Daily Archives: June 26, 2017

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.

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

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.

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

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 from the original source:
The First Amendment: A bill to protect RI student journalists - The Providence Journal