Mediaboss Marketing

Rooted in legal scholarship and academia, critical race theory experienced a small spike in public consciousness last September shortly before former President Donald Trump signed a related executive order and then interest skyrocketed over the past two months.

Signs saying, "Stand Up Greenwich: Unmask our children, ban critical race theory, protect medical freedom" popped up earlier this month in Greenwich. People have raised concerns about critical race theory to the boards of education in Greenwich and in East Lyme. More than 500 people have signed a petition asking the Guilford Board of Education to disavow critical race theory.

Republican legislators in at least 22 states have introduced billstargeting theteaching of critical race theory or certain "divisive concepts." A month ago, 20 Republican attorneys general wrote an anti-CRT letter to the U.S. Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona saying the department shouldn't fund "any projects that characterize the United States as irredeemably racist or founded on principles of racism."

Lewis Gordon, head of the philosophy department at the University of Connecticut, called the latter statement a false dilemma.

"To say that the United States is a country that was built on racism and colonization and genocide is not to say that's the only things the United States were built on," he said, "because throughout, there were people including among whites who fought against white supremacy, racism, colonialism and genocide."

So, what is critical race theory, and how did the phrase become so pervasive in current discourse? And is the backlash actually to critical race theory, or to something else?

Its origins date to the 1970s and '80s, and the late Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell.

Quinnipiac University School of Law professor Angela Robinson, who teaches a course called Critical Race Theory, said it started with a group of lawyers and law professors who came up with the principles that race is a social construct and that "racism is pervasive in our society because we really haven't unpacked the effect of race."

"Critical race theory says that systems are designed to get the results they get, and so if we are continually having racial disparities which we have in wealth and education and health outcomes that must be because there is something in the system that is continually producing those results," Robinson said.

She said she teaches her students that critical race theory is one way to look at things but not the only way.

Robinson and other scholars of critical race theory say some misconceptions are that it wants white people to feel guilty about being white and that it's rooted in Marxism.

Dishonest takes on both sides

Gerald Torres, a Yale School of the Environment and Yale Law School professor who is a scholar of critical race theory, said he has "no idea whether people are being taught to feel guilty or not, but in any event, that's not critical race theory." He and other professors say the term is now being used as a "boogeyman."

Critical race theory began by viewing race as an organizing principle to examine legal doctrine, but Torres said it then moved from law schools to schools of education, and began to inform sociological and historical inquiries.

"Race has played a role in American history, and it doesn't diminish the virtues of American society to say that it did," Torres said.

William Lugo, sociology and criminologyprofessor at Eastern Connecticut State University, doesn't explicitly tell his students, "Now this is critical race theory" but it's embedded in his curriculum, as he looks at how race and racism have shaped policies and criminal justice.

He feels "frustration" with the current discourse around the theory, saying it's getting misrepresented by a focus on the most extreme examples, and he sees dishonest takes on both sides, thanks to Twitter.

Teaching criminal justice, Lugo said he tends to have a pretty even split between liberal and conservative students, and they typically respond well to critical race theory concepts.

"I don't get this sort of lightning rod backlash that you see online, and I've been doing it for 16 years," he said.

'Divisive concepts'

Yi-Chun Tricia Lin, professor and director of Women's and Gender Studies at Southern Connecticut State University, called the backlash to critical race theory an "orchestrated panic" but doesn't think all this attention is a bad thing.

In October, she organized a weeklong Critical Race Theory Teach-In at Southern. It was aresponse to Trump's Sept. 22signing Executive Order 13950, whichprohibited the United States Uniformed Services or government contractors from providing workplace training on certain "divisive concepts" and allowed federal agencies to require that grant recipients not use federal funds to promote such concepts.

The list of divisive concepts includes that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex";"the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist"; "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex"; "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex."

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in December issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of parts of the order pertaining to contractors and grantees, on First Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds. President Joe Biden revoked the orderon Jan. 20.

At SCSU in October, at a kickoff virtual discussion with 10 speakers, multiple professors said it would be impossible to do their jobs effectively without critical race theory.

"We cannot discuss or critique America, as social scientists, without discussing or critiquing racism in this country, as racism is embedded in the very fabric of the United States," sociology professor Cassi Meyerhoffer said.

Janani Umamaheswar, also a sociology professor, questioned how we can approach a solution to the incarceration of Black and Latino people "at such alarming rates" without recognizing the role race plays, and said a colorblind approach to questions of social equity is "fundamentally flawed."

Siobhan Carter-David said it's impossible for her to teach American history "without pulling from an understanding about the role that white supremacy had in crafting the United States, even if we start after slavery ends." She listed a slew of racialized practices: convict leasing, health care experimentation, political disenfranchisement, redlining, unethical banking practices, the war on drugs.

"I don't think that anti-racist activists or people who teach critical race theory have ever made the argument that people should take responsibility for the actions of their ancestors, but rather to understand how this manifests itself today," Carter-David said.

This past week, UConn sociology professor Noel Cazenave said critical race theory first developed at a time when there was a backlash to the civil rights movement, and he sees the current attention as "a highly organized backlash" to systemic racism being forced into national discourse through protest last summer.

"Critical race theory is a perfect foil because nobody knows what the heck it is," Cazenave said.

University of New Haven professor and retired Navy officer Robert Sanders, who chairs the National Security Department, and teaches a course called Security, Sovereignty, and Slavery, said those who latched onto critical race theory "as the new boogeyman" say, "Oh, this is just another way of them telling us America is bad." But, he said, "No, America is not bad; America, just like a lot of other countries in the world, have done bad things."

Akey orchestrator of theconflict over critical race theory is Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, who told The New Yorker in a profile he called "accurate, fair, and thoughtful" the term "is the perfect villain." Rufo helped draft Trump's executive order, after the former president saw Rufo talking about critical race theory on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Rufo tweeted in March, "We have successfully frozen their brand 'critical race theory' into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category."

Some state Republicans push back

On June 7, Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, proposed an amendment to Senate Bill 1073, which has the stated purpose of requiring "a study of state agency policies and programs to assess the equity of state government programs and the allocation of state resources."

The amendment would have prohibited Connecticut schools from teaching "divisive concepts," the same ones referenced in Trump's order, to students in kindergarten through12th grade.

"I firmly believe that we have got to get a hold of our education system in this state and in this country, and remind the next generation that America is the greatest place on Earth," Sampson said.

In response to questions from Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, and Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, Sampson said the bill wouldn't prohibit teaching the Civil War or civil rights movement, and he believes schools should be able to teach that the founding fathers owned slaves.

Flexer pushed back against the part about students not feeling "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress."

"I just don't know how we can legislate the feelings of the students," she said. She added, "I would argue that sometimes a feeling of discomfort, guilt or anguish might actually make a student want to learn more, might make a student want to engage in policies to change what they're learning about."

The amendment ultimately failed on a party-line vote, but the overall bill passed without any opposition.

During the back-and-forth between Sampson and Flexer, neither used the term "critical race theory," though Sampson did later sayhe offered the amendment "to prohibit the teaching of critical race theory in Connecticut schools."

Sampson apologized on the Senate floor for "not bringing what are many, many examples of these divisive concepts being taught in the classroom across our state" but told The Day on Friday, "I never said there were examples; I was doing it preemptively."

After the vote, Sampson emailed constituents asking people who "know of efforts to incorporate Critical Race Theory in our schools" to email him.

He told The Day that "people have certainly contacted me on the subject" but "I don't want to provide anything at this time," that he's pulling something together and wants to do that on his own timeline.

He did point to a statement this week on critical race theory from the State Education Resource Center of Connecticut, which is leading the development of a new course of studies under a state law requiring the inclusion of Black and Latino studies in public school curriculum.

SERC said through its research, it learned that CRT "strives to advance a social justice framework," explains how race and racism operate, is typically interdisciplinary and recognizes that race works with "gender, ethnicity, class, and sexuality as systems of power."

"We know how confusing and disruptive some of these concepts can seem because we felt it too," SERC wrote. "But it became impossible to ignore the legacy of racism and its impact on our educational system. We could not discount students' lived experience with race and because of their race. These are their stories, and they have gone untold for so long."

Sampson also joined a virtual town hall that Rep. Kimberly Fiorello, R-Greenwich, held Monday about critical race theory called, "Why is the Accusation of Racism Everything and Everywhere?" She said many parents in Greenwich and Stamford reached out to her with concerns about what they were seeing in their classrooms.

Her featured guest was anthropologist Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars and author of "1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project."

Wood agrees that race is a social construct, and said it's true that racism has affected "political participation, wealth creation, housing, medicine, the labor market, sports, the military, schooling and higher education, and opportunities in the arts." But he doesn't believe racism is "foundational or intrinsic to American institutions."

Fiorello also went on Fox News to criticize the passage of a bill that, in part,declared racism a public health crisis, which she said "is critical race theory in our laws." While only one Democratic representative voted no on the bill, Republicans in the House were split: 22 voted in favor and 32 against.

e.moser@theday.com

See the article here:
Critical race theory has proved divisive. What is it? - theday.com

Also Monday, both officers invoked their Fifth Amendment right not to testify as they did during the first trial

ST. LOUIS Prosecutors trying to convict two former St. Louis police officers for assaulting one of their own as he worked undercover as a protester rested its case Monday with perhaps its most powerful evidence against them: text messages.

In the messages, former Officer Dustin Boone uses the n-word and sends a lengthy apology to the victim in the case, Detective Luther Hall. In one, he tells a friend, I feel bad, we obviously didn't know he was a policeman.

In others, former Officer Christopher Myers writes, Lets whoop some (expletive) as the protests were about to start in 2017 after a judge acquitted a white St. Louis police officer of murdering a Black man.

The jury also heard from a doctor who treated Hall, and said his injuries are consistent with the alleged assault because he did not complain or experience any neck or back problems before it.

Patrick Kilgore, who is representing Boone, suggested the neck issues could be degenerative.

One noticeable absence from the prosecutions witness list is former Officer Randy Hays. He has already pleaded guilty to his role in the alleged assault and is awaiting sentencing.

He testified during the first trial and changed his recollection of what the officers did during the alleged assault.

This is the second time these officers are on trial for their role in this assault.

A jury returned partial verdicts following a two-week trial in March.

Boone is facing the most serious of charges in this case, aiding and abetting in the deprivation of civil rights. It carries a sentence of 10 years in prison.

Myers is charged with tampering with evidence to impede an investigation for allegedly destroying Halls cellphone.

The government must prove Boone knew he was aiding and abetting in the deprivation of Halls civil rights. His defense has focused heavily on how Boone assumed his fellow officers had probable cause to make the arrest, and thats why he held Hall down by putting a knee in his back and pushed his head back down to the ground.

The same can be said for Myers.

The government must prove Myers is the one who struck the phone, and that he knew there was a criminal investigation he needed to impede.

His defense has focused heavily on creating reasonable doubt around who actually destroyed the phone, suggesting at one point Monday that an officer who stepped on it could have shattered the screen and a pebble in that officers shoe could have created the circular shape of the cracks.

The prosecution has said the crack to the phone clearly came from an asp and went through photographs taken by a newspaper photographer and Halls own cellphone to demonstrate its theory.

The defense also spent hours going through the images, and the corresponding timestamps, showing their clients were not near Hall during the alleged assault.

Prosecutors have said the last few frames caught on Halls cellphone show an officer raising a baton before striking the phone and the audio cuts off. Defense attorneys suggested Myers was not near Hall at the moment the phone was struck.

Myers face can be seen in the last few moments before the phone cuts off entirely. His attorneys say he picked it up, saw blood on it, and threw it out of the way. Before Hall was taken away, Myers put the phone back in Halls backpack another move his attorneys say prove he had no intention of destroying evidence.

Also Monday, both officers invoked their Fifth Amendment right not to testify as they did during the first trial.

The defense called four officers to the stand and is expected to call additional officers Tuesday.

Lt. Joe Crews was among the officer called. He said he saw Hall at police headquarters holding a towel to his bloody lip and asked him what happened.

He told me he was running with the (expletives), the worst of the worse, when the police got him.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Costantin reminded Crews of his statement to the FBI in which he said Hall told him he was running with everyone and got his (expletive) beat by the police.

The defense is expected to call at least two more witnesses Tuesday, and the jury could start deliberations Tuesday afternoon.

See the rest here:
Prosecution rests in 2nd trial of officers accused of assaulting Black colleague by again focusing on texts - KSDK.com

Nayda Alvarez's family has lived at least five generations on land on the Texas-Mexico border where her house is but 200 feet from the Rio Grande river.

Not only is there no need for a border wall near her home in Starr County, she said, but if one were to be erected, it would be just feet from the back of her home. The high school teacher fought the Trump administration in court over an attempt to build on her property and if Texas Gov. Greg Abbott moves forward with his announced plan to try to accomplish what President Donald Trump did not, Alvarez will fight him too.

Hes trying to make his portfolio look real good because he wants to run for president, Alvarez surmised.

Abbott is likely to face logistical challenges because most of the borderland in Texas is privately owned and some of it is federally owned, which would require the Biden administration to approve any barriers built on federal land.

The Republican governor said Wednesday he would use $250 million in state money and crowdsourced financing to start building a wall on Texas' 1,200-mile border with Mexico. He did not specify how much the project would cost, where it will go and how long it would be.

Abbott claimed that a combination of state land and land volunteered by property owners would yield 100s of miles of wall. He said he is asking the federal government to return land obtained for the U.S. government's wall and return it to private citizens who can allow Texas to finish the job.

In response to the federal governments neglect of all of the people who live along the border, the people who are facing the consequences of the spread of drugs like fentanyl, Texas is stepping up and doing more than any other state ever has done to respond to these challenges along the border, Abbott said. Texas taxpayers are having to step up so we as a state can protect our citizens."

The United States currently has 771 miles of barriers along its border with Mexico, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. During the Trump administration, 373 miles of old or outdated barriers were replaced and 80 miles of new "primary and secondary" wall were erected where no barriers previously existed. Wall construction mainly focused on federally owned land in Arizona, California and New Mexico.

Trumps signature campaign promise faced consistent legal and environmental obstacles in Texas, which has the largest section of the U.S.-Mexico border, most of it without fencing. And much of the land along the Rio Grande, the river that forms the border in Texas, is privately held and environmentally sensitive.

The federal government can seize private property for public use through eminent domain, a process that could take years.

David Donatti of the ACLU of Texas said there are 100 court cases pending that involve the government trying to seize land through eminent domain. The Biden administration has not formally dropped them though it has said it is re-evaluating them.

So these cases remain in a case of limbo where the Biden administration could continue to press these cases, take property, build border wall, but they have not given that sort of concrete commitment one way or the other, Donatti said.

He called Abbotts announcement all hot air.

I think its a preposterous idea, Donatti said.

He said that although he hoped it would come to nothing, he thought it likely that Abbott was determined to do something. If the governor tried to use the power of eminent domain to take land, the ACLU would contest his authority to do that, Donatti said.

Any wall would have to be far enough away from the Rio Grandes flood plain to honor a treaty between the United States and Mexico and so it could end up being some sort of freestanding wall somewhere in the interior of Texas, he said.

So, whatever the governor builds we imagine would be at least a mile inland, if not more, thereby walling off part of the state to an area south of the border, he said.

The issue with migrants aside for a moment, the border wall is also reeking untold damage on the environment

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires the government pay just compensation to anyone whose land is taken for public use. But the government can deposit an amount it deems fair with the court, then seek to take the land immediately on the basis that a border wall is urgently needed.

Domingo Garcia, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said that he thought few landowners along the Rio Grande supported walls or barriers on their property and would likely fight as long as they can. He also questioned whether a court would consider a government request an emergency or legitimate public use of the land.

Its highly doubtful that any court would grant eminent domain to build a 13th century wall to deal with a 21st century problem, Garcia said.

Donatti noted that the Trump administration had been spending $20 billion a mile on the border, far in excess of what Abbott could spend. The state of Texas has set up a webpage and post office box so anyone can donate money for Abbott's wall. The ACLU said it would scrutinize the project for transparency and public accountability.

These projects are extremely cost intensive and allow ample opportunity for fraud and grift, he said.

An online fundraising campaign called We Build the Wall, ended with four indictments, including that of Trumps former adviser, Steve Bannon, accused with the others of defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors. Trump pardoned Bannon before he left office.

Large numbers of migrants have been seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border by turning themselves over to U.S. Border Patrol agents. At the same time the number of families and children crossing into the U.S. without their parents has dropped sharply since March and April.

Abbott has taken increased action over immigration since Biden took office,including announcing last week that state troopers will now begin arresting migrants crossing the southern border and charging them with trespassing.

His plan has drawn skepticism and ridicule. Critics note that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the power to enforce immigration laws, including prosecuting illegal entry, is that of the federal government's. Whether or not there is a presidential run in Abbotts future, he is up for re-election as governor next year and is being accused of using the issue for political benefit.

This is just political grandstanding by the governor who is running for re-election, said Garcia. He knows he has no authority, he knows he has no ability to build a wall much less arrest people for trespassing and putting them in jail.

The chairwoman for the Native American tribe Hia C-ed Oodham, which means Sand People, shares her story about how the Trump administrations border wall has hurt her community. Chairwoman Christina Andrews said construction has already destroyed a childrens shrine and sacred trails.

Donatti said that the ACLU of Texas would scrutinize trespassing and other arrests and Abbotts efforts to ratchet up penalties. It is well established that the federal government has authority over the countrys immigration laws and if a state interferes by arresting non Americans, there is the possibility of diplomatic problems, he said.

Meanwhile, Alvarez is hoping the Biden administration drops hers and other eminent domain cases.

We cant celebrate until we get a real dismissal, she said.

However, she's still worried that going forward the security of her property will depend on the political affiliation of the administration in office.

Alvarez also questioned claims by Abbott and others who have said those crossing illegally are armed and dangerous. The immigrants crossing the river are mostly trying to claim asylum but would be turned away on the bridges, she said.

The violence is coming in? Where? Because I sure dont see it, she said.

Read the rest here:
Gov. Abbott Vowed to Build a Wall With Mexico. Texas Borderland Owners Say Not in My Backyard - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Did you know that there are some instances in which the United States, state and municipal governments can come take your property, even without your consent?

Its a legal right called eminent domain, and if you have never heard of it or want to know more, here are some key questions as to how it happens and how to deal with it.

Eminent domain is the Fifth Amendment right of a government entity to take your property for a public purpose. The government has to provide proof that the property will have a beneficial use to the public, and also has to make a fair value offer for the property.

There is a wide range of situations, but the most common ones are for construction of roads/highways and public buildings, supplying water to a community or for defense purposes.

There are cases when it can be. If the government makes an offer for more than the property is worth or if a property owner doesnt owe much more money on a loan, eminent domain can be great for that owner. But it can work the other way, also. If an owner owes more money on a property than is offered by the government, it can be a crushing blow.

Ad

If someone is unhappy about an eminent domain offer from the government, an owner can retain the services of a lawyer and fight for a better offer. As part of the process, that lawyer can also hire a forensics appraiser that can evaluate the value of a property and testify in front of a judge in defense of that evaluation.

Roughly 95% of cases are settled before going to court, according to Rick Dreggors, a forensic appraiser in Orlando with 34 years of experience in the industry. But there are instances in which cases arent settled, and a judge will decide the true value of an offer and what an owner should be getting from the government.

On this most recent episode of You Have Real Estate With Justin Clark, attorney Justin Clark chats about eminent domain with Dreggors.

To watch the full segment, hit play on the video above.

See the original post:
There are instances in which the government can take your home. Heres how. - WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties. Cases in the series can be found by issue and by judge at this link

Trump Ninth Circuit judges Patrick Bumatay, Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Daniel Bress, and Lawrence VanDyke argued in dissent that police failure to give someone Miranda warnings before interrogation, as required by the Supreme Court, does not violate the Constitution and subject officers to liability for violating constitutional rights. The majority, including Trump judge Eric Miller, rejected that view and let stand a panel decision holding exactly the opposite in Tekoh v County of Los Angeles.

Terence Tekoh, a Black immigrant from Cameroon, was working at a medical center in Los Angeles when a patient accused him of sexual assault. An LA County police detective found Tekoh working in the hospital and began to question him, but never gave him the Miranda warnings required by the Supreme Court before interrogation. According to Tekoh, the deputy brought him into a small windowless office, blocked his path to the exit, and accused him of the sexual assault. After Tekoh maintained his innocence during more than 35 minutes of questioning, the detective falsely told him that the alleged incident had been captured on videotape, but Tekoh continued to state that he was innocent. The deputy ignored Tekohs request for a lawyer and Tekoh then got up to leave. The deputy then stepped on Tekohs toes, put his hand on his gun, and used racial epithets in threatening to have Tekoh and his family deported and put your black ass where it belongs. Tekoh later explained that this left him shaking and triggered flashbacks of police brutality incidents in Cameroon. The deputy then handed Tekoh a pen and paper, and essentially dictated a confession that he demanded that he sign.

Although Tekoh was charged with sexual assault and the statement was used against him, a jury acquitted him on all charges. He then sued the deputy for damages for violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the deputys failure to provide Miranda warnings violated the Fifth Amendment, the jury found against Tekoh, and he appealed. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel, including Trump judge Miller, unanimously reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously refused to explain to the jury that, if proven, the deputys failure to provide Tekoh with Miranda warnings and the use of his statement at trial deprived him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, for which the deputy could be held accountable.

When the deputy requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider the decision, a majority of the judges who voted, including Trump judge Miller, declined. But Trump judge Bumatay, joined by Trump judges Bennett, Nelson, Bress, and VanDyke, joined by a few others, harshly dissented. Based on their own view of the history of the Fifth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination, they maintained that Miranda is only a prophylactic rule, as the Supreme Court has often referred to it, and that failure to provide Miranda warnings does not violate the Constitution. The dissent made clear that this question is much more than theoretical. Since police officers can be held liable only for violating a constitutional right, Bumatay stated, the dissents view means that the deputy in this case, or any police officer in any case, cannot be held liable under federal civil rights law for violating the prophylactic rule of Miranda. According to the dissenters, the panel decision was an example of brazen judicial overreach that contradicts the text and history of the Fifth Amendment and the weight of precedent.

Although agreeing with some of the dissents analysis, Trump judge Miller explained why the dissents proposed result was unacceptable. Even assuming that Bumatay was correct about the history of the Fifth Amendment, and agreeing that Miranda was not an originalist decision, Miller wrote that Ninth Circuit judges lack authority to disregard the Supreme Courts precedent. As Miller explained, in striking down a Congressional law that tried to overturn Miranda in the Dickerson case, the Supreme Court specifically held that Miranda announced a constitutional rule and, as the Court indicated in another case, established a personal constitutional right. Federal civil rights law thus provides a remedy, Miller stated, when police like the deputy in this case fail to provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspect like Tekoh. The dissents arguments may help the deputy in preparing a writ of certiorari to try to persuade the current Supreme Court to change the law, Miller concluded, but they are a poor reason for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the panel decision.

As a result of the Ninth Circuits decision, Terence Tekoh will have a proper opportunity to get justice and accountability for the deputys misconduct in interrogating him, including the failure to provide Miranda warnings. Yet the opinions of the Trump judges in the case, including even Judge Miller who agreed with the result, are extremely troubling. Putting aside what the Supreme Court may or may not do on the issue, the Trump judges views suggest significant disregard for the importance of holding police accountable for the violation of constitutional rights as in Miranda. Indeed, a few more votes would have allowed the dissenting Trump judges to reconsider the case and rule against Tekoh.

To help preserve and extend the principle of police accountability for violating constitutional rights, it is crucial to our fight for our courts that President Biden nominate and the Senate promptly confirm judges for the Ninth Circuit who recognize the importance of this principle. Four judges on that court have stated that they will be taking senior status upon confirmation of their successors, who have yet to be nominated.

The rest is here:
Trump Judges Try to Rule that Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings Does Not Violate the Constitution and Allow Lawsuits Against Police: Confirmed...