Tag Archives: supreme-court

Judicial watchdog wants metro Atlanta judge off the bench – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted on by

Douglas Countys probate judge should be removed from office in response to a host of ethics charges, a panel of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission has said in a report.

Christina Peterson, who became a probate judge in an uncontested November 2020 election, has been fighting the ethics charges since they were filed by the director of the states judicial watchdog in July 2021. At one point, Peterson faced 50 separate charges accusing her of violating the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, but 20 have been withdrawn or dismissed.

Peterson, a University of Georgia School of Law graduate who practiced as an attorney for several years before taking the bench, was accused of inappropriate social media posts, unnecessarily jailing and fining a woman who sought to amend her marriage license and letting wedding participants into Douglas Countys courthouse after hours without permission. She was also abusive toward a fellow judge and other county officials, obstructed access to public records and had improper contact with a litigant, among other things, the judicial commission alleged.

(Petersons) actions demonstrate a troubling pattern of ineptitude and misconduct, the panel wrote in a 54-page report Sunday. She is not fit to serve.

The Georgia Supreme Court will decide whether Peterson remains on the bench.

Petersons attorney, Lester Tate, said they reject the panels recommendation and look forward to arguing the case before the court.

Throughout the ethics case, Peterson has said that she has faced unfair criticism as the first Black probate judge in Douglas County. During a trial before the commission panel last year, Peterson admitted to making mistakes in her first year as a judge while learning the ropes and said she was trying to do better.

Peterson acknowledged that it was harsh of her to jail and fine the woman who sought, without an attorney, to amend her marriage license in 2021. She also expressed regret about sending an April 2021 email to David Emerson, who at the time was the chief judge of the Douglas County Superior Court, questioning his judicial authority and competency, records show.

The commission, which is tasked with investigating complaints of judicial misconduct, has twice sought Petersons suspension. Both requests were denied by the state Supreme Court.

In its report, the panel said Peterson had been disingenuous, if not outright dishonest, during the investigation process. It said her testimony during last years trial was untruthful and evasive.

This persistent unwillingness to apply to herself the rules that apply to everyone else is deeply troubling, the panel said. Moreover, she has demonstrated a steadfast unwillingness to accept moral accountability in nearly all the episodes of misconduct.

Given Petersons stance that the ethics case against her has been unfair, biased and intentionally obstructive to her career, no sanction less than removal from office will have a meaningful impact, the panel said.

(Petersons) actions in the courtroom and outside it demonstrate a consistent and persistent pattern of misconduct comprised of intemperance, judicial incompetence, and danger to the rights of litigants, it said. And so she must go.

Courtney Veal, the commission director who has led the ethics case against Peterson, said the panels report speaks for itself. Veal said she looks forward to a final ruling by the state Supreme Court.

Peterson and Veal have 20 days to file responses to the panels report. Its unclear when the court will make a decision.

Peterson has qualified for reelection this year as Douglas Countys probate judge. She is being challenged in the Democratic primary in May by Douglasville attorney Valerie Vie. No Republican candidates have qualified in the race.

After becoming a lawyer in 2013, Peterson worked at a private law firm then as a prosecutor in Douglas and Fulton counties, records show. She had no prior experience as a judge.

Read more from the original source:

Judicial watchdog wants metro Atlanta judge off the bench - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms – Texas Standard

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in two cases related to some of the worlds biggest social media platforms.

Considered by many to be two of the hottest free speech cases of the internet age, one case is from Texas, the other from Florida. And though there are slight differences between the two state laws being challenged here, the cases appear to center on a central question: do social media companies have the right to independently decide what content appears on their platforms, amplifying or removing content as they see fit?

The social media companies say their First Amendment free speech rights are being violated with the Texas and Florida laws. The states say those social media companies arent entitled to First Amendment free speech protection. And it may come down to whether a majority of the court sees social media as more like a newspaper or more like a telephone company.

Charles Rocky Rhodes, a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said both of these laws are on hold and have not yet gone into effect because of pending court cases.

They were a response to some of the social media platforms de-platforming Donald Trump and other politicians in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Rhodes said. And there was a concern from Texas and from Florida that [these politicians] were being targeted because of their conservative beliefs.

And so the idea of both of these laws was to try to keep social media platforms from banning individuals or discriminating against individuals based on the viewpoints of their speech. And it also placed some very onerous burdens on social media companies with respect to disclosure requirements of their terms and their policies with respect to data management and content, and the use policies that they would be using.

GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE:Sign up for Texas Standards weekly newsletters

The plaintiff in the case is NetChoice, an industry association that includes most of the big platforms we all think of Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, etc.

Theyre making the play that when they are deciding which messages to amplify and which messages that they want to remove from their platform, that they are acting as the modern editor of a newspaper, and there are good precedent for the United States Supreme Court saying that a state cant tell a newspaper what to print, Rhodes said.

Theyre arguing that the same principle applies to them, that they are allowed to make editorial decisions on their private platform. And this is something that people have to keep in mind that the social media companies, as big and important as they are, are not the government. They are actually privately-owned.

Texas and Florida, however, say these companies are acting as a common carrier and therefore do not have a claim to free speech.

Theyre trying to say that social media companies are a modern equivalent of what used to be a very familiar idea of the common carrier, that they dont have the ability to discriminate with respect to their service. They have to accept everyone, Rhodes said. And the social media companies come back and say, well, common carriers were different because they never engaged in their own expressive activities.

Common carriers did sometimes transmit the speech of others, like a telegraph would be the old example, or telephone But they did not actually engage in their own expressive activities. And the social media companies are claiming that we do because we are trying to communicate messages. Were creating news feeds for individuals. Were trying to increase, of course, advertising streams that we are engaged in expressive activities in a way that your internet service provider or in a way that your telephone company is not.

As this case goes forward, Rhodes said the states arguments are rooted in political ideology.

The Texas law has a specific exemption for companies under 50 million users. So it wouldnt cover conservative sites like Parler, he said. The Florida law had exemptions for Disney and for Universal that were then taken out once Disney and Universal started criticizing Florida [political leaders]. A big part of the underlying motivation for these laws was the political concern that conservatives thought that their voices were being removed from the site and the marketplace of ideas.

View original post here:

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms - Texas Standard

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University – GW Today

Posted on by

What are the free speech rights of university students? That was the first question posed by moderator Jeffrey Rosen, GW Law professor and president of the National Constitution Center, to a panel of George Washington University faculty experts on the First Amendment.

The webinar, Free Speech v. Hate Speech: First Amendment Scholars Discuss Where to Draw the Line in the Context of Higher Education, was held as part of the universitys plan for strengthening the GW community in challenging times, with the goal of fostering civil conversations about complex issues and emphasizing university policies.

The incoming inaugural Burchfield Professor of First Amendment and Free Speech Law, Mary-Rose Papandrea, began by noting that the First Amendment applies to public and not private universities, but private universities often look to the First Amendment principles for guidance. Under the First Amendment, she explained, some categories of speech receive no First Amendment protection, such as incitement of unlawful conduct, threats of violence, or giving material support to terrorists. But offensive speech and bad words are not carved out from the First Amendment. In a public university setting, however, there is some leeway for penalizing speech that would be otherwise protected. She suggested classrooms provide the best example of this.

When I ask a student to tell me the holding of a case, I actually want the holding of the case, and there is a wrong answer, Papandrea said. And if the student doesnt give me the correct answer, that will result in a lower grade in the class. Outside in the town square you can engage in false speech, incorrect speech, or misrepresentations and cannot be, as a general matter, punished by the government.

Most of the tensions surrounding free speech on campuses today, she added, arise when universities attempt to regulate the speech of faculty and students outside of the classroom.

Universities are the quintessential marketplace of ideas, Papandrea said, and we should be really concerned when the university starts making viewpoint-based speech restrictions outside of the classroom.

First Amendment: Does everything go?

In the view of Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology and Civil Rights Law, free speech issues are clouded by unequal power relations, often resulting in protection of reckless speech for the majority but not for minorities. Franks proposes an alternative paradigm encouraging what she describes as fearless speech.

If we really want to talk about free speech, we actually need to get away from the First AmendmentI mean the kind of popularized version of the First Amendment which says everything goes, and you can never have any kind of intervention, Franks said.

People operating under this misconception, she added, argue that any kind of devaluation or nonplatforming constitutes censorship. That idea, she said, is pernicious.

When we think about what the First Amendment actually does, its not really telling us anything about free speech, Franks said. Its telling us about what the government cant do in certain contexts. And thats really useful to know, because the government has a lot of power that no individual has and because the kinds of measures it can take against you include the loss of your liberty. But I dont know that its such a good model for us as a private university. How much are we like a government? What we could be doing instead, and what I think successful universities do when they want to be marketplaces of ideas or spaces for intellectual, robust debate, is set standards. What are the good ideas? Whether an idea is controversial or noncontroversial is not the point.

Instead, Franks said, ideas should be well informed and argued eloquently. She argues in favor of a conscious curation of the best ideas that reflect the universitys values, expressed as persuasively as possible without threats of force or ad hominem attacks.

What is the kind of speech that a university could uniquely try to foster? she asked. What kind of space could it foster to become a forum where really difficult ideas get aired out in a way that is physically safe but also sophisticated? Im suggesting that we move toward fearless speech and critiques of current power structures, that we take notice of the fact that reality is a certain way. There are certain sensitivities to race and gender and class that we really need to have on our radar, if we want to make sure that people within the university space can speak equally.

Free speech at a private university

Dawn Nunziato, Pedas Family Professor of IP and Technology Law, agreed that the First Amendment is not necessarily the right one for every context.

At a private university like GW, we have the autonomy and the freedom and the duty to decide what kind of community we want to be, Nunziato said, and within certain bounds, what types of speech we want to protect and to not protect. Our speech policies are not governed by the First Amendment. So we dont need to protect hate speech in the same way that the First Amendment protects hate speech. We could draw the line very differently. And there are reasons why we should, and we should be very thoughtful about how we draw the line. We may choose to value inclusivity and belonging over the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Nunziato noted, GW has a responsibility to provide an educational environment free of discrimination.

Robust discussion and respectful listening

The panels discussion touched on the recent congressional hearings at which the presidents of three elite universities were criticized for saying that whether speech could be considered hate speech depends on context.

After pointing out that she didnt view it as incorrect to say that the answer to questions of free speech v. hate speech can depend on context, Papandrea noted examples of speech that should be protected, such as an antisemitic line spoken by a character in a play meant to condemn antisemitism. The same line spoken by a student marching across campus could be viewed as creating a hostile environment.

Franks, too, was sympathetic to the trio of university presidents, who may have been reacting to the charge that universities are a woke paradise for snowflakes who require trigger warnings.

The most upsetting thing about the spectacle is not any of those presidents answers, Franks said. It was the fact that the spectacle was happening at alla real invocation and revitalization of a McCarthyesque kind of moment, with legislators who have made it clear that antisemitism and white supremacy are things that they either dont have a problem with or actively support. It was a really grotesque spectacle, she added, a bad faith attempt to attack diversity.

If we object to the First Amendments protection of vile speech in the public square, Nunziato said, we take that up with the Supreme Court, which defines the First Amendments protections. But whether vile speech should be restricted in the university environment is a different question, she added.

Balancing robust, sometimes caustic and heated discussion on issues of public importance against the legal obligations that we have to protect our community members from discriminatory harassment, Nunziato said, is an important part of what we do as a university.

Being part of a university community, Nunziato said, presents a unique opportunity to interact more thoughtfully than people do on social media.

Our University Yard and the quad are spaces where there may be protesters and counter-protesters, but we can be there together, Nunziato said, and engage in speech and counterspeech, unlike in some of the online environments where we have egregious problems of information silos and people going down rabbit holes. In the university environment, were all on our phones and on social media, but were also in spaces where we can engage with one another. Maybe were raising our voices, but we can listen to one another. One of the principles in our code of conduct is that members of the university community are urged to hear all sides of controversial issues.

In closing remarks, Rosen quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who argued that the correct remedy for harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

The concluding webinar, Rosen said, was a model of the kind of robust discussion and respectful listening that Brandeis advocated.

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University - GW Today

Why Online Free Speech Is Now Up to the Supreme Court – Bloomberg

Posted on by

Conspiracy theories, election lies and Covid misinformation before the 2020 US presidential election led social media companies to implement rules policing online speech and suspending some users including former President Donald Trump. That practice, known as content moderation, will be put to the test after two Republican-led states, Florida and Texas, passed laws in 2021 to stop what they believed were policies censoring conservatives. The fate of those social media laws now rests with the US Supreme Court, which could fundamentally reshape how platforms handle speech online in the run-up to the 2024 election and beyond.

The central issue is whether the laws violate the free speech rights of social media platforms by limiting the companies editorial control. The laws apply to companies including Meta Platforms Inc.s Facebook, Alphabet Inc.s Google, X Corp. (formerly Twitter) and Reddit Inc. The justices will scrutinize provisions of the new laws that require the companies to carry content that violates their internal guidelines and to provide a rationale to users whose posts are taken down.

View original post here:

Why Online Free Speech Is Now Up to the Supreme Court - Bloomberg

Supreme Court Will Decide What Free Speech Means on Social Media – Gizmodo

Posted on by

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases on Monday that could set new precedents around free speech on social media platforms. The cases challenge two similar laws from Florida and Texas, respectively, which aim to reduce Silicon Valley censorship on social media, much like Elon Musk has done at X in the last year.

Twitter Verification is a Hot Mess

After four hours of opening arguments, Supreme Court Justices seemed unlikely to completely strike down Texas and Floridas laws, according to Bloomberg. Justice Clarence Thomas said social media companies were engaging in censorship. However, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether social media platforms are really a public square. If not, they wouldnt fall under the First Amendments protections.

At one point, the lawyer representing Texas shouted out, Sir, this is a Wendys. He was trying to prove a point about public squares and free speech, but it didnt make much sense.

The cases, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, both label social media platforms as a digital public square and would give states a say in how content is moderated. Both laws are concerned with conservative voices being silenced on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and other social media platforms, potentially infringing on the First Amendment.

Silencing conservative views is un-American, its un-Texan and its about to be illegal, said Texas Governor Greg Abbott on X in 2021, announcing one of the laws the Supreme Court is debating on Monday.

If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable, said Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in a 2021 press release, announcing his new law.

NetChoice, a coalition of techs biggest players, argues that these state laws infringe on a social media companys right to free speech. The cases have made their way to the United States highest court, and a decision could permanently change social media.

The laws could limit Facebooks ability to censor pro-Nazi content on its platform, for example. Social media companies have long been able to dictate what kind of content appears on their platform, but the topic has taken center stage in the last year. Musks X lost major advertisers following a rise in white supremacist content that appeared next to legacy brands, such as IBM and Apple.

NetChoice argues that social media networks are like newspapers, and they have a right to choose what appears on their pages, litigator Chris Marchese told The Verge. The New York Times is not required to let Donald Trump write an 0p-ed under the First Amendment, and NetChoice argues the same goes for social media.

NetChoices members include Google, Meta, TikTok, X, Amazon, Airbnb, and other Silicon Valley staples beyond social media platforms. The association was founded in 2001 to make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.

Social and political issues have consumed technology companies in recent months. Googles new AI chatbot Gemini was accused of being racist against white people last week. In January, Mark Zuckerberg, sitting before Senate leaders, apologized to a room of parents who said Instagram contributed to their childrens suicides or exploitation.

Both of these laws were created shortly after Twitter, now X, banned Donald Trump in 2021. Since then, Musk has completely revamped the platform into a free speech absolutist site. Similar to Governors Abbot and DeSantis, Musk is also highly concerned with so-called liberal censorship on social media.

The Supreme Courts decision on these cases could have a meaningful impact on how controversy and discourse play out on social media. Congress has faced criticism for its limited role in regulating social media companies in the last two decades, but this decision could finally set some ground rules. Its unclear which way the Court will lean on these cases, as the issues have little precedent.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court Will Decide What Free Speech Means on Social Media - Gizmodo

Nazi-Looted Painting Returned to Collector’s Heir | Smart News – Smithsonian Magazine

Posted on by

The painting is attributed toDutch artist Cornelis van Haarlem. Kaye Spiegler

A painting stolen by a high-ranking Nazi official during World War II has been returned to the original owners heir, reports the Observers Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly.

The official in question is Hermann Gring, who held many powerful positions in the Nazi party. According to ARTnews Angelica Villa, Gring acquired the artworkalong with some 1,100 other piecesfrom the collection of Dutch-Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker in Amsterdam in 1940.

Some of the looted pieces were eventually returned to the Dutch government, which gave 200 paintings to Goudstikkers family in 2006 after a lengthy legal battle. Many of the works, however, are still missing.

Art historians think the newly returned artwork, titled Adam and Eve, was painted by Dutch artist Cornelis van Haarlem in the 16th century. It recently resurfaced when a private collector tried to donate it to the Muse Rolin, an art museum in Autun, France.

When Agathe Mathiaut-Legros, the museums curator, and Axelle Goupy, her assistant, inspected the piece, they discovered a label bearing Goudstikkers name, reports Meriem Souissi of the French newspaper Le Journal de Sane-et-Loire. They began researching the paintings provenance and determined it was one of the works stolen from Goudstikkers collection during World War II.

The museum then notified Marei von Saher, Goudstikkers daughter-in-law and only living heir, to let her know about the discovery. The New York law firm Kaye Spiegler helped facilitate the return.

The identity of the donors has not been revealed. According to the law firm, they did not know the piece had been looted.

The museum really acted in the way that you want museums to be acting; they flagged it, they contacted the family, they were doing the right thing to resolve this in a fair and correct way, says Yal Weitz, an attorney who worked on the case, to the Observer. They handled it in a way that we hope other museums will going forward.

Roughly 800 pieces looted from Goudstikkers collection still have not been returned to the family, though a few have made their way back in recent years. In 2022, the German city of Trier returned a painting called Ice Skating, created by Dutch artist Adam van Breen during the 17th century.

Still, not all Von Sahers efforts to retrieve the familys stolen paintings have been successful. For example, a San Francisco court ruled in 2018 that the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California, could keep two looted 16th-century paintings created by Lucas Cranach the Elder. In 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

Last month, the Muse Rolin held a ceremony to mark the return of Adam and Eve.

I am deeply appreciative of the efforts that led to the recovery of this piece of our familys history, says Von Saher in a statement from Kaye Spiegler. It is so gratifying to see justice achieved and have this painting returned to its rightful owners.

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Link:

Nazi-Looted Painting Returned to Collector's Heir | Smart News - Smithsonian Magazine

First Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden’s daughter – POLITICO

Posted on by

Project Veritas, founded in 2010, identifies itself as a news organization. It is best known for conducting hidden camera stings that have embarrassed news outlets, labor organizations and Democratic politicians.

In written arguments, lawyers for Project Veritas and OKeefe said the governments investigation seems undertaken not to vindicate any real interests of justice, but rather to stifle the press from investigating the Presidents family.

It is impossible to imagine the government investigating an abandoned diary (or perhaps the other belongings left behind with it), had the diary not been written by someone with the last name Biden, they added.

The judge rejected the First Amendment arguments, saying in the ruling that they were inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. She also noted that Project Veritas could not claim it was protecting the identity of a confidential source from public disclosure after two individuals publicly pleaded guilty in the case.

She was referencing the August 2022 guilty pleas of Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander to conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property. Both await sentencing.

The pleas came two years after Harris and Kurlander two Florida residents who are not employed by Project Veritas discovered that Ashley Biden, the presidents daughter, had stored items including a diary at a friends Delray Beach, Florida, house.

They said they initially hoped to sell some of the stolen property to then-President Donald Trumps campaign, but a representative turned them down and told them to take the material to the FBI, prosecutors say.

Eventually, Project Veritas paid the pair $20,000 apiece to deliver the diary containing highly personal entries, a digital storage card with private family photos, tax documents, clothes and luggage to New York, prosecutors said.

Project Veritas was not charged with any crime. The group has said its activities were newsgathering and were ethical and legal.

Two weeks ago, Hannah Giles, chief executive of Project Veritas, quit her job, saying in a social media post she had stepped into an unsalvageable mess one wrought with strong evidence of past illegality and post financial improprieties. She said shed reported what she found to appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Lichtman said in an email on behalf of Project Veritas and the people whose residences were raided: As for the continued investigation, the government isnt seeking any prison time for either defendant who claims to have stolen the Ashley Biden diary, which speaks volumes in our minds.

See the article here:

First Amendment claim struck down in Project Veritas case focused on diary of Biden's daughter - POLITICO

Ashley Biden’s diary could implicate Project Veritas in a case with far-reaching implications – Singapore News – The Independent

Posted on by

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres rejected Project Veritas assertion that the governments investigation was an attempt to stifle the press, emphasizing that the First Amendment arguments were inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

It paved the way for prosecutors to access over 900 documents related to the alleged theft of President Joe Bidens daughters diary.

The legal saga traces back to November 2021 when raids were authorized, resulting in the confiscation of electronic devices from the group members, including James OKeefe.

The seized materials have the potential to shed light on the alleged theft of Ashley Bidens diary and could implicate Project Veritas in a case that has far-reaching implications.

Project Veritas gained notoriety for its hidden camera stings targeting news outlets, labor organizations, and Democratic politicians.

The groups lawyers argued that the investigation was politically motivated, contending that the government would not have probed an abandoned diary if it didnt belong to someone with the last name Biden.

The case took a significant turn with the guilty pleas of Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander in August 2022. The duo confessed to conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property.

Their admission revealed a bizarre plan to sell stolen items, including the diary, to then-President Donald Trumps campaign.

Despite these developments, Project Veritas maintains its innocence, asserting that its activities were ethical and legal newsgathering.

Hannah Giles, Chief Executive of Project Veritas, recently resigned, citing an unsalvageable mess with evidence of past illegality and financial improprieties. Her departure adds another layer of intrigue to an already complex situation.

The intricacies of the alleged diary theft and its aftermath raise broader questions about the delicate balance between press freedom, investigative journalism, and potential criminal activities at the heart of political scandals.

Read More News

Liberal agenda is to replace White people in America?

Cover Photo: Wikipedia

The post Ashley Bidens diary could implicate Project Veritas in a case with far-reaching implications appeared first on The Independent News.

Read the rest here:

Ashley Biden's diary could implicate Project Veritas in a case with far-reaching implications - Singapore News - The Independent

Conservative towns in liberal American states want to ban abortion – The Economist

Posted on by

On December 10th about a dozen people file into a church in Seminole, Texas. Upbeat Christmas music plays softly over the speakers as people take their seats in wooden pews. But the pastor is not the main speaker. He hands the microphone to Mark Lee Dickson, an anti-abortion activist, and David Gallegos, a state senator for New Mexico. The two men explain how their plan to ban abortion in eastern New Mexico could deter women from neighbouring Texas from crossing state lines for the procedure. They are coming, says Mr Gallegos. The only way to stop death in my state is help from your state.

New Mexicos role in Americas abortion wars derives largely from its geography. Abortion in the state is legal throughout all stages of pregnancy. But New Mexico shares a border with Texas and Oklahoma, where the procedure is illegal, and touches Arizona and Utah, which have restrictions. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, finds that abortions in New Mexico more than tripled between 2020 and 2023, the largest percentage increase of any state. Adrienne Mansanares, chief executive of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, reckons that more than 80% of patients at the groups clinic in Las Cruces, New Mexico, come from Texas.

New Mexico has thus become a target for anti-abortion activists. Mr Dickson initially sought merely to limit abortion in cities and counties in Texas. But in 2021 the state passed SB8, which in effect banned the procedure, and a year later the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. The emboldened activist now has his sights set on eastern New Mexico, which is home to plenty of conservative, rural communities that chafe against the states progressive government and permissive abortion laws. Its basically West West Texas, says Laura Wight, a member of Eastern New Mexico Rising, a rare progressive group in the region.

Several municipalities in New Mexico recently passed ordinances that endeavour to ban abortion despite state law. The states attorney-general sued them, and the case came before New Mexicos Supreme Court on December 13th. The ordinances have two goals. The first is to deter Texas women from seeking an abortion in New Mexico. Whole Womans Health, which runs abortion clinics, recently considered opening an office in Hobbs, just across the state line from Seminole, but decided on progressive Albuquerque instead. Hobbs is right in line for getting abortion clinics and weve been fighting that tooth and toenail, says Jan Auld, a Hobbs resident who attended the church meeting in Seminole.

Second, Mr Dickson and his supporters want the New Mexico ordinances to bolster their argument that a federal law on the books since 1873, known as the Comstock Act, already in effect blocks abortion nationwide. The Comstock Act is an ambiguous anti-vice law that prohibits the mailing of obscene or lewd materials, including things related to contraception and abortion. Some argue that it could be used to block the shipping of any tools used for abortion, making the procedure difficult to perform at all.

The law was only ever patchily enforced, explains Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at the University of California, Davis. It was this sort of weird relationship between government and social-movement activists, she adds. There were very few prosecutions even before Roe established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973. But the eastern New Mexico ordinances assert that Comstock is the supreme law of the land, thereby trumping any New Mexico law that protects abortion.

New Mexicos Supreme Court will probably disagree. During oral arguments the justices appeared loth to consider Comstock at all. They seem minded to rule that the new local laws violate state law: case closed. But the debate over Comstock will rage on. A federal judge in Texas recently ruled that the 150-year-old law plainly forecloses mail-order abortion, referring to the Food and Drug Administrations approval of mifepristone, a drug used to end a pregnancy. The Supreme Court will hear the case in 2024.

The question of whether, and how, Comstock is enforced will also loom over the 2024 presidential election. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that has published detailed policy plans for a second Donald Trump term, contends that the next conservative administration should announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.

David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University, argues that, should he lose the election, in the lame-duck period before he leaves office President Joe Biden should consider pardoning anyone who may have violated the Comstock Act. The Biden administration is not going to enforce that law, Mr Dickson tells those gathered at the church. But another administration might.

Stay on top of American politics withChecks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, whichexamines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

See original here:

Conservative towns in liberal American states want to ban abortion - The Economist

‘A long time coming’: Sports betting, craps and roulette debut in Florida, bringing gamblers, celebrities to Seminole … – South Florida Sun Sentinel

Posted on by

The first dice were rolled, wheels spun and wagers placed as craps, roulette and in-person sports betting officially launched in Florida on Thursday.

The day began with an elaborate ceremony at the Seminole Classic Casino in Hollywood featuring drumming, feathered dancers and cockatoos, and ended with the inaugural sports bet at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino, where Mike Tyson, Rick Ross and other celebrities announced their picks.

Tyson bet on the Dolphins, saying, theyre going to win because I said so.

But for the Seminoles, Thursday was also a serious affair. It marked a turning point amid ongoing legal battles and another example of the tribes continued prosperity despite the obstacles thrown in its path.

Theres been a lot of Seminole Wars, said Chris Osceola, a tribal councilman who represents Hollywood, in a speech in one of Classic Casinos slot machine-filled rooms Thursday morning. And to me this is no different.

He was referring to the lawsuits that have sought to stop the gaming compact between the state of Florida and the Seminole Tribe since the agreement was signed in 2021. The agreement gave the tribe the authority to launch mobile and in-person sports betting, as well as craps and roulette, at all of its casinos.

After the agreement was signed, Osceola recalled leaving Tallahassee hooting and cheering over what was to come. Then the lawsuits arrived, forcing the tribe to a halt.

Finally, last month, both the U.S. Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court ruled against suspending the compact while two cases continue, opening a tentative door for Thursdays launch. The Florida case could see a conclusion as soon as this month, but that didnt seem to deter anyone.

Once again, the tribe has prevailed, Hard Rock Chairman Jim Allen told the South Florida Sun Sentinel ahead of the ceremony Thursday. And we mean that with a very humble mindset.

Critics of the compact, including the betting companies challenging it in court, have argued that it gives the already powerful tribe an unfair monopoly on sports betting. The tribe and its executives, including Allen, have given millions of dollars to Gov. DeSantis, including tens of thousands towards his presidential campaign.

But on Thursday, tribe officials described their success as championing over adversity.

Were going to create dreams for our great grandchildren of tomorrow, to live a better life than we live, said Seminole Tribe Chairman Marcellus Osceola Jr. in his speech. Thats a dream for each and every one of us in this world, is to have better for our children than what we had.

Local gamblers who also had waited for this day to arrive joined celebrities and members of the tribe at the Classic Casino about 10 a.m., then had to wait again for the ceremony to conclude before they could crowd around the new craps and roulette tables. Some said they had already begun sports betting on the new app; others were waiting for it to arrive in person.

Its been a long time coming, said Eric Sonnabend as he threw $400 on the newly inaugurated craps table Thursday, the first real game of the day.

Moments prior, Osceola Jr. had taken the first dice out of a white satin box at that table and rolled an eleven.

Sonnabend was waiting for craps to start in Florida so he didnt have to travel to Vegas to play, something he does often. As others joined him at the table, he became a sort of impromptu teacher, explaining the rules.

The convenience and lack of a need to leave Florida was a common theme among officials and attendees, including Miami Marlins coach Jon Jay, who echoed Sonnabends sentiments.

I dont have to go to Vegas anymore, he said.

The date of Thursdays launch was fitting, Osceola Jr. said. Nearly 44 years ago to the date, the tribes bingo hall opened where the Seminole Classic is today in December 1979 after the Broward Sheriffs Office threatened to shut it down, he said. The tribe had filed a lawsuit challenging the sheriffs authority and won.

For the Seminoles, guarding the monopoly on its most important income source might seem like a necessity as some Indian reservations have struggled to compete with major betting companies in other states.

Wed like to recycle the money here in the state of Florida with our people, Osceola said towards the end of his speech. Keep it here, not let it leave.

Other speakers included Holly Tiger, the vice-chairwoman of the tribal council and president of its board of directors, Mariann Billie, the councilwoman representing Big Cypress, and Larry Howard, the councilman representing Brighton.

Officials are optimistic that neither court case will force the tribe to reverse Thursdays launch, which involved hiring hundreds of new employees, rolling in dozens of roulette and craps tables and installing sports betting kiosks throughout all Seminole casinos.

We certainly believe in the legal theory that weve worked out prior to signing the compact, Allen said. We didnt just sign this on a whim; we did a lot of research.

The case before the Florida Supreme Court centers around mobile sports betting, he added, and even if the court decided against the tribe, he believes about 80 percent of the scope would remain, including all the new tables and dealers.

Thursdays crowds didnt only include gambling aficionados. Bill Condoulis moved to Hollywood from Brooklyn two years ago, so the casinos are in his neighborhood. He used to gamble in Atlantic City, though he doesnt consider himself a gambler, he said. He goes once a month because its nearby and allows himself to bet $500.

Similar launch ceremonies took place Thursday at the Coconut Creek casino about 1 p.m. and the Hard Rock in Hollywood about 4:30 p.m., concluding with the ceremonial sports bets, where select celebrities and tribe officials clutched golden tickets that read first bet.

Osceola Jr. bet on the Florida State Seminoles; Brooks Nader, a Sports Illustrated cover model, went with the Marlins for the World Series in 2024, and Ross went with the Miami Heat. By 6 p.m., the sports betting kiosks had fully opened to the public.

As players waited impatiently, dealers adjusted to the real-life game for the first time. Rebeca Ynde, who lives in Tamarac, became a dealer only a year ago. She handled the ceremonial roulette spin in the Classic Casino, also her first live game, doling thousands out to tribe officials as the crowd watched. Afterwards, she said she was a good nervous.

Later in the day at the Hard Rock Hotel in Hollywood, a newly-minted craps dealer spoke casually with Gloria and Emilio Estefan, asking them if theyd stick around to play later, though they had to leave for the red carpet.

Other employees at the Thursdays ceremonies had been around for decades.

Sharon Carrero, 65, received a special shout-out in the morning for spending close to 44 years as an employee at the Classic Casino, beginning as a bingo clerk when it was just a bingo hall in the 1980s.

Carrero saw the Classic Casino go through all of its evolutions, but in some ways, Thursday was the last frontier, she said. Its come full circle.

More:

'A long time coming': Sports betting, craps and roulette debut in Florida, bringing gamblers, celebrities to Seminole ... - South Florida Sun Sentinel

Sports betting, craps and roulette to begin at Seminole casinos – South Florida Sun Sentinel

Posted on by

On Thursday, for the first time ever, South Floridians will be able to walk into a Seminole Tribe casino and gamble on sports, roulette or craps.

An all-day celebration of the new era at the Hollywood and Coconut Creek casinos will roll out multiple red carpets and draw celebrities such as Jon Bon Jovi, DJ Khaled, Mike Tyson and Dwyane Wade. Guests will participate in ceremonial spins of the roulette wheel and rolls of the dice before heading to a VIP pool party DJd by Diplo.

Both casinos will be open to the gambling public in the meantime.

The tribe is pulling out all the stops after what appears to be a pause in two years of legal battles. Two lawsuits before the U.S Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court seek to challenge the 2021 gaming compact between the tribe and the state that authorizes sports betting as well as craps and roulette. Both courts have recently ruled against suspending the compact while the lawsuits continue.

We certainly recognize that anyone could file additional lawsuits, Hard Rock Chairman Jim Allen told the South Florida Sun Sentinel on Tuesday. But you know, the compact of 2021 is in place. It is legal, and we move forward.

The festivities will begin around 9:30 a.m. at the Seminole Classic Casino in Hollywood with a celebrity red carpet, followed by a first spin of the roulette wheel and roll of the craps dice about 10 a.m.

Celebrity participants for the morning event include Adamari Lpez, Willy Chirino, Adam Beach, Mannie Fresh, Jon Jay, Edgerrin James, Enrique Santos and Los Pichy Boys. They will join tribe and company leaders including Allen, Seminole Tribe Chairman Marcellus Osceola Jr. and members of the Tribal Council.

The public will be allowed to gamble, roam the casino and sneak glimpses of celebrities during the events of the day. Once the inaugural ceremony is complete, they will also be able to play craps and roulette at the Hollywood casino.

Im sure a lot of people would have fun watching all the events that are going on, a Seminole Tribe spokesperson said Wednesday, but how close theyll be depends on how many people are there.

Both the Seminole Hard Rock Hollywood and Coconut Creek casinos will look different with dozens of new tables and kiosks, as well as dealers and employees, a massive undertaking, Allen said.

More than 1,000 new employees have begun working throughout the states six Hard Rock casinos and at the gaming headquarters, Allen said.

The Hollywood casino will have 20 roulette tables, 10 craps tables and 38 sports betting kiosks, as well as 10 new sports betting agents so people can actually place bets with a human being, the tribe spokesperson said.

Some South Florida gamblers may think they have already played roulette and craps, but the casinos have only offered virtual alternatives that give the appearance of those games; they are technically slot machines using random number generators.

Those games will remain in addition to the new tables with real employees rolling the dice and spinning the wheels.

A similar schedule of events will take place at the Hard Rock Casino in Coconut Creek about 1 p.m. with a first spin of the roulette wheel and roll of the dice, which will mark the beginning of the games at that location.

Celebrities attending the Coconut Creek launch will include Chris Kirkpatrick, Joey Fatone, Rob Riggle and Jacky Bracamontes. They will join Allen, Osceola Jr. and members of the Tribal Council.

The celebration will return for the grand finale at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood around 4:30 p.m. for the launch of sports betting and the arrival of A-list celebrities.

The list of celebrities currently includes Wade, Bon Jovi, Tyson, DJ Khaled, Tisto, Heather Graham, Fat Joe, Sarah Hyland, Willy Chirino, Max Weinberg, Bobbi Althoff, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit cover model Brooks Nader and other surprise special guests.

The first in-person sports bet will take place sometime that evening, which will kick off sports betting throughout the casino. Attendees can also bet throughout the day on the mobile app.

Following the ceremony, Diplo will DJ a pool party for invited guests only. Bruno Mars will perform a sold-out show later in the night.

The celebrations will move to the giant Seminole Hard Rock in Tampa on Friday, though South Florida got them first because the guitar building is our most iconic, Allen said.

Beginning about 10:30 a.m. Friday morning, the Tampa location will have its own ceremony with Allen, Osceola Jr., other tribal leaders and celebrities including Thomas Rhett, Michael Carbonaro, Lele Pons, Marcus Allen and Joe Theismann.

On Monday, the games will begin at the Seminole casinos in Immokalee and Brighton.

Over the years, much attention good and bad has been paid to the return of mobile sports betting rather than in-person betting, craps and roulette. But Allen believes that the arrival of the in-person games will also excite people and serve as an inducement to tourism, especially from Latin America.

I know that our guests have been looking forward to them for many, many years, he said of the games, adding that roulette is extremely popular in areas of Central and South America, where many tourists come from.

Though the new additions likely will not transform Florida into the new Vegas, the news release said that the launch immediately puts Florida in the same league as the worlds great gaming destinations.

The tribe is continuing to advance its virtual business as well. The Hard Rock Bet app became accessible to all Floridians Tuesday, and on Thursday, local pari-mutuels will begin to offer their own sports betting apps as part of a hub and spoke system where a chunk of the revenues go to the tribe. Allen estimated about 16 companies seemed interested.

The legal battles, meanwhile, continue.

The lawsuit before the U.S Supreme Court will likely extend into spring, possibly longer if the court decides to review the case. Last week, the court granted a request for an extension to file a writ of certiorari, pushing it from Dec. 11 to Feb. 8, three days before the Super Bowl.

Also last week, attorneys for Gov. DeSantis filed a response motion asking the Florida Supreme Court to dismiss the second case. That case could conclude as soon as Christmas, only a few weeks after the launch of in-person betting and the expansion of the app.

Continue reading here:

Sports betting, craps and roulette to begin at Seminole casinos - South Florida Sun Sentinel