Is Atheism a religion? – Catholic Online

Atheists often adhere to their views religiously.

Is atheism a religion? This is a question that many Christians ask when confronted with the various beliefs of atheists. It is also a hot topic of debate. Here is one perspective.

Is atheism a religion?

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) -- Atheists are accused of having a religion, of having belief, faith, possessing dogma, and even proselytizing as Christians do.

According to many Christians, the atheist faith is as follows:

The atheist rejects belief in God; they instead adopt a faith-filled confidence in science and materialism. Materialism is the notion that the only thing which exists is the material world. The supernatural does not exist, and cannot be demonstrated to exist by science precisely because it is supernatural; what units would one use to measure a god? Atheists accept as a matter of dogma, that the universe came from nothing, and that the Big Bang Theory, and evolution are facts.

First, let's deal with whether atheism is a religion or not.

A religion has a set of beliefs, dogma, rites and rituals, and often a hierarchy responsible for shepherding believers and maintaining the faith. Atheism does not have these features.

Atheism, in its most basic form, is merely the rejection of the belief that gods exist.

Although atheism is not a religion, it is certainly a belief. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Ask an atheist if they believe God does not exist, and they will say yes. Off is not a television channel and bald is not a hair color, but both are still states of being. As far as saying God does not exist, according to the norms of philosophical debate, the person who makes the claim also bears the burden of proof. No atheist can prove God does not exist, and none ever has. Christians who claim God exists also have the burden of proof. It isn't difficult to prove the existence of God per se, at least using logic, and evidence that Christians accept, but atheists are often steadfast in their demand for scientific evidence. The problem is that the supernatural is impossible to quantify. As a result, atheists have insulated themselves from Christian apologists because no matter what evidence a Christian may offer, it can always be dismissed as "unscientific." An analogy might be a blind person arguing that colors do not exist because they cannot see them and you cannot describe them. How do you describe color to a person who has never seen color?

What about all those other beliefs, such as the universe from nothing, the Big Bang, and evolution? It is generally true that atheists accept these beliefs, but there is no rule requiring it. And there are rare atheists who reject them. Some atheists also claim to believe in other supernatural phenomena such as ghosts. Just because a person does not believe in God does not mean they must believe anything else. Christian apologists should avoid making such a leap in logic.

To convert an atheist is a process and it requires less debate and a lot more love. From the debate perspective, it is logical to conclude God exists because the universe has a cause. That cause is certain to be more powerful than the universe because we have never observed an inferior thing give rise to something superior; to wit, energy does not give rise to a surplus of matter or matter to a surplus of energy. The two trade equally, hence the equation, E=MC2.

Whatever the cause of the universe, it must be greater than the universe we inhabit. We can call that creative force God, the same as we can call it by any other name. By application of Occam's razor, we can assume the creative force is a singular thing. That thing, or God, has clearly arranged the universe in a manner that is conducive to life on Earth. God has given humanity a purpose and instructions, although those instructions are often misunderstood. God has sent prophets and a teacher to us to help us understand those instructions. God has also left us with the Holy Spirit and the Church to guide us. And when we open ourselves to the idea that there is evidence that does not fit into a test tube, then we can finally encounter God on His terms, as it must always be.

The logic above is debatable. There are no clincher arguments that work. If such arguments existed, we would live in a world with no Christians or with no atheists. Millions of people have already covered this debate, and despite a few high-profile conversions on each side, the world continues much as it has since creation. Some people are simply going to believe and others not.

The trick for Christians is to get atheists to open up to the possibility that there is more out there than what can be revealed by a microscope or a telescope. It's like convincing an indigenous native who only knows about drums that radio waves exist and carry music. You must be the radio.

You can accomplish this by avoiding adversarial debate. In a debate, people often strive for their own side, not the truth. Instead, both people should be seeking truth, not victory. As a Christian, you know the truth, there is more out there than mere matter and energy. But unless your rapport with the atheist is warm, it will be difficult for you to convey that message.

Kindness, even in the face of ridicule, is essential. Love and support, even for people who may not deserve it, is always the way to be. The early Christians were persecuted terribly, yet their faith conquered the Roman Empire. They did not win this victory by arguing in the forums. They won by evangelizing, showing kindness at every turn, and sharing the Gospel when the listener was ready.

In conclusion, atheism is not a religion, but it is a belief. The person who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. But the way to win against the atheist is not to debate so much as to love. The way to do this is threefold, perform good works, perform good works, and perform good works. By your actions, the atheist will judge you. People are always attracted to love and kindness. They are repulsed by conflict. You cannot draw a person close by being adversarial. Be the radio that channels God's love for all people, including the atheist, and perhaps they too will hear the sweet music of God's welcoming grace.

---

Pope Francis Prayer Intentions for JUNE 2017 National Leaders. That national leaders may firmly commit themselves to ending the arms trade, which victimizes so many innocent people.

See the article here:

Is Atheism a religion? - Catholic Online

The Hubble Telescope just took pictures of a galaxy twice as massive as the Milky Way – Mic

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has made an new discovery: it found a giant galaxy located 10 billion light-years from Earth. The disk-shaped galaxy, named MACS2129-1, is categorized as a "dead" galaxy since it no longer creates stars scientists believe star formation stopped for the fast-spinning galaxy a few billion years after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

The new galaxy is compact. For reference, it is three times heavier than the Milk Way but only half the size, according to study leader Sune Toft, an astrophysicist at Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. It also rotates a lot faster than the Milky Way.

This artist's concept shows what the young, dead, disk galaxy MACS2129-1, on the right, would look like when compared with the Milky Way galaxy, on the left.

"We were able to establish that the stars in MACS2129-1 rotate in circles around the center of the galaxy at a speed of over 500 km per second, more than twice as fast as stars rotate in the Milky Way, Toft, who published his findings in the June 22 issue of the journal Nature, said in a statement.

What makes this finding so surprising is that it shatters what scientists had previously believed. Until now, it was accepted that there are two types of galaxies: disk-shaped spiral ones and elliptical-shaped ones. The Milky Way is one of the former, which includes active galaxies that are still making new stars, while the latter are dead galaxies.

Galaxy MACS2129-1 is shown in the top box. The middle box is a blown-up view of the gravitationally lensed galaxy. In the bottom box is a reconstructed image of what the galaxy would look like if the galaxy cluster were not present.

With MACS2129-1, things are different since it is a dead, disk-shaped galaxy. This discovery is essential in understanding how galaxies form and evolve.

"This new insight may force us to rethink the whole cosmological context of how galaxies burn out early on and evolve into local elliptical-shaped galaxies," Toft said in a statement to NASA. "Perhaps we have been blind to the fact that early 'dead' galaxies could in fact be disks, simply because we haven't been able to resolve them."

As for what's next, Toft and his team hope to use NASA's James Webb Space Telescope a large infrared telescope slated to launch into space in October 2018 from French Guiana to learn more.

Read the original post:

The Hubble Telescope just took pictures of a galaxy twice as massive as the Milky Way - Mic

NATO’s senior military officer: Russia threat growing on all fronts – POLITICO.eu

General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee | Mariscal/EPA

General Petr Pavel said Russias increasing military presence was clear, even if its intentions were not.

By David M. Herszenhorn

6/26/17, 6:10 PM CET

Updated 6/26/17, 9:54 PM CET

NATOs senior military officer said the alliance was confronting efforts by Russia to increase its military capabilities on virtually every level and allies were on guard to prevent any repeat of the Kremlins military intervention in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Speaking at a POLITICO Brussels Playbook breakfastMonday, General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, said that while Russias intentions were not necessarily clear, its growing military prowess was undeniable.

We in uniform, we define the threat based on two major elements. One is the capability, the other is the intent, Pavel told POLITICOs Ryan Heath. When it comes to capability there is no doubt that Russia is developing their capabilities both in conventional and nuclear components. When it comes to exercises, their ability to deploy troops forlong distance and to use them effectively quite far away from their own territory, there are no doubts.

The Kremlins intentions were less clear, he said. When it comes to intent, its not so clear because we cannot clearly say that Russia has aggressive intents againstNATO, the general said.

Still, he noted Russias increasing military presence, and made reference to reports ofthe stationing of nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad and Crimea.

There are elements that have to worry us and we have to stay ready, Pavel said. So we take this even potential threat very seriously. We do everything possible to be ready both in terms of capabilities and readiness, to face any potential threat that would mirror the situationwe know from Crimea, from eastern Ukraine, not to be repeated against any NATO ally.

He added: We also observe an increased and more assertive attitude in both political and military leadership talking about taking all necessary measures to face NATO military build-up. We face a huge modernization of all Russia military.

In addition to the threat from Russia, Pavel said that NATO was working to increase its efforts on counter-terrorism and that the alliance did not have the luxury of focusing only on threats from state actors.

Officials at NATO viewed strong relations with Turkey as a priority, he said, even as political ties between Ankara and other NATO allies have been deeply strained.

After a failed coup attempt last summer, scores of Turkish NATO officers were purged from the military, with some arrested and others choosing to appeal for asylum in Europe.

Pavel said that NATO allies judged it important to see events in Turkey in context and it was likely Turkey feelsmore threatened than other nations when it comes to internal security.

Turkey is exposed to both major challenges that NATO is now facing, that is on the one hand, a state actor, Russia, on the other hand, non-state actors, extremism, terrorism and migration, he said. All these severely affect Turkey directly.

We see Turkey as an important NATO ally that needs to be supported, he said.

NATO defense ministers are due to meet in Brussels later this week.

Read the original:

NATO's senior military officer: Russia threat growing on all fronts - POLITICO.eu

US, NATO Conclude Saber Strike 17 Exercise – Department of Defense

ADAZI MILITARY BASE, Latvia, June 26, 2017 About 11,000 U.S. and NATO service members from 20 countries concluded the Saber Strike 17 exercise here on June 24.

The exercise took place in various regions in the Baltics and Poland from May 28-June 24.

Saber Strike 17 is a long-standing Joint Chiefs of Staff-directed, U.S. European Command-scheduled, U.S. Army Europe-led cooperative training exercise.

Multinational Exercise

Participating nations in this years exercise included Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the U.S.

This years key training objective was to exercise with NATOs enhanced forward presence battle groups as part of a multinational division, while conducting an integrated, synchronized, deterrence-oriented field training exercise designed to improve the interoperability and readiness of participating nations armed forces.

Less than one year ago, our alliance said we were going to transition from assurance to deterrence, said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of U.S. Army Europe. One of the manifestations of that transition was the creation of the eFP Battlegroups. In less than one year, these battle groups are exercising already in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. That is an amazing accomplishment for our great alliance.

Hodges added, Deterrence means you have to have the capability to compel or defeat a potential adversary. You have to demonstrate that capability and the will to use it, and these exercises are that demonstration.

Key Training Events

Key training events of the exercise included a convoy by Battlegroup Poland, from Orysz, Poland, to southern Lithuania; a maritime prepositioned offload of prestaged supplies and equipment in Latvia; a Marine amphibious assault in Latvia; two combined arms live-fire exercises, one each in Poland and Lithuania; an air assault by the British Royal Marines at the Polish and Lithuanian border; and a river crossing in the same area.

If you would like to have skilled soldiers, you have to train every day, said Latvian Army Chief of Defense Maj. Gen. Leonids Kalnins. If you would like to be safe as a state, you have to find allies; but if you would like to be the winner and create a great future for all countries, for all society, you have to participate in such exercises as this one.

The Saber Strike exercise series facilitates cooperation between the U.S, allied, and partner nations to improve joint operational capability in a variety of missions and prepare participating nations and units for future operations while enhancing the NATO alliance.

During the exercise, U.S. and NATO distinguished visitors attended a demonstration of the joint and combined capabilities of the U.S. and NATO here.

NATO Allies Working Together

One of the visitors was Nancy Bikoff Pettit, U.S. ambassador to Latvia, who spoke about the importance of the exercise.

I think exercises like this send a very strong message, she said. Its not only the U.S. who is interested in security and defense here in the Baltic region, its all of our NATO allies working together.

Bikoff Pettit added, This exercise demonstrates what happens when many NATO allies come together to cooperate and demonstrate the interoperability that we have. We are really pleased with the quality of the exercises.

Saber Strike 17 promotes regional stability and security, while strengthening partner capabilities and fostering trust. The combined training opportunities that it provided greatly improve interoperability among participating NATO allies and key regional partners.

The U.S. is here, Hodges said. Were going to continue to participate in exercises; American soldiers love serving with Latvian soldiers. This is a great place to train, and were excited about doing that for as [long] as I can see.

As the seventh iteration of this exercise, Saber Strike 17 continues to provide a venue for U.S. and NATO military members to train and learn from one another to form a stronger partnership.

Read the original post:

US, NATO Conclude Saber Strike 17 Exercise - Department of Defense

For the Netherlands, NATO Participation Is as Important as Defense Spending – World Politics Review

Author Yiannis Baboulias Michael A. Cohen Patrick Corcoran Robbie Corey-Boulet Iyad Dakka Frederick Deknatel Andrew Futter Frida Ghitis Richard Gowan Andrew Green Judah Grunstein Nikolas Gvosdev Kyle Haddad-Fonda James Hamill Paul Imison Saurav Jha Joshua Kurlantzick Ellen Laipson Christopher Looft Robert Looney Andrew MacDowall Steven Metz Casey Michel Mohsen Milani J. Berkshire Miller Zach Montague Prashanth Parameswaran Karina Piser Christopher Sabatini Andrew Small Alex Thurston Christine Wade Simon A. Waldman Jeremy Youde Region Africa Central Africa East Africa North Africa Southern Africa West Africa Asia-Pacific Afghanistan Australia Central Asia China East Asia India Japan North Korea Southeast Asia South Asia Europe Caucasus Central & Eastern Europe Western Europe Russia Global Polar Regions United Nations The Americas Brazil Caribbean Central America Mexico North America South America United States Middle East & North Africa Gulf States Iran Iraq North Africa Syria Turkey Issue NATO Enters the Trump Era One Belt, One Road Education Trend Lines Podcast A Look at Climate Policy Beyond the U.S. Defense and Security Cyber Crime Insurgencies Intelligence Military Terrorism War and Conflict WMD Diplomacy and Politics Aid and Development Domestic Politics Environment Human Rights Human Security International Law Maritime Issues Radical Movements U.S. Foreign Policy Economics and Business Energy Resources Infrastructure Nuclear Energy Technology Trade

See original here:

For the Netherlands, NATO Participation Is as Important as Defense Spending - World Politics Review

NATO Can Fight Terrorism and Help Refugees – Bloomberg

NATO can help.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has now formally enlisted in the fight against Islamic State. It can begin by helping to stem the flow of refugees trying to reach Europe from North Africa.

This would be more than a humanitarian exercise; it would be a counterterrorism operation. Wherever refugees gather in hopelessness, violent extremists have a fertile recruiting ground. And the number of refugees is staggering.

Nearly 200,000 people fleeing violence and poverty tried to cross the Mediterranean last year, and at least 5,000 died in the attempt. The U.N. estimates that there are more than half a million refugees, asylum seekers and displaced people in Libya alone. Neither the fractured Libyan government nor the European Union can cope with the numbers, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in makeshift refugee camps -- some of which are controlled by human traffickers and resemble concentration camps, according to a German government report.

Those who make it across the Mediterranean dont fare much better. Most end up in overcrowded camps in Italy where social services are lacking and applications for asylum languish. Those intercepted in Libyan waters are sent back. Sometimes the traffickers dump their human cargo in the sea to avoid capture.

So what can NATO do? With more than 700ships at its disposal, a lot.

For starters, it can build on Italian-led Operation Sophia, which has saved thousands of lives but is woefully inadequate to the task. NATOs sophisticated surveillance capabilities, such as long-range patrol airplanes and satellite imagery, can monitor ports in Africa and the Middle East and aid in search-and-rescue efforts. NATO can also help the EUs efforts to professionalize the Libyan coast guard.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

The alliance can foster far more naval cooperation and intelligence sharing among its members, and with intergovernmental entities like Interpol. This should also involve another underutilized asset: private shipping companies, which are obligated to respond to other vessels in distress.NATO could also encourage member states build more camps on Mediterranean islands and could aid with construction, perimeter security, health care and the like.

NATO patrols in the Mediterranean could also provide a more direct benefit in the fight against terrorists: stemming the flow of arms from the Middle East to Islamist terrorists in North Africa. Islamic State already has a foothold in Libya and is trying to expand into Tunisia.

Two years ago, the civil war in Syria caused the exodus of millions, which set off a political crisis from Greece to the U.K. and created a lasting rift between Turkey and its NATO allies. That time, the alliance watched from the sidelines. Now, as fighting intensifies and conditions deteriorate in Syria, NATO cant afford to make the same mistake.

--Editors: Tobin Harshaw, Michael Newman.

To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg Views editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net .

View post:

NATO Can Fight Terrorism and Help Refugees - Bloomberg

Ex-Israeli NSA chief: Foundation of civilization is under attack – The Jerusalem Post

Illustrative image of cyber counter-terrorism. (photo credit:INGIMAGE PHOTOS)

The foundation of civilization is under cyber attack, said the former commander of Israel's elite intelligence Unit 8200 Nadav Zafir on Monday.

Zafir claimed that the electoral process can be tampered with by unlawful cyber activity and damage infrastructure, putting democratic civilizations at risk.

Zafir, headed what is considered to be the Israeli NSA between 2009 - 2013, made the comments during Cyber Week at Tel Aviv University.

The current chief of the Shin Bet, Nadav Argaman, is scheduled to give a rare talk on Tuesday that will present the audience with some of the means the Israeli security services use to tackle threats from individual hackers. This would be the first time such details will be openly presented to the public.

Today marks the second day of the conference, a unique event that address the challenges of security and privacy, for governments as well as private people, as the Internet becomes ever more present in global communication, finance, and entertainment.

The former chief of the USNational Security Agency (NSA) Keith Alexander also addressed the summit, telling the audience that he recently met with USPresident Donald Trump and that, despite what you hear in the press, the president understands fully existential cyber threats.

Speakers include Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism official Thomas Bossert, who serves as assistant to Trump. Current director of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) Nadav Argaman, Check Point CEO Gil Shwed and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani are also in the lineup.

Other speakers include chief information security officer of the Indian Axis bank Ashutosh Jain and Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems. Events include an international war game simulation, a panel on the role of cyber in aviation, and even a cocktail party.

In recent years Israel became a celebrated global leader in the realm of cyber security, hi-tech, and technological innovation. Leading many to label Israel as a "Hi-Tech Nation".

This is the sixth year in which Cyber Week had taken place. This year's event will include round table discussions discussing Israeli - French, India-Israel, and UK - Israel innovation and regulation in regard to cyber security.

Those visiting the conference will be greeted by a huge six meters (19.5 feet) sculpture of a Trojan horse created from molten bits of smartphones, keyboards, and television screens that have been made useless due to a virus attack or remote hacking. The piece, which weighs two tons, was designed by Israeli advertising executive Gideon Amichay for the 2016 conference and became an iconic piece at campus.

Share on facebook

Read more from the original source:

Ex-Israeli NSA chief: Foundation of civilization is under attack - The Jerusalem Post

Posted in NSA

EXCLUSIVE Whistleblower: ‘Most Probable’ That NSA Has Recordings of Trump Phone Calls with James Comey – Breitbart News

It is very likely, in fact, most probable that NSA does have those tapes, stated Binney.

Binney continued: I think you already have examples of it where you had conversations that President Trump had with the president of Mexico and also with Australia. All of those have been leaked. Also phone calls involving [former National Security Advisor Michael] Flynn and so on and the White House.

And the point is here, you see, I dont know of any time that the president makes a phone call that is not encrypted. So that means that the people who are intercepting the president have to be able to decrypt it. And the people who provide the encryption and the keys to the systems to be used are NSA, he added.

Binney was speaking Sunday night on this reporters talk radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, broadcast on New Yorks AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphias NewsTalk 990 AM.

Binney was an architect of the NSAs surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001 after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He has remained a sought-after expert on NSA surveillance.

Binney was responding to a series of tweets from the U.S. president last week in which Trump wrote that he did not make and does not have recordings of his conversations with Comey.

However, Trump allowed that with all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are tapes or recordings of my conversations with James Comey.

On May 12, after Comey had been fired and there was speculation he was behind leaks to the news media, Trump had ominously issued the following warning on Twitter:

In remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, Comey described three in-person private conversations with Trump one in January at Trump Tower before the inauguration and two more in the White House after Trump became president and two phone calls between the two.

NSA Absolutely Tapping Trumps Calls

Asked pointedly whether he believes the NSA is bugging the Oval Office, Binney replied, Absolutely.

In February on this reporters radio program, Binney made national headlines when he alleged the NSA was tapping Trumps Oval Office phone calls.

Binney further contended at the time that the NSA may have been behind a data leak that revealed Michael Flynn allegedly misled Vice-President Mike Pence and other Trump administration officials about the contents of his phone calls with Russias ambassador to Washington.

During the interview on Sunday, Binney addressed alleged illicit NSA domestic surveillance that he says is documented in NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdens slides on the agencys Fairview program, which is supposed to focus on the collection of data from foreign countries citizens utilizing switching stations located inside the U.S.

Binney stated:

The slides showing the tap points across the United States where the targets really are the U.S. population and not the foreigners. If they wanted the foreigners all they would have to do is tap the surfacing points for the transoceanic cables. That would be along the coast. You wouldnt need to tap points distributed with the populations of the company. So that is the main program they are using to collect all this data on the fiber networks.

Binney further stated the NSA could remotely turn on cell phone mics to record offline conversations.

Aaron Klein is Breitbarts Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him onFacebook.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See original here:

EXCLUSIVE Whistleblower: 'Most Probable' That NSA Has Recordings of Trump Phone Calls with James Comey - Breitbart News

Posted in NSA

Supreme Court, Wisconsin hit property rights – Washington Times


Washington Times
Supreme Court, Wisconsin hit property rights
Washington Times
Recently, the committee of nine unelected lawyers known as the Supreme Court gutted the Fifth Amendment. The case was called Murr v. Wisconsin. In the Murr case, a family in Wisconsin owned two lots. On one, they built a nice cabin and the other they ...
Did the Supreme Court Tip Its Hand on How It Will Rule on the Travel Ban?Just Security
Last day of Supreme Court decisions features religion, immigration casesConstitution Daily (blog)
A new front in the legal fight over Donald Trump's travel banThe Economist (blog)

all 1,387 news articles »

Visit link:

Supreme Court, Wisconsin hit property rights - Washington Times

Justices Say Fifth Circuit Must Decide Cross-Border Shooting Case – Courthouse News Service

(CN) A divided Supreme Court on Monday said the Fifth Circuit must ultimately decide whether the family of a Mexican teen shot dead by a U.S. border agent can sue the agent for damages.

The courts per curiam opinion vacates a previous ruling by an en banc Fifth Circuit and sends the case back to it for further proceedings.

The case stems from a shooting that occurred on June 7, 2010. Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, was with a group of friends in the cement culvert that separateEl Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

As recounted in the majority opinion, Hernandez and his friends were playing a game in which they ran up the embankment on the United States side, touched the fence, and then ran back down.

Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., arrived on the scene by bicycle and detained one of Hernandezs friends on the U.S. side of the embankment.Hernandez ran across the culvert and stood by a pillar on the Mexican side. Mesa fired two shots across the border, one of which struck Hernandez in the face, killing him.

The Justice Department investigated the incident and declined to bring federal civil rights charges against Mesa, finding there was insufficient evidence that Mesa acted willfully and with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids.

It also held that because Hernandez was not on U.S. soil when he was shot, the department had no jurisdiction to bring charges against the agent.

Hernandezs parents sued Mesa for damages, claiming that he violated their sons rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. They also said at the time of his death, their son was unarmed and in no way posed a threat to the officer.

A federal judge in the Western District of Texas granted Mesas motion to dismiss. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit later affirmed that ruling in part and reversed it in part.

It held Hernandez lacked any Fourth Amendment rights under the circumstances, but that the shooting violated his Fifth Amendment rights. On rehearing en banc, the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district courts dismissal of the familys claims against the officer.

The en banc court held that the family failed to state a claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment because Hernanadez was a Mexican citizen who had no significant voluntary connection to the United States and was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot.

In regard to the familys Fifth Amendment claim, theen banc court said it wassomewhat divided on the question of whether Agent Mesas conduct violated the Fifth Amendment, but was unanimous in concluding that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity.

In their petition for a writ of certiorari, the family asked the Supreme Court to determine whether they could assert claims for damages underBivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, in which the high court recognized for the first time an implied right of action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizens constitutional rights.

They also asked the justices to determine whether the shooting violated their sons Fourth Amendment rights, and whether Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that the shooting violated Hernandezs Fifth Amendment rights.

In sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit, the majority noted that a Bivens remedy is not available when there are special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, and that it recently clarified what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation in the case Ziglar v. Abbasi.

The Court of Appeals here, of course, has not had the opportunity to consider how the reasoning and analysis in Abbasi may bear on this case. And the parties have not had the opportunity to brief and argue its significance. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court of Appeals, rather than this Court, to address the Bivensquestion in the first instance, the opinion says.

With respect to petitioners Fourth Amendment claim, the en banc Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address the Bivens question because it concluded that Hernandez lacked any Fourth Amendment rights under the circumstances, the opinion continues. This approach disposing of a Bivensclaim by resolving the constitutional question, while assuming the existence of a Bivens remedy is appropriate in many cases. This Court has taken that approach on occasion. The Fourth Amendment question in this case, however, is sensitive and may have consequences that are far-reaching.

It would be imprudent for this Court to resolve that issue when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case, the majority of justices say.

With respect to petitioners Fifth Amendment claim, the en banc Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address the Bivens question because it held that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity. In reaching that conclusion, the en banc Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Hernandez was an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to the United States.

It is undisputed, however, that Hernndezs nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to Mesa at the time of the shooting. The en banc Court of Appeals therefore erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts, the opinion says.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the facts of the case differ considerably from those at issue in Bivens and its progeny, most notably this case involves cross-border conduct , and those case did not. Thomas says he would decline to extend Bivens under the circumstances and would affirm the en banc Fifth Circuit decision on that basis.

In a separate dissent, which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Stephen Breyer says that when Mesa shot Hernandez from across the culvert, he did not know whether Hernandez was a U.S. citizen or a Mexican citizen. Further, he says, the agent has never asserted he knew on which side of the boundary his bullet would fall.

Breyer goes on to say that while the culvert is thought of as being the boundary line between the two countries, technically, because there are fences on either side of it, it may actually be thought of as no more than a border-related area and that the boundary is in essence an invisible line of which none of them is aware.

In light of these considerations and others, Breyer says there is more than enough reason for treating the entire culvert as having sufficient involvement with, and connection to, the United States to subject the culvert to Fourth Amendment protections.

I would consequently conclude that the Fourth Amendment applies, Breyer says.

Finally, I note that neither court below reached the question whether Bivens applies to this case, likely because Mesa did not move to dismiss on that basis. I would decide the Fourth Amendment question before us and remand the case for consideration of the Bivens and qualified immunity questions, he adds.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:

Justices Say Fifth Circuit Must Decide Cross-Border Shooting Case - Courthouse News Service

Case of teen shot on Mexican side of border by US agent is returned to federal appeals court – ABA Journal

U.S. Supreme Court

Posted Jun 26, 2017 09:45 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock

The U.S. Supreme Court has returned to a federal appeals court a case that claims constitutional protections for a Mexican teen shot and killed by a U.S. border patrol agent.

The teen was on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot by the agent, who was standing on U.S. soil. In a per curiam opinion (PDF), the Supreme Court returned the case to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case was filed by the family of Sergio Hernandez, who was 15 when he was shot and killed in June 2010.

The U.S. Border Patrol had said Hernandez was throwing rocks to distract agents from an immigrant smuggling operation. The familys lawyer said he was playing a game with friends in which they dared each other to run up a culvert incline, touch the border fence, then run back to the bottom of the culvert.

The Supreme Court said the 5th Circuit should reconsider the case based on a decision issued last week by the high court.

The facts alleged in the complaint depict a disturbing incident resulting in a heartbreaking loss of life, the Supreme Court said. Whether petitioners may recover damages for that loss in this suit depends on questions that are best answered by the Court of Appeals in the first instance.

The en banc 5th Circuit had found no violation of Hernandezs Fourth Amendment rights, and had said the border agent was entitled to qualified immunity on a Fifth Amendment claim. Because the court resolved the case on constitutional grounds, it did not decide whether Hernandezs family could sue for a tort violation using a so-called Bivens remedy, named for the case that found an implied right of action to sue federal officials who violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court said the 5th Circuit should evaluate the Bivens question based on its June 19 decision finding that immigrants detained after the Sept. 11 attacks had no implied right of action to sue for alleged constitutional violations.

A decision in Hernandez on the Bivens claim could avoid the need to rule on the Fourth Amendment issue, which is sensitive and may have consequences that are far reaching, the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court said the 5th Circuit should not have granted qualified immunity, however, because it based its decision on a determination that Hernandez was an alien with no voluntary ties to the United States. Those facts werent known to the border agent at the time of the shooting. Facts an officer learns after the incident endswhether those facts would support granting immunity or denying itare not relevant, the Supreme Court said.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch did not take part in the opinion.

The case is Hernandez v. Mesa.

Related articles:

ABAJournal.com: Court to decide whether Constitution grants protections to Mexican boy killed by US border guard

ABAJournal.com: Supreme Court to consider suit over border agents shooting of teen on Mexican side of the border

Visit link:

Case of teen shot on Mexican side of border by US agent is returned to federal appeals court - ABA Journal

Mishandle a Fraud Search, and All That Fine Evidence Could Be for Nothing – New York Times

When an investigation involves potential fraud, almost any document or record could be related to it. Prosecutors often need to show that transactions that appear to be legal were misleading or deceptive, which might not be apparent on the face of the documents. So the description in the warrant of what the government can seize in a white-collar case is usually quite broad, covering general categories of records and computer files created over a substantial period of time, but cannot be so vague that almost anything could be seized.

The government obtained warrants to search Mr. Weys company, New York Global Group, and his New York City apartment for evidence that he used other companies and investors as part of a plan to manipulate the shares of companies used for mergers with China-based businesses. The warrants listed 12 categories of documents that related to transactions with 220 individuals and companies, including the seizure of computers and other electronic devices that might contain records related to them.

The key to any warrant that covers so much material is to properly identify the specific crimes that were committed so that there is some limitation on what types of records can be seized. It was on this point that Judge Nathan found the warrant in Mr. Weys case had failed.

The primary flaw was that while the affidavit submitted by an F.B.I. agent to a magistrate judge gave a reasonable description of the crimes under investigation, that document was not incorporated in the warrant, or even attached to it, to establish the parameters for the search.

Because there were no apparent limits to what could be seized, the agents executing the warrants seemed to take just about everything they could get their hands on. In particular, Judge Nathan was troubled that agents took personal items with no apparent connection to the investigation, like X-rays of family members, childrens sports schedules, divorce papers, passports and family photographs.

In finding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, the judge pointed out that failure to reference the suspected crimes would alone be enough to render the warrants insufficiently particularized.

The importance of including the crimes under investigation was highlighted in another recent case, involving the appeal of Ross W. Ulbricht, who once operated under the moniker Dread Pirate Roberts. He was sentenced to life in prison for helping set up and operate Silk Road, an anonymous online marketplace used to sell drugs and broker other illegal services. Crucial evidence came from his laptop, which was searched shortly after his arrest in a public library in San Francisco in 2013.

The warrant allowed agents to open every file to view the first few pages of a document, and search terms could be used to scan the laptops entire memory. In upholding the search, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan pointed out that files and documents can easily be given misleading or coded names, and words that might be expected to occur in pertinent documents can be encrypted; even very simple codes can defeat a preplanned word search.

While the description of what could be searched on Mr. Ulbrichts laptop was broad, it was permissible under the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment because the affidavit outlining the crimes under investigation was incorporated into the warrant, providing the necessary limitations on what could be viewed. Although that meant a very intrusive search that could include many personal documents, the appeals court found that such an invasion of a criminal defendants privacy is inevitable, however, in almost any warranted search.

Why did the government fail to meet this seemingly simple requirement of incorporating the description of the crimes under investigation in the warrant to search Mr. Weys office and apartment? There is no good explanation for that mistake, which led Judge Nathan to conclude that the warrants are in function if not in form general warrants, the death knell for any search.

One way the government could have seized virtually everything from Mr. Weys business and home would have been to offer evidence in the warrant application that his operation was completely fraudulent. Courts recognize that if a company is thoroughly permeated by fraud, such as a boiler-room operation or a bogus prescription drug dispensary, then any records connected to it would constitute evidence.

Although prosecutors made this argument to defend the seizure from Mr. Wey, they could not overcome two hurdles. First, this type of warrant is usually limited to a business rather than a home, at least unless there is substantial evidence that the home was really just an extension of the illegal operation. There was nothing in the warrant application involving Mr. Weys apartment that would indicate its primary use for that purpose, even though his wife assisted his advisory business from there.

Second, Judge Nathan found that the government did not set forth any evidence, explicit or implicit, that the scheme either constituted just the tip of iceberg with respect to fraudulent activity at Mr. Weys operation, or that the claimed fraudulent activity infused the entire business.

Perhaps the ultimate fallback in any case involving a flawed search warrant is the claim that the agents acted in good faith. The exclusionary rule is designed to deter governmental misconduct, and the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Peltier that where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.

That exception does not apply when a warrant is so clearly flawed that no reasonable agent would rely on it. Judge Nathan found that the warrants did not have any meaningful linkage to the suspected criminal conduct and limited only, at the outer boundaries, to some relationship to the owner/occupant of the premises being searched. Therefore, a claim of good faith to salvage the fruits of an otherwise unlawful search could not be supported, so the exclusionary rule required suppression of all the evidence seized.

I expect that the Justice Department will challenge the decision because the suppressed evidence is at the heart of the case against Mr. Wey. Although a defendant cannot appeal a denial of a suppression motion until after a conviction, the Criminal Appeals Act authorizes prosecutors to seek review of a decision granting such a motion so long as the United States attorney certifies that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and the material would be substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.

Judge Nathans decision sends a clear message to agents and prosecutors in white-collar-crime investigations to tread carefully when using a search warrant to gather evidence. Although a treasure trove of materials can be obtained this way, failing to pay attention to the details of properly writing and executing a warrant can have devastating consequences for a case.

Go here to read the rest:

Mishandle a Fraud Search, and All That Fine Evidence Could Be for Nothing - New York Times

Opinion analysis: Court sends cross-border shooting lawsuit back to lower court – SCOTUSblog (blog)

Posted Mon, June 26th, 2017 4:23 pm by Amy Howe

It has been a little over seven years since 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez was shot by Jesus Mesa, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, while Hernandez was standing on the Mexican side of the border. Hernandezs family filed a lawsuit against Mesa, arguing that (among other things) the shooting violated Hernandezs right under the Fourth Amendment to be protected against excessive deadly force. Both Mesa and the U.S. government urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts rulings dismissing the familys lawsuit, but their case survived at least for now. Acknowledging that the facts outlined in the familys lawsuit depict a disturbing incident resulting in a heartbreaking loss of life, the justices sent the case back to the lower court for it to take another look.

View of the courtroom on the last day of opinions (Art Lien)

The Hernandez family had asked the justices to weigh in on two questions: whether the Fourth Amendments bar on excessive deadly force applies outside the United States and how courts should make that determination; and whether, even if Hernandez was protected by the Fifth Amendments guarantee that his life would not be taken without proper judicial proceedings, Mesa is immune from suit. But the justices asked the two sides to brief another question: whether the Hernandez family can rely on the Supreme Courts 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, holding that a plaintiff can bring a private federal case for damages against federal officials who allegedly violated his constitutional rights, at all.

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court emphasized today that the lower court had not given any consideration to the Bivens question. The justices noted that plaintiffs cannot rely on Bivens when there are special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress. And in another decision last week, the court continued, it indicated that the focus of that inquiry should be whether courts are well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. Therefore, the court concluded, the case should go back to the lower court for it to consider what effect that ruling might have on the Bivens question in this case. Doing so, the court indicated, might eliminate any need for the court of appeals to decide whether Hernandez was protected by the Fourth Amendment which, the court seemed to suggest, could be preferable to deciding the sensitive and potentially far reaching Fourth Amendment question.

The court disagreed with the lower courts conclusion that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity from the familys Fifth Amendment claim. That conclusion, the court explained, rested on the fact that Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen and did not have any connection to the United States. But that fact isnt relevant to whether Mesa can be immune from a lawsuit, the court countered, because Mesa only learned after the shooting that Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen. Here too, the court stressed, the lower court had not addressed whether the familys claim could even proceed under Bivens; it will now consider that question, as well as a series of other arguments about qualified immunity, on remand.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to indicate that, in his view, the Hernandez family could not rely on Bivens at all. This case, he contended, arises in circumstances that are meaningfully different from those at issue in Bivens and its progeny in particular, conduct that occurs across an international border. He would not have sent the case back to the lower court; instead, he would have put a halt to it altogether.

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In his view, Hernandez was protected by the Fourth Amendment when he was shot. Even if he was on the Mexican side of the border, Breyer reasoned, his location should not, standing alone, be dispositive. This is particularly true, Breyer continued, when you consider several factors. For example, Mesa who shot Hernandez is a federal law-enforcement officer, and the culvert where Hernandez was shot is in fact a special border-related area run by an international commission to which the United States contributes tens of millions of dollars each year. Moreover, a finding that Hernandez was not protected by the Fourth Amendment would create an anomalous result: Mesa could be held liable for shooting Hernandez if Hernandez was on the U.S. side of the imaginary mathematical borderline running through the culverts middle, but not if Hernandez was just a few feet on the other side of that line, even if everything else about the case, including Mesas behavior, remained the same. When all of these things are considered together, Breyer concluded, there is more than enough reason for treating the entire culvert as having sufficient involvement with, and connection to, the United States to subject the culvert to Fourth Amendment protections. He would therefore decide the Fourth Amendment question in favor of Hernandez and send the case back to the lower court for it to decide the Bivens and qualified immunity questions.

Posted in Hernndez v. Mesa, Analysis, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Court sends cross-border shooting lawsuit back to lower court, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2017, 4:23 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/opinion-analysis-court-sends-cross-border-shooting-lawsuit-back-lower-court/

Follow this link:

Opinion analysis: Court sends cross-border shooting lawsuit back to lower court - SCOTUSblog (blog)

Motion to suppress evidence filed in Krone theft case – Cody Enterprise

Last month, attorneys for former Park County prosecutor Sam Krone filed a motion to suppress bank record evidence they say was obtained on flimsy grounds, violating Krones Fourth Amendment rights.

If the suppression motion succeeds, the States most damaging evidence against Krone may never see the inside of a courtroom. Pinedale District Judge Marvin Tyler, overseeing the case due to Krones previous relationships with much of Park Countys legal community, will rule on the filing at a July 11 hearing.

Since last July, Krone has been fighting three felony and four misdemeanor counts of theft from the Park County Bar Association. The charges stem from 2010 to 2013, when Krone was treasurer of the organization and prosecutors say over $9,600 went missing from the groups bank accounts.

It was another incident in a trying period for Krone. In March 2016, he was fired from his job as Park County deputy prosecutor. In August of that same year, the incumbent lost, by a more than 2-to-1 margin, his primary bid to represent Wyoming House District 24.

In a May 18 filing on the theft case, Krones attorneys argue that Lander District Court Judge Norman Young did not have sufficient evidence to issue the search warrant that revealed many of the Bar Associations financial irregularities.

Young issued the warrant after Park County Bar Association President Andrea Earhart voiced suspicions about Krones management of Bar Association funds. She eventually got a bank ledger showing less than $100 in one of the groups accounts, and she passed that information along to Wyomings Division of Criminal Investigation.

Earhart said Krone had told her the account had $2,000 to $3,000 in it, and that Krone didnt respond to her request for a treasurers report from him.

At the end of April 2016, Judge Young used that information as the basis for a warrant allowing agents for DCI to search multiple accounts managed by the Bar Association. Those records revealed a number of questionable transactions, which Krone has described as reimbursements for Bar Association expenses.

Krones suppression filing argues that Young didnt have enough evidence to justify searching three of the Bar Associations accounts and that evidence should therefore be excluded. The filing also contends Young couldnt prove that Krone held a position of authority with those accounts, and without proving that authority existed, the rationale for searching them couldnt stand up.

The Wyoming Attorney Generals Office, prosecuting the case in place of Park County prosecutors because of Krones previous job, argue otherwise.

Phillip Donoho of the Attorney Generals office contends bank records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protections. Furthermore, since the accounts belonged to the Bar Association instead of Krone personally, Krone lacks standing to object to their being searched.

Filings also indicate Donoho and his team are seeking to introduce evidence that Krone borrowed money from a number of friends during the period in question. And Krones campaign finance records may also be introduced.

Continue reading here:

Motion to suppress evidence filed in Krone theft case - Cody Enterprise

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Thomas Phippen

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when theCourt declined to hear a case challenging Californias handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his countys refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous, Thomaswroteafter most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it, Thomassaid.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Courts newest member, joined Thomas statement on the courts refusal to hear the case, calling the decision by the 9th circuit onPeruta v. San Diegoindefensible.

A case needs to be approved by at least four justices in order to get on the Supreme Courts docket.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

The San Diego County Sheriffs department has very narrow restrictions for concealed carry permits. Only those who can prove they have a regular need for self-defense against a specific threat are granted concealed permits.

The whole point of the Sheriffs policy is to confine concealed-carry licenses to a very narrow subset of law-abiding residents, Perutas attorneys wrote. And because California law prohibits openly carrying a handgun outside the home, the result is that the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.

Clarence ThomasEdward PerutaNeil GorsuchPeruta v. San DiegoSecond AmendmentSupreme Court

See more here:

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment - The Libertarian Republic

‘For those of us who work in marbled halls the Second Amendment might seem antiquated’ – Washington Post

From Mondays opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch), dissenting from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California:

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

Agree with it or disagree, but it strikes me as a powerful articulation of its position. (The Court declined to hear the case, and thus left open the question whether the Second Amendment secures a right of law-abiding adults to carry guns outside the home a subject on which lower courts continue to be split; Thomas and Gorsuch were urging the court to hear the case.)

See the rest here:

'For those of us who work in marbled halls the Second Amendment might seem antiquated' - Washington Post

Supreme Court Refuses Case Challenging Second Amendment Rights – TheStreet.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take a case which argued that the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

The justices turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who argued that most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay area are wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

The refusal to hear the case upholds a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the "Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court's action "reflects a distressing trend" in the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also dissented.

Shares of major gun firms including American Outdoor Brands ( AOBC) andSturm Ruger & Company ( RGR) were falling over 1% during mid-morning trading on Monday.

What's Hot On TheStreet

Unusual to hear these words: Under Armour's (UAA) founder Kevin Plank has never been one to sound weak in a public setting. Plank is known for his motivational speeches to employees and desire to crush all competition. So, it was odd to hear Plank say rival Nike (NKE) "isn't playing fair" on the Today Show on Sunday -- it sounded like a CEO who after several below plan quarters is finally realizing how challenging it will be to dethrone Nike.

More:

Supreme Court Refuses Case Challenging Second Amendment Rights - TheStreet.com

The First Amendment: A bill to protect RI student journalists – The Providence Journal

Rhode Island's General Assembly has the chance to become the 13th state to pass a law protecting the rights of student journalists.

Earlier this year, student journalists at a Kansas high school decided to write a profile about their newly hired principal. As they researched the principals background, they began unearthing questions about her educational credentials.

For example, the young reporters found that she had received master's and doctoral degrees from a school, Corllins University, that was not currently accredited and that had been portrayed in articles as a "diploma mill." Four days after article ran in The Booster Redux, the principal resigned.

That story ended up earning the students widespread praise and national news coverage. But that story probably would never have seen the light of day if Kansas hadn't had a student press-freedom law on the books, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, based in Washington, D.C. They had the courage to go forward because the law protected their backs, he said.

In May, Vermont became the 11th state to pass a student press-freedom law. In early June, Nevada became the 12th state to enact such a law. And now, as the General Assembly nears the end of this years legislative session, Rhode Island has the chance to become the 13th state to pass a law protecting the rights of student journalists.

State Sen. Gayle L. Goldin, D-Providence, said the Booster Redux scoop bolsters the case for her bill, the Student Journalists Freedom of Expression Act (Senate Bill 0600). What it shows you is the value of having the freedom for students to do that kind of investigative journalism, she said. They were able to bring accountability to their school and to the whole school system, and on top of that, it was an incredible educational experience for them.

State Rep. Jeremiah T. OGrady, D-Lincoln, has introduced a similar bill (House Bill 5550), which extends protection to college journalists as well as the high school journalists protected by Goldins bill.

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said, "Student journalism is perhaps the greatest civics lesson we can teach in our schools. By allowing students to write about whats important to them, we are sending the message that what they say matters and needs to be heard. This is empowering not just for them but for the entire community that needs to know what is happening in our schools and to have the opportunity to do something about it. These student journalists arent just our future watchdogs. They are our eyes and ears right now.

LoMonte had a simple message for Rhode Island officials: I would tell them that journalism is not a problem for schools its a solution.

With the advent of social media, it is futile for schools to try to stop students from learning about and having conversations about controversial topics, LoMonte said. You cant hold back the flood of information," he said. "Its much better to manage it in a journalistically responsible way. I always tell people its their choice: The discussion of controversies will take place either in a supervised, accountable newsroom or on social media. But its definitely going to take place.

LoMonte said he has heard of no organized opposition to the legislation in Rhode Island. The only thing is hallway chatter that high school students are too young to be trusted with press freedom," he said. "My answer to that is: Read the bill. Its filled with safeguards.

For example, the Rhode Island legislation would not authorize or protect expression by a student that is libelous or slanderous or that incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of an unlawful act or the violation of school district policy.

But the legislation would protect student journalists, and their advisers, from retaliation and censorship when articles address controversial topics.

Mike Donoghue, executive director of the Vermont Press Association and first vice president of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said Vermont legislators heard from student journalists about pushback they received from school officials when writing about controversies such as an impasse in teacher negotiations, sexting cases involving students and a bond item to repair schools. Such issues are reported by other media and theyre discussed by students in other settings, so students should be free to report on them, he said.

In its 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a public high school in St. Louis, Mo., to censor student newspaper stories about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children. States such as Massachusetts reacted to the Hazelwood ruling by passing press-freedom acts, and now a second wave of anti-Hazelwood bills are moving forward.

To help in the effort, Donoghue said he and LoMonte tried to get Vermont-based Ben & Jerrys to create a new flavor of ice cream called Hazelwood is Nuts. But Rhode Island shouldnt wait for Ben & Jerry; it should provide student journalists with protection so they can get their own scoops.

Edward Fitzpatrick is a former Providence Journal columnist,a board member of the New England First Amendment Coalition and director of media and public relations for Roger Williams University. His First Amendment column will appear monthly in The Journal. This piece first appeared on the university's First Amendment blog at rwu.edu/about/blogs/first-amendment-blog.

Read more here:

The First Amendment: A bill to protect RI student journalists - The Providence Journal

ICE Violates First Amendment Rights of 60 Faith Leaders and Attorneys – HuffPost

To commemorate World Refugee Day (Tuesday, June 20th), Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) and over 60 faith leaders and attorneys made a pilgrimage to the Adelanto Detention Facility from Los Angeles to visit with our friends and clients, many of whom had been on a hunger strike the week prior. ICE and GEO Group denied all our visits. In response to a peaceful 5-minute interfaith prayer outside the facility, ICE and GEO Group then put the entire facility on lockdown.

Attorneys and family members who were not part of the pilgrimage and who had already been granted entrance to the facility were expelled from the facility by ICE and GEO Group in response to our prayer. This included young children clinging to their toys. They had driven for hours to visits their parents.

This comes just days after ICE and GEO Group admitted to violating the First Amendment rights of 9 men detained at Adelanto who were brutally assaulted and attacked with pepper spray. The 9 men, who were later joined by 33 women, went on hunger strike at Adelanto to protest substandard medical care, unjustly high immigration bonds, lack of basic respect, and lack of opportunities to connect with family.

When we see abuse in detention, it is our moral obligation to speak up and stand in solidarity with our friends in detention. By denying us access after a peaceful and short prayer, ICE has tried to make us choose between our First Amendment rights and visiting our friends and clients in immigration detention. This is not a choice our government can legally ask us to make.

As an attorney in California, I also was denied visits with 14 of my clients on Tuesday who were detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility. I had received email approval from ICE in advance of Tuesday for four of my legal assistants to conduct legal visits at Adelanto with me. According to the Adelanto Detention Facility rules, attorneys are allowed 24 hour access to their clients in immigration detention. And federal standards require attorneys to have access to their clients seven days a week without pre-approval; only legal assistants require pre-approval by ICE. To visit at Adelanto through regular visitation hours as a family member, friend, or community member does not require pre-approval from ICE or GEO Group.

On Tuesday, we were provided with no reason for why our visits were being denied. The warden of the Adelanto Detention Facility told us that ICE had denied our visits due to the circumstances. However, neither ICE nor GEO Group would define what were the circumstances.

Could the visitation denials be retaliation for CIVICs role in passing a new California law just days before? The new law bans immigration detention expansion and ensures that our state Attorney General can monitor immigration detention facilities. There were already construction vehicles on the Adelanto Detention Facilitys property, and it looked like the facility was attempting to build an expansion. The new California law could prevent this expansion. The facilitys most recent expansion in 2015 resulted in $21 million in additional annualized revenue for GEO Group and its shareholders. While we are not certain why ICE and GEO Group locked us out of the facility, the timing is suspicious.

Photo by Nancy Evans

On other occasions, GEO and ICE have arbitrarily and without valid grounds denied access to attorneys and visitor volunteers associated with CIVIC in retaliation for peaceful protest activities and public statements protected by the First Amendment.

In November 2015, attorneys and legal assistants were denied visits with people on hunger strike.

In May 2015, GEO Group and ICE prevented me from visiting my clients after I lawfully exercised my First Amendment rights.

In August 2013, CIVIC visitor volunteers and I were barred from visiting for over a month at the Adelanto Detention Facility in retaliation again for exercising our First Amendment rights. The ACLU of SoCal and Sidley Austin LLP raised concerns about the 2013 and 2015 denials in a letter dated August 24, 2015, which to this day neither GEO nor ICE has responded to.

Earlier this year, in January 2017, CIVIC filed a federal civil rights complaint about a general increase in family and community visitation denials at Adelanto.

In March 2017, CIVIC filed a federal civil rights complaint, detailing access denials and restrictions in violation of federal policy at Adelanto and 13 other immigration detention facilities in Arizona, California, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

While CIVIC and allies remain concerned about general visitation denials and these past First Amendment violations, Tuesdays visitation denials marked a disturbing new Constitutional violation. ICE and GEO Groups retaliation against the faith leaders violated their fundamental right to free exercise of religion.

This denial of freedom of religion mirrors the type of abuse happening inside the Adelanto Detention Facility on a regular basis. Women who went on hunger strike last week explain that they often try to pray in circles, holding each others hands. But the GEO guards physically break up their prayer circles and threaten them with the hole, also known as solitary confinement. ICE has allowed this behavior by GEO Group to go unchecked, despite complaints by people in immigration detention directly to ICE.

When our prayers are stopped by GEO Group, it makes me feel like praying is something bad, said one woman who was on hunger strike last week. But what I say to them is that if being put in the hole is for God, then take me.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Visit link:

ICE Violates First Amendment Rights of 60 Faith Leaders and Attorneys - HuffPost

Supreme Court rules in favor of church in crucial First Amendment case – Catholic News Agency

Washington D.C., Jun 26, 2017 / 11:32 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In one of the biggest religious cases of the term, the US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a church-owned playground can be eligible for a public benefit program.

Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote June 26 that the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran, the church at the center of the case, from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.

The decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer was about religious people being treated just like everybody else, stated Mike Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom.

At issue was a playground owned by Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., and operated by the churchs preschool. To resurface the playground for safety reasons, the church had applied for a state reimbursement program that provides rubber surfacing material made from used tires. Trinity Lutheran had ranked the fifth most qualified out of 44 applicants for the program.

The states natural resources department ultimately ruled the church ineligible for the program because of its religious status. The Missouri state constitution forbids taxpayer funding of churches. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and sent it back to the lower courts.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts opinion of the Court that the denial of the churchs eligibility for the program violated the free exercise clause. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in Chief Justice Roberts' judgement.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the Courts opinion except for a footnote stating that the decision was about discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing, and does not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.

I worry that some might mistakenly read the footnote to apply only to playground resurfacing cases, or only those with some association with childrens safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy, Gorsuch wrote.

He added that the general principles here do not permit discrimination against religious exercisewhether on the playground or anywhere else.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Courts opinion.

The Church had argued that the new surface would be a safety upgrade for the playground operated by its preschool and used by members of the community during non-school hours.

It was used by both church members and non-members, they insisted, and should not be ruled ineligible for a state benefit program available to other entities just because it is owned by a religious institution.

Opposing the church was the ACLU, which had argued that to make the church eligible for state benefits would be an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause.

Missouris denial of the church, however, goes too far under precedents of Supreme Court decisions, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, and violates the Free Exercise Clause.

The Missouri law was passed during a time when many other states were passing laws barring public funding of sectarian schools, widely viewed at the time to mean Catholic schools and other religious schools that were not part of the public school system. The laws were modeled after the federal Blaine Amendment, proposed in the 1870s and named after Maine Congressman James Blaine. His amendment was proposed, but never passed by Congress.

In oral arguments in the case, justices also discussed the broader constitutionality of religious groups having access to other public benefits, including a Jewish synagogue requesting a security detail.

Catholic leaders applauded Mondays ruling.

The Supreme Court is signaling in this decision that the government must stop its growing hostility towards religion and religious institutions, and that antiquated and anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against people of faith, Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor with The Catholic Association, stated.

For over a century, Blaine Amendments have enshrined into law discrimination against faith-based charities and schools that form an essential part of American society, Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association, stated. In this case, a state Blaine Amendment was used to justify blacklisting a Christian elementary school from a playground safety program solely on religious grounds.

Blaine Amendments are anti-Catholic in their origin, and getting rid of them is more than a century overdue, she added. Todays decision demands a more fair and inclusive approach to government programs meant to serve all people."

The decision will have an effect in the future, David Cortman, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case for the church before the Court in April, said. Whenever religious people, organizations, see themselves being discriminated against, this case will be the controlling precedent, he added.

Members of Congress also weighed in on the decision. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) called it an important ruling for religious liberty with profound significance for Americas civil society.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and who filed an amicus brief with colleagues on behalf of Trinity Lutheran in the case, stated that todays decision affirms the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religionto have more than just a belief but to live out your faith without discrimination from the government.

The case was ultimately between the church and the states natural resources department. Missouris attorney general recused himself in the case.

Missouris governor Eric Greitens (R) had already announced that in the future, religious institutions could be eligible for benefit programs of the natural resources department. However, the Court stated on Monday that that announcement does not moot this case.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, stated that this case is about nothing less than the relationship between church and state.

The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church, she added. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this countrys longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that it is true the Department has not criminalized the way Trinity Lutheran worships or told the Church that it cannot subscribe to a certain view of the Gospel.

But, as the Department itself acknowledges, the Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions. And a church being denied participation in public benefits because of its religious character can be such an indirect coercion on the free exercise of religion, he continued.

In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. The rule is simple: No churches need apply.

Original post:

Supreme Court rules in favor of church in crucial First Amendment case - Catholic News Agency