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

This Administration will continue to protect the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of every student, teacher and educational institution across the country, said Secretary DeVos. Too many misinterpret the separation of church and state as an invitation for government to separate people from their faith. In reality, the First Amendment doesnt exist to protect us from religion. It exists to protect religion from government. Todays guidance reaffirms our commitment to protecting our first liberty and ensuring that discriminatory restrictions on access to federal grant funding are no longer tolerated.

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

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

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

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

Full text of the guidance can be found here.

Link:

US Department of Education Reaffirms Commitment to Protecting the Religious Liberty of Students and Religious Organizations - U.S. Department of...

This article is part of aSCOTUSblog symposiumon the Roberts court and the religion clauses.

Kim Colbyis director of the Christian Legal Societys Center for Law and Religious Freedom. She was counsel on amicus briefs on behalf of the Christian Legal Society inEspinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue,Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Tanzin v. TanvirandFulton v. City of Philadelphia.

Americans religious freedom depends on a patchwork of protections scattered throughout federal and state laws. Religious freedom is protected to a limited degree by the First Amendments free exercise clause; to a much greater degree, but only at the federal level, by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and to various degrees by specific religious exemptions tucked here and there into federal statutes and regulations. While state constitutions, as well as some state and local statutes, pay homage to religious freedom, when state courts apply them the results frequently tend to be less robust than their language would suggest.

The Supreme Courts 2019-20 term brought significant religious freedom victories. But it also highlighted the lack of a constitutional safety net for religious freedom. The 2020-21 term offers a critical opportunity to restore a constitutional safety net that has been sorely lacking for three decades.

Thirty years ago, the Employment Division v. Smith decision unexpectedly weakened the constitutional protection for religious freedom. The Smith decision substituted rational basis review or possibly, no review at all for strict scrutiny review whenever a burden on the free exercise of religion is imposed by a neutral and generally applicable law. The court has never explained what it means by a neutral and generally applicable law; it is still not clear whether Smith completely gutted the First Amendment protection for religious freedom or merely shrank it considerably and made it much more complicated and confused. Whatever the degree of damage, this loss of protection applies at the federal level and also at state and local levels.

The cases before the court this term and next term illustrate Smiths regrettable long-term consequences and demonstrate why the court should overrule Smith. A case to be heard next term, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, expressly presents that question.

1. Constitutional protection at state and local levels is needed.

Americans religious freedom varies widely depending on the state in which they live. Smith deprived religious persons of previous bargaining power and incentives necessary to persuade state and local officials to respect religious freedom.

To provide protection in states, the court has labored to identify discriminatory treatment of religious persons because Smith itself left strict scrutiny in place when religious persons suffer discriminatory treatment. The court has utilized two distinct buckets to protect religious persons:

1. Discrimination based on religious status: In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, relying on the state constitution, Montana bureaucrats excluded parents and students from a state tuition tax-credit program because many participating families chose to send their children to religious schools. The court held that the Montana constitution impermissibly discriminated on the basis of religious status in violation of the federal free exercise clause.

2. Discriminatory treatment compared to similar secular conduct: Just three years after Smith, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court unanimously ruled that a municipality violated the free exercise clause when it prohibited killing animals as part of a religious ritual, but not as part of a secular activity, such as hunting. In 2018, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court applied Lukumi in ruling that state officials unconstitutionally punished a man of deep religious convictions who refused to create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding, but did not penalize other bakers who refused to create cakes with messages to which they personally objected.

Requiring government officials to treat religious conduct with the same respect given similar secular conduct has been an important, if unevenly applied, protection for religious freedom under the Smith regime. But it is not an adequate substitute for reliable constitutional protection of religious freedom achieved through consistent application of strict scrutiny analysis to laws that burden religious freedom. Fulton which involves a citys denial of licensure to a Catholic organizations foster-care program gives the court an opportunity to reinstate strict scrutiny for such laws.

2. RFRAs protection for religious freedom at the federal level requires reinforcement.

In response to Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. RFRA requires the federal government to demonstrate a compelling interest unachievable by a less restrictive means before it may enforce a neutral, generally applicable law against a person whose sincerely held religious beliefs would be substantially burdened by the law.

RFRA, rather than the First Amendment, has provided the primary protection for Americans religious freedom at the federal level for 27 years. A singular legislative achievement, RFRA ensures a level playing field for Americans of all faiths by putting minority faiths and unpopular religious beliefs on an equal footing with faiths that are politically popular.

Two cases on the courts 2019 and 2020 dockets illustrate RFRAs importance to persons of all faiths. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, Catholic nuns returned to the Supreme Court for the third time in their nine-year effort to win the right to serve the poor without violating their religious convictions regarding contraceptives. Ruling in the Little Sisters favor, the court held that the federal government had the authority under RFRA to provide a generous religious and moral exemption from an administrative regulation that required employers to provide contraceptive coverage through their insurance plans. Unfortunately, the court did not follow the course urged by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch to find that RFRA not only permitted the exemption but actually required it. In a concurrence, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, provided a roadmap for the lower court on remand to rule against the religious exemption a prospect that may necessitate a fourth trip to the Supreme Court for the Little Sisters before final victory.

The second RFRA case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, will be argued this fall. Three Muslim men, one a U.S. citizen and two lawful permanent residents, seek to recover money damages from federal FBI employees who allegedly retaliated against them by placing them on the No Fly List for their refusal to become FBI informants within their religious congregations. The issue before the court is whether RFRAs authorization of appropriate relief includes recovery of money damages from federal officials acting in their personal capacities.

The coalition of 68 organizations from across the religious and political spectrum that urged RFRAs passage had one overriding operative principle: RFRA would protect all Americans religious freedom. Anticipating RFRAs main task as protecting minority faiths, few proponents foresaw that Catholic nuns would be denied a modest religious exemption by a popularly elected administration and, therefore, need RFRAs protection.

But the times have changed rapidly and dramatically. Since 2010, religious social conservatives have increasingly faced a rigid insistence that they conform to and promote the orthodoxies of the abortion and LGBT movements even when those orthodoxies directly conflict with their religious beliefs.

As a result, Congress is being pressured to eviscerate RFRA. The Equality Act, H.R. 5, passed the House of Representatives in May 2019 by a vote of 236-173, with a provision buried in it to gut RFRA. The Equality Acts proponents are willing to forfeit all Americans religious freedom in order to suppress religious dissent.

In its decision this term in Bostock v. Clayton County, which re-interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, the court offered reassurance that RFRA, Title VIIs religious exemption and the ministerial exception will suffice to protect religious individuals and institutions. But more needs to be done to make its promise a reality. This is particularly true because many state officials are likely to apply Bostocks rationale to re-interpret state prohibitions on sex discrimination in employment, public accommodations and government programs. Title VIIs religious exemption and RFRA do not follow Bostocks analysis downstream to the states.

The courts reaffirmation in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru of the First Amendments strong protection for religious employers decisions about who will lead their religious mission and teach their religious beliefs does apply to the states. But the protection, while strong, is limited and does not extend to all employees.

More to the point, Our Ladys protection of this essential right was possible only because, eight years ago in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the court set Smith to one side. In Hosanna-Tabor, the U.S. government argued that the free exercise clause offered no protection to a religious congregations decisions regarding who would be its minister or teach its faith in its school. The government understandably relied on Smith for this jaw-dropping proposition, only to find its reliance rejected by a unanimous court. But by requiring the court continually to cabin it or create workarounds, Smith works distinctive institutional damage to the courts reputation.

RFRA and the ministerial exception have performed yeomans work. But they urgently need reinforcement through restoration of consistent and reliable constitutional protection for religious freedom.

By protecting all religious beliefs regardless of their popularity, religious freedom makes it possible for Americans with starkly different worldviews to live peaceably together. Now is the time to restore substantive constitutional protection for all Americans regardless of what they believe or where they live.

Posted in Symposium on the Roberts court and the religion clauses, Featured

Recommended Citation: Kim Colby, Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 10, 2020, 11:20 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/symposium-free-exercise-rfra-and-the-need-for-a-constitutional-safety-net/

Read this article:

Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need for a constitutional safety net - SCOTUSblog

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKBW) A federal judge has delivered some much-needed relief to frustrated brides-to-be in New York, issuing a temporary injunction allowing wedding receptions to be held at 50 percent of the venue's capacity and not be capped at 50 people.

Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York ruled in favor of two couples with weddings booked at the Arrowhead Golf Club in Akron, who-- along with the co-owner of the club-- sued Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Letitia James, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz, the Erie County Department of Health, and the Empire State Development Corporation.

The couples claimed the restrictions put in place by the governor's executive order in March at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic violated their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, stating the "restriction will deprive Plaintiffs of an 'irreplaceable life event' (i.e., their ability to have a wedding that allows their friends and family to participate to the full extent contemplated by their Christian faith)."

"We're Christians and we really do believe that a wedding is a ceremony to bring glory to God and we wanted to do that in front of witnesses," said Jenna Crawford, a newly wed and plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"The fact that on a Wednesday or Thursday we could have 200 plus people here sitting in and eating at a restaurant and that's completely allowed by law, but then the very next day on a Friday, we can't have any more than 50 people. If that doesn't scream unequal treatment, I don't know what does," said Lucas James, co-owner of Arrowhead Golf Club.

The ruling allows wedding reception halls to operate at the same level of service as restaurants, which is 50 percent capacity for indoor dining.

"It was a sigh of relief. It was a long journey and expensive. We spent almost $40,000 to get there on behalf of these couples. I think there's kind of a feeling of like what's next?" said Clinton Holcomb, co-owner of Arrowhead Golf Club.

Less than 12 hours before the oral arguments were first heard, the venue's liquor license was suspended.

"On Thursday morning, August 6th they had an emergency meeting about what to do with regards to Arrowhead. They decided the best thing they could do would be to pull our liquor license. We found that out Thursday evening which was obviously kind of shocking to us given that they knew that we had our oral arguments in front of a federal judge literally the next morning," Holcomb said.

"The judge's decision is irresponsible at best, as it would allow for large, non-essential gatherings that endanger public health," a spokesperson for the governor told 7 Eyewitness News in response to the ruling. "We will pursue all available legal remedies immediately and continue defending the policies that have led New York to having - and maintaining - one of the lowest infection rates in the country, while cases continue to rise in dozens of other states."

Judge Suddaby's ruling states wedding venues and guests must comply with the same rules in place for restaurants, including tables placed at least six-feet apart from one another and mandatory face coverings when not seated.

Holocomb and James said they appreciate anyone who would like to help them fund this legal battle through their GoFundMe.

Anyone seeking additional information about the lawsuit can email Holocomb at clint@discovercbd.com.

Read the full ruling here:

See the article here:

Federal judge rules wedding receptions in New York state can be held at 50 percent capacity and not capped at 50 people - WKBW-TV

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

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

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

Read: How Martin Luther King Jr. recruited John Lewis

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

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

Read more here:

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

President Donald Trumps guests at his Bedminster golf club Friday evening engaged in behavior that should concern us all, Gov. Phil Murphy said Monday.

You see people inside on top of each other, Murphy said at his coronavirus press briefing. We all ought to be really concerned. Thats where the flareups are coming from.

CORONAVIRUS RESOURCES: Live map tracker | Newsletter | Homepage

Earlier this month, Murphy tightened the rules for indoor gatherings, restricting them to no more than 25 people, except for weddings, funerals and religious and political events.

Photos of Trumps Friday press conference showed Bedminster golf club members congregating in the back of the ballroom to watch the event, cheering the president. Many did not wear masks.

Asked about the guests, Trump said they took advantage of Murphys exemption.

You know, you have an exclusion in the law, Trump said. It says exactly political activity or peaceful protests. And you can call it political activity, but Id call it peaceful protests because they heard you were coming up. And they know the news is fake. They understand it better than anybody.

Murphy said the exemption on crowd size was for outdoor protests, not those inside a room.

The First Amendment protests relate to outdoor activities principally, and not indoors, he said. Any pictures of people inside on top of each other without wearing face coverings top of each other should concern us all.

The guests wore masks when they attended Trumps Saturday press conference, according to White House pool reports. They watched the president sign four executive orders designed to address the coronavirus-caused recession.

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

Jonathan D. Salant may be reached at jsalant@njadvancemedia.com.

Excerpt from:

The actions of Trump guests at N.J. golf club should concern us all, Murphy says - NJ.com

So holds the First Circuit in yesterday's decision in Norris v. Cape Elizabeth School Dist., and I think that's exactly the right reading of the Supreme Court precedents (and consistent with other circuits' decisions).

The particular speech in that case was an anonymous "sticky note on a mirror in a Cape Elizabeth High School girls' bathroom that stated 'THERE'S A RAPIST IN OUR SCHOOL AND YOU KNOW WHO IT IS.'" One might argue that this is core political speech, because it's an implicit accusation that the school isn't doing anything about this, but the court's decision makes it unnecessary to draw the political/nonpolitical line. "Because we conclude that Tinker is not limited to political speech, we need not decide if A.M.'s sticky note, understood in the context of her prior activities related to sexual assault activism including her statements to the Cape Elizabeth H.S. school board, was objectively viewed as political."

Read more:

First Amendment Protections in K-12 Schools Not "Restricted to Only Core Political Speech" - Reason

This issue became a flashpoint this week after sophomore Hannah Watters was disciplined for posting a photo on Twitter showing many of her fellow North Paulding High School classmates in Dallas, Georgia not wearing masks while walking down a crowded hallway. The photo was posted on Twitter at the end of dismissal, Hannah said.

"I took it mostly out of concern and nervousness after seeing the first days of school," she said. "I was concerned for the safety of everyone in that building and everyone in the county because precautions that the CDC and guidelines at the CDC has been telling us for months now weren't being followed."

"I've little doubt that these sorts of conflicts are going to dominate my life over the next many months," Hiestand told CNN. "People tend to assume that most censorship issues involving student journalists concern stories about sex, drugs and rock and roll sort of stuff. Not true. By far the most common targets for censorship are accurate, lawful stories that school officials believe cast the school in a negative light. Student stories showing their school's response to Covid has censorship written all over them."

There is no expectation of privacy in a crowded public school hallway, Hiestand said. As such, there's no reasonable claim that these sorts of photos are violating anyone's legal right to privacy, particularly now when the lead headline of many news organizations has to do with students returning to school during a global pandemic, he added.

Hannah's photo "is about as newsworthy -- and therefore, non-private -- as it gets," Hiestand said.

The First Amendment and what it means to students

The freedom of speech protection afforded by the First Amendment applies to people of any age and, thanks to the Supreme Court, that unequivocally includes students.

The court determined that school officials could not censor student expression unless they can reasonably predict that the expression would cause a substantial disruption of school activities, the center said.

When it comes to cell phones and whether they are a disruption, administrators can impose reasonable restrictions such as not using them during school hours but a principal cannot legally control what students post on social media off campus or after hours, though these attempts are seen from time to time, Gutterman said.

"It would be unreasonable to punish students who are exposing misbehavior or other problems during this public health crisis. If a student exposes something like this, the student is more akin to a whistleblower or public critic and should be praised rather than punished," Gutterman added.

The threat of Covid-19 infections in schools is real

Zach Parsons is a sophomore at North Paulding High School who said it's dangerous for schools to have in-person instruction. He's not wrong, particularly when it comes to students in Georgia.

Four students from three Georgia high schools who attended classes in person this week have tested positive for Covid-19, Columbia County School District Superintendent Sandra Carraway told CNN.

At North Paulding High School, following Hanna's photo, around 40% of students were seen wearing masks, Parsons, the student, said. In a letter to the community this week, Paulding County Superintendent Brian Otott said "Wearing a mask is a personal choice, and there is no practical way to enforce a mandate to wear them."

For any students concerned about their health and who are facing circumstances like in North Paulding High School, Hiestand of the Student Press center has two words of advice: be brave.

"Use the new speech tools that are available to say what you need to say," Hiestand added. "As John Lewis said a month before he died: 'And to see all of the young people...standing up, speaking up, being prepared to march. They are going to help redeem the soul of America and save our country and maybe help save the planet.'"

CNN's Madeline Holcombe, Jamiel Lynch, Maggie Fox and Shelby Lin Erdman contributed to this report

View post:

Free speech experts call on public schools to not penalize students for sharing images of maskless classmates - CNN

The protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in late May prompted allegations of infiltration byout-of-stateanti-fascist agitators (which have beenrefuted) and white supremacists (which have beenborne out). But little attention has been paid to a third group of infiltrators: police. As with so many other police practices that are now coming under scrutiny, the longstanding practice of using undercover police to monitor protests and protest movements should be closely examined and reconsidered.

There is solid evidence that police infiltrated the recent demonstrations. A North Dakota officerposed as a protester, photographed activists, and yelled F**k the police while checking for guns at a Black Lives Matter protest in Fargo. Undercover officersdisguised as Orthodox Jewsattended anti-racism protests in New Jersey. The Texas Department of Public Safetyoutright acknowledgedembedding undercover officers in the protests to root out criminals.

The idea, ostensibly, is that plainclothes officers can overhear people conspiring to commit violence or other illegal acts and disrupt their plots. But this rationale falls apart on closer examination. The notion that there were coordinated plans to engage in illegal activity turns out to be false. An internalDepartment of Homeland Security intelligence assessmentfound that most of the violence at protests has been committed by opportunists interested in looting, not agitators or extremists.

The benefits of infiltration are thus speculative at best. On the other hand, there are proven downsides. Indeed, undercover officerssometimes initiateorenableviolence between police and protesters, further escalating thealready-violent policing of dissent a problem that is particularly pertinent foranti-police brutalityandBlack-ledprotests, which meet especially forceful resistance from law enforcement.

Additionally,the history of police infiltrationis one of the government disproportionately targeting progressive activists and movements sometimes even going so far as to gin up violence as justification for scrutiny rather than keeping protesters safe.

Take, for instance, the FBIs Counter Intelligence Program, known asCOINTELPRO. From 1956 to 1971, it targeted groups that the government deemed subversive, with methods including unconstitutional surveillance and infiltration. Included in its mission were efforts to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of the Black Panthers and other Black nationalist groups. COINTELPRO was designed explicitly to target Black activists because of their political stances. One of its ignominiesinvolved an FBI informantproviding Black Panthers with sticks of dynamite to blow up the Statue of Liberty.

Or take the more recent example of the protests surrounding President Trumps inauguration. As part of aninvestigation into a potential conspiracyto foment violence, police officersinfiltrateda small group called Disrupt J20 that was planning meetings for the demonstrations. They followed up by arresting more than 200 anti-capitalist and anti-fascist activists, journalists, and legal observersen masse, simply because the individuals were in the vicinity of acts of property damage. The resulting prosecutions casesended in mistrials, dismissals, and acquittalsover the next 18 months. And while law enforcement agenciesfocustheir infiltration on the advocacy of left-leaning groups, Black protesters, and Muslims, theycontinueto payinsufficient attentionto the United States manyviolent white supremacistthreats.

Police infiltration of protests also has a chilling effect on protesters First Amendment rights.Fearof plainclothes police joining protests to surveil activists,the danger to undocumented immigrantsof Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers attendance at protests, thepresence of agents-provocateur, and the resultingdistrust of ones fellow protestersall discourage would-be marchers from participating.

These significant risks and harms outweigh any marginal benefit that might accrue from police infiltration, at least as it has been practiced up to now. It is apparent that the use of undercover officers at protests needs to be revisited.

At a minimum, there should be more transparency and accountability accompanying the use of undercover police in protests. One model for this is the wave of surveillance oversight legislation being passed across the nation, most recently in the form of thePOST Act in New York City. The measure will require the New York City Police Department to disclose basic information about the surveillance toolsit uses, the deployment of those tools, and safeguards for New Yorkers civil liberties. Analogous legislation requiring police departments to develop and share policies regarding infiltration operations, including specific protections for protesters First Amendment rights, could increase their accountability to the communities they are intended to serve.

A more far-reaching approach would be to adapt and expand the recommendations of the Church Committee a Senate panel that investigated the abuses of various intelligence authorities, including COINTELPRO by law enforcement. The recommendations in the committees landmark 1976reportfocused on raising the threshold for intelligence collection by shifting the focus from association and advocacy to demonstrated dangerous conduct. A similar approach could be adopted in the context of police infiltration of protests for instance, by limiting its use to cases in which there is a preexisting investigation based on facts that support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

It is not clear, however, that raising the threshold would solve the problem. In Washington, DC, the2004 First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Actalready requires police to obtain clearance from top police officials, along with evidence of a threat of violence, for infiltration of advocacy groups and those measures did not prevent the J20 debacle. And the citys auditor had previously raised concerns about police noncompliance with the law.

A broader solution is to simply prohibit plainclothes police from attending protests. Using undercover police in connection with protests and protest movements can only further undermine trust between law enforcement and communities at a time when that trust has already been badly eroded by repeated, high-profile instances of racialized police brutality. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of undercover operations in other settings, protests are one context where people should feel free to come together and express themselves without fear of surreptitious law enforcement monitoring.

Read more:

Police Infiltration of Protests Undermines the First Amendment - brennancenter.org

CINCINNATI, Aug. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- As part of its commitment to support equity, diversity and inclusion within the journalism industry, the Scripps Howard Foundation will award a total of $600,000 to institutions of higher education to enhance or create programs that will inspire high school students to embark on journalism careers.

The Foundation will host a competitive application process to select two institutions, which will each receive $100,000 a year over three years.

The Foundation, the philanthropic organization of The E.W. Scripps Company (NASDAQ: SSP), is seeking to fund two programs that will:

The programs will be funded through a generous gift from Eli and Jaclynn Scripps and Jonathan and Brooke Scripps.

"Advancing equity, diversity and inclusion within the journalism industry is a priority of the Scripps Howard Foundation, its benefactors and its parent company, The E.W. Scripps Company," said Scripps Howard Foundation President and CEO Liz Carter. "We know the industry has a long way to go toward hiring talent and editorial staff that reflects the make-up of its increasingly diverse audiences. We believe these programs, with their emphasis on mentorship and real-world reporting experience, are an important step toward that goal."

The Foundation and its parent company, Scripps, have committed to increasing diversity in journalism through a variety of programs. More information about Scripps' equity, diversity and inclusion approach can be found here.

The deadline to submit a Letter of Intent is Sept. 15, 2020. The Foundation will review those responses and invite a select group to respond to a full Request for Proposals (RFP). The programs are expected to launch by the 2021-2022 academic year.

More information on how to submit a Letter of Intent can be found here.

About the Scripps Howard FoundationTheScripps Howard Foundationsupports philanthropic causes important to The E.W. Scripps Company (NASDAQ: SSP) and the communities it serves, with a special emphasis on excellence in journalism. At the crossroads of the classroom and the newsroom, the Foundation is a leader in supporting journalism education, scholarships, internships, minority recruitment and development, literacy and First Amendment causes. The Scripps Howard Awards stand as one of the industry's top honors for outstanding journalism. The Foundation improves lives and helps build thriving communities. It partners with Scripps brands to create awareness of local issues and supports impactful organizations to drive solutions.

SOURCE The E.W. Scripps Company

Home

Read the original:

Scripps Howard Foundation to award $600,000 to advance diversity in journalism - PRNewswire

Are we going to tell parents they have to choose between their jobs or watching over their children?

Are we going to help the struggling middle class and small-business owner or give another round of tax cuts to the wealthy so they can buy a baby blue Lamborghini and more stock?

Will we offer refuge to persecuted families from other lands seeking a part of the American dream? Or just announce that dream is dead. Doors shut.

Are we going to ensure that every eligible American can vote, vote safely and have that vote counted? Or are we the country that will do our best to make sure that the rich and well-off, with currently approved skin tones, are the ones who control the future?

Are we going to do everything we possibly can to keep foreign interference out of our elections? Or just accept that the foreign hackers are here, well entrenched, welcomed by those in power and active? So what?

Are we going to continue to be that country whose top law enforcement official sends jackbooted thugs into cities to beat up protesters and snubs his nose at members of Congress questioning his actions? Or are we going to realize that law and order and the Constitution, including the First Amendment, are compatible.

Will we be the people who provide proper personal protective gear for medical workers and first responders? Or will we be the country that tolerates corruption running rampant in procurement and contracting, advocates ineffective and dangerous treatments, and assures people all is well when it isnt?

Will we hold everyone to the same rule of law or will we permit the powerful and favored few to become wealthy beyond imagination at our expense?

Are we going to rebuild our roads, bridges, ports and electric grid? Or do we spend the money on big corporations, hoping they will build a little in exchange for becoming too big to fail?

Are we going to help save the world from extreme temperatures, famines, droughts, flooding, plagues and dramatic loss of species? Or will we work with other nations to stop manmade damage to the environment?

Do we want to close our borders to those who werent born Americans? Or do we want to encourage young scholars to come to America, study in our universities, learn our culture and help make more corners of the Earth better off, giving back to us as much as they get along the way?

Do we want to know that what our political leaders tell us is the truth, even when it is unpleasant, or continue to shrug our shoulders at what we are told because everyone knows it is all lies?

Do we want continued outrage and drama and titillation? Or do we seek measured response, competence, fairness and civility?

Read the original post:

McFeatters: What kind of country will America be? - The Columbian

By Todd DeFeoThe Center Squarehttps://www.thecentersquare.com/Staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation have issued a legal notice to state employees, informing them of their right to end union dues deductions.

The notice, which includes sample resignation letters, comes after the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation helped four public employees in Ohio win a settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit challenging a so-called escape period.

Under Ohios previous maintenance of membership policy, an estimated 28,000 state workers in the state could only end union dues deductions during a period that opened roughly once every three years, according to the foundation.

The employees filed suit against Council 11 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Gov. Mike DeWine and Matthew M. Damschroder, director of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

They argued limiting the window to decide to stop paying mandatory union dues was an illegal restriction on their First Amendment right. The United States Supreme Court recognized the right in a 2018 decision, Janus v. AFSCME, and ruled the government can only deduct union dues or fees with a workers affirmative consent.

All State of Ohio public workers must be aware that they cannot be forced into abandoning their First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing an unwanted union hierarchy just to keep their jobs, National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said in a statement.

Any State of Ohio public servant who is falsely told that they must sign a union dues deduction form should contact the Foundation for free legal assistance in defending their Janus rights, he added.

The workers filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. At least 150 people were refunded dues as a result of the settlement.

OCSEA intends to solicit employees to sign new membership and dues deduction cards that purport to restrict when employees can stop the deduction of union dues from their wages, the notice reads.

According to the National Right to Work Foundation, the most recent ruling is the fourth it has settled in the Buckeye State in favor of workers.

In January 2019, the organization won a settlement for seven Ohio public employees who filed a similar federal class-action lawsuit challenging AFSCME Council 8. The foundation subsequently helped two other Ohio public employees end escape period restrictions.

See original here:

National Right to Work informs state workers of their right to end union dues - The Highland County Press

Hyper partisan politics and our divided nation make it easier than ever to vilify anyone, any time in any way. In the words of Michael Corleone, If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.

Used figuratively here, of course, but that is what cancel culture has wrought in todays society.

While cancellation may seek to stifle speech, it causes social and economic destruction as well. It projects permanence and public shame for its targets whether deserved or not. And it promotes a kind of techno tyranny against which we all should be vigilant.

CABOT PHILLIPS: 'CANCEL CULTURE' DISTORTS HISTORY TO PORTRAY US AS EVIL NATION THAT MUST BE TRANSFORMED

Cancel culture is not new. So lets call it what it is: a coeval form of character assassination that has gone way too far. Almost void for vagueness, it describes at the same time the campaigns against Ellen DeGeneres and Nick Cannon, and the crusades against conservative talkers, impolitic professors and lesser-known left-wing opinionators. It even blames a newlywed couple for holding their destination wedding at an historic antebellum plantation. The list is long and growing.

Technology today empowers anyone everyone to become their own media outlet. It has liberated our ability to publish widely and without reserve and has allowed opinionsthemselvesto be bountiful, ubiquitous and cheap.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Given such a surfeit, measuring the value of a voice has been reduced to a simple integer: the number of viewers that can be engaged. Validation does not depend upon principle or prescience and neither vision nor veracity seems to count for much anymore. Its all about the looks and the likes of those who follow.

Consider the litany of celebrities who endorse, promote and recommend products, services and viewpoints via social media. And countless others who aspire to be influencers by being louder, lewder or loftier than anyone else in the Twittersphere or on Facebook.

What trades for value today in the marketplace of ideas is a counterfeit notion of public discourse. But free expression of ideas is the standard currency. Freedom of speech, without threat of government regulation, is a defining feature of American democracy firmly enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

With very few exceptions, government restraint is not what most Americans fear.

We are free to write, speak, protest against or in favor of just about anything or anyone in our society.

Our Constitution, as viewed through decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, permits us to burn the flag, kneel at the national anthem, or call the president anything but a child of God all with the right to bear arms at the same time.

It protects us when we disagree with Supreme Court decisions, a controversial waror legislation that cuts to our very core. Say what you want in America, just dont yell fire in a crowded theater and the First Amendment will protect your speech.

All it takes is access to social media and you, too, can cancel your enemies of choice with impunity.

Indeed, the true power of censorship rests with the people not the government. So we should not be surprised that, today, private actors are empowered to enforce censorship or cancellation over those who express unpopular opinions.

As such, we have come to fear those who trade in hate speech and hanging by hashtag to silence and destroy the lives and livelihoods of others. Whether Left, Right, Black or White it makes no difference. Because all it takes is access to social media and you, too, can cancel your enemies of choice with impunity whether they be caustics, cynics or merely clumsy communicators.

In a bygone era, we watched similar word-of-mouth campaigns conducted under the guise of boycotts and blacklists.Both practices could be sinister assassins of brand and character, indelibly bruising a reputation and good name. Its hard to find anyone that upholds being boycotted as a badge of honor, although being blacklisted might have some cachet in progressive circles, akin to a political purple heart.

We have seen the dispossessed use boycotts as a political and economic spear against status quo and conservative elements who resisted change. Products, eventsand programs were boycotted to publicly convey moral opposition to anything that was not correct.It was one of the few weapons the powerless could wield to make their point effectively, requiring little more than a cause and an object. Think Selma and Montgomery.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., gives a resigned shrug at being unable to get across with one of his "point of order" interruptions, during the Senate Investigation Subcommittee hearing, in Washington, D.C., April 30, 1954. Pvt. G. David Schine was in the witness chair at the time. (AP Photo/WF)

Blacklists, conversely, were among several tools used by the entrenched establishment to arrest the momentum of people with contrary views. Those with power and wherewithal, usually on the Right, could isolate, insulate and shield their vested interests from the progress of others toward equity and inclusion. There were, of course, other ways to disenfranchise dissent. Think Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare.

Today, a number of marquee advertisers have joined boycotts against prominent tech and media outlets. Their decision is a patent rejection of certain content on the one hand, and a latent acceptance of cancellation on the other. Whatever the intent, it comports well within the cancel culture zeitgeist.

If their actions lead to discourse and that discourse leads to new directions, then all should be forgiven. But if the boycotts yield resistance to new ways to communicate then what has been accomplished?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Railing against cancellation, whether from the Left or the Right, is like spilling hot coffee on your dark blue suit.It may burn you up on the inside, but no one cares about it on the outside.

Restraint is the best way to vitiate the vitriol of cancel culture. And like free expression, that is a matter of individual liberty, violently protected by our Constitution.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM ADONIS HOFFMAN

See the article here:

Adonis Hoffman: Cancel culture is techno tyranny it gives everyone the power to do this - Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on these developments in future columns.

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

Read more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

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

By The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS An Indiana man, allegedly angered by the removal of a tree, is charged with a hate crime for attempting to intimidate an African American neighbor because of his race, the U.S. Justice Department announced Thursday.

Shephard Hoehn, 50, became angry when a construction crew began removing a tree from the neighbors property on June 18, according to the Justice Department. Hoehn allegedly burned a cross next to a fence near the neighbors property; displayed a swastika and displayed a large sign containing a variety of anti-Black racial slurs. Hoehn also allegedly threw eggs at the neighbor's home and played the song ``Dixie repeatedly.

Although the First Amendment protects hateful, ignorant and morally repugnant beliefs and speech, it does not protect those who choose to take criminal actions based on those beliefs, said U.S. Attorney Josh Minkler. This office will continue to prosecute federal hate crimes to the fullest extent of the law.

Efforts to reach Hoehn were unsuccessful because a telephone number couldn't be found. It wasnt immediately known if Hoehn had a lawyer to speak on his behalf.

According to the criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Hoehn admitted to actions listed in the court document during interviews with FBI agents. He allegedly said he knew the racial connotations of his actions, that he knew his actions would be disturbing to his neighbor because he is Black, and that he took such actions because he knew they would evoke an emotional response in his neighbor. However, Hoehn asserted he wasn't a racist and he was exercising his First Amendment rights.

Prosecutors say a search of Hoehns Indianapolis home by the FBI turned of firearms and drug paraphernalia and determined he is a fugitive from a case pending in Missouri, prompting unlawful possession of firearms charges against him.

According to court documents, Hoehn pleaded guilty in 1991 to a stealing charge in Dunklin County, Missouri. However, he failed to complete a sentence of three years probation. An arrest warrant for Hoehn was issued in 1993.

Go here to see the original:

Man accused of targeting Black neighbor - The Herald

Should the First Amendment really permit neo-Nazis to come to Williamsport and yell through a bullhorn F*** your n***** mayor? When I heard the words replayed on a Facebook post, I was more livid than if I read it in a magazine or newspaper. I had difficulty sleeping that night to appreciate that psychopaths abusing the First Amendment can be tolerated. Is such conduct speech at all? The devout purpose of the neo-Nazis who came to Williamsport on July 18 was to evoke violence, while carrying their AK-47s, so as to create another Charlottesville situation. We knew they would be armed because it is contained in their e-mails to City Hall revealed as a result of a Right-to-Know request.

Is there any limit to the First Amendment? The neo-Nazis who came to Williamsport were denied a permit and theoretically could have been arrested on the spot. The mayor correctly thought that protection from COVID-19 was more important at this juncture than the right of crazy people to scream unacceptable vulgar epithets at other people.

The neo-Nazis not only created a clear and present danger but violated Pennsylvanias laws on gathering as a militia, something outlawed when the National Guard was created.

All of the legal developments that we are now witnessing presage the question as to how far the First Amendment can go to protect religious and speech rights and whether there are any discernable limits.

The First Amendment has been turned into a sword as well as a shield in modern times. Three recent court opinions, albeit very different in certain respects, demonstrate the vitality that still defines the scope of First Amendment protections. The First Amendment, as most people fully appreciate, generally addresses religion and speech.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School vs. Morrissey-Berru, (July 8, 2020) written by Justice Alito required the court to determine whether the First Amendment permits courts to intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith of the school where they work.

The religious education and formation of students is the reason for the existence of most private religious schools. Some private religious schools are just a form of prep school. However, most religious schools select and supervise teachers who are consistent with the religious mission of the institution. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities, wrote the court, would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.

The same day as Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania, (July 8, 2020). The question in Little Sisters was whether the government created lawful exceptions from a regulatory requirement implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2020 (ACA), 124 Stat. 119. Certain employers are required to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees through group health plans. Although contraceptive coverage is not required or addressed in the Affordable Care Act provision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the government mandated such coverage by promulgating interim final rules shortly after the ACAs passage. This is known as the contraceptive mandate.

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Department lacked statutory authority to promulgate these exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court held this was erroneous. The departments had the authority to provide exceptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements from employers with religious and conscientious objections. The 3rd Circuit was therefore reversed.

Another important First Amendment religious freedom case is Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue, (June 30, 2020), written by Chief Justice Roberts. The Montana Legislature established a program to provide tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools. The program grants a tax credit to anyone who donates to certain organizations that in turn award scholarships to selected students attending such schools. When petitioners sought to use the scholarships at a religious school, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program. The court relied on the no-aid provision of the state constitution, which prohibits any aid to a school controlled by a church, sect, or denomination. The question was whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution barred the application of the no-aid provision.

The provision, said the U.S. Supreme, was said to burden not only religious schools but also families whose children attend or hope to attend them. The court noted that it had previously recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The decision in B.L. vs. Mahanoy Area School District, (June 30, 2020), is a bit more difficult to appreciate. The decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concerned a woman who did not make her high school varsity cheerleading team. In a weekend away from school, the student posted a picture of herself with the caption F*** Cheer to Snapchat. She was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year and sued her school in federal court. The District Court granted summary judgment in B.L.s favor, ruling that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The 3rd Circuit Court agrees and affirmed that the suspension represented a violation of the students First Amendment rights.

The 3rd Circuit Court easily found that the snap fell outside the school context. This is not a case in which the relevant speech took place in a school-sponsored forum, Fraser, 478 U.S. at 677. Nor is this a case in which the school owns or operates an online platform. Instead, B.L. created the snap away from campus, over the weekend, and without school resources, and she shared it on a social media platform unaffiliated with the school. While the snap mentioned the school and reached 16 MAHS students and officials, J.S. and Layshock claim that those few points of contact are not enough. B.L.s snap, therefore, took place off campus.

Most citizens would find it difficult to understand how a student could post vulgarities on social media and not pay any consequence for it.

Cliff Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Go here to read the rest:

Exploring the reaches of the First Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Sign Up Today and Support Local Journalism

Enjoy more articles from Bloomington's Most Trusted Information Source. Subscribers can log in for unlimited digital access

We interrupt this column Dad was 20 and driving near the farm and his we interrupt was Pearl Harbor. For me, it was Kennedy, Challenger and 9/11. This is not nearly at the same level, but I wrote what is below celebrating American freedom over the Fourth of July weekend and yesterday came the splash headlines of the Trump niece tell-all book.

President Donald Trump has recently failed twice to censor unfavorable writings. The 1960s case New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan is almost total protection for those who are critical of public figures. As discussed below, free speech is upfront and unambiguous. However, the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man free speech waits until paragraph 11. It says it is one of the most precious of rights, but then lists exceptions to that freedom. In the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, they get around to free speech in article 10. There are four lines on freedom and about a dozen lines on exceptions to free speech.

Now, on to what I wrote over the weekend. America, I am so proud to say, is the world leader, the beacon-on-the-hill of free speech. On the other side, one finds Cuba, North Korea and China giving them a run for the money for last place. Those governments would assay good social order is more important than irresponsible speech. We will see you dont have to be in Cuba to hear that line.

Review first, James Madison, the first sentence of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no Law abridging the freedom of Speech. The three dots are a hares HARES? on establishment of religion, and my German students went right for it that in 18th century English and modern German, nouns are capitalized. Free speech is not a gift from government, but an inalienable right that Congress dare not tread upon.

Go here to see the original:

Varner: Trials and tests of the First Amendment - Bloomington Pantagraph

Looking for some entertaining summer television viewing?

The last hour of last Tuesdays Loveland City Council meeting was riveting, although also at times, as Councilor John Fogle carefully put it, a fertilizer show.

The council, like the country, is grappling with big issues ethics, racism (ageism and sexism also were mentioned), First Amendment rights, bullying on social media and the general frustration that is boiling over in this time of disease, unemployment, the ramped-up politics of a presidential election year and the fears they are bringing out. And those issues boiled over on public display Tuesday.

The meeting, for those who didnt catch it live, can be viewed online at https://bit.ly/3fFFv6G. Start in the eighth section.

Among the issues discussed were concern over whether Councilor Steve Olson violated the councils ethical standards by making accusations against Councilor Andrea Samson and Mayor Jacki Marsh on social media, concern about the Black Lives Matter movement and a question of whether the City Council should commit to not defund police but to provide them with more money for training and equipment to deal with threats and with financial liability protection for officers.

Samson was criticized by fellow councilors in February for commenting on Facebook they had a head buried in the sand perspective about social media. She recalled that Olson told her then he would never trust her again. She said she learned from that incident but was surprised to see Olson do the very thing he had criticized her for when he posted on social media that she and Marsh do not support police and that they support a Marxist organization and violence because they have attended local rallies supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

Olson flatly refused to apologize to Samson for making those accusations, although at the end of the night he said he would sit down and talk with her if she wanted. I think that would be nice; I appreciate that, she responded.

Samson said earlier in the meeting that she believes the councils role as leaders is to communicate and to have conversations with community members, especially in this time of seemingly increased division.

If the two councilors do have that meeting and truly listen to each other, they will be setting a good example.

In Loveland, which is as Samson pointed out 93% white, people who are not may have a very different experience than those who are. Asking them about their experiences is the first step toward understanding where inequality exists, which could help lead to finding ways to reduce it.

Police also face increasing tensions on the job, even in Loveland where they are under scrutiny after the arrest of a black man on July 13 in the Target parking lot. That case is under review.

The Loveland City Council should bring the matter of police support back in a study session and have a full public review of Olsons requests, finding out from police what they think they need and hearing comment from the public as well.

Watching the council video leads to some reactions:

Will council members be able to find common ground to better serve the community?

Will Samson and Olson listen to each others views?

Will council members besides Marsh and Samson reach out to minority members of the community to learn more about their problems?

Will the Loveland City Council take up the issue of whether to provide Loveland police more funding, training and protection from personal liability?

Tune in again on Tuesday nights.

More here:

Editorial: Tune in to keep an eye on Loveland City Council - Loveland Reporter-Herald

Yes, sir, you are racist.

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

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

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

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

We beg to differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silence is support.

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

Original post:

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

TexasAttorney GeneralKen Paxton slammed New York Attorney General Letitia James for trying to dissolve the National Rifle Associationand welcomedthe organization to his state sayingthat in Texas we care about what thefounders put in the Constitution.

Paxton made the comment Sunday on Fox & Friends Weekend,three days after James announced that her officehas filed a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association and its leadership, including Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

On Sunday Paxton said he is absolutely welcoming the NRA to come to Texas because they have done amazingwork over the years defendingthe Second Amendment.

I can tell you one thinginTexas that we care about,and I think wewill always care about, is Godand guns, he said, explaining that the First Amendment protects freespeech and religious expression and the Second Amendment protects theright of people to own guns.

James accused the NRA of having "a culture of self-dealing," taking millions of dollars for personal use and granting contracts that benefited leaders' family and associates.

NRA LAYS OFF DOZENS OF STAFFERS, CUTS PAY DURING CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC

In addition to asking for the organization to be dissolved, James' office seeks to have LaPierre and general counsel John Frazer removed from their positions, and a declaration from the court saying "that directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the NRAs charitable assets, have perpetuated the corporation solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner[.]"

Host Griff Jenkins saidmany NRA members have wondered foryears why the NRA seated its charter inNew York to begin with to exposeit.

He then asked Paxton, Would they have a betterprotection? Would there besomething to benefit themlegally in Texas?

I think its a littlelate now, but we certainly wouldinvite them to come to Texas toavoid this in the future becauseif they're in New York, it opensthem up to investigation by theattorney general's office in away that I don't think wouldhappen in Texas, soI would encourage them to moveas soon as they can, Paxton said.

Jenkins then asked Paxton if he thinks there is achance that James actually winsthis?

We don'tknow all the facts yet, Paxton said, adding that his problem is with how the situation is being handled, noting that the lawsuit was filed right before an election with a big press conference.

It looksextremely political, Paxton said.

If you want to do thisinvestigation, do it quietly, he said.If youre going to announce something,announce it after the election, but what it looks like and she [James] claimsthey're a terroristorganization this looks like aterrorist operation goingagainst the NRA in trying to makeit political as opposed to alegitimate investigation.

I think it really hurts thecredibility of the New Yorkoffice when theyve done it inthis manner, Paxton said.

NRA President Carolyn Meadows called the lawsuit "a baseless, premeditated attack," claiming it targeted not just the NRA, but the constitutional rights it defends. She also noted the timing of the lawsuit and said it was a transparent attempt to score political points.

"You could have set your watch by it:the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle," Meadows said in a statement. "Its a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda. This has been a power grab by a political opportunist a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta. Our members wont be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.

Meadows added that the NRA"will not shrink from this fight we will confront it and prevail.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

To that end, the NRA countersued James, seeking a court declaration that they are following state not-for-profit law and alleging that The New York Attorney General is targeting the organization for its political positions, violating its free speech rights.

Fox News Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

See more here:

Texas AG on NY AG seeking to dissolve NRA: In Texas we care about what the founders put in the Constitution - Fox News