A few weeks ago, theTexas Supreme Courtmade headlines by warning state officials that there was not, in fact, a pandemic exception to the United States Constitution. This past week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to create one. In anorderthat surprised even theliberals atVox, the Supreme Court blessed a Nevada law that preferences casinos over churches. The decision has no basis in First Amendment law and establishes a worrisome precedent for government overreach in times of crisis.

Located in Dayton, Nevada, Calvary Chapel is a small, rural church that wishes to host worship services for about 90 congregants, which is 50% of its fire-code capacity. Calvary Chapels reopening plans are more than compliant with state and CDC requirements. A limited, 45-minute service (half the normal length), one-way entrance and exit footpaths, six-feet of separation between families, a prohibition on passing items, and sanitization between services are just some of the measures proposed by Calvary Chapel.

Yet Nevada forbade Calvary Chapel from opening its doors. In a breathtaking assertion of governmental power premised on COVID-19, Gov. Steve Sisolak (a Democrat) issued a directive that severely constrains church attendance. No church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship may admit more than 50 persons no matter the building capacity or safety measures employed.

The fact that these restrictions do not apply to casinos, gyms, bowling alleys, restaurants, or bars should have madeCalvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolakan easy case. It isblackletter lawthat strict scrutiny applies to government restrictions on religious exercise that are not neutral and of general applicability. If the Free Exercise Clause means anything, it means government may not single out the religious for disfavored treatment. Yet, that is precisely what Nevada has done. While limiting church attendance to 50 people, Nevada allows the casino down the street to admitthousandsof people, up to 50% of their maximum capacity.

Further, casinos are not the only venues that are treated more favorably than churches. Other commercial interests, such as bars, gyms, and restaurants, may also operate at 50% capacity. In fact, tournament bowling alleys in Las Vegas seat hundreds of spectators, and like casinos, can admit up to 50% of capacity. State guidelines provide that groups of up to 50 people may sit together in bowling alley grandstands. Meanwhile, the synagogue down the street is limited to 50 total worshippers.

On Friday, in aone-sentence orderthat contains not a word of explanation, a sharply divided 5-4 Supreme Court denied Calvary Chapels application for an injunction restraining the state of Nevada from enforcing its 50-person limit on religious services.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsucheach authored a dissentarguing that Nevadas reopening plan discriminated against religious services in violation of the First Amendment.

As Alito explained, a public health emergency does not give public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists. Rather, officials are required to craft policies that account for constitutional rights.

This principle is hardly new. In 1866, at the height of the Civil War, the Supreme Court heldthat the Constitution may not be modified in times of crisis. Rather, our founding charter applies at all times and under all circumstances. Indeed, the court could not think of any other doctrine involving more pernicious consequencesthan that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

If only the current Supreme Court would return to this view. As Gorsuch explained, the world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

All is not lost, however. Although Calvary Chapel will not receive its injunction, the courts still have a chance to consider the case on the merits and to ensure that the First Amendments protections apply at all times and in all circumstances.

Erin Hawley is a senior legal fellow at Independent Womens Law Center and a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Continue reading here:

There are no exceptions to the First Amendment, even in a pandemic - Independent Women's Forum

West Texas school districts have their own way of dealing with how to balance freedom of speech on social media.

SAN ANGELO, Texas Getting our thoughts out has never been easier. With the use of social media, freedom of speech is at the palm of your hands.

With every tweet, post and snapchat a person can use it as a platform to voice opinions.

Many say freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences.

Earlier this week, a story from Colorado said a teacher was facing dismissal for her comments on her personal social media account.

Does the First Amendment apply to everyone? What about teachers in the community who may have taught students about the First Amendment? Its a very fine line that school districts in West Texas have to address daily.

Christoval High Principal John Choate said the rules have not changed, and social media for teachers is no exception.

"The way the laws are written, the way all the regulations regarding teachers use of digital communication with students, it's really the same," Choate said. "They're under the same expectation that they would be in person."

The Christoval Independent School District is not the only school district trying to police the use of social media without infringing on the First Amendment.

Brownwood Independent School District Director of Human Resources Doug Bonsal referred all questions to the districts employee handbook.

The handbook states "All district employees should perform their duties in accordance with state and federal law, district policies and procedures and ethical standards."

According to the Texas Education Agency, it means the Texas educator should be maintaining the dignity of the profession, shall respect and obey the law, demonstrate personal integrity and exemplify honesty.

Choate does not have the time to police the social media pages of his teachers, and he respects his teachers right to use the First Amendment to post what they want. However, if the post brings negative attention to student, or the school that is where Choate draws the line.

"If a teachers statements or an educator statements on social media constitutes hatred towards these students protected status then it would be a problem," Choate said.

If a problem such as that were to occur, Choate and the CISD administration would have to investigate and act accordingly. Choate encourages everyone to exercise the First Amendment, but when it comes to social media, use whatever you put out there it is hard to take down, and to make sure you are mindful before hitting send.

Read more from the original source:

Freedom of speech is a right, but is there a line drawn for teachers - MyFoxZone.com KIDY

Over the course of his career, Sen, Mike Lee, R-Utah, has consistently voiced a principled opposition to political overreach. A search of the senators website provides 61 results calling out executive or federal overreach. In 2013, Lee said, We now see how determined the president is to expand the power of the federal government and his willingness to use that power to harm the country to get what he wants. Congress cannot allow this to stand.

It is unsurprising that these concerns were voiced when the executive was on the other team. But Lee also spoke up when President Trump attempted an emergency declaration to siphon funding to his border wall. Lee repeated themes he had championed during the Obama administration, declaring, Executive overreach and abdication of Congresss constitutional powers is neither a Republican nor Democratic issue; neither a liberal nor a conservative one. Its an American one.

The leaders of Mormon Women for Ethical Government agree: Executive overreach is an American issue. We believe the years spent honing his expertise during the Obama administration should help the senator lead Congress in protecting Americans rights now. Under President Trump, the executive branch has regularly and repeatedly exercised overreach to the detriment of Americans national representation, constitutional protections, and First Amendment freedoms. Lees previous denunciations of such overreach are as critical today as they were previously.

In critique of Obamacare, Lee said, What power the government has, it will use and misuse to advance its own interests, even if that means punishing the American people along the way. However, Lee remains silent as Trump defies the law to advance his own agenda. Although the Constitution explicitly says congressional districts must be based on the whole number of persons, and multiple federal laws and the Supreme Court have upheld this interpretation, Trump recently signed a memorandum to prevent undocumented migrants from being counted in the decennial U.S. census. Ramifications go beyond red or blue redistricting: The census impacts planning and funding for schools, roads, and emergency services. This overreach advances partisan interests while punishing the American people along the way.

Even if Trump knew that his [decree] lacked legal authority, The National Review opined, he could get away with it for the length of his presidency. For the president to intentionally enact decrees known to be unconstitutional would be egregious executive overreach.

Particularly worrisome is the use of unidentified federal forces to disperse protesters. After Trump declared himself your president of law and order and demanded governors deploy National Guard units and dominate the streets, troops scattered peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square for a Trump photo-op at St. Johns Church. In Portland, federal forces have arrested and removed protesters. David Graham of The Atlantic noted, For decades, conservative activists and leaders have warned that jackbooted thugs from the federal government were going to come to take away Americans civil rights with no due process and no recourse. Now theyre here but theyre deployed by a staunchly right-wing president with strong conservative support.

Senator, as you have in the past, demand that the executive respect both the rule of law and the unalienable rights of every American. Your previous actions lead us to expect this of you. To abandon your duty violates multiple Principles of Ethical Government.

Again stand against executive overreach and for Americans well-being, our First Amendment freedoms and the Constitution that protects us all.

Lisa Rampton Halverson is the senior director of education for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.

Heather Sundahl is an op-ed writing lab advisor for the organization. Both women live in Utah.

More:

Heather Sundahl and Lisa Rampton Halverson: Lee used to stand against presidential 'overreach' - Salt Lake Tribune