Trumps Paramilitary Units Trained at the Border for the Assaults on Portland Moms – Slate

A federal officer faces down protesters on Tuesday in Portland, Oregon.Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Federal violence against protesters in Portland, Oregon, has escalated this week, with federal officers in military gear and helmets using batons and tear gas against protesting moms late on Tuesday night. Throughout the past week, uninvited and heavily militarized Customs and Border Protection agents have been violently seizing and detaining protesters. On Monday, the president promised to expand this operation to Chicago and other majority-Democrat cities. CBP agents are normally tasked with policing the border. So why are they in our cities, potentially violating the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights of Portlanders in ways that clearly have nothing to do with enforcing immigration law? Unfortunately, court decisions created loopholes that have emboldened CBPs lawless behavior against undocumented immigrants at the border, abuses that are now being exported into the interior of the country against American citizens by President Donald Trump.

The White House has deployed the Border Patrol, claiming that their presence is needed to protect court buildings and monuments, and enforce criminal law in American cities. The CBP is normally tasked with enforcing immigration law and apprehending undocumented migrants. It is unclear why the White House enlisted CBP in the current mission. CBP and the Department of Homeland Security more broadly are better-funded than interior federal law enforcement agencies, like the FBI. However, CBP has a very different mandate and culture. The tactics that are now being decried as indicative of fascism or authoritarianism have been deployed by the CBP for years. The authorization of federal authorities in a realm that is generally in the purview of state and local law enforcement may be a symbolic show of federal force and its unclear what these actions are meant to achieve other than dangerous political theater.

After Sept. 11, when immigration, and specifically the Southern border, began to be portrayed as a national security threat, the border became increasingly militarized and the agencys influence grew exponentially. An expansive definition of terrorism helped justify the agencys doubling in size from 2003 to 2019, along with its budget. In 2020, the CBP budget was $18.2 billion, a nearly 20 percent increase from just 2019 and triple what it was in 2003.

Ordinarily, the CBP works primarily in the border regiontheir normal statutory authority is confined to within 100 miles of the borders of the United States. Critically, federal courts have had a tendency to view the border as a place where the Constitution works differently. Its also important to note that CBP officers normally enforce civil immigration law, not criminal law. Constitutional protections also work differently when it comes to enforcing civil law, with one hallmark being less robust procedural protections.Further, the targets for CBP officers are most often undocumented migrants, many of whom either just entered the United States or are seeking entry into the United States.

The border that CBP patrols has been given a different constitutional status, especially with respect to the Fourth Amendment. And it is the Fourth Amendment that is most implicated by federal agents detaining protestors and putting them into vans for interrogation. Suspicion-less stops and seizures forbidden elsewhere have been accepted by both travelers and courts when they occur near the border. These ordinarily occur at border checkpoints, but CBP has taken wide latitude in extending those checkpoints nearly anywhere within 100 miles of the U.S. border, a vast space that includes many major U.S. cities along both American coastlines and the Northern and Southern borders. The Supreme Court has even gone so far as to explicitly allow for racial profiling at the border, and the agency itself was exempt when theObama Justice Department tried to ban racial profiling by law enforcement.

Because the CBP engages in civil immigration enforcement, many of the protections that the public takes for granted under criminal law simply have not applied to their interactions with undocumented immigrants. Judicial warrants are not needed for arrests, and Miranda warnings are rarely, if ever, provided.

Sadly, the Supreme Court itself just this term indicated that undocumented migrants who recently crossed the border have fewer due process rights, with the court denying the right of habeas corpus to asylum-seekers who complain of an unconstitutional process. Even before this decision, some federal district courts ruled undocumented migrants do not have Fourth Amendment rights at all.

What may be most disturbing is how difficult it has been to hold the agency accountable even when it does violate the law.Earlier in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court ruled that a CBP agent could not be sued civilly, even when an officer shot and killed a teenager in cold blood across the Mexican border. The court ruled that the CBP officers constitutional violation had no remedy under the law. While a police officer could be sued under a section of federal law known as Section 1983, no such mechanism existed for the Mexican parents of the murdered teenager.

The CBP has enjoyed legal authority to treat people and communities at the border with force untethered from the Constitution and without legal accountability. It is tragic, but perhaps unsurprising, that they are now conducting themselves in the same reckless and lawless manner in our cities and against people who are accustomed to constitutional protections. As outrage over these tactics used against protesters grow, the public should demand these practices be ended everywhere, including at the border.

Back in early June, there was considerable outrage over the idea of using the military to conduct what are essentially police operations and crowd control. The use of the CBP is perhaps an even worse alternative. The federal police power was viewed with caution by the founders, and federal authority to police crime has wisely been limited in scope and has required explicit congressional authorization. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically designates all powers not designated to the federal government to the states and localities, and police powers have always been deemed to be the strict purview of state and county criminal law enforcement agencies.

Whether the conscription of the CBP to engage in law enforcement in our cities is lawful will be an issue the courts will answer, but in the meantime, the practical implications of this choice will be felt by city residents confronted by officers from the Border Patrol, untrained and unused to being held accountable.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder, the author of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century, told the New York Times Michelle Goldberg: This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regime . When fascistic escalations have happened in the past, the people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.

Perhaps instead of bringing the borderand its lawlessnessto our cities, we should bring democratic rule of law and constitutional rights to the border.

For more of Slates news coverage, subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts or listen below.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Go here to read the rest:

Trumps Paramilitary Units Trained at the Border for the Assaults on Portland Moms - Slate

Trump, Law Enforcement, and the Return of the Agent Provocateur – International Policy Digest

There are a lot of problems constitutionally and politically with President Trump sending federal forces into places such asPortland, Oregon, or Chicago, Illinois allegedly to restore order. Overlooked in most stories are how these federal agents represent the return of the agent provocateur as a tool of politics.

Start with the basics. Trump issued an executive order declaring authority to send in federal agents to cities and states in order to restore order. Constitutionally there are numerous problems here. No one will argue that the federal government doesnt have the authority to protect its facilities such as courthouses. Inherent within Article II of the Constitutioneither section one which vests executive power in the president or section three which says the president shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executedone can find ample authority to do that.

However, remember that the U.S. Constitution is a power-conferring document. There is no inherent federal or presidential authorityall of it must be traced back ultimately to some text in the Constitution. Among the powers that the U.S. government does not have is general police power. By that, states have broad authority to enact laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people. The police power is also what gives states the general authority to pass criminal laws and take enforcement actions to maintain law and order. Because of this authority states and, when delegated to them, cities can create police departments.

There is no federal equivalent. There is no Federales or national police force in the U.S. as there are in many other countries. Not even the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows for that, contrary to what the president asserts. Any federal crimes or law enforcement must trace back to the Commerce or perhaps another constitutional clause. The U.S. government has no general criminal law jurisdiction or authority, especially at the state and local level. On top of that, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes, reinforcing the notion that general policing is an issue for state and local governments according to the Tenth Amendment.

But even though the U.S. government lacks general policing authority, it is possible for them to intervene when requested by states or cities. However, that is not the case with Portland or Chicago. Trump is directing unnamed or marked federal agents to be deployed there, often without the knowledge and certainly against the request of local officials. There is no constitutional authority to do that. Finally, to the extent that these federal agents are simply arresting or roughing up peaceful protestors raises critical First Amendment questions, and if they are questioning them without advising them of their rights, there may also be Fifth Amendment issues. Overall, there are many problems from a legal perspective here.

Of course, Trumps motives appear not legitimately law enforcement. Post-George Floyd and the riots that occurred, the president is running a redux of the 1968 Richard Nixon law and order campaign, playing on the racial fears and anxieties of whites who saw the race riots of 1967 across the nation. It is also a diversionary tactic to take away attention from his mishandling of the coronavirus and the economy.

But the playbook is even worse. These federal law enforcement personnel are the new agent provocateursa person who intentionally encourages people to do something illegal. The term comes from nineteenth-century France and the Soviet Russia period where the government used plains-clothes police to incite the opposition to break the law. This is Trumps tactic. Take a tense situation such as a Black Lives Matter demonstration and send in plainclothes federal agents to arrest, question, and rough up. Also, do it without local authorities knowing what is going on. The recipe here is to inflame, giving the president a manufactured crisis in which he can show force to appease his base. It is 1968 Chicago, and Mayor Daley all over again, with Trump hoping that the American public will react in the same way and go with the law and order candidate one more time.

Four years ago, Trump declared immigrants to be the enemies from which he would protect us. Now the enemies are internal and like four years ago when he fabricated legitimate immigrants and refugees into caravans of rapists and murders at Americas door, he now is trying to convert legitimate protests into threats on America with agent provocateurs.

Read more:

Trump, Law Enforcement, and the Return of the Agent Provocateur - International Policy Digest

How to be physically and legally safe when protesting – The Alestle

For the past two months, the U.S. has seen an uptick in protests, which have spanned across the globe. People are fighting in a time many consider to be a revolution. Protesting is a way for people to speak on what they believe. Some are protesting for the first time, with little knowledge on how to stay legally and physically safe.

The First Amendment protects U.S. citizens rights to peacefully assemble wherever they would like. The First Amendment also gives us the freedoms of speech, religion, and petition. This means protests are constitutionally protected.

Videotaping is also allowed during a public protest, but keep in mind that state law varies when it comes to audio. The National Association of Realtors lists video and audio surveillance laws for all 50 states on their website.

According to the ACLU, pictures and videos taken during a protest are all protected under the First Amendment.

If stopped by law enforcement at a protest, the ACLU, a reliable civil rights website, recommends calmly asking am I free to go, and if the police says yes just calmly walk away, dont walk away fast or the police can actually have a reason to arrest you. When stopped, law enforcement cant take or confiscate any video or photos without a warrant.

The first thing U.S. citizens need to do when getting arrested is stay silent. Dont say a word, even if you dont understand why you are getting arrested, the ACLU recommends.

Upon arriving at the police station, ask for a lawyer immediately. The Sixth Amendment protects the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. The Fifth Amendment protects U.S citizens from self-incrimination in the event a lawyer isnt present.

Citizens also have the right to a phone call to get legal advice without law enforcement listening in.

While knowing your rights is important, it is equally important to know how to protest safely and what to bring with you to make that possible.

The most important thing to bring when protesting is any type of small bag or backpack to keep essentials in. These essentials could include things like water and snacks, and by having the backpack or bag, the struggle of carrying an excess amount of items is eliminated.

Since we are in the midst of a pandemic, you will need some type of mask or bandana to protect you from the virus. It will also shield your identity from cameras and police surveillance just in case there are illegal activities happening during the protest.

Once you get to the protest, there are lots of things to consider when trying to stay safe. Make sure you study your surroundings and have an idea of what is happening around you. Be friendly with other protesters and respect those not participating in the protest.

While protesting, make sure to wear suitable clothes and shoes to allow one to move easily in case of emergency.

It is best to wear black attire, because it will allow one to blend in with the crowd easily. Also, cover any tattoos or hair if it is dyed a distinctive color. Wear closed-toe shoes that are broken in and good for long distances.

It is recommended to not go to a protest by yourself. Go with a group. Once you have a group, make a plan in case the protest gets out of hand, like where to meet if the situation turns dangerous.

There are also some risks involved which can be minimized by avoiding certain reactions. It is not advisable to run from police or in general; it might be a human instinct to run when you see others running, but it can lead to you or others getting hurt.

Dont direct others behavior while they protest. If it makes you uncomfortable, leave and find a safe area rather than vocalizing your discomfort.

Protesting has always been a way for people to speak their mind and stand up for things they believe in. First-time protestors can easily make mistakes if they havent educated themselves on how to be safe. Knowing your rights and ways to stay safe wont only help you, but it will allow you to help others.

See the original post here:

How to be physically and legally safe when protesting - The Alestle

23 attorneys general sue Trump administration to stop "mean and unconstitutional" rule revoking transgender protections – CBS News

A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration on Monday, seeking to block next month's implementation of a rule overturning Obama-era protections for transgender people against sex discrimination in health care.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, leading the group of 23 states, said the change affecting the Affordable Care Act's anti-discrimination section would give health care providers and insurance companies carte blanche to refuse treatment based on factors such as gender identity.

James also raised concerns that women could be denied access to abortion under the revision, which takes effect Aug. 18, and that non-English speakers will be deprived of information through a change to requirements that insurers print materials in a variety of languages.

"This is just the latest attempt by President Trump and his administration to unlawfully chip away at health care for Americans after failing to repeal the ACA time after time," James told reporters in a conference call announcing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court against the Department of Health and Human Services, secretary Alex Azar and civil rights chief Roger Severino, seeks an injunction to stop the rule from taking effect. The attorneys general argue it violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause.

A message seeking comment was left with a spokesperson for the department.

The Trump Administration pushed ahead with the rule change even after a Supreme Court ruling last month barring workplace sex discrimination against LGBT people, moving to show Trump's religious and socially conservative supporters that he remains committed to their causes ahead of the November election.

Under the change, Health and Human Services said it will enforce sex discrimination protections "according to the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology." That rewrites an Obama-era regulation that sought a broader understanding shaped by a person's internal sense of being male, female, neither or a combination.

The lawsuit brought by the attorneys general is part of an expected flurry of lawsuits challenging the lawsuit, including one filed last month by the LGBT civil rights organization Lambda Legal. Such groups say explicit protections are needed for people seeking sex-reassignment treatment, and even for transgender people who need care for common illnesses such as diabetes or heart problems.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, both frequent Trump foes, assisted James in crafting the lawsuit. Becerra said implementing the rule while coronavirus continues to rage across the country is especially cruel.

"This is a mean and unconstitutional rule in any context," Becerra said. "But authorizing discrimination in our health care system at this time, when our nation is suffering through a pandemic, is unbelievably immoral."

Go here to read the rest:

23 attorneys general sue Trump administration to stop "mean and unconstitutional" rule revoking transgender protections - CBS News

Democratic AGs sue Trump administration over LGBTQ health protections rollback | TheHill – The Hill

A coalition of 23 Democratic state attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over a rule that scraps ObamaCare's nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ patients.

Led by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, New York Attorney Letitia James and California Attorney General Xavier BecerraXavier BecerraOVERNIGHT ENERGY: 20 states sue over Trump rule limiting states from blocking pipeline projects | House Democrats add 'forever chemicals' provisions to defense bill after spiking big amendment |Lawmakers seek extension for tribes to spend stimulus money Newsom rips Trump order targeting undocumented immigrants in census: 'Rooted in racism' 20 states sue over Trump rule limiting states from blocking pipeline projects MORE, the lawsuit alleges that the new rule allows providers and insurers to discriminate against certain vulnerable and protected populations.

The administration's rule, released in June, will roll back implementation of the Affordable Care Act's Section 1557, which prohibits federally funded health programs and facilities from discriminating against patients based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age.

Advocates and health groups said the policy will make it easier for doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to deny care or coverage to transgender and nonbinary patients, as well as women who have had abortions.

The lawsuit alleges that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has unlawfully ignored the harms that the rule will impose on vulnerable populations.

The lawsuit claims that the rule is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

The attorneys general also argue that HHS failed to justify why it abandoned its prior policy, which, among other things, explicitly prohibited discrimination in health care and required health care entities to provide meaningful language assistance services to individuals with limited English proficiency.

The lawsuit also argues thatsince the rule was released in the middle of a pandemic, it will impose "unjustifiable barriers to health care on vulnerable populations at a time when access to care is as crucial as ever."

"The COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately impacting some of our most vulnerable residents, yet this White House is moving forward with a rule that puts these communities at even further risk," Healey said in a statement.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. It comes after the Supreme Court on June 15 ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of transgender status or sexual orientation is unlawful.

The attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia also joined the lawsuit.

Washington state announced a separate lawsuit over the rule on Friday. Advocacy groups sued to block the rulein June.

Read more from the original source:

Democratic AGs sue Trump administration over LGBTQ health protections rollback | TheHill - The Hill

Everything we know about Roy Den Hollander and the fatal shooting at federal judges house in N.J. – NJ.com

Hours after shots rang out in a quiet Middlesex County neighborhood on Sunday, leaving the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas dead and her husband critically injured, the FBI in Newark circled its nets around a killer.

Were looking for one subject and ask that anyone who thinks they may have relevant information (to) call us, the agency tweeted at 10:51 p.m. On Monday, the FBI identified New York attorney Roy Den Hollander as the gunman and said the suspect is now deceased.

In the two days since the slaying of Daniel Anderl and the shooting of his father, criminal defense attorney Mark Anderl, law enforcement has provided few details about how the shooting occurred and almost nothing as to motive.

Instead, the media has been left on its own to paint a picture of the alleged shooter as a disgruntled attorney and activist who may have been motivated by the misguided notion he was furthering the cause of mens rights.

Here is what we know:

The killing was calculated and occurred in the late afternoon over the weekend

The suspect, dressed as a FedEx delivery driver, arrived at Salas home on Point of Woods Drive about 5 p.m. on Sunday.

Her son, Daniel Anderl, 20, is believed to have answered the door with his father, Mark Anderl, 63, nearby.

When the door opened, the gunman fired multiple shots, striking both Daniel Anderl and his father. Daniel Anderl died at the scene. Mark Anderl is hospitalized in critical but stable condition.

Salas, 51, was in the basement at the time of the shooting and was not injured.

After the shooting, the bogus delivery driver fled in an unknown direction.

Daniel Anderl, 20. (Photo courtesy of Catholic University)

The suspect was identified as Den Hollander, an anti-feminist lawyer who had a case before Salas

A self-described anti-feminist lawyer, Den Hollander was best known for unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of ladies night promotions at bars and nightclubs.

Den Hollander was part of a pending case before Salas regarding the U.S. Militarys male-only draft registration system, court records show.

The lawsuit argues, in part, that requiring only men to register in the draft discriminates against both sexes in violation of Equal Protection as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In an interview with NJ Advance Media, attorney Nick Gravante said his firm took over the case last year after Den Hollander called him saying he had terminal cancer, and could not continue pursuing it.

Among the other suits Den Hollander filed was a case alleging night clubs in New York City discriminate against men by offering ladies nights discounts.

Now is the time for all good men to fight for their rights before they have no rights left, a passage on his website read. His site also refers to a Lady Judge who decided one of his cases.

In 2017, Den Hollander wrote a letter to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in which he complained of living under "Feminazi" rule. His litigation, and willingness to appear on television, earned him spots on ABC News, The Colbert Report and MSNBC.

Another lawsuit argued night clubs were violating human rights by charging men hundreds of dollars for bottle service. In 2008, he unsuccessfully sued Columbia University for providing women's studies classes, saying they were "a bastion of bigotry against men."

The suspected gunman researched Salas and wrote that he did not like Hispanic women judges

Den Hollander wrote in an online essay in 2019 about a planned hearing apparently before Salas, the first Hispanic woman to be appointed to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. He referred to the jurist as a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by (President Barack) Obama.

In other online ramblings, Den Hollander said he researched Salas background and made racist comments about Hispanic judges. The document was posted on a website with its domain name registered to Den Hollander.

Den Hollander bashed Salas earlier legal career, describing her as working for an ambulance chasing firm and representing neer-do-wells as a federal public defender.

He also criticized Salas for joining politically correct organizations trying to convince America that whites, especially white males, were barbarians, and all those of a darker skin complexion were victims.

Den Hollander claimed his bitter divorce helped fuel his anti-feminist stance

According to his online resume, Den Hollander focused much of his practice on representing men in civil cases, which he referred to as antifeminist cases or guys'-rights cases.

In 2008, he told the New York Times that his bitter divorce years earlier from a woman he married in Russia helped fuel his anger toward feminists. He also said he wanted to fight laws that he believed unfairly favored women.

The same gunman may have been involved in a California shooting with eerie similarities

The New York Times, citing two law enforcement officials, reported the FBI is investigating whether Den Hollander was involved in the July 11 killing of mens rights lawyer Marc Angelucci in San Bernardino, California.

Angelucci was shot at his front door by a gunman wearing a FedEx uniform, according to published reports.

According to the National Coalition For Men, Angelucci took on high profile cases involving paternity fraud and advocated for male victims of domestic violence in California.

Marc AngelucciFacebook

Another prominent judge, a woman serving in New York State, may also have been targeted

The FBI warned court officials in New York that Den Hollander had a photo of that states Chief Judge Janet DiFiore in his car. The photo was found along with Den Hollanders body on Monday in Rockland, New York.

Thats what I understand to be true. At this point, thats all I have, said Lucian Chalfen, director of communications for New York State Courts.

From left, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, Roy Den Hollander and New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.File

Salas was the presiding judge in high-profile cases, including one involving Jeffrey Epstein

Salas has handled cases involving members of the Grape Street Crips, in connection with a long-running drug-trafficking network that was taken down by the FBI in 2015. She was also the judge who sent Real Housewives stars Joe and Teresa Giudice to prison.

In 2017, she barred federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty against an alleged gang leader charged in several Newark slayings, ruling the mans intellectual disability made him ineligible for capital punishment. Salas later sentenced the man to 45 years in prison.

More recently, Salas has presided over an ongoing lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank investors who claim the company made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies and failed to monitor high-risk customers, including Jeffrey Epstein.

FILE - In this Oct. 15, 2014 file photo, Giuseppe "Joe" Giudice, from the television show "Real Housewives of New Jersey," appears in a New Jersey courtroom. (William Perlman/NJ Advance Media via AP, Pool)AP

Den Hollander claimed he had terminal cancer and wrote about revenge

Roy Den Hollander wrote in an online essay last year that he was dying of cancer. A GoFundMe page titled Cancer knocks you down & doctors finish you off has been deactivated.

The New York Post reported that Hollander wrote about revenge fantasies and his cancer diagnosis in an online screed.

Deaths hand is on my left shoulder...nothing in this life matters anymore, he wrote in the manifesto. The only problem with a life lived too long under Feminazi rule is that a man ends up with so many enemies he cant even the score with all of them.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Anthony G. Attrino may be reached at tattrino@njadvancemedia.com.

Read more:

Everything we know about Roy Den Hollander and the fatal shooting at federal judges house in N.J. - NJ.com

Attorney arrested by feds among Portland Wall of Moms protesters says she was not read rights – OregonLive

A Beaverton lawyer arrested early Tuesday by federal officers at Portland protests said officers never informed her of her rights or identified where they worked.

Jennifer Kristiansen, 37, said she was standing arm-in-arm other women as part of the Wall of Moms near the front line of protesters converged outside the federal courthouse.

She now faces criminal charges and is not allowed to go back on the federal property to protest.

The mothers group has drawn hundreds of people downtown to join nightly protests against systemic racism.

Federal officers released tear gas on the crowd outside the courthouse just before 12:30 a.m.

As the moms backed away with the rest of the crowd, Kristiansen said she found herself near the edge of the group. She heard a woman nearby say she had been hit by an officers baton. Kristiansen said she put her arm in between the officer and people retreating.

Another officer, wearing a black uniform, arrived and pointed at Kristiansen.

He said to the billy club guy, Thats the one who hit me, Kristiansen told the Oregonian/OregonLive hours after her arrest Tuesday.

Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the Department of Justice immediately responded to requests for comments about Kristiansens arrest.

The officers separated Kristiansen from the line in a series of actions she described as a blur. She said she had seen a video clip of her arrest that showed an officer restraining her with an arm across her chest.

That must be why my sternum hurts today, she said.

One of the arresting officers turned her around and pushed her against the wall of the federal courthouse, she said, then touched her breast and butt. Its unclear if it was intentional or not. She was terrified for a moment.

Officers handcuffed her and took her into the federal courthouse. One handcuff was so loose it slipped off, allowing her to quickly send a text from her Apple Watch to her husband: Angry cursing face emoji. Sorry cant talk right now. Police officer face emoji.

She said she was put in an elevator in the building with four officers. They took her to a holding cell on the fourth floor, where she stayed by herself. No one ever read her rights to her, she said.

She tried to sleep, but barely did since the only place in the cell to sleep was a small metal bench.

When officers tried to ask her questions about what happened, she said she chose not to speak, citing her Fifth Amendment rights.

A few times, people came in and checked on her. She asked for a blanket or if the officer could bring her flannel from her bag they did not. The person said he was sorry he couldnt bring it to her Kristiansen said.

Dont tell me youre sorry when youre not, she said she thought to herself. People who are sorry do not do what they did.

She said she is not dangerous, but was being treated like she was dangerous.

Around 7:15 a.m., she was driven to the Multnomah County Detention Center, where she waited again in a cell until 1:25 p.m.

County jail records confirm she was booked into jail at 7:20 a.m. at the request of U.S. Marshals.

She said didnt know what agency arrested her until she asked how she could get her phone and other personal items back later. Sheriffs deputies said they didnt have it but that Federal Protective Service did.

No officers identified themselves to her throughout the night, she said.

She also didnt know until later what she had been arrested for, and found out from a member of the sheriffs department, not a federal officer. She was charged with misdemeanor assault of a federal officer and for refusing to leave federal property.

She said she was trying to leave federal property when she was detained and arrested. She said she would never hit an officer because she is a lawyer and would not want to jeopardize her job.

At 1:25 p.m., Kristiansen had her arraignment. When she was preparing to go, she was asked if she had her charging documents. She said she had never been given any. She also never got to call an attorney.

She was released a little after 4 p.m., along with four other protesters arrested Monday. She didnt get her phone, identification or shoe laces back. She did leave with sore muscles from sitting in the cell and bruises from her arrest.

She will not be going back to the protest soon, she said, because part of the terms of her release are a curfew and staying away from that area downtown.

She said she feels an obligation to share her story, following the controversy surrounding federal officers in Portland.

She said her experience being arrested by federal officers was bad, but said immigrants and Black people have faced the same abuses for much longer.

Not enough people paid attention, she said about the Department of Homeland Securitys treatment of immigrants. If it takes a tiny little rainbow-wearing white lady to bring attention to this problem that has been a problem for the immigrant community for a while, so be it.

--Alex Hardgrave | ahardgrave@oregonian.com | @a_hardgrave

Subscribe to Oregonian/OregonLive newsletters and podcasts for the latest news and top stories.

See the original post here:

Attorney arrested by feds among Portland Wall of Moms protesters says she was not read rights - OregonLive

A Drones Eye View of Rights and Legal Remedies – JD Supra

[co-author: David Wright]

Have you ever been startled by the buzzing sound of a passing swarm of angry mechanical bees as you work from home? Have you ever looked out your window and noticed an agile device zipping through your property? If so, drones might be aversely affecting your lifestyle. These little devices once only lived in the imaginations of science fiction writers, but nowadays, they are popular gadgets that many parents routinely buy for their kids during Christmas. The popularity of drones has exploded due to cheaper production costs, advancements in camera and wireless technologies, and the appeal of high-quality birds-eye view footage popularized by aspiring vloggers looking to create impressive visual content. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has further fueled drone popularity due to their potential in the context of robotic delivery services. However, despite its advantages, drone technology poses a significant threat to property and privacy rights; luckily, the law offers several grounds to obtain legal remedies if such rights are infringed.

Drone operators must follow established guidelines that regulate drone activity. Under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 ( FAA Act) 349, recreational drone operators must fly their drones at or below 400 feet above ground, register them with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), mark them with an FAA-issued registration number, and only fly their drones for recreational purposes, among other requirements. Commercial drone operators must follow 14 C.F.R. 107, which also imposes a 400-feet height limit and imposes the same registration and marking requirements, but the regulation further requires a commercial drone operator to obtain an FAA-certified remote pilot certificate. Additionally, all drone operators must comply with 357 of the FAA Act, which requires operators to conduct drone operations in a manner that respects and protects personal privacy consistent with existing laws.

Given the paucity of caselaw further defining the contours and applications of relevant sections of the FAA Act, those facing a drone issue might wish to bring additional claims utilizing established property law concepts.

First, if a drone flies over (or through) your property, you might wish to establish a trespass claim, but how high do your property rights extend above the ground? Long ago, when a levitating eye in the sky would have been an act of sorcery, the antiquated English law concept of ad coelum et ad inferos (which literally translates to from heaven to hell) established that every inch of space above and below your land belonged to you. However, with advancements in aviation and space technologies, ad coelum et ad inferos has lost its legal potency and new laws and cases have failed to provide a definite answer regarding your air rights. Some cases have only provided loose legal rules. For example, in United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), a chicken farmer sued the federal government for flying military aircraft at low altitudes above his property. The aircrafts noise and bright lights would cause his chickens to die from flying into the barn walls out of fright. In its ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that the federal government took an easement under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and stated that the landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. Id. at 264. This ruling has served as the backbone for future cases discussing air rights, but the ruling is nonetheless nebulous. Does a property owner who planted tall trees in their yard own more air space than a property owner who owns an open plot? Both caselaw and federal regulations do not provide a definite answer.

Second, another remedy might be achieved by establishing a private nuisance claim. The nuisance would most likely be the loud, and difficult to ignore, whizzing sound created by a drones propellers. Such a sound arguably interferes with your enjoyment and use of property and the interference could be viewed as substantial and unreasonable. A court would apply an ordinary person test to determine whether the noise is a substantial and unreasonable interferenceso repeated (or sustained) drone whizzing during the workday would lead to a much stronger claim than an occasional interference over the weekend.

Privacy law might prove better recourse in the face of camera-equipped drones (a common feature of most drones). In fact, some states have already enacted legislation specifically addressing privacy issues arising from drone technology. In California, Civil Code 1708.08 prevents the use of drones to collect visual imagery, sound recordings, or other physical impressions of persons without consent. Florida adopted Criminal Code 934.50, which forbids a person or state agency from equipping drones with imaging devices to record privately owned real property to conduct surveillance in violation of a persons reasonable expectation of privacy.

Some people might be tempted to take the law into their own hands and shoot down an invading drone, but such an approach carries a high level of risk for the property owner and may lead to civil and criminal liability. Under federal law, willfully shooting down an aircraft (including drones) is a felony that may lead to imprisonment (18 U.S.C. 32)not to mention other potential liability tied to discharging a firearm into the sky. Furthermore, the drone operator could sue the property owner under state tort law and claim damages for the value of the drone and its payload. In response, a property owner would likely have to utilize legal theories like the Castle Doctrine, to the extent such defenses are available, to argue that they acted to protect themselves or their property and their response was proportional to the threat.

Of course, the best way to deal with your neighbors kid flying his new toy around without restraint is to knock on your neighbors door and ask the adults to step in. (One hopes this strategy works when the drone operator is an adult.) However, if you otherwise suspect malicious intent behind drones that routinely visit your house or use your yard as a thoroughfare, a call to the police can help identify the drones owner so that you can potentially utilize the above legal remedies to obtain civil relief.

[View source.]

Read the original:

A Drones Eye View of Rights and Legal Remedies - JD Supra

Connecticut AG joins healthcare lawsuit against Trump administration alleging LGBTQ+, minority discrimination – Healthcare Finance News

On Wednesday, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined 21 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to stop a new Trump Administration rule that, the coalition alleges, makes it easier for healthcare providers and insurance companies to discriminate against certain vulnerable and protected classes of Americans.

In a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Alex Azar, and the head of HHS's Office of Civil Rights, Roger Severino, the coalition of attorneys general contend that the new rule emboldens providers and insurers to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, those with limited English proficiency and women, among others.

They claim the rule strips express protections for these groups in HHS regulations that implement the nondiscrimination provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

This provision of the ACA prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age by health programs or facilities that receive federal funds.

Tong joins New York Attorney General Letitia James, California AG Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts AG Maura Healey, as well as the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia in filing the lawsuit.

WHAT'S THE IMPACT?

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the coalition argues that HHS has unlawfully ignored the harms that the new rule will impose on vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ+ individuals, individuals with limited English proficiency and women, as well as other protected classes.

The coalition also contends that HHS has failed to justify why it pivoted from its prior policy, which, among other things, explicitly prohibited discrimination in healthcare, and required health entities to provide meaningful language assistance services to individuals with limited English proficiency, including notifying them of their rights to translation and interpretation services.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the Trump Administration was motivated by animus toward the transgender community in issuing this rule.

Specifically, the coalition said the new rule is arbitrary and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.

THE LARGER TREND

Under the Obama Administration, HHS issued regulations implementing Section 1557 of the ACA in 2016making clear that discrimination on the basis of gender identity, nonconformity to sex stereotypesand pregnancy status are forms of sex discrimination prohibited by the statute. Specifically, Section 1557 prohibits discrimination by any healthcare program (including providers and insurers) against individuals on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disabilityor age.

Federal courts have also held that the statute's prohibitions on sex discrimination protect transgender and other LGBTQ+ individuals from such discrimination, which was confirmed in last month's Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.That decision held that discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status are forms of sex discrimination prohibited by federal civil rights law.

Despite numerous failed legislative and legal battles to repeal and dismantle the ACA, the Trump Administration's new rule would effectively eliminate many of the express protections contained in the Section 1557 regulations, according to the attorneys general.

They say the move would unlawfully exclude many health insurers from Section 1557's scope, and would embolden healthcare providers and health insurers to deny care and insurance coverage. The new rule, they argue, would also impose barriers and impede timely access to healthcare for Americans, in violation of Section 1554 of the ACA.

Before the rule was finalized, the coalition previously called on the Trump Administration to withdraw the rule by submitting a comment letter to HHS last August, as well as by sending a letter to HHS this past April, at the start of the COVID-19 public health crisis.

Twitter:@JELagasseEmail the writer:jeff.lagasse@himssmedia.com

See the article here:

Connecticut AG joins healthcare lawsuit against Trump administration alleging LGBTQ+, minority discrimination - Healthcare Finance News

Maxwell’s sworn testimony on Epstein is coming back to haunt her – Laredo Morning Times

David Voreacos and Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg

Four years ago, Ghislaine Maxwell sat in front of several lawyers in a midtown Manhattan law firm office and explained her role in Jeffrey Epstein's life.

"My job included hiring many people" including cooks, gardeners, pilots, assistants and cleaners for his six homes, Maxwell said in a deposition. "A very small part of my job was from time to time to find adult professional massage therapists for Jeffrey."

The deposition, done over two days in April and July 2016, offers the only substantive public record from Maxwell about what she did for the sex offender. It's also part of the reason she was arrested earlier this month -- prosecutors allege she lied nine times while giving her answers under oath. The questioning was part of a defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, who has said she was abused by Epstein and Maxwell.

An appeals court unsealed 40 of the 613 transcript pages of her deposition last August. In the portion that's publicly available, Maxwell is asked at least five different times if she believed that Epstein sexually abused minors. She doesn't give a yes or no response, instead attacking Giuffre as a liar. The most she says in the public transcript: "You are asking me to speculate and I won't speculate."

In his own deposition for the case, Epstein repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked whether Maxwell conspired with him.

Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges and is now in a Brooklyn jail awaiting trial next year. Jeffrey Pagliuca, a lawyer who defended Maxwell at the deposition and now in the criminal case, didn't return a voice mail or email seeking comment.

Prosecutors say Maxwell, 58, "delivered" at least three girls as young as 14 to be sexually abused by Epstein in the 1990s and that she sometimes participated. The government also told a judge it has additional witnesses, flight logs and business records to bolster their case that she groomed girls for Epstein's abuse.

The indictment, unsealed on July 2, includes two counts of perjury based on her deposition. Prosecutors say she lied about her knowledge of Epstein's activities, including denying knowledge of his recruitment of underage girls and his interactions with underage women at his properties.

The defamation lawsuit, which was settled for an undisclosed amount, was brought against Maxwell because she denied Giuffre's account of abuse in print. A day after portions of Maxwell's deposition were made public last August, Epstein died of an apparent suicide in a Manhattan jail where he was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges involving underage girls.

Giuffre claims she was recruited to give sexual massages after Maxwell saw her reading a massage therapy book while working at Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump's resort in Palm Beach, Florida. Maxwell said Giuffre was 17 when she began to give him massages.

"You can be a professional masseuse at 17 in Florida, so as far as I am aware, a professional masseuse showed up for a massage," Maxwell said. "There is nothing inappropriate or incorrect about that."

During her questioning, Maxwell rejected Giuffre's statements that Maxwell told her to have sex with other men, including billionaire Glenn Dubin and Prince Andrew, calling her assertions "1000% false." In fact, "I barely remember her at all," she said of Giuffre. Prince Andrew and Dubin have denied Giuffre's allegations.

At one point in the deposition, Maxwell's anger boiled over, and she banged the table in frustration.

"I have been so absolutely appalled by her story and appalled by the entire characterization of it and I apologize sincerely for my banging at the table earlier," she said. "It's borne out of years of feeling the pressure of this entire lie that she has perpetrated."

Read more from the original source:

Maxwell's sworn testimony on Epstein is coming back to haunt her - Laredo Morning Times

Fifth Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information …

Fifth Amendment: An Overview

TheFifth Amendmentof theU.S. Constitutionprovides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the MagnaCarta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: 1) right to indictment by the grand jury before any criminal charges for felonious crimes, 2) a prohibition on double jeopardy, 3) a right against forced self-incrimination, 4) a guarantee that all criminal defendants have a fair trial, and 5) a guarantee that government cannot seize private property without making a due compensation at the market value of the property.

While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has partially incorporated the 5th amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment.The right to indictment by the Grand Jury has not been incorporated, while the right against double jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination, and the protection against arbitrary taking of private property without due compensation have all been incorporated to the states.

Grand Juries

Grand juriesare a holdover from the early British common law dating back to the12th century.Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury was originally intended to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.In the early phases of the development of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers have decided to retain the Grand Jury system as a protection against over-zealous prosecution by the central government.Although the Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California in 1884 has refused to incorporate the Grand Jury system to all of the states, most states have independently decided to retain a similar form of Grand Jury, and currently, all but two states (Connecticut and Pennsylvania) have the grand jury.

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a federal grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At commonlaw, a grand jury consists of between12 and 23 members. Because the Grandjurywas derived from the commonlaw, courts use the commonlaw as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the commonlaw requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between16 and 23.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment, informing the court of their decision to indict or not indict the suspect.If they indict the suspect, it means they have decided that there is a probable cause to believe that the charged crime has indeed been committed by the suspect.

Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause aims to protect against the harassment of an individual through successive prosecutions of the same alleged act, to ensure the significance of an acquittal, and to prevent the state from putting the defendant through the emotional, psychological, physical, and financial troubles that would accompany multiple trials for the same alleged offense. Courts have interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as accomplishing these goals by providing the following three distinct rights: a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after an acquittal, a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after a conviction, and a guarantee that a defendant will not receive multiple punishments for the same offense. Courts, however, have not interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as either prohibiting the state from seeking a review of a sentence or restricting a sentence's length on rehearing after a defendant's successful appeal.

Jeopardy refers to the danger of conviction. Thus, jeopardy does not attach unless a risk of the determination of guilt exists. If some event or circumstance prompts the trial court to declare a mistrial, jeopardy has not attached if the mistrial only results in minimal delay and the government does not receive addedopportunityto strengthen its case.

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment also protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

In the landmarkMiranda v. Arizonaruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights.Known asMirandarights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.

However, courts have since then slightly narrowed the Miranda rights, holding that police interrogations or questioning that occur prior to taking the suspect into custody does not fall within the Miranda requirements, and the police are not required to give the Miranda warnings to the suspects prior to taking them into custody, and their silence in some instances can be deemed to be implicit admission of guilt.

If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violating the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. To determine if a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver has occurred, a court will examine the totality of the circumstances, which considers all pertinent circumstances and events. If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement while in custody prior to being made aware of theMirandarights, law enforcement can use the statement against the suspect, provided that police interrogation did not prompt the statement.The Fifth Amendment right does not extend to an individual's voluntarily prepared business papers because the element of compulsion is lacking.Similarly, the right does not extend to potentially incriminating evidence derived from obligatory reports or tax returns.

To be self-incriminating, the compelled answers must pose a substantial and real, and not merely a trifling or imaginary hazard of criminal prosecution.

After Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, some felt that the statute by implication overruled the requirements ofMiranda. Some scholars also felt that Congress constitutionally exercised its power in passing this law because they felt thatMirandarepresented a matter of judicial policy rather than an actual manifestation of Fifth Amendment protections. InDickerson v.UnitedStates,the U.S. Supreme Court rejectedthis argumentand held that the Warren Court had directly derivedMirandafrom the Fifth Amendment.

Due Process Clause

The guarantee ofdue processfor all persons requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes before the government can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.Dueprocess essentially guarantees that a party will receive a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding. While the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, the identical text in the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies this due process requirement to the states as well.

Courts have come to recognize that two aspects of due process exist: procedural due process andsubstantive due process.The proceduraldue processaims to ensure fundamental fairness by guaranteeing a party the right to be heard, ensuring that the parties receive proper notification throughout the litigation, and ensures that the adjudicating court has the appropriate jurisdiction to render a judgment. Meanwhile, substantive due process has developed during the20thcentury as protecting those substantive rights so fundamental as to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Just Compensation Clause

While the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property, valued at the time of the takings. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing butunpressuredbuyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owners' attorney's fees,unless a statute so provides.

In2005, in Kelov.Cityof New London, the U.S. Supreme Court had rendered a controversial opinion in which they held that a city could constitutionally seize private property for private commercial development, where the redevelopment would economically benefit an area that was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation. 545 U.S. 469 (2005). However, after the Kelo decision, some state legislatures passed statutory amendments to counteract Kelo and expand protection for the condemned. See e.g., Condemnation by Redevelopment Auth. of Fayette Certain Land in Brownsville Borough v. Redevelopment Auth., 152 A.3d 375, 376 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). Nevertheless, Kelo remains a valid law under the federal context, and its broad interpretation of "public use" still holds true under the federal protection for the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation.

Last Edited by Elvin Egemenoglu, February2020

Originally posted here:

Fifth Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information ...

5th Amendment – Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

The term 5th Amendment refers to the more well-known aspect of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no one can be forced to testify against himself in court. The 5th Amendment also ensures that no one can be tried a second time for a crime of which they were already acquitted. This is referred to as double jeopardy. To explore this concept, consider the following 5th Amendment definition.

Noun

Origin

1791 American Constitution

The 5th Amendment is the amendment to the Constitution that protects people from being forced to testify against themselves. On legal television shows, a character may say I plead the fifth! This means that he is invoking his right under the Fifth Amendment to not be forced to say anything on the stand that could incriminate him.

Unfortunately, while it is a persons right to plead the fifth, many believe that someone who pleads the 5th may, in fact, be guilty. Their opinion is that, if he has nothing to hide, why wouldnt he just testify and clear his name? Why would he make it harder for the attorneys to prove their case unless he had something he didnt want them to know.

The 5th Amendment also protects people from something called double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is the process by which a person who was accused of a crime, and found innocent, would then be charged with that same crime again. The 5th Amendment prevents this from happening. Once a person is found innocent by a jury of his peers, even if new evidence is raised after the fact that proves he is actually guilty, he cannot be tried again for that same crime.

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel provides that someone who is being interrogated by police has the right to have an attorney present during the process. This goes hand-in-hand with someone being read his Miranda rights (If you do not have an attorney, one will be provided for you.). In fact, the Fifth Amendment also requires that someone who is being arrested be read his Miranda rights (More on that later).

The right to counsel section of the Fifth Amendment has been invaluable to those who have been charged with a crime. Entire cases have been thrown out when defendants lawyers have shown that their clients werent read their Miranda rights upon being arrested.

For example, the 5th Amendment protects a defendant who provides police with information during an interrogation, which happened after not being read his Miranda rights. In such a case, all of the information he gave to the police can be considered inadmissible and thrown out even if he confessed to the crime.

This is why the right to counsel is so important. Without a good lawyer by his side, a defendant might not even know that certain evidence may be inadmissible, which is crucial to whether his case proceeds or gets thrown out.

There is an equal protection clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments that protects U.S. citizens right to life, liberty and property without interference from the government. For example, the 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This section covers three equal protection clause rights in particular:

On the other hand, the 14th Amendment says that all persons born in the U.S., or provided with U.S. citizenship, are to be considered U.S. citizens, and no one can make a law that deprives a person of his right to life, liberty and property without due process of law. Due process of law is the entitlement that all U.S. citizens have to be treated fairly in the judicial system. Fair treatment includes, for instance, the right to a trial by jury upon being accused of a crime.

Both amendments are similarly worded with regard to their treatment of the equal protection clause. The main difference between them is that the 14th Amendment is more specific with regard to the inclusion of due process. With the 5th Amendment, due process takes place within the court system. With the 14th Amendment, however, due process is a natural right that protects American citizens from government interference with their ability to live their lives, unless what theyre doing is illegal.

For example, the 14th Amendment further protects a persons right to freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Therefore, while a protestor may anger a lot of people by burning the American flag, he has the right to do so under the 14th Amendment. What he is doing is not illegal, and therefore the government cannot interfere.

An example of the 5th Amendment at work can be found in the case that started it all when it comes to Miranda rights: Miranda v. Arizona. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona on evidence that supposedly proved he was involved in a crime involving kidnapping and rape. After an interrogation that dragged on for hours, Miranda confessed to the charges. He also signed a statement acknowledging that he was voluntarily making the confession.

At no point before or during the interrogation was Miranda made aware of the fact that he had the right to have counsel present during the interrogation. He was also unaware of the fact that he had the right to remain silent, and he did not know that the statements he was making could be used against him during his trial. Upon learning this, he objected to the usage of his written confession at trial. He argued that because he was unaware of his rights under the 5th Amendment, his confession must be thrown out as involuntary.

Mirandas objection was overruled, and he was convicted of both crimes and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. His written confession played a major role in his conviction. Miranda appealed his conviction, once again citing the involuntarily-made confession. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal.

In June 1966, Miranda brought his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court then had to decide whether the protections afforded to U.S. citizens under the 5th Amendment could be extended to cover police interrogations as well. The Court ruled in Mirandas favor, 5 4. Specifically, the Court held that:

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court also included more detailed criteria to support this argument, including:

The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.

And

The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, during a period of custodial interrogation.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

The rest is here:

5th Amendment - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

No, Proactive Arrests Are Not A Thing! – Above the Law

There is no such thing as a proactive arrest. There is no such thing as a noncustodial arrest where an individual is transported to another location and detained. There is no such thing as probable cause because a person was standing in a group of several hundred people, five or six of whom are suspected of committing a crime.

That is not how any of this works!

And yet heres Chad Wolf, our acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, explaining to Fox News that his agents simply have to snatch random black-clad kids off the streets of Portland because those mean Democratic mayors wont welcome his storm troopers into their cities with open arms.

The Department, because we dont have that local law enforcement support, we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals. And we need to do that because we need to hold them accountable. This idea that they can attack federal property and law enforcement officers and go to the other side of the street and say, you cant touch me, is ridiculous.

Wolf, who has no law enforcement or legal background and made his name championing DHSs family separation policy, has consistently described large crowds of overwhelmingly peaceful protestors as violent anarchists. Which is handy wordsmithing, since it recasts the demand that police stop killing black people as a call to overthrow the government, while simultaneously imputing criminality to thousands of people at once to justify proactive arrests. Whatever those are.

Theres no evidence that these yellow-shirted moms were participating in any illegal activity at all, but that didnt stop Wolfs stormtroopers beating and gassing them like everyone else last night.

Wolf continued to misunderstand basic tenets of American criminal law at a DHS press conference yesterday. When asked by a reporter about people getting snatched off the streets and thrown into vans for questioning What exactly is the standard of probable cause you are getting, and how is that not a violation of civil liberties? Wolf again garbled the legal underpinnings of his argument with vague assertions of group criminality.

This is a very difficult environment to work in. You have 500, 600 violent individuals, violent criminals across the streets that try to inflict harm on your property and law enforcement officers. We do our best to identify who they are using probable cause. What we dont do is we dont go into the crowd. We dont try to go into a violent crowd of 400 people to arrest people.

Probable cause is a means of identification? Umm, okay.

Then Wolf turned the microphone over to his deputy Kris Cline, head of the Federal Protection Service, to take another stab at it. Cline started off strong, noting that agents have the right to investigate crimes on or against federal property. But he ran into some trouble when defending the widely disseminated video of his agents jumping out of a van and grabbing up a black-clad kid off the street.

The individual they were questioning was in a crowd and an area where an individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.

So just on the face of it, that does not sound like facts and circumstances within the police officers knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. As Harvard Law professor Andrew Crespo pointed out in an excellent Twitter thread last night, guilt by association is reallynot a thing in American law.

Clines description doesnt even sound like reasonable suspicion that the individual was involved in criminal activity such as would justify a brief, non-consensual detention. In fact, it sounds like just the type of heavy-handed, extra-legal policing that brought thousands of people out onto the streets of Portland for the past 54 nights. But go on, sir!

In this instance, the CPB officers approached him. And you saw the approach, it was peaceful, there is no tackle, no get on the ground, they wanted to talk to him.

In fact, we did see the approach, and that is definitely not how we would describe it. We would describe it as unmarked agents who wordlessly grabbed this guy off the street without identifying themselves, much less announcing their intention to question him. As for Clines assertion that they asked the individual to please get in the van, well, he seems to be, ummm,mistaken about that.

They did take him to an area that was safe for both the officers and the individual to do the questioning, Cline continued. So, its not a custodial arrest.

As we pointed out last week and Professor Crespo noted last night, this is the very definition of a custodial arrest, so cleanly within the margins that it could be lifted from a criminal law exam. He was detained, transported to another location without his consent, he was not free to leave, and he was questioned about criminal activity. And if the guys in charge of those shock troops unleashed on Americas streets dont understand the basics of WHAT IS ARREST, then theyre in no position to guarantee that the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of US citizens are being protected.

Nonetheless, Wolf bridles at criticism that his troops trample civil liberties and needlessly inflame an already tense situation.

These police officers are not storm troopers. They are not the Gestapo, as some have described them, he huffed indignantly. That script is offensive, hyperbolic, and dishonest.

You can tell DHS and the FPS arent Gestapo stormtroopers by how often they feel the need to deny it.

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Read more here:

No, Proactive Arrests Are Not A Thing! - Above the Law

Life Time CEO wants government to subsidize 80% of its coronavirus-related losses – Washington Times

Life Time CEO Bahram Akradi asked Congress to subsidize up to 80% of the losses of his company and others that could prove they were damaged by the economic downturn resulting from the coronavirus outbreak.

Life Time operates more than 150 fitness centers in the U.S. and Canada across 41 major markets where varying social distancing restrictions have shuttered gyms for extended periods of time.

Rather than provide financial relief to companies of a particular sector or size, Mr. Akradi wrote to lawmakers on Wednesday to ask that they adopt a different approach.

I encourage you to consider a process whereby companies are authorized to identify and submit a statement of their financial losses due to COVID-19, Mr. Akradi wrote. These losses would be certified by the CEOs and CFOs of each company, and be reviewed and approved by a panel of appointed audit firms, insurance companies, or banking institutions. Once approved, the companies would be eligible to receive a non-taxable payment (similar to a business interruption insurance payment) for a percentage of their certified losses, for example, eighty-percent.

At issue is whether such financial relief would be viewed by lawmakers and the public as a bailout of failing businesses or as valid under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The takings clause prevents the government from confiscating private property without just compensation.

Mr. Akradis argument to lawmakers advocates that companies that have already received loans and grants should not be eligible for the program he envisions, which he wants to be made available to businesses that were harmed by government-mandated business shutdowns.

Whereas the previous stimulus allowed companies experiencing little or no financial loss to obtain grant dollars, this recommended approach will deliver financial support to the companies that have truly experienced actual losses during this unprecedented crisis and have not received any meaningful relief from any of the previous stimulus programs, Mr. Akradi wrote.

As Congress debates new coronavirus spending, the Republican majority in the Senate has identified children as a top priority closely followed by healthcare and jobs. With the fall election and school year fast-approaching, lawmakers look unlikely to have an appetite for urgently addressing Mr. Akradis proposal.

More here:

Life Time CEO wants government to subsidize 80% of its coronavirus-related losses - Washington Times

22 States and DC Sue HHS for Overturning Some ACA Protections – Medscape

Attorneys general from 22 states and Washington, DC are suing the Trump Administration, seeking to stop a rule from going into effect that they say overturns protections for LGBTQ individuals, women seeking abortions, people with disabilities, and low-proficiency English speakers.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, says the rule is "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law" and violates the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.

"This is a mean and unconstitutional rule in any context," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, on a call with reporters. "But to authorize discrimination in our healthcare system at this time when our nation is suffering through a pandemic is unbelievably immoral," he said.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) first proposed in 2019 to eliminate the protections afforded by section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. The department made the policy final on June 19, despite 200,000 comments, many of them negative, said New York Attorney General Letitia James on the call.

Section 1557 prohibits healthcare providers and health programs/healthcare facilities that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex.

The Obama Administration in 2016 issued a rule interpreting the section, stating that health plans, insurers, and health providers could not discriminate against LGBTQ people, women and individuals seeking reproductive health care, individuals with low English proficiency, and people with disabilities.

Becerra, James, and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey told reporters that the new rule interpreting section 1557 was part of the Trump administration's campaign to destroy the ACA and to target transgender people in particular.

"We have no doubt that this rule was simply motivated by the Trump Administration's animus toward the transgender community," said James. "Additionally, the president has never, never, hidden his contempt and disrespect for women and their access to reproductive health care," she said.

The attorneys general believe they have a good standing, given that the US Supreme Court on June 15 ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status.

"I think the Bostock decision makes clear that this kind of discrimination is illegal under current law," said Healey.

The rule goes into effect August 19. The attorneys general are asking the court to block HHS from implementing the rule, James explained.

In addition to California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, DC, the following states joined the suit: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, andYouTube.

Link:

22 States and DC Sue HHS for Overturning Some ACA Protections - Medscape

Fla. County Seeks To End Suit Over COVID-19 Beach Closures – Law360

By Nathan Hale

Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our daily newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the daily Coronavirus briefing.

Law360 (July 22, 2020, 8:34 PM EDT) -- Florida's Walton County has urged a federal court to toss a suit brought by a group of property owners including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee over an ordinance that barred the use of private beaches because of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the since-rescinded restrictions were constitutional and reasonable.

The county argues in its motion to dismiss, which was filed late Tuesday, that the property owners' requests for declaratory judgments that the county overstepped its authority or was preempted by the state emergency orders should be thrown out as moot since it lifted the restrictions as of May 1.

The county, which is located in Florida's Panhandle, also contends that the ordinance did not amount to a compensable taking or seizure of property by the government and that the property owners were not denied due process by its implementation.

"Given the governor's executive orders and the county's emergency powers under the [State Emergency Management Act], the mere enactment of the ordinance did not [affect] a seizure of plaintiffs' property," the county said. "More importantly, any alleged 'seizure' was reasonable in light of the emergency situation posed by the global COVID-19 pandemic."

The plaintiffs, who all claim their properties extend to the mean high-water line of the Gulf of Mexico and include "dry sand beach," filed suit April 6 in Pensacola. They asked the court to throw out the Walton County Board of County Commissioners' April 2 amendment to an emergency ordinance that extended temporary pandemic restrictions on the use of county beaches to "any person."

In addition to arguing that the amended ordinance conflicted with two executive orders issued by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the property owners also argued that it violated their rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as their right to privacy under the Florida Constitution.

But the county argues in its motion to dismiss that the property owners have not plausibly pleaded that the county's actions amounted to a taking claim that can be brought under the Fifth Amendment.

"At most, the amended complaint alleges that the ordinance interfered with their ability to use the beach portion of their property for 29 days and that enforcing agencies encroached on their private beach during that time," the county said. "The ordinance did not authorize third parties to occupy private property, nor otherwise appropriate the property for public use."

If the ordinance is interpreted as having temporarily denied the owners use of the entirety of their properties, the state and local emergency orders, which were attached to the complaint, show that this was done pursuant to the powers conferred to the county through the State Emergency Management Act and triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, the motion said.

"Even a regulation that temporarily denies an owner all use of their property does not necessarily constitute a taking. '[T]he county might avoid the conclusion that a taking had occurred by establishing that the denial of all use was insulated as a part of the state's authority to enact safety regulations,'" the county argued, quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Counsil, Inc. v. Tahoe Planning Agency.

The county also compared the current circumstances to those considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958's United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., in which the justices found no taking had occurred when the government issued a wartime order requiring non-essential gold mines to shut down to conserve equipment and labor.

"A global pandemic would seem akin to a war in that respect, the county said. "As in Central Eureka Mining Co., the actions of Walton County in restricting the use of all beaches in the county cannot be seen as a taking within this context."

The property owners' due process claims fail, the county argued, because they received all the procedural due process they were entitled to through the county's legislative process, and the county's adoption of the ordinance was supported by the governor's emergency order, which specifically included "beach closures at the discretion of local authorities."

Additionally, the county contended that Supreme Court case law makes clear that the open beach portions of the properties are not covered by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure of real property, and nevertheless, the alleged "seizure" was reasonable in light of the pandemic.

Outside counsel for the county on Wednesday said he had no further comment, and a county spokesman said it is county commission practice not to discuss ongoing litigation.

Counsel for the property owners did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by D. Kent Safriet, Joseph A. Brown, Edward M. Wenger and Kristen C. Diot of Hopping Green & Sams PA.

The county is represented by William G. Warner, Timothy M. Warner and Eric A. Krebs of Warner Law Firm PA.

The case is Dodero et al. v. Walton County et al., case number 3:20-cv-05358, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

--Additional reporting by Carolina Bolado. Editing by Steven Edelstone.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

See the rest here:

Fla. County Seeks To End Suit Over COVID-19 Beach Closures - Law360

Likely Outcomes of a Felony 5 Drug Possession Charge in Ohio – Legal Reader

If you face a felony 5 drug possession charge in Ohio, hiring a criminal defense lawyer gives you the best chance at getting your charges reduced or dropped.

In Ohio, felony 5 drug possession is also known as fifth-degree felony drug possession. It is the least severe type of felony drug charge. The State of Ohio can charge you with felony 5 drug possession if you possess less than the bulk amount of a controlled substance or a specific amount of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or LSD.

A felony 5 drug possession charge in Ohio carries a punishment of six to 12 months in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.

If you face felony 5 drug possession charges in Ohio, you should contact an Ohio drug crimes lawyer as soon as possible.

Overview of Ohio Drug Possession Laws

It is important to understand how Ohio drug possession laws work when you are charged with a drug offense. Under Ohio law, drugs are classified by schedule based on the type of drug. The degrees of drug possession charges are based on bulk amounts. Bulk amounts are benchmark quantities that are used to determine the appropriate penalty based on the quantity of the drug.

Schedule I Drugs

Schedule I drugs are drugs that have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

Examples include:

However, there is now some accepted medical use of marijuana in Ohio. Patients must obtain a state license to obtain medical marijuana from a state dispensary.

Schedule II Drugs

Schedule II drugs are those with a high potential for abuse but have limited accepted medical use. Examples of Schedule II drugs include:

Schedule II drugs can lead to severe mental and physical dependence.

Schedule III Drugs

Schedule III drugs have accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I or II drugs. Anabolic steroids are a common type of Schedule III drug.

Schedule IV Drugs

Schedule IV drugs have accepted medical uses. Examples of Schedule IV drugs include:

They also have a lower potential for dependence and abuse than Schedule I, II, or III drugs.

Schedule V Drugs

Schedule V drugs have the most common medical uses and the lowest potential for abuse. Cough suppressants are a common example of Schedule V drugs.

Likely Outcomes and Charges of a Felony 5 Drug Possession in Ohio

The State of Ohio can charge you with felony 5 drug possession depending on the type and quantity of the substance in your possession.

Felony 5 drug possession penalties are different for marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and LSD than all other Schedule I or II substances. Felony 5 drug possession charges will result from:

Additionally, if you have a prior drug possession conviction, a felony 5 charge will result from the possession of less than the bulk amount of a Schedule III, IV, or V drug.

Other Potential Consequences

In addition to jail time and fines, you can face many consequences for a felony 5 drug possession charge in Ohio. If convicted of fifth-degree felony drug possession, the State of Ohio can suspend your driver license. You could also receive a permanent or temporary loss of professional licenses, such as a law, nursing, or medical license.

Additionally, a fifth-degree felony charge will be on your permanent criminal record. This can make it harder for you to get a job in the future.

Possible Defenses

The defenses an attorney may be able to raise depend on the facts of your case.

If the police obtained the drugs through an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, the drugs might be excluded from evidence.

Furthermore, any incriminating statements you might have made after your arrest could be excluded if the police failed to advise you of your right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.

To get an idea of what defenses might apply to your case, you should contact a criminal defense lawyer today.

How a Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help You

If you face a felony 5 drug possession charge in Ohio, hiring a criminal defense lawyer gives you the best chance at getting your charges reduced or dropped. Our dedicated criminal defense attorneys at the Joslyn Law Firm pride themselves on helping good people who happen to be in a bad situation get a second chance. We do not believe that a drug possession charge should define your life. We will fight to get you the best possible result that we can.

By Brian Joslyn

Contact Joslyn Law Firm for legal assistance, questions, or representation.

Read more:

Likely Outcomes of a Felony 5 Drug Possession Charge in Ohio - Legal Reader

What the pandemic can teach the climate movement – Fast Company

Politicians around the country have taken swift action to address the COVID-19 pandemic. But their all-hands-on-deck reactions have also exasperated climate change activists, who can only dream of the same urgency being applied to the arguably more deadly and far-reaching climate crisis.

But the pandemic does have something useful to teach the climate movement: How the courts might respond to intrusive but life-saving interventions.

Courts have on occasion enabled massive changes in societal structure before politicians were ready to, including school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education and the more recent ruling on marriage equality. Moreover, judicial decisions have strength: Once legal precedent is established, it can be used by attorneys to shape subsequent cases. Furthermore, that precedent is binding on all courts lower than the deciding court, and highly persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions.

For these reasons, climate attorneys should be paying special attention to three distinct types of COVID-19 lawsuits, which could make the (literal) case for bolder action on climate.

First, the failure-to-protect suits that claim the government isnt doing its job in protecting the most vulnerable. Second, the misinformation suits that claim that media outlets are lying to the public about COVID-19 facts. And third, takings suits that claim government shutdowns are robbing people of property rights without just compensation.

Over the last two months, numerous pandemic-related lawsuits have been filed by civil libertarians and prison reform advocates against correctional authorities all over the country, from Los Angeles County to Kentucky to Connecticut. These suits seek the release of certain incarcerated persons from prisons to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19. They have been filed on behalf of people held in jails on small bonds for nonviolent crimes, those to be released imminently from prison, and people at high risk of life-threatening complications, including those with autoimmune conditions and the elderly. These plaintiffs generally argue that deliberately putting them at risk of certain, but avoidable, bodily harm violates their Constitutional rights.

The pandemic has something useful to teach the climate movement: How the courts might respond to intrusive but life-saving interventions.

The theory that governments have failed to protect people from known threats has been usedunsuccessfully so farin climate suits. The most notable case is Juliana v. United States, where the plaintiffsmostly childrenclaimed that the federal government failed to protect them against climate change, despite knowing of its dangers. Indeed, the history of warning signs about a warming planet goes back more than a centuryfar longer than we have known of the dangers of COVID-19. Yet so far, the Juliana plaintiffs have failed: The Ninth Circuit recently dismissed their suit. (They have appealed.)

If any COVID-19 lawsuits are successful, the legal precedent created may support a more generalized type-of-harm claim for climate activists in the future.

The theory that misinformation disseminated by news media is actionable in court should also be watched by climate attorneys.

One pandemic-related suit that has received national attention is a complaint brought by a nonprofit against Fox News and several other defendants in Washington state court. The nonprofit alleges that, by misleading viewers about the true impact of the deadly virus, Fox News violated the states consumer protection act and committed the tort of outrage.

Despite overwhelming consensus among scientists that humans are the leading cause of climate change, news outlets often have displayed intentional or reckless disregard for the facts. If courts find disregard for COVID-19 facts to be actionable, perhaps the media will be held to a higher standard and climate activists can combat the denialism that persistently plagues the climate debate.

Several takings suits already have been filed against local and state governments. The plaintiffs include business owners closed by public orders and employees who have lost their jobs as a result. They argue that by forcing businesses to close to slow the spread of COVID-19, governments have violated the takings clause of the 5th Amendment.

Generally speaking, the Fifth Amendment requires governments to compensate those whose property has been taken for public use. This includes not just eminent domain but also regulatory takings. But courts have long held that if a government regulates to prevent a public nuisancefor instance, the spread of a deadly and fast-moving disease compensation will not be required.

So, barring novel arguments that resonate with courts, COVID-19 takings challenges will be unsuccessful. Yet they are still worth watching. If courts reject longstanding interpretations of the 5th Amendment and allow the plaintiffs to obtain compensation for the economic disruptions that they have faced, its time to worry.

In the future, climate activists are near-certain to need courts to uphold far-reaching actions needed to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. These actions could include the shutdown of entire industries, such as fossil fuels or beef cattle, or production bans on certain products, such as gas-guzzling SUVs. Climate action might also involve limitations on energy or water consumption, which could be disruptive to our daily lives. As we have been hearing for decades from scientists, the longer we wait to take action, the more extreme future measures will have to be to save humankind.

We have all learned from the pandemic that changes in behavior can have dramatic and life-saving effects. We have bent the curve of COVID-19 infections, and our stay-at-home strategy appears to have worked, saving tens of thousands of lives. When it comes to climate action, though, individual changes in behavior may not be enough. We may need to turn to the courts. And its important to know how the courts will respond to government action (or inaction) when that time comes.

Sara C. Bronin is a law professor who runs the UConn Center for Energy & Environmental Law. An extended version of this essay was published in the Stanford Law Review Online.

Go here to see the original:

What the pandemic can teach the climate movement - Fast Company

Its Amazing to Me How Distinctly I Remember Each of These Women – Slate

When we started this project, our goal was to talk to as many of the women in Ruth Bader Ginsburgs Harvard Law School class as possible. My colleague Molly Olmstead and I spent months tracking down the ones who are still alive, and interviewing family members in depth about the women who have passed. But then Justice Ginsburg agreed to speak to us, too. And so in late January, just weeks before the court emptied and went remote, a few colleagues and I headed up the sweeping marble steps of the Supreme Court. While we waited, a pot of tea with a single cup on a saucer was placed on the table across from me. And then, a few minutes later, Justice Ginsburg sat down in front of it. This is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation, focused on her time at Harvard Law School almost 65 years agoand her memories of the nine other women in their class of 500-plus men.

Dahlia Lithwick: When we started this project, I think we thought the nine women in your class would clump together and be like a pack. I was remembering when I started at Stanford Law School, in 1992, thats kind of how it was. But based on my conversations with your classmates, it doesnt seem like that necessarily organically happened.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Well for me, I had no time to waste, because Jane was 14 months when I started. So my time was used very efficiently, for classes, for studying after class, then come home at 4 p.m. to take care of Jane. I didnt have time for any socializing, except on weekends. So the only person among the women, for a time, that I was close to was Jinnie Davis. And that continued after law school. Read about Jinnies life, and her memories of Justice Ginsburg.

She was in my section, and she was just a lovely person. She was a Christian Scientist. When Marty had cancer his third year, our second year, she visited him in the hospital a few times, and I was wondering how that would be for her, because I watched her once in class. She was sitting a couple of rows ahead of me and she cut her finger, she had a paper cut, and her finger was bleeding. And I wanted to go over and blot it for her, but she didnt, she just let it

Just bleed onto the desk?

Yeah.

And so you werent sure how she would be when Marty was in the hospital, because

Well, just reacting to a hospital.

Ive heard there was a real dividing line between the women in your class who came with children and spouses, and the women who didnt. Was that your experience, too?

Well, in my first year, I was the only one who was married and had a child. I think Carol, I think she got married. And Alice got married at the end of her first year. So my first year, I was the only married woman in the class. And the only mother, because Rhoda [who was married] took her first year at Penn, and then she was in our second year.

Your classmate Carol describes sitting on the steps and doing crossword puzzles, and she and Flora recalled cooking dinners for the men in law schoolit just seems like they were in a really different world than you were. Read Carols memories of Harvard Law School.

I think thats so. [There was something] called the Radcliffe cooking contest. [One male student] and his roommates decided theyd have a competition, and theyd have a different girl come and cook for them. And at the end of the year, theyd give a prize to the winner of the Radcliffe cooking contest.

Then some of the guys at the law school decided they would take up that idea, but they would use the women in the class instead of the Radcliffe girls.

And this was fun for the women?

I dont know.

There was, in those years, the Harvard Law Wives Club. So most of the women I knew were married to men mostly in Martys class. And I got invited to the Law Wives Association because I was a law wife. But that was to help the wives be supportive of their husbands who were engaged in this intense education at the law school.

Did you feel isolated? I mean, did you feel as though you were having a very singular experience that wasnt really comparable to the other women in your class?

No, I did not feel any lack of companionship. I had Marty, and the people that we socialized with were mainly in his class. And then I was just so engaged all the time, with either law school, or with Jane. I had no time to be lonely. I was just constantly engaged, and it was even more intense my second year, when Marty had cancer.

One thing that was really stunning to hear during these interviews was the way the women had such different paths to Harvard. I think when we undertook this project, we envisioned a bunch of singularly driven, ambitious women who said, Im going to go to law school. And as we talked to either the families or to the women themselves, it turned out that a lot of them were trailing a male law student. There wasnt as much, I think, agency as I expected. Im using the word trailing reluctantly, because I know you went in some measure to be with Marty. But I think I was surprised at how many of the women were following a man.

Yeah. I think an exception to that was Ellie Voss. That was such a tragedy. [Editors note: Eleanor Voss died in a motorized scooter accident in her last year at Harvard.] And you can imagine how a young man who was driving that motorcycle mustve felt. I mean, he eventually came to terms with it, and he married and I hope had a happy life. But I dont think Ellie Voss came to Harvard because she was following a boyfriend. BJ, I dont knowof all the women in the class, I was most impressed with her, because she had been both a model and an actuary. Read BJs story.A very unusual combination. Also, she dated a friend of mine in our class. He was in my study group, Herb Lobel. He went out with both BJ and with Jinnie Davis.

Can we talk about the famous Dean Erwin Griswold story, where the dean asked the women of Harvard Law School why they were there taking the place of a man? I only bring it up because Flora told us that she actually thought he was trying to be helpful to women.

He was trying, he was. Theres a book that you probably saw, its called Pinstripes and Pearls, by Judy Hope. And she has as an appendix on the budget, on what it was going to cost for women to come to Harvard Law School. The cost was fixing up a bathroom in Austin Hall, which, by the way, was always overheated. There was asbestos dripping from the ceiling before we knew that asbestos wasnt good for peoples health.

Anyway, [at the dinner], each of us had an escort. [The dean] arranged for somebody on the faculty to sit next to each of the women. And my escort was a very well-known Columbia Law School professor, Herb Wechsler.

Im told that the escorts, before they came to Griswolds home for dinner, went nearby to Judge [Calvert] Magruders house. Because the dean didnt serve any alcohol, they went there first. There were many good things about Dean Griswold, including his bravery in the McCarthy erain the book he wrote about the Fifth Amendment. But he didnt have a sense of humor, and because he had been a proponent of the admission of women, he wanted to assure the doubting Thomases on the faculty that these women were going to do something worthwhile with their law degrees. So he asked that question, Why are you here occupying a seat that could be held by a man?, because he wanted to be armed with stories from the women themselves, about how they plan to make use of their law degrees, and not just waste this wonderful education they would get.

He didnt have any sense that he was making the women feel uncomfortable about this. I dont know if Flora told you about her answer, but as I remember it, she said, Dean Griswold, there are X number of us. There are 500 of them. What better place to find a man? Read Floras memory of the dinner at Griswolds house.

Can you tell me a bit more about the escorts?

They were just to sit next to us at dinner, and sit next to us when we moved from the dining room to the living room. And [the dean] had the chairs arranged in a horseshoe. So, Herb Wechsler was sitting next to me. In those days I smoked, and Herb was a chain smoker. So I had the ashtray that we were sharing on my lap, and when I got up to say something all the cigarette butts went on the floor, in Griswolds living room. Oh, it was really one of those moments, when you wish you could have a trapdoor to fall through. So I mumbled something about my husband is in the second year of class, and I think its important for a wife to understand her husbands work.

If you could answer it again today in the fullness of knowledge, what would your answer be?

It wasnt a truthful answer when I gave it.

But Id say I went to law school because I wanted to study law. In fact, I took the LSAT before Marty did, although he was a year ahead of me.

There was a story I heard from several of the women that I have to say my jaw hit the floor. They described something called ladies day, where the women in the class had to answer all the questions, and even had to sing on the spot.

The professor notorious for ladies day was Barton Leach. My section, we had no ladies day.

I knew about [Leach] lining them up in the first row, and after ignoring them the whole semester, that one day concentrating all [the] attention [on them]. But I think my classmates were warned by the women in the class ahead, of what they could expect. This is a funny storywhen I was, years later, at Columbia, Billie Jean King had just won her match with Bobby Riggs. One of the professors announced with great glee, Tomorrow in honor of Billie Jean King, were going to celebrate ladies day. And he had no idea what the history of ladies day had been.

Was it deliberate hazing? Or was it meant to be funny? Both Carol and Flora remembered it, the singing, but they both laughed about it. And then after laughing about it, Flora said, That was so degrading. Read Floras recollection of ladies day.

Well there were episodes like that. We had as visitors two people wed been close to in the Army. And I brought the woman to class with me, Jill, and she, far from going to law school, she hadnt even gone to college. So [William] McCurdy, my contracts professor, calls on her, and I stood up and said, Shes my house guest. And he said, Any fool can answer that question. You answer it. And then I got up and told him that he was rude to my guest, and I would answer the question.

Really?

Yes. And he said something about Mrs. Ginsburg being a killjoy.

Did he give you a C-plus in contracts?

No.

Maybe the best teacher I ever had, my first year in law school, was Ben Kaplan. He never, never did anything to wound or offend. He was a master of the Socratic technique, but he always used it in a positive way. So a student would give an answer; he would rephrase it as in You mean

McCurdy was a typical Harvard professor at that time and liked to make students feel uncomfortable.

One of the things that we heard from Alice Vogels family was that she got on Law Review, and then got a letter, We dont have dorms for you. Its only the men who are arriving early who are going to get dorms, and theres no place for you to sleep. Read about Alices experience at Harvard.

The Law Review invitations went out at the end of the first year. So it wasnt a competition, it was just strictly on the basis of grades. Alice was getting married, or she had just gotten married. And she just turned it down, because of her husband.

The dormitory was something else. I had come from Cornell, where the girls had to live in the dorms. That was Cornells excuse for having a 4-to-1 ratiofour guys to every galbecause the boys could live in town, but girls had to live in the dormitory. And I get to the Harvard Law School, and they had no room for the girls in the dorm. It didnt matter to me because I wasnt going to be in the dorm anyway. But that, that was one of the many ironies, that the girls needed to be protected, by being sheltered inside a dorm at Cornell. But at Harvard they had to find their own place to stay.

Another version of this was something we heard about Marilyn Rose: She wanted to be in the public defenders, a group at Harvard, and it was all male, and they were not going to let her in. And so, instead of trying to get herself in, she made sure that the women who came after her could be in the public defenders group. Read more about Marilyn Roses experience at Harvard.

And I think what Im trying to understand iswas that just a function of thats what you did if you couldnt get something, that you made sure the women who came after you got it?

I think you get that sense from Judy Hopes book too, that [the female students] benefited from the women in the class ahead of them. And in turn they wanted the women in the class behind them to have it easier. But most of this, it just came with the territory. We didnt even question it. I dont remember anyone asking to have a womens bathroom put in, in Langdell Hall. We just accepted thats the way it was. [Editors note: The family of Rhoda Solin Isselbacher actually recalled that Rhoda, as the law schools first pregnant student, once stood up in class to demand that the women be allowed to use the mens bathroom. Read that story here.]

And the same thing with the dormitories. They did have housing for married students. Marty had been in service for two years. So there are a number of people in his class who had been called into service at the tail end of the Korean War. And they were coming back to law school, and some of them lived in the apartments for married students. But none of their wives were attending law school.

We heard precious few stories of men who were great allies during that time. A lot of women, by the way, described Marty as a great ally but said they didnt have a lot of men around who were supporting them.

[There were] the two who tried to persuade Alice Vogel twice, at the end of her first year, end of her second year, [to join the Law Review]. John Winston and Frank Goodman. Frank ended up on the University of Pennsylvania law faculty, and he was married to Henry Friendlys daughter Joan Friendly. And John Winston, I dont know what he did, but hes still living, and hes living in New York. But they were very supportive of me, especially on the Law Review. Theyre both very funny fellows.

But then there was another type, there was someone who had been a year ahead of me at Cornell, who assured me that Harvard Law School was a very tough place, and I couldnt rely on a good memory to get me through. So there were those types that sort of resented the womens presence. But most of the people I mean for me, Harvard Law School was not a competitive place that second year. My second year, Martys third, when he was diagnosed with cancer, they rallied round us, his classmates, and they got him through that very trying year. And I had note takers in all of his classes, and members of his class came first to the hospital, and then to home to give him private tutorials.

Marty ended up having the best grades that he ever had in a semester. The semester was 15 weeks, I think he was in class for two weeks. But he had the best teachers, his classmates.

One of the most, Im sure, unsurprising things that Im going to tell you, is that all of these women had a really horrendous time getting jobs. And that the same doors that were closed to you were closed to them, and in many ways their stories track yours. Flora said something that I thought was sweet and wanted you to hear it: She said even after graduation and her father was telling her, Dont even bother to get a law job. Youre never going to get one. Find something else. She would look at you and say, Well, if Ruth Ginsburg cant get a job, then Im going to keep trying. She used you as her kind of marker of, Im not going to give up because this is systemic. She was using the fact that you were struggling to double down her effort. Read more about Floras attempt to get her first job.

There was one woman in Martys class, Nancy Boxley, later Tepper. She did get a job. She got a job with Whitney North Seymours firm. All through law school, I thought that Nancy Boxley from Virginia was in the fox-hunting crowd. It turned out that she was Jewish. She disguised who she was, and thats how she did get a job with a Wall Street firm. But for me, there wasnt a single firm in New York two called me back, I came down to have the interviews, but in the end

And one of the reasons was they were concerned about how their wives would feel about a man working closely with a woman. And it amazed me, because they all had women secretaries, but thats just the way it was.

Now Jerry Gunther [who taught me at Columbia Law School] tells a story that I was not aware of until he wrote it in the Hawaii Law Review. He said when he was in charge of clerkships for Columbia students, that he called every judge in Southern District, all the 2nd Circuit judges. And then he thought he had a good prospect, and that was Judge [Edmund] Palmieri, who had been a Columbia undergraduate and a Columbia Law School graduate. And as Jerry told the story, he said, Give her a chance, and if she doesnt work out, theres a young man in her class whos with a downtown firm, and hell jump in and take over. But if you wont give her a chance, then I will never recommend another Columbia clerk to you.

I thought all along that Palmieri took a chance on me, because he had two daughters, and he was envisioning how he would want the world to be for his daughters. It was not the case. In later years, he did become a big champion of womens opportunities. One of his daughters became a doctor, and he was very incensed about the discrimination that she was encountering, the uncompromising hours she had to work.

But anyway, I went through the clerkship thinking thats why Judge Palmieri took me on. But as Jerry tells the story, Palmieri wasnt resistant to having a woman as a clerk. He had already had one, but he was concerned about Jane, that he might need me and she might be sick.

There were so many women who described just being unbelievably proud of you. Carol talked about it. Its clear you represent so much that she is so proud of, and she sees it as her achievement too. Read more about Carol, who, like Justice Ginsburg, is still a practicing judge.

And then there were some who were, I think, frankly a little jealous. Who felt as though you had support from Marty, you had a loving spouse who put you and your career first. And if theyd had some of those breaks, they may have had a very different life. It was just such a complicated story about what we thought was a simple story of sisterhood, and support, and mutual admiration. While you were in it, did you ever have that sense, that this was a little bit fraught? That it was both competitive and supportive, and it was not uncomplicated?

Well, as I said, I had no time to think about emotions. Rhoda SolinI had no idea that she was ever jealous of me. I mean, that surprised me when you told me that. [Editors note: Prior to the interview, Slate sent Ginsburg some examples of what we had learned about her classmates. Read more about Rhodas familys memories of the relationship between the two women.]

For the women in my class and in Martys class, it was getting that first job that was powerfully hard. If the woman got her foot in the door, she did the job very well, and the second job was not the same hurdle.

What youre finding is these are not flaming feminists, these women, and its just pretty much the same in a book that I hope will before much longer see the light of day. [Former Berkeley Law Dean] Herma Hill Kay wrote many biographies of the 14 women in law teaching across the country who preceded her. She was the 15th woman on any law faculty. And when she died, I think she died in 2017, that manuscript got lost. And I dont know the full story of why it wasnt published earlier, but I was at Berkeley in September, and I encouraged Dean [Erwin] Chemerinskythey were having a celebration of herand I said, if you really want to celebrate her, youll see that her book is published. She spent 10 years writing it, and it tells the story of each of these women, and they have every kind of personality, some shy, some bold.

So there wasnt a type that became the first woman. When I transferred to Columbia, that class was considerably smaller than Harvard. But it had 12 women, including one who has been my friend for life, Nina Appel, who was dean of Loyola Chicago Law School for many years.

The women in my Harvard class I stayed in touch with Jinnie Nordin for many years. In fact, the summer after my second year, we had found an apartment across the street from the place where [Columbia] Law School is now, but we were going to live with Martys parents for the summer. So Jinnie was living in our apartment then. Shes the only one in the class that I stayed in touch with. I heard about Flora every now and then.

Floras a hoot. At the very end of her interview, I said, What should we be telling men? And she said, I just wish men were better. And that was very simple for her. But I love what youre saying, which is some of you were not flaming feminists, and some of you were just having fun, and some of you have gone on to have illustrious careers, and some have not. And that this wasnt a feminist project.

Right.

I interviewed you a couple of years ago, when Glamour made you woman of the year. And I asked, What do you do about young women who are coming up, who look at your life as though its a million years ago, and couldnt happen again? And yet theyre still facing glass ceilings at law firms, and theyre limited in some way. Not limited the way your life was, but limited opportunities and deep frustration about work-life balance. And I feel as though if I were a 1L listening to your story, it would seem like science fiction, so far away and so hard to relate to. And yet, I wonder if you can tell me the parts of what you were seeing at Harvard that are still urgently important for women to focus on.

Its an unconscious bias. Its the expectation. You have a lowered expectation when you hear a woman speaking, I think that still goes on. That instinctively when a man speaks, he will be listened to, where people will not expect the woman to say anything of value. But all of the women in my generation have had, time and again, that experience where you say something at a meeting, and nobody makes anything of it. And maybe half an hour later, a man makes the identical point, and people react to it and say, Good idea. That, I think, is a problem that persists. Some of it is getting over unconscious bias by becoming conscious of it, which I thought Ive told the story about the symphony orchestra many times. People were so sure that they could tell the difference between a woman playing and a man, and when put to the test, when blindfolded, they could not.

Willis Reese was a law professor at Columbia Law School. And he said, theres one thing he regrets about the old days. He said when the class was moving slowly, and you wanted to get a crisp right answer, You called on a woman. She was always prepared. And nowadays, he said, theres no difference, the women are as unprepared as the men.

Thats progress.

One thing that I did feel in law school was that if I flubbed, that I would be bringing down my entire sex. That you werent just failing for yourself, but people would say, Well, I did expect it of a woman. Its like they would say about a woman driver. So I was determined not to leave that impression.

Read the full stories of the lives of each of the nine other women in Justice Ginsburgs Harvard Law class here. Listen to our special audio series, The Class of RBG,hereor below.

See the original post:

Its Amazing to Me How Distinctly I Remember Each of These Women - Slate

Our View: We should demand that they stop – Daily Astorian

George Floyds death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May forced all of us to examine our attitudes toward institutional racism.

Protests around the country, from big cities like Portland to small towns like Astoria, are a potential turning point. White people who live in communities with very few Black, Hispanic or other people of color are confronting issues that for generations have been convenient to ignore.

One of the most difficult is that the police act on our behalf, using force derived from the governments we elect.

We have been fortunate on the North Coast that protests have been mostly peaceful.

In Portland, protests over the past several weeks have often spiraled into violence. Scenes of vandalism and looting, along with police overreach in attacking journalists and legal observers, have been shared across the United States.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble, but in nightly clashes downtown near the Multnomah County Justice Center and the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, demonstrators and police have struggled to find the line between protest and riot.

We trust Portland the people who live there, the police, the mayor and other city leaders can find that line.

Unfortunately, the Trump administrations misguided decision to deploy militarized federal agents has dragged the entire country into the streets of Portland.

Last week, a federal agent acting on our behalf, using force derived from the government we elected fired a less-lethal round at a protesters head, causing critical injuries. Oregon Public Broadcasting and other news media have reported that federal agents are patrolling in unmarked vans, snatching protesters who do not appear to be immediate threats to federal property.

The New York Times reported that federal agents on the ground in Portland were not specifically trained in riot control or mass demonstrations.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a federal lawsuit to try to prevent federal agents from detaining protesters in Portland without identifying themselves or without probable cause or warrants. The lawsuit names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Protective Service.

The lawsuit alleges their tactics violate the First Amendment right to peacefully gather, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Citizens who are reasonably afraid of being picked up and shoved into unmarked vans possibly by federal officers, possibly by individuals opposed to the protests will feel compelled to stay away, for their own personal safety, and will therefore be unable to express themselves in the way that they have the right to do, the lawsuit states.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Gov. Kate Brown have made it clear the federal agents are not welcome. The federal elected officials who represent us U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley and U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici demanded the Trump administration remove the forces.

Wyden, in an op-ed for NBC News, faulted President Donald Trump. Not content with simply dropping squads of federal agents into my hometown to clash with peaceful protesters, as he first did in early July after signing an executive order to supposedly protect monuments from protesters, Trump and his acting secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, have now unleashed these agents like an occupying army complete with fatigues, military-style equipment and tactics that are utterly unacceptable in an American city.

These invaders are mounting this assault against my city on the flimsiest of justifications: While Acting Secretary Wolf rants about law and order, most of the incidents of violent anarchists he cites are actually graffiti, or low-level vandalism.

Portland was chosen as a stage for the Trump administration to make a political statement in an election year. But it would be a mistake to view what has been happening on the streets only through a partisan political lens.

Just like nearly everyone familiar with Floyds death saw the injustice, anyone looking at what federal agents have done in Portland should see the assault on our civil liberties.

They are acting on our behalf, using force derived from the government we elected. We should all demand that they stop.

Read the original here:

Our View: We should demand that they stop - Daily Astorian