2022

Yes, but unlike in recent elections, you have to meet certain requirements before youre allowed to vote absentee in West Virginia. Eligibility requires two basic criteria: (1) confinement or not being present in the county during in-person voting, and (2) a permitted reason/excuse.

Read more on the Secretary of States website.

If approved by voters, this amendment would bar all state courts from interfering with impeachment trials conducted by the West Virginia Legislature.

Background: In 2018, a panel of five circuit judges ruled in a case that halted impeachment proceedings in the West Virginia Legislature against several state Supreme Court justices. Lawmakers who support the amendment have said it is necessary and the legislative branch needs this check on the power of the judicial branch. Opponents argue it would remove some of the existing checks and balances built into the system.

If approved by voters, this amendment would allow the state Legislature to adjust property taxes paid on business inventory; business machinery and equipment; and personal vehicles.

Background: Republicans in the Legislature have wanted for years to eliminate these taxes, which provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year for local services like schools, libraries and emergency services. Theres still no plan to replace the money that local governments get from this tax, although state senators passed a non-binding resolution saying they were committed to [replace] revenue in perpetuity that is above and beyond the personal property taxes to be eliminated.

Almost all local governments have urged people to reject this amendment, which would replace a consistent source of annual funding with one that would be controlled by the state Legislature every year. Gov. Jim Justice has also campaigned against the amendment; he wants to reduce personal income taxes rather than property taxes.

If approved by voters, churches would be allowed to incorporate in West Virginia, which is the only state in the nation that does not allow the practice in its constitution.

Background: This proposed amendment comes after a federal judges ruling in neighboring Virginia that prohibiting a church from incorporating violated its First Amendment rights. The language in the West Virginia Constitution comes from the Virginia Constitution.

If approved by voters, state lawmakers would have the final say over policies and rules created by the West Virginia Board of Education.

Background: The state Board of Education operates independently from the Legislature, with the boards nine voting members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The board sets policies about what students are taught in K-12 schools, teacher requirements, discipline policy and many other areas of school administration. Currently the board does not have to submit school policies and rules to lawmakers for approval. In 2017, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that legislative action that impedes school board policy would be unconstitutional. But this constitutional amendment would usurp that ruling.

You can read the full text of all four amendments here.

Read more frequently asked questions here.

Other West Virginia elected offices including governor, attorney general, secretary of state wont beup for election until 2024. The U.S. Senate seat held by Joe Manchin will also be up in 2024; the states other U.S. Senate seat, held by Shelley Moore Capito, wont be up until 2026.

Also note that West Virginia lawmakers completely re-drew the states legislative maps in 2021. Because of that, your U.S. congressional district, state delegate district and state senate district may have changed.

The rest is here:

West Virginia 2022 elections voter guide: What you need to know - Mountain State Spotlight