That March day, on the other side of the bridge stood hundreds of Alabama state troopers, sheriffs deputies, and mounted possemen (white locals deputized by Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark). They were armed with rifles, tear gas, batons, and cattle prods. It would be detrimental to your safety to continue this march, Alabama State Police Major John Cloud announced. And Im saying this is an unlawful assembly. You are to disperse.

The subsequent violence became known as Bloody Sunday, and the shock waves it sent across the country transformed the national debate about voting rights for Black Americans.

The words that echo in 2020 are This is an unlawful assembly. This summer, police in Oregon have been declaring riots almost every night. And Oregon is not even on the cutting edge: The mayor of one southern hamlet, Graham, North Carolina, recently suspended all protests, out of a professed fear that demonstrations against Confederate monuments would lead to violence. Similarly, the troopers who brutalized the crowd of unarmed men, women, and children on Bloody Sunday saw themselves as enforcers of the law. But, textually, the words unlawful assembly embody a tension, even a contradictionbecause the First Amendment, in its very terms, protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble. So unlawful assembly is like illegal writing or forbidden religious exercise: There surely may be such a thing, but, in each case, the burden has to be on the authorities to explain why this assembly, this writing, this religious exercise is an exception to the broad protection afforded to these important political rights.

Read: How Martin Luther King Jr. recruited John Lewis

By the logic of unlawful assembly, John Lewis had it coming. He and the marchers had gathered without permission. They had blocked a highway. Told to go home, they stayed. And violence followed. If you want to get technical, the marchers didnt commit the violenceit was committed by the police and the local white toughs who hung around the fringes of the march. But the marchers had gathered in a place where the police didnt want them. As one local white official explained to Martin Luther King Jr. in the aftermath of the march, Everywhere you have been, there has been violence.

Some scholars have argued recently that Americans have lost sight of peaceable assembly as an important constitutional right. One of them is Tabatha Abu El-Haj, a professor at the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, whom I spoke with last week. Abu El-Haj has written extensively about the First Amendment and the right to assemble in particular, including a 2009 article called The Neglected Right of Assembly. Abu El-Haj explained to me that while England maintained a relatively tight leash on popular assemblies, the experience of the American Revolution convinced early Americans of the importance of the people out of doors as part of citizenship and political participation. Marches, open-air meetings, and protests were routinely held on public property during the 18th and 19th centuries. Not until 1914, in fact, did New York, by then a city of 2 million, even begin to require permits for these marches.

Read more from the original source:

The Whole Concept of Unlawful Assembly Is a Mess - The Atlantic

Yes, sir, you are racist.

In fact, there is no other word to appropriately describe the rhetoric spewed by Leelanau County Road Commissioner Tom Eckerle last week.

Eckerles first utterance, a vile reference to those ns in Detroit during the preamble to a public meeting, probably was enough for us all to get the picture. That was before the 75-year-old Suttons Bay resident confirmed his bigotry to the world by doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his previous racist statements.

It appears Mr. Eckerle hasnt met a reporter to whom he wont confirm his racism with an encore barrage of n-word laced recitations of his world view.

In several instances, Eckerle coupled escalations of his rhetoric with claims he is not a racist.

We beg to differ.

His right to espouse such repugnant, ignorant and foul beliefs is protected by the First Amendment. But freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from repercussions.

We were heartened by the immediate, and decisive reaction by Leelanau County residents who, when news of Eckerles rhetoric broke, denounced his behavior and pledged to remove him from office through a recall if he didnt leave of his own volition.

And for about a day it appeared an arduous recall process would be necessary as Eckerle declared he had no plans to resign.

The only other way to boot an elected official from office is through executive action by the governor, and we appreciate Gov. Gretchen Whitmers reluctance to step between public officials and their constituents.

Eckerle and his behavior provides an opportunity for a countywide statement of values either through public declarations and reforms or at the ballot box.

We were relieved when Eckerle reversed course and loosened his stubborn grip on the office he isnt fit to hold.

The semi-retired farmer, who is two years into a six-year term on the county road board, told a Record-Eagle reporter late Friday he plans to forfeit his seat. Not because of the nationwide backlash. Or because his racism has dealt irreparable damage to his community. No, Eckerle said he will resign because he doesnt want to burden a newly-hired, soon-to-start road commission manager with the problems he created.

Thats sure thoughtful from a guy who a day ago seemed hell-bent on digging a pit big enough not just to bury himself, but to take down Leelanau County with him.

We hope all elected and appointed officials pay close attention to the lessons Eckerle presented them. Not the racist dog whistles he spends so much time repeating. No, the lesson here is one of public service.

Holding elected office comes with a bundle of sacrifices time, stress and self interest to name a few.

Self interest is the one on display this week in Leelanau County. Tom Eckerle showed us all how not so serve the constituents who relied upon him to represent them while in office.

He reminded us that some people simply are unfit for office.

The experience also begs for introspection from us all. How we respond to those who casually seed conversations with racial slurs and other more covert racism matters.

Silence is support.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Follow this link:

Editorial: Racist is the only word to describe what we witnessed - Traverse City Record Eagle

Last month, the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2019-20 term with a flurry of significant rulings.

The court confirmed that Congress and state attorneys general may subpoena third parties for evidence when legitimately investigating a sitting president; held that the executive branch must engage in reasoned decision-making when rescinding administrative protections for a vulnerable population (i.e., beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program); and defined the scope of the presidents power to remove officials from high office.

The court also clarified that federal anti-discrimination employment protections extend to LGBTQ workers; held that states may punish members of the electoral college who do not vote for the candidate they pledged to support; determined that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within a Creek Nation Indian reservation; emphasized that the First Amendment right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs contains broad anti-discrimination guarantees; and reaffirmed that states may not undermine abortion rights by enacting laws that purport to protect womens health but in fact are designed to close clinics where abortions are performed.

Each of these rulings deserves its own column. But lets start with five clear lessons that may be drawn from the courts historic term.

1) This is Chief Judge John Robertss court. When Sandra Day OConnor retired, Anthony Kennedy replaced her as the swing justice i.e., the justice most likely to swing back and forth between the courts conservative and liberal wings. Now that Kennedy has retired, Roberts has replaced him as the courts swing justice. Roberts authored or joined the majority opinion an astounding 97% (59 out of 61) of the time this term.

The only written decisions in which Roberts was not a member of the majority were Ramos v. Louisiana, which held that states must require unanimous jury verdicts as a matter of federal due process, and McGirt v. Oklahoma, which held that, for purposes of the federal Major Crimes Act, much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation where only federal authorities (and not state authorities) may prosecute tribe members for certain major crimes.

2) Roberts, although deeply conservative, is an institutionalist. When Roberts reaches the merits of a dispute, he is likely to side with the courts conservatives. But Roberts is far more likely than the other conservative justices to use procedural and prudential doctrines to enforce rule-of-law values and avoid having the court take center stage in litigation with strong partisan overtones.

Consider, for example, Robertss opinions in the 2020 case involving the Trump administrations cancellation of DACA (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California) and the 2019 case involving the Trump administrations efforts to add a citizenship question to the census (Department of Commerce v. New York). In both, Roberts joined the courts four liberal justices to hold that the administration had violated fundamental administrative law principles by failing to provide reasoned explanations for their actions. Neither opinion held that the administration was pursuing an unlawful end; both held that the means used to adopt the policy change were unlawful.

Or, consider Robertss opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo. Roberts wrote that, while he disagrees with the analytical approach used in a 2016 court decision rendering unconstitutional a Louisiana statute limiting access to abortion, the court ordinarily should follow its prior rulings. Therefore, Roberts invoked the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for to stand by whats been decided, and joined the courts four liberal justices to strike down the law.

Or, finally, consider Robertss opinions for the court in Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars. These cases considered, respectively, the power of state attorneys general and Congress to subpoena third parties for the financial records of a sitting president. In both cases, Roberts rejected President Donald Trumps sweeping claims of presidential immunity. Yet, Roberts remanded these cases back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the special concerns that arise when an attorney general or Congress investigates the president. The likely result is that the records will be made public, if ever, only after the November election.

3) Religious rights are expanding. Churches, religious organizations, and religious individuals have invoked the First Amendments free exercise clause to bring two types of cases in recent years. In the first, they have argued that it is a violation of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs if they are excluded on grounds of separation of church and state when government makes benefits available to a similar class of organizations or persons. In the second, they have argued for exemptions from required compliance with certain anti-discrimination laws on the ground that these laws intrude on their free-exercise rights. And they have succeeded in both types of cases.

Consider this terms decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue and Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru. In Espinoza, the court held that a provision of Montana law barring aid to religious schools could not constitutionally bar tuition assistance to parents who send their children to religious schools when such assistance is made available to other parents. In Our Lady of Guadalupe, the court held that, because churches must have the unlimited ability to fire those who serve as their ministers, Catholic school teachers whose teaching assignments included religion could not challenge their dismissals under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Consequently, churches and the religious stand on largely equal footing with all others when it comes to receiving public benefits. But they are exempt from certain generally applicable laws when applying those laws could interfere with the free exercise of their religion.

4) Lower courts should not lightly intervene in election disputes to protect the right to vote. In April, a federal judge in Wisconsin issued an injunction extending the deadline for the casting and counting of absentee ballots to one week beyond election day. The judge premised the injunction on the fact that Wisconsin election officials were overwhelmed by requests for absentee ballots from voters who did not wish to risk exposure to the coronavirus in personally casting their ballots. But the Supreme Court, in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, dissolved the injunction in a 5-4 ruling. The court majority applied a prudential principle that courts should not change election rules as election day approaches.

The court also acted similarly in election disputes that reached it from Alabama, Texas, and Florida. The message to lower courts seems clear: Do not lightly involve yourselves in election disputes on the ground that state officials are failing to sufficiently protect voting rights.

5) If Justice Ginsburg is replaced by another Trump appointee, the court will have a dependable, deeply conservative majority. The court recently announced that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 87, has been treated for a recurrence of cancer. If Justice Ginsburg leaves the court and President Trump succeeds in appointing a replacement, the court will almost certainly lack a swing justice to periodically join with the liberal justices to forge a majority.

President Trump has delivered on his promise to appoint deeply conservative justices. Although Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the liberal justices in two high-profile cases this term (Bostock v. Clayton County, which extended federal anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ workers, and the aforementioned McGirt, which held that much of eastern Oklahoma is a Creek Nation reservation), he and Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Trumps other appointee) have thus far reliably voted with arch-conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Yet another Trump appointee like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would leave the court with a fifth deeply conservative vote even if Chief Justice Roberts were to continue to sometimes vote with the Courts three remaining liberal justices.

More on these developments in future columns.

(John Greabe teaches constitutional law and directs the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership & Public Service at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. The opinions he expresses in his Constitutional Connections columns are entirely his own.)

Go here to see the original:

Constitutional Connections: Five takeaways from the Supreme Court's 2019-2020 term - Concord Monitor

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and the conferences player unity group exchanged letters on Friday in the aftermath of their video conference the night before.

The two sides arent exactly pen pals.

And the prospect of a Pac-12 football season being played in the fall appears extremely precarious with fall camps looming Aug. 17.

"I think I speak for a lot of players when I say that we as college athletes would love to play football this upcoming season," former Sheldon High standout and current Arizona State offensive lineman Cody Shear told The Register-Guard on Saturday. "We're approaching this rapidly, and it kind of seems like we're walking into a season full of a lot of unknowns. And I think that it would be extremely beneficial to the majority of the Pac-12 student-athletes to kind of know what they're walking into as far as this upcoming season goes for a variety of reasons."

Shear was among the 18 leaders of the #WeAreUnited movement including Oregon defensive back Jevon Holland and Oregon State defensive back Jaydon Grant who signed a letter to Scott expressing dissatisfaction with the conferences response to their call for more COVID-19 testing and other demands the group made public last Sunday.

"In no uncertain terms, this is a matter of life or death for student-athletes during these difficult times," the player letter read. "This needs to be handled with a sense of urgency, compassion, and fidelity to scientific best practices as fall camp begins in 10 days."

The Pac-12s revised 10-game conference-only slate is scheduled to start Sept. 26, with Oregon hosting Colorado at Autzen Stadium and Oregon State hosting California at Reser Stadium.

But Scott, who misspelled Hollands first name in his letter, was only able to promise the players that their demands for enhanced testing and safety protocols would be addressed by the Pac-12s medical advisory committee.

"I wanted to thank all of you for the passion and honesty with which you spoke (Thursday) evening," Scott wrote. "We will work on gathering the information listed above and providing it to you as soon as possible."

The Pac-12 is quickly running out of time to get everyone on the same page as the college football dominoes continue to topple.

On Saturday, the Mid-American Conference became the first FBS conference to cancel its season with the hope of playing a spring schedule. FBS independent UConn pulled the plug on its season Wednesday.

The FCS playoffs were canceled Friday when the Big Sky Conference, home of Portland State, became the seventh FCS conference to cancel its fall season.

Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren, whose conference was the first to cancel nonconference games including Ohio States anticipated Sept. 12 game at Oregon would prefer pushing the season to the spring, according to a report by the Detroit Free Press.

The Big Ten, which shares a geographic footprint with the MAC, announced Saturday it is delaying the start of full-contact practices.

"It's hard to go conference by conference," Shear, who started his collegiate career at Oregon before transferring to Arizona State, said of his reaction to the cancellation of fall seasons across the country. "Obviously, college football is a business and it is run and generated on money. Not all conferences make the same revenue.

"The main topic that we're kind of looking at right now is we understand how much money these programs are bringing in, and I think it's only fair that the players get to come together and have a voice about what's going on for collegiate athletics, especially around the world as far as the pandemic, as well as the racial injustice issues."

In addition to NFL-style daily testing for fall camps, the Pac-12 player unity group wants the conference to put in writing that all liability waivers from individual schools are not forcible.

"Our deepest fear is the Pac-12s negligent return to play may result in a member of our Pac-12 family dying due to COVID-19," Holland told Scott, Arizona State athletic director Ray Anderson and Utah athletic director Mark Harlan during the video conference, according to the player letter.

Pac-12 athletes who choose not to play sports this fall over concerns related to the coronavirus will still have their scholarships honored. It is still to be determined by the NCAA Board of Governors whether or not players will retain or lose a year of eligibility if the season is canceled.

During Thursdays meeting, players also raised concerns over Washington States Dallas Hobbs and Kassidy Woods, who are opting out of the season, experiencing "unlawful retaliation" for exercising their First Amendment right to support the #WeAreUnited movement.

"It was not very productive," former Oregon and current California offensive lineman Valentino Daltoso told the New York Times of the interaction with Scott. "We did not come away with many answers. He made it very clear that he does not want to meet again."

The cancellation of football, on the heels of the lucrative NCAA mens basketball tournament being canceled for the first time ever in March, would be devastating financially for the Pac-12.

Football revenue accounts for over 70% of Oregons athletic department budget. The defending Pac-12 champion Ducks are favored to repeat and enter the 2020 season ranked No. 9 in the Amway USA Today Coaches Poll.

According a report by the San Jose Mercury News, the Pac-12 has secured a loan program for its member institutions of up to $83 million per school to cover lost revenue.

University of Oregon president Michael Schill, the Pac-12 CEO Group chairman, is expected to meet with his peers Tuesday.

It appears the writing is on the wall: A football season this fall is unlikely.

"The Pac-12 has a proud history," the player letter read, "but this is not a proud moment."

Contact reporter Ryan Thorburn at rthorburn@registerguard.com or 541-338-2330, and follow him on Twitter @By_RyanThorburn and Instagram @rg_ducksports. Want more stories like this? Subscribe to get unlimited access and support local journalism.

View post:

Pac-12 football season on the brink - The Register-Guard

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

This administration will continue to protect the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of every student, teacher and educational institution across the country, Secretary DeVos said. Too many misinterpret the separation of church and state as an invitation for government to separate people from their faith.

In reality, the First Amendment doesnt exist to protect us from religion. It exists to protect religion from government. Todays guidance reaffirms our commitment to protecting our first liberty and ensuring that discriminatory restrictions on access to federal grant funding are no longer tolerated.

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

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

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

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

Affirms that religious organizations are equally eligible to participate in ED-administered programs as their secular counterparts.

Affirms that financial award decisions are made based on merit, not based on an organizations religion, religious belief or the lack thereof.

States that religious organizations receiving federal financial assistance under a Department program must comply with program-specific legislation and regulations, but clarifies that these organizations may continue to carry out their missions and maintain their religious character. However, direct federal financial assistance may not be used for religious worship, religious instruction or proselytization.

Reminds states that they may not use discriminatory Blaine Amendments to deny faith-based organizations contracts or grants, as this violates Department regulations against discrimination on the basis of an organizations religious character or affiliation.

Affirms that students and/or borrowers seeking to participate in Department loan programs and beneficiaries seeking to participate in Department social service programs will not be penalized or singled out for disadvantages on the basis of religion.

Clarifies the role of the Departments Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives (CFOI) as a Department office that collaborates with faith and community leaders to maximize participation of religious organizations in Department programs while eliminating barriers in the grantmaking or regulatory process to safeguard religious liberty.

Read more:

U.S. Department of Education reaffirms commitment to protecting the religious liberty of students, religious organizations - The Highland County Press

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- A Meiers Corners woman charged with multiple counts of harassment as a hate crime was a burden and potential threat to several of her neighbors, including multiple children as young as 3 years old, authorities allege.

Lenore Arce, 70, faces charges that include five-counts of first-degree hate crime/harassment, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, five counts of third-degree stalking and five-counts of fourth-degree stalking.

Racial epithets hurled at neighbors over the course of several months included white trash, n*****, and ch***, while in some cases she followed the victims around their property, the criminal complaint alleges.

Arce, whose first name is also spelled as Leonore in court documents, was arraigned on the charges Friday in Criminal Court in St. George, where a judge released her on her own recognizance.

A temporary order of protection was issued on behalf of the alleged victims, with a following court date scheduled for Nov. 6.

NEIGHBORS ALLEGEDLY BERATED, THREATENED

Arce continuously harassed five households on her Meiers Corners block from Jan. 1 to June 30, in some cases following neighbors around their properties and making remarks based on their race and sexual orientation, the complaint alleges.

One of her targets on multiple occasions was a grandparent and their grandchild, at one point issuing a threat: Im coming for you, you and your white trash family, authorities allege.

The complaint alleges Arce harassed another family, including two children ages 10 and 12, with verbal assaults including, F*** you, you illegal ch***.

Another neighbor was allegedly called a thief and a fa****.

The Advance/SILive.com first reported on the situation in July, publishing disturbing video where she could be heard uttering a stream of racial epithets at a neighbor.

Youre a f****** sick negro ... Put it up your f****** n****** a**, the woman can be heard saying in one video. Youre f****** black trash.

You dont run this f****** neighborhood, n*****, she said in another.

Arce has been a resident of the block for approximately 20 years, neighbors said.

Interviews with a half-dozen residents, some of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from Arce, presented corroborating accounts of residents who said the womans constant harassment affects their everyday lives even causing her neighbors to change their daily routines to avoid coming into contact with her.

I got to look out my window before I come out, said one neighbor who wished to not be named. If I see her outside, I wont go out. But as soon as you step out of your house, she comes running out.

Joshua Benjamin, Arces defense attorney, described the case as a neighbor dispute and said it does not belong in Criminal Court.

Ms. Arce is 70 years old and on a fixed income, he said. She has never been in trouble with the law. She has the absolute legal right to speak her mind. Speech, even speech we dont like, is protected by both Article 1 Section 8 of the New York Constitution and by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

He continued: They can only make a hate speech charge if there is an underlying crime. There is no underlying crime. They are trying to penalize and criminalize a New Yorker for having a big mouth. That is against our laws and the beautiful New York value of speaking your mind.

DE BLASIO CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

In late July, Mayor Bill de Blasio called a video documenting the racist tirades Arce hurled toward her neighbor shameful and disgusting and vowed an investigation would take place.

These are not New York values, and not what this city represents. Were investigating this, de Blasio said at the time.

See more here:

Temporary order of protection issued against Meiers Corners woman in hate-crimes case - SILive.com