Monthly Archives: August 2017

Certainly subsequent White House news has pushed Donald TrumpDonald TrumpBorder patrol was ordered not to engage with congressmen, lawyers during travel ban Trump says he never called White House 'a dump' Trump to sign memo on Chinese intel property trade practices Friday: report MORE Jr.s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer allegedly pedaling Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonCongress wants Trump Jr. phone records related to Russia meeting Zuckerberg hires top Clinton pollster amid rumors of presidential run: report Democrats new 'Better Deal' comes up short for people of color MORE dirt to the sidelines. But as more details emerge, even Trump Jr.s brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, has tried to distance himself from the meeting in a statement before his recent closed-door testimony to the Senate intelligence committee.

Some have dubbed the Russia meeting a category 5 hurricaneand many have called for a federal prosecution of the Presidents son. Still, the debate has ignored the First Amendment, a constitutional bulwark that may save the younger Trump.

The right to free speech shields the receipt and dissemination of information. Indeed, truthful information about candidates for high office lies at the heart of constitutional protection. In this case, there is no suggestion that Trump Jr. thought the Russians would feed him falsehoods about Democratic presidential hopeful Clinton. He wanted to learn and perhaps disseminate facts damaging to his fathers opponent.

The First Amendment exists in part to serve this very function the disclosure of truthful information about the people seeking to govern us. As James Madison put it, a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.

What makes this situation complicated is that the Russian government might have obtained the information by breaking hacking or espionage laws in the first place.

Trump Jr. says Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya did not actually have any meaningful information in the June 9, 2016 meeting. But for the sake of argument, lets assume the worst about Trump Jr.s state of mind going into the meeting.

Lets assume he thought he was going to receive information that he knew the Russians obtained through criminal activity.

As long as Trump Jr. did not participate in or encourage the Russian governments illegal activity and there is no evidence in the public domain that he did he has a strong argument that the First Amendment immunizes his conduct. He was just agreeing to receive truthful information.

The Supreme Court considered a similar situation in Bartnicki v. Vopper, a 2001 case in which a journalist received a tape of a conversation among union leaders that someone had recorded in secret, in violation of federal wiretap laws. The journalist did not put anyone up to the illegal recording. The journalist did, however, publicize the recording, and the Court assumed that the journalist knew that the person who made the recording broke the law.

Drawing on the famous Pentagon Papers Case, the 1971 decision that allowed the media to publish classified documents about the Vietnam War, the Bartnicki Court held that the First Amendment protected the journalists right to publicize the recording.

In the current situation, Trump Jr. stands in the shoes of the journalist in Bartnicki, and the Russian government stands in the shoes of the illegal recorder. Like the recorder, the Russian government may have obtained the information illegally.

Like the journalist, Trump Jr. may have known or strongly suspected that the information was obtained illegally, but there is no evidence at present that he participated in or encouraged any illegality.

If special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election sought to prosecute Trump Jr. for the meeting, he would likely rely on a campaign finance law that criminalizes accepting money or other thing of value from foreign nationals.

Surely a thing of value means that a campaign cannot accept stocks, bonds, bars of gold, and Renoir paintings from foreign nationals. But deciding whether truthful information about a competing presidential candidate is a thing of value under the statute is more complicated.

The question is so thorny that judges would likely rely on a doctrine called constitutional avoidance. That rule posits that if a statute is ambiguous between two meanings, one of which is potentially unconstitutional and one of which is safely constitutional, the court should opt for the more narrow, and safely constitutional, interpretation.

A narrow reading of the term thing of value that does not criminalize mere information avoids any potential First Amendment problem. Courts would likely adopt that reading of the law. Good news for Don Jr.

To be sure, trouble may lie ahead for the Presidents first born if evidence emerges that he encouraged or participated in Russian criminality. Perhaps Mueller has or will find statements to the Russians from Trump Jr. or others in the campaign like this is greatget me more. The First Amendment does not protect people who join or abet a crime. Or perhaps the presence of Rinat Akhmetshin, a possible Russian spy, at the meeting will lead to evidence that Trump. Jr. was colluding in espionage.

If anyone in the campaign or the family actually were recruited, that would be a serious crime, but the emails released to date suggest that Trump Jr. had no idea that Akhmetshin would attend.

Such is the irony, and the power, of the right to free speech. It protects to everyone, even members of President Trumps inner circle who may well hold the First Amendment in contempt. The elder Trumps disdain for the media is legendary, and he was just sued for First Amendment violations related to his Twitter account.

The Trump family may not like the First Amendment, but they are going to need it.

David M. Shapiro is the director of appellate litigation for the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, a clinical assistant professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, and a Public Voices Fellow through The OpEd Project. He worked previously as a First Amendment and media lawyer in private practice.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Here is the original post:
How the First Amendment could save Don Jr. - The Hill (blog)

Post Register

Police confront 'First Amendment auditors' Post Register Search First Amendment Audit on YouTube, and you'll likely find hundreds of videos of people recording law enforcement in public areas and refusing to share their names with officers even when requested. One such incident happened June 12 outside the ...

See the original post:
Police confront 'First Amendment auditors' - Post Register

After months of a pending verdict in a case that raised consequential questions about the constitutional limitations on politicians' social media accounts, a federal court ruled last week that Loudoun County Chairwoman Phyllis Randall (D-At Large) violated Lansdowne resident Brian Davisons right to free speech by temporarily banning him from her Facebook page.

From a circuit court in Richmond to a federal district court in Alexandria, Davison, a software engineer and father of two, has won and lost battles in courtrooms in his pursuit of defending the First Amendment and accessing public records.

But the latest outcome of Davisons suit is one likely to affect politicians around the country, and maybe all the way up to the White House.

What started off as a pro se free speech suit by Davison against the countys chairwoman and Board of Supervisors could now play a key role in a recent lawsuit against President Donald Trump brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University alleging the president suppressed dissent by blocking critics from his Twitter account.

More and more elected officials are turning to online tools to conduct policy, to engage their constituencies, to advance their political agendas. But theyre also using the tools of censorship in those online platforms, and theyve been doing so without an honest conversation about what the First Amendment has to say about that censorship, Alex Abdo, senior staff attorney at the Knight institute, said. We wanted to start that conversation, and the case in Loudoun County has provided an excellent roadmap for how to think about governmental use of social media in the digital age.

Both Davison and the institutes lawsuits grapple with what is becoming a growing trend of politicians barring critics from their social media pages.

The issue has created a legal gray area around public forums in the digital age and peoples web protections under the First Amendment.

Do the social media accounts of politicians create a public forum protected by the First Amendment when they open up their pages to constituents? And if an elected official blocks or deletes critical comments of a user in that forum, does it violate their rights under the First Amendment?

According to U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris July 25 ruling, yes, it does.

By prohibiting Plaintiff from participating in her online forum because [Randall] took offense at his claim that her colleagues in the County government had acted unethically, Defendant committed a cardinal sin under the First Amendment, Cacheris stated in a 44-page ruling.

Although Cacheris admitted the consequences of Randalls overnight ban of Davison from her page were fairly minor, he said the court could not treat a First Amendment violation in this vital, developing forum differently than it would elsewhere simply because technology has made it easier to find alternative channels through which to disseminate ones message.

Loudoun officials say the county is considering appealing Cacheris ruling.

Meanwhile, the Knight First Amendment Institutes suit against Trump and his associates argues the presidents @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is a public forum protected under the First Amendment that he uses as a key channel for official communication to make formal announcements and defend the administrations positions.

The institute alleges Trumps view-point based blocking of the seven users from his @realDonaldTrump account infringes the Individual Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and imposes an unconstitutional restriction on their participation in a designated public forum.

A murky outcome

But as lawyers from the First Amendment Institute point to Judge Cacheris ruling to help their case against the president, other legal experts say litigating the institute's case and similar suits going forward will be difficult.

A separate ruling just three days after Cacheris' on a free speech suit Davison brought against members of the Loudoun County School Board from a different judge in the same federal court is already showing signs of the legal conundrum.

In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga said it was unclear whether Davisons First Amendment was violated by several members of the School Board after they removed his critical posts on their Facebook pages.

Here, the law is less than settled as to whether the plaintiff had a right to post on a Facebook page maintained by a public official and that this right was violated when those postings were removed or when plaintiff was prevented from posting his comments, Trenga said.

Trenga noted it was not clear as a legal matter whether the Facebook pages in question were limited or public forums.

These [cases] are relatively new and every court could come up with a different decision, said Clay Hansen, executive director of the Charlottesville-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. ... I think until we have some conflicting rulings where we have a split among courts that is at the federal circuit level and we can see this being resolved by a supreme court until we get to that stage we wont have any clear sense of how any particular court will handle it.

Hansen said the Trump case will likely be harder to litigate because the president uses both the @realDonaldTrump handle -- an account he created before assuming office -- as well as the official @POTUS account that has been handed off from one administration to the next.

In the case against Randall, the chairwoman tried to argue her Chair Phyllis J. Randall Facebook account was a personal page, but Cacheris pointed out that Randall created the page the day before she assumed public office with the help of her chief of staff. He also noted she created the account for the purpose of addressing her constituents and asked them to post on the page in question, thus, the account was born out of and inextricably linked to the fact of Randall's public office.

Following Trengas decision, County Attorney Leo Rogers said an appellate court would need to clarify how and when social media constitute public forums.

Eric Goldman, a California-based law professor at Santa Clara University who heads a blog that has closely followed Davisons suits, thinks although Cacheris ruling will be persuasive evidence in the First Amendment Institutes case, but the contrasting set of facts in the Randall and Trump cases could be problematic in litigating a case against the president and similar ones in the future.

I think this ruling gives the plaintiffs additional support for their legal arguments. So, I'm sure they'll be citing it and I'm sure that the judge will be interested in it, Goldman said. Whether or not the facts are extrapolatable enough is I think going to be a point of contention. And so, the defense arguments will be this is different and here's all the reasons why: Trump is in a different position than the supervisor in this case, or the implications of blocking somebody on Facebook are different than the implications of blocking someone on Twitter.

Goldman said the judge in the Trump case will also need to consider, from a philosophical perspective, the implications a favorable ruling could have on the nation.

I think that any judge is going to have to think very carefully about what it means to say that the president violated the Constitution, Goldman said. ... Judges are going to see in their career dozens of burglaries, but they're probably not all going to have one case where they rule on the top elected official in our country having violated our foundational principles.

The cost of activism

In addition to Davisons two suits against the county's Board of Supervisors and School Board, in a separate suit he has challenged Loudoun Commonwealths Attorney Jim Plowman (R). All of the suits accuse the defendants of either blocking him from their Facebook pages or deleting critical comments he posted.

In March, Judge Cacheris ruled that Plowman did not violate Davisons First Amendment right by deleting the Lansdowne residents Facebook posts.

However, Davison is in the process of appealing Cacheris March decision and says he plans to also appeal Trengas ruling in his suit against the School Board.

Davison is now in the midst of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Act suit against state Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant (R) in Henrico County.

He says a victory in a Richmond Circuit Court last year in his request for the Virginia Department of Education to release test score data showing student growth instilled a sense of confidence in him to pursue his First Amendment cases.

But his legal pursuits have not come without a cost. Davison says the repercussions of the suits will follow him for the rest of his professional career.

If Im a politician or Im an attorney, these cases help me, Davison said. In no way shape or form do these cases help me. When we have government clients, if they look my name up and see, Oh wow theres controversy around this person' that can only hurt me. There can be no near-term advantages that I can see, only consequences.

Still, he believes he's fighting for a fundamental American freedom.

From my perspective, it was just, 'Hey, am I going to sit here and watch it and put up with it? And I finally just got tired and thought I could help, Davison said of his lawsuits.

Related coverage:

-"Loudoun resident files civil rights suits against county officials over social media censorship" -"Federal judge sides with Loudoun commonwealths attorney in First Amendment suit" -"Loudoun County chairwoman, Lansdowne resident meet in federal court" -"U.S. District judge rules Randall violated Lansdowne residents First Amendment right" -"Federal court dismisses Lansdowne residents free speech suit against Loudoun County School Board"

Contact the writer at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or on Twitter at @sydneykashiwagi.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [emailprotected].

Read the rest here:
Loudoun County resident's First Amendment case may benefit free-speech group's suit against Trump - Loudoun Times-Mirror

(Reuters) - Thanks to the First Amendments Establishment Clause, U.S. courts have to be extremely wary of taking sides in doctrinal disputes between religious groups. On the other hand, as retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter pointed out Wednesday in his opinion for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, the Free Exercise Clause means courts cant interfere with religious autonomy.

Judges have to navigate between those twin risks, Justice Souter said, using the map the Supreme Court provided in 1969s Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull: When property disputes reflect religious cleavages, courts should avoid entanglement with the doctrinal issues and hew closely to civil law.

So, according to the 1st Circuit, no matter how fascinating the history of one of the oldest synagogues in the U.S. nor how rich the tale of the divide between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews who worshipped there, the dispute between two warring congregations comes down to ordinary documents: 1903 and 1908 leases, a 1945 agreement with the U.S. government and a 2001 deal with the National Trust.

It is these common instruments for establishing ownership and control that most readily enable a court to apply the required, neutral principles in evaluating disputed property claims, wrote Justice Souter for a panel that also included Judge Sandra Lynch and 10th Circuit Judge Bobby Baldock, sitting by designation. When such provisions of deeds, charters, contracts, and the like are available and to the point, then, they should be the lodestones of adjudication.

Reversing an epic 2016 decisionby U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence, the 1st Circuit found that the documents proved New York Citys Congregation Shearith Israel to be the rightful owner of a 250-year-old synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, even though Newports Congregation Jeshuat Israel has worshipped there and maintained the building for more than 100 years.

The Newport synagogue - formally known as the Touro Synagogue in honor of two brothers who bequeathed thousands of dollars to keep it standing in the 1800s embodies the divide between Americas original Jewish settlers from Spain and Portugal and those who arrived two hundred years later in a wave of immigrants from Central Europe.

The first Jews to arrive in Newport, in 1658, were Sephardim, mostly of Spanish and Portuguese descent. By the mid-1700s, their community was sufficiently well-rooted to begin raising money to build a synagogue. Sephardic Jewish communities from around the world, including the New York City congregation known as Shearith Israel, contributed to the Newport appeal. In 1763, the Newport congregation, Yeshuat Israel, or the Salvation of Israel, celebrated the dedication of its brand-new synagogue. Myer Myers, a colonial silversmith who was a member of the congregation, created elaborate silver-and-gold finials, known as rimonim, to adorn Yeshuat Israels Torah scrolls.

Alas, most of the Sephardic Jews who founded Yeshuat Israel left Rhode Island when the Revolutionary War decimated Newports shipping industry. The last of Newports Jews died in 1822, according to Judge McConnells utterly compelling 2016 opinion.

As Judge McConnell recounted the story, many of the Sephardic Jews who left Newport ended up joining New York Citys Shearith Israel. The New York congregation cared for the Newport synagogue and the synagogues contents for several decades in the 19th century, when Newport didnt have enough Jews to sustain it.

But over the last half of the 1800s, a new wave of Jews arrived in Rhode Island. Unlike their Sephardic predecessors, these Jews were mostly Ashkenazi from Russia and Central Europe. The two cultures followed slightly different religious rituals. The crucial doctrinal difference, as it would turn out, is that the Sephardim prohibit the disposition of ritual objects and the Ashkenazi do not.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, the Newport Ashkenazi staged a year-long occupation of Touro Synagogue at the turn of the century, after the New York Sephardim from Shearith Israel shut them out of the building in a dispute over the appointment of a new religious leader. The warring congregations eventually put aside their differences to execute a 1903 lease agreement allowing Congregation Jeshuat Israel to use the building, although the lease specified that the Ashkenazis must conduct services according to the ritual rites and customs of the (Sephardic) Jews as at this time practiced.

The two congregations renewed the lease in 1908. In 1945, the New York group reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior to preserve Touro Synagogue as a national historic site. The Newport congregation signed the agreement as a leaseholder. Congregation Jeshuat Israel similarly affirmed its leaseholder status in a 2001 agreement between the congregation, a group known as the Society of Friends of Touro Synagogue and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That contract, according to the 1st Circuit, described the Newport congregation as having possession of the site through a lease with Congregation Shearith Israel as owner.

Despite their mutual respect for Touro Synagogue as a landmark of American Jewish history, relations between the New York and Newport congregations were prickly. (Justice Souters exceedingly dry description: a want of cordiality.) Matters exploded in 2011, when the Newport group proposed selling the historic Myers Torah ornaments to establish an endowment for their congregations activities. Bostons Museum of Fine Arts offered more than $7 million. The New York congregation protested that a sale would violate the terms of the lease agreement, which required adherence to Sephardic practices. Litigation ensued.

Judge McConnell concluded after a nine-day bench trial and copious historical research that the New York congregation was actually a trustee for Touro Synagogue, not the owner, and that the Newport congregation has a right to oust the New York group as trustee. The judge also found the Newport congregation to be the outright owner of the Myers Torah adornments.

The judge tried to follow the U.S. Supreme Courts directive from the Presbyterian case, grounding his opinion in the legal agreements between the two congregations, as well as ancient deeds, wills, trust documents and congregation account books.

But when the 1st Circuit reviewed his opinion, it concluded Judge McConnell wasnt quite careful enough. As Justice Souter put it, with great delicacy: These are circumstances in which we think that the First Amendment calls for a more circumscribed consideration of evidence than the trial court's plenary enquiry into centuries of the parties' conduct by examining their internal documentation that had been generated without resort to the formalities of the civil law.

In a strict reading of the documents, the 1st Circuit found no reference to a trust in the lease agreements between the New York and Newport congregations, which assumed the New York group owned Touro Synagogue. The appeals court also held the Torah ornaments are encompassed in the leases reference to paraphernalia, so the New York congregation owns them as well.

The New York congregation is represented by Greenberg Traurig and Locke Lord. Greenberg partner Louis Solomon, who argued before the 1st Circuit, told my Reuters colleague Chris Kenning that his clients will continue to uphold their obligations to Touro Synagogue and look forward to putting this unfortunate litigation behind us. Gary Naftalis of Kramer Levin, who argued for the Newport congregation, said hes exploring the groups options.

Originally posted here:
Justice Souter, the First Amendment and the case of the synagogue standoff - Reuters