Daily Archives: April 26, 2014

The Constitution The Constitution US Constitution (Full Text) Constitution Summary Preamble of the Constitution Constitution Pictures Constitution Timeline us constitucin (spanish) Constitution for Kids Constitution for Kids Constitution - Kindergarten - 3rd Grade Constitution - 4th - 7th Grade Constition - 8th - 12th Grade Teaching the Constitution Amendments Amendments The Amendment Process Failed Amendments Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10) 11th Amendment 12th Amendment 13th Amendment 14th Amendment 15th Amendment 16th Amendment 17th Amendment 18th Amendment 19th Amendment 20th Amendment 21st Amendment 22nd Amendment 23rd Amendment 24th Amendment 25th Amendment 26th Amendment 27th Amendment Bill of Rights Bill of Rights First Amendment Second Amendment Third Amendment Fourth Amendment Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment 7th Amendment 8th Amendment 9th Amendment 10th Amendment Founding Fathers Founding Fathers Sketches Demographics The Constitutional Convention Constitutional Convention Timeline Constitutional Topics Constitutional Topics The Second Ammendment (Firearms) Citizenship Separation of Powers Checks and Balances How a Bill Becomes a Law Marriage Religion Miranda Rights Slavery * More Constitutional Topics The Constitution The Constitution US Constitution (Full Text) Constitution Summary Preamble of the Constitution Constitution Pictures Constitution Timeline us constitucin (spanish) Constitution for Kids Constitution for Kids Constitution - Kindergarten - 3rd Grade Constitution - 4th - 7th Grade Constition - 8th - 12th Grade Teaching the Constitution Amendments Amendments The Amendment Process Failed Amendments Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10) 11th Amendment 12th Amendment 13th Amendment 14th Amendment 15th Amendment 16th Amendment 17th Amendment 18th Amendment 19th Amendment 20th Amendment 21st Amendment 22nd Amendment 23rd Amendment 24th Amendment 25th Amendment 26th Amendment 27th Amendment Bill of Rights Bill of Rights First Amendment Second Amendment Third Amendment Fourth Amendment Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment 7th Amendment 8th Amendment 9th Amendment 10th Amendment Founding Fathers Founding Fathers Sketches Demographics The Constitutional Convention Constitutional Convention Timeline Constitutional Topics Constitutional Topics The Second Ammendment (Firearms) Citizenship Separation of Powers Checks and Balances How a Bill Becomes a Law Marriage Religion Miranda Rights Slavery * More Constitutional Topics

nnn

Excerpt from:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution ...

On Monday, April 28, the Court will hear oral arguments in Lane v. Franks on the First Amendment protections for a public employee who testifies in court. There are two respondents the previous and current presidents of the college in question and they disagree with each other on the First Amendment question. The Solicitor General will participate in the oral argument.

Background

Central to the resolution of Lane v. Franks is the reach of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Courts latest pronouncement on the First Amendment rights of public employees. Since Pickering v. Board of Education in 1968, the First Amendment has protected public employees from adverse employment actions when they are speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern. In Garcetti, the closely divided Court held that, when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The employee in Garcetti was a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles who investigated a law enforcement officers affidavit in support of a search warrant and concluded it was false. The prosecutor wrote a memo recommending the case be dismissed; his supervisors not only vehemently disagreed but also allegedly retaliated against him. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court reasoned that when an employee is simply performing his or her job duties, there is no relevant analogue to speech by citizens who are not government employees.

In the eight years since Garcetti, courts have varied in their application of the doctrine. For some courts, Garcetti has seemed a broad mandate insulating public employer actions from First Amendment challenge by any employee. Other courts, however, have limited and distinguished Garcetti. The Court has denied certiorari in several closely watched cases, such as Jackler v. Byrne and Bowie v. Maddox, which both involved police officers and reached differing conclusions, arguably producing a circuit split.

The Eleventh Circuits opinion in Lane v. Franks is decidedly in the expansive mandate camp. Indeed, the opinion is a per curiam one, decided without oral argument and intended as non-precedential. In affirming the district judges grant of summary judgment to the public employer, the Eleventh Circuit described Garcetti as further restricting public employees protected speech. Relying on its own circuit precedent, including pre-Garcetti cases, the court of appeals ruled that an employee enjoys no First Amendment protection when the speech was made pursuant to his official duties, including if his speech owes its existence to the employees professional responsibilities and is a product that the employer itself has commissioned or created. This broad category included subpoenaed testimony. However, the Eleventh Circuit recognized, albeit in a footnote, that both the Seventh Circuit and Third Circuit had decided this issue differently, citing Morales v. Jones and Reilly v. City of Atlantic City.

Even as related by the Eleventh Circuit, however, the circumstances giving rise to Lane v. Franks paint a troubling picture of retaliation for a public employees failure to cooperate with political corruption and his resulting testimony. In 2006, soon after Edward Lane became the director of a program for at-risk youth at Central Alabama Community College (CACC), he looked at the programs finances. He discovered that an Alabama state representative, Suzanne Schmitz, was listed on the payroll. He also discovered she had never performed any work for the program. Edward Lane raised his concerns about Schmitz, but he was warned by the CACC president (a predecessor to respondent Steve Franks) and CACCs lawyer that terminating Schmitzs employment could have negative repercussions for both Lane and CACC. Nevertheless, Lane did terminate Suzanne Schmitz after she refused to report to work. Schmitz told another program employee that she planned to get [Lane] back for terminating her and that, if he requested money from the state legislature, she would tell him youre fired. The FBI began investigating Suzanne Schmitz and contacted Edward Lane for information. Lane testified before a federal grand jury and pursuant to a subpoena he testified at Schmitzs two federal criminal trials for mail fraud and fraud involving a program receiving federal funds. Schmitz was ultimately convicted, although a divided Eleventh Circuit panel reversed her convictions on some of the counts.

Lane was terminated after his testimony at the first criminal trial. In January 2009, Franks who had become president of CACC terminated the twenty-nine employees of the at-risk youth program, but soon rescinded the termination of all the employees except Lane and one other. Whether Franks terminated Lane due to Lanes testimony against Schmitz remains unresolved; an essential issue in the Supreme Court is whether it needs to be.

Arguments and analysis

The primary question before the Court is whether the Eleventh Circuit was correct in holding that Lanes testimony was categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, although there is also a secondary issue of whether Franks is entitled to qualified immunity from an award for damages.

There is little support for a straightforward affirmance of the Eleventh Circuit opinion on the First Amendment issue. Lane is not the only one to argue that the Eleventh Circuits categorical exclusion of First Amendment protection for subpoenaed testimony is incorrect: the Solicitor General, representing the United States as an amicus, agrees with him. More unusually, the Alabama attorney general Alabama representing respondent Susan Burrow, the current acting president of CACC also agrees that the Eleventh Circuit was incorrect to conclude that Lanes testimony was categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. Additionally, almost all of the amicus briefs agree with this position, including one from the National Association of Police Organizations, which is perhaps not surprising given that so many of the similar cases involve persons employed in law enforcement.

Read more from the original source:

Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony

Politics Campaign Finance

A federal judge in New York struck down the states limits on donations to independent political action committees, or super PACs, citing prior Supreme Court decisions with which he himself disagreed.

District Judge Paul Crotty ruled that New Yorks restrictions could not overcome First Amendment scrutiny given recent Supreme Court decisions, Reuters reports, including a ruling on campaign finance earlier this month and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

We know what the Supreme Court has held, whether we like it or not, and Im bound to follow it, he said during a hearing in Manhattan federal court, according to Reuters.

The state had limited how much individuals could give super PACS, which are supposed to operate independently from a candidates campaign. A federal appeals court blocked the state from enforcing the limits in October, pending a final decision, and Crottys ruling will now allow independent super PACs in the state to raise unlimited funds.

[Reuters]

More:

Federal Judge Strikes Down New Yorks Super PAC Limits

The United States Constitution. (ARCHIVES.GOV)

Two students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo are suing the school over alleged First Amendment violations after they were told by a campus official that they couldn't approach fellow students to hand out copies of the Constitution.

Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, members of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court, alleging that administrators violated their constitutional rights by stopping group members from passing out copies of the document during an outdoor event in January where student organizations had set up tables to distribute literature.

The students are being represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, the law firm that recently helped a student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution win a $50,000 settlement against Modesto Junior College in California.

"So far this academic year, students have twice been prohibited from distributing the Constitution on a public campus, less than four months apart. That is absolutely unacceptable, said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is assisting with the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, an administrator told Burch and Vizzone that if they wanted to protest the school's policy, they could do so in the college's free speech zone, described by FIRE as a one-third acre area on the edge of campus.

The "free speech zone" at UH Hilo represents less than one percent of the college's total area and is muddy and prone to flooding, according to a FIRE news release.

The lawsuit also challenges a separate policy that reportedly requires students to request permission seven working days prior to engaging in "expressive activity" in two designated areas located in the central part of campus.

The First Amendment is not optional at public collegesits the law. Enforcing restrictive free speech zone policies that prevent students from passing out copies of the Constitution is impossible to justify," Lukianoff said in a statement.

See original here:

College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution