Mediaboss Marketing

(Bryan Schott | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes chats with Rep. Chris Stewart at the Utah Eagle Forum convention on Jan. 8, 2022.

By Mark Hurst | The Public Forum

| Jan. 16, 2022, 1:00 p.m.

While I am ever grateful for the First Amendment and its guarantee of a free press, at the same time I always feel bad for the Utah journalists who must report on and print the details of Utahs infamous Eagle Forum conference. The recent report in the Tribune of the Jan. 8 meeting of Utahs craziest of the crazy sent a chill up my spine.

At least the writer was at liberty to freely use the term fringe in describing Gayle Ruzika and her band of deluded sheep, including our Utah attorney general, Blandings poster boy for Warhols 15 minutes of fame Rep. Phil Lyman, most of our other elected officials, and a whopping 83.33% of our 6-member congressional delegation.

Fortunately, the article did not provide us with all the details, but it was enough to read that our Uber Republican friends continued to harp on the evils of vaccination, the (disproven) effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and the painting of Dr. Anthony Fauci as the leader of a religious cult. What a cruel irony that participants would have the audacity to label anyone else a cult.

This disreputable band of brothers and sisters would be laughable if they were not so very frightening.

Mark Hurst, St. George

Submit a letter to the editor

View original post here:
Letter: The Eagle Forum participants would be laughable if they weren't so frightening - Salt Lake Tribune

The Dr. Martin Luther KingCommission of Mid-Michigan held it's annual essay contest for Greater Lansing junior and high school students, including theMark S. McDaniel Legacy Scholarship component for graduating seniors.

Scholarship winners (two) will receive$5,000 prizes; three otherfinalists will receive $2,500 prizes.Essay contest winners receive$500 forfirst place,$350 for second place and$150 forthird place.

This year's theme is the Martin Luther King Jr. quote,"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. Below arescholarship and essay contest winners.

Join in the day of celebration fromthe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission of Mid-Michigan LIVE at 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 17 airing locally onWILX TV-10 and WLNS TV-6. To learn more about the event, visitmlkmidmichigan.com/day-of-celebration.

"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate" means various things to many different people. Everyone is unique, one-of-a-kind, and individual. But it is through community that our society can thrive as a whole.

In 2020, I participated in the NAACP Youth Rally Protest. What led me to this was the disappointment and sadness of injustice in America. What happened to George Floyd was unacceptable and I feltthat marching would show that the malpractice of justice was not admissible. My family and I agreed to exercise our First Amendment right to fight injustice. I did hadsome fear for my safety and as well as for my family. Lansing was a victim of rioters while protesters were exercising their First Amendmentrights.

I felt like I was a young John Lewis trying to turn injustice into a peaceful moral climate. My Edmund Pettus Bridge was Michigan Avenue. I learned that protest and outcry could cause a massive influence on the trajectory of a new moral environment. At the rally, everyone agreed on one thing. Regardless of race, gender, or economic status, we all decided that what happened to George Floyd was not just. My experience at the rally is an example of the push needed to spring towards justice.

I believe absolute justice is obtainable, and the first steps start with everyone. With any goal, there has to be a definite drive to achieve. Dr. King once said. "Faith is the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase." Martin Luther King Jr. knew that faith in his efforts would produce fruits of success.

I find it quite ludicrous that we are still dealing with problems that have grown roots since 1619. A significant part of the problemis laziness in society. The lack of empowerment and honest assessment of situations that developed into a basketof secondary dilemmas. This includes gang violence, immaturity, politics, generational divides, economic status, and the lack of diversity and inclusion.

With Dr. King's philosophy, I am confident that I can achieve my goalsof educating others on financial literacy. My dream is to build an educational institution teaching kids about financial literacy and coding. This is how I will make my difference towards a new moral climate. As we come together and put our differences to rest, we shall overcome the problems of our day.

David Ferguson (East Lansing High School)

The crowd outside on this warm June day was bustling, but there was an absence of life. I could tell from the podium at the former Black Child and Family Institute that they were anxious. The tensions were high because the recent deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd had shaken everyone. They stared intently at me, waiting for me to begin. I knew they saw me standing there, but I hoped they wouldn't see me; a nervous Black 15-year-old at the Lansing Coalition Juneteenth Public Forum last year. I was tasked with delivering a three-minute speech to hundreds of people including newscasters and politicians about social injustice and police brutality. But Dr. King said "in the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate," and this was my chance tobring forth such change.

I scanned the audience and began talking about the importance of voting. Throughout my entire life, I heard people complain about how a certain president was elected or why a bad policy was implemented. Ironically, they were the same people who never went to the polls to voice their opinion through the ballot. The ballot is our strongest weapon, and we need to use it because we we could be the loudest in the room. If we don't vote, our opinion won't matter. Wemust vote nationally and locally to elect ourmayors, judges and prosecutors in the hopes of unleashing a new moral climate that birthed the justice that found a police officer guilty of murdering Mr. Floyd and three men guilty of killing Mr. Arbery. Voting isn't the only way to make an impact.

We can serve our community and work with our political leaders to effect change. I talked about the need for young people to educate ourselves on our rights so we wouldn't be taken advantage of. We must work with our politicians to implement a policy that would make it a right for 16-to 18-year-olds to call their parents when pulled over by the police tohelp provide safety and comfort. Subsequently, I served on Rep. Sarah Anthony's Youth Advisory Council and she would later introduce my idea as a bill in the state Legislature.

Once I finished my speech, a massive weight had been lifted off my chest. I felt alleviated being able to speak what had been on my mind for the lastfew months, and to my surprise, I could tell the crowd felt the same way as well. A semblance of that life had returned. The nervous kid inspired by Dr. King's teachings, was met with an overwhelming applause. I couldn't contain my smile.

James McCurtis (Okemos High School)

"Standing in Solidarity"

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, In the long run, justice finally must springfrom a new moral climate. This statement was in response to the 1957 desegregationof Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. However, his words remain importantand relevant today, especially with the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor andmany others who have been victims of police violence. As a young Black man, myfamily and I have been affected by these tragedies. Understanding that I may beperceived as a threat because of my skin color means I cannot run in certainneighborhoods when it gets dark. It means I need to be extra cautious when I amdriving or have my music too loud. It means I need to understand that violence can findme when I least expect it. This is why we protest.

It is amazing to see the support from communities that came together to protestthese injustices. I was proud to attend a protest at the Michigan state Capitol indowntown Lansing. Unfortunately, I notice how quickly people forget about thesetragedies and move on. After a couple of weeks, once people felt that they did their part,they stopped protesting and stopped supporting our cause.

I am also a young Asian man. I have seen the attitudes towards Asians and thehate that we have received due to the coronavirus. We have been victims of racism,hate, and violence due to the pandemic. Again, there was a flood of support fromcommunities until people lost interest and moved on.

The current moral climate involvesa lot of performative activisms, and it is disingenuous to fight injustice only when it istrending. Our temporary moral compass needs to be fixed and become a constant partof our life. My biracial identity has given me a different view on issues knowing that it iscrucial that people support all injustices. It is not Black vs Asian vs white vs Latino. It isnot us vs them. We need to work together and stand in solidarity with each otherconsistently to correct injustices in the world. We need to always continue in our fight forequality, not just when it is convenient.

Jerry Jai Kozar-Lewis (East Lansing High School)

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a very influential person during his time on earth andeven now, he still isin this day and age, which to most people speaks volumes because he's beendeceased for 53 years now. The words he spoke are still being spoken by everyone regardless ofbeliefs because that's the type of influence he had.

A quote from him says that, In the long run,justice finally must spring from a new moral climate." Yet spiritual forces cannot emerge in asituation of mob violence." Martin was speaking about then PresidentEisenhower calling"wishy-washy for not being on one side or the other. Moreover, in Martin saying these words,he's saying that to get that justice or that end goal you have to change for the better, change yourway of thinking and think about what may ensue after. Turn that leaf that you've thought mightnever get flipped.

Justice for the future is essential because for a nation that has a pledgecalling for allegiance which also at the end states, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.But in an environment where it has no justice it always results in no peace until that justice isserved righteously. Though in this world people around can be seen transitioning into that newmoral climate that King brought when he addressed Eisenhower's action ways of trying to serveequality in the place in of where justice should be upheld equally the most; schools. Furthermorewith his statement you can't present violence to achieve your self image of justice and try tojustify your actions with the words of your god equally looking as someone that lacks internalmoral justification.

Kalib Jackson (Eastern High School)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said In the long run, justice finally must spring from anew moral climate,"I believe this means that in order for justice to be achieved, you must firstconvince the majority of the public to adopt a new mindset. This could mean a new generationsmindset perhaps.

To understand Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement, you must first understand thedefinition of the word moral,which is defined as "concerning or relating to what is right andwrong in human behavior,"and the word "climate, which is defined as "the usual or mostwidespread mood or conditions in a place.When combining the two, to me, the phrase "moralclimate" means: The most widespread belief of what is right or wrong.

It almost irks me to know that this quote was written in 1957 in reference to the treatmenttowards people of color during the civil rights movement, yet it is still relevant today. Things likethe Black Lives Matter movement, the push for something to be done about climate change, theabortion rights movement, and the need for LGBTQ rights. There are likely more issues that Dr.King Jr.'s quote applies to, but these are just the few that come to mind.

I also believe the kind of people that are concerned with these issues prove his point aswell. A series of telephone interviews from 2015-2018 from people ages 18 and up gathered datathat 70% of people ages 18-34 are worried about global warming while only 56% of people ages55 and older are worried about it. We needed a generation that would provide a new "moralclimate" to see some activism regarding the issue of climate change. The same applies with theBlack Lives Matter movement, which more directly applies to the theme of justice; Two-thirdsof adults younger than 30 express at least some support, as does a narrower majority of thoseages 30 to 49 (58%). About half of adults ages 50 to 64 (49%) and 46% of those 65 and older saythey support the movement.

This research just goes to show that the very thing that Martin Luther King Jr. wasfighting for almost 70 years ago is still relevant today. We still need strong people to influencethe moral climate to allow justice and from the looks of it, the people that will influence themorals will be this new generation.

Eliana McDonald (Eastern High School)

"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blackchildrenaremisledandmisunderstoodbyoutsideforceseveryday.With generationalcurses and childhood trauma dating back to their first breath, they have little to noeducation on how to process strong feelings causing minor inconveniences to pile up on eachother. Meaning that when problems occur, they have no way to express their feelings other thananger. Trauma, mixed with firearms makes Black children seem violent as opposed tomisunderstood. Lack of resources results in the consistency of Black poverty ensuing in theabundance of gun violence in our society.

The education system is built to break upon the same people it claims to attend to. ForBlack people, there are very few chances to break out of the generational cycle of poverty. Inpredominantly urban areas, there are very few opportunities for success. People that make it outof the cycle are considered extremely lucky, which says something about this environment as awhole. There are issues greater than the ones I've stated, but they also have solutions larger thanI can comprehend. How do you change the mind of someone so fixated on hatred? How do youconvince someone to change their beliefs of hostility towards a group of people? The answer liesin the future.

Once the human mind decides on a set of beliefs, it's nearly impossible to change them,meaning the solution lies in the generation ahead of ourselves. A better environment for the nextgeneration would consist of counseling, emotional advocacy, and justice for the countless livesand futures lost to gun violence. My hope is that the new moral climate of justice for my people,lies in my generation and the ones to come.

Xavier McKissic, 7th grade (Everett High School)

"A Struggle for Justice"

For my 9th birthday present, my sister gifted me a book. I devoured it. The book was called "Separate Is Never Equal," a biography both authored and illustrated by Duncan Tonatiuh, detailingSylvia Mendez and her family's fight for desegregation in California schools. And oh, my word, thewriting! The art! It was so gripping and powerful helplessly enthralling in fractured beauty.

The booktells the story of Sylvia Mendez's parents demanding the authorities give an explanation after theirchildren of Mexican descent were denied the same education and opportunities as children of white backgrounds. They received none satisfactory, however, and soon brought their plight to court.Though the journey was difficult, the Mendez family emerged victorious: garnering support fromstudents and parents who had suffered similar injustices, receiving help from associations ofdifferent backgrounds all to eventually secure the rights for children of every ethnicity, language, andbackground to learn together in California schools.

I was reminded of "Separate Is Never Equal" when I was considering how to weave the themefor the contest into my writing. For Sylvia Mendez and so many others at the time, justice came in theform of living on equal footing with their white neighbors. However, if this was justice, why was itnot established early on? Why only now? Of course, as Martin Luther King Jr. stated, perhaps themoral climate was simply not right.

Like a desert flower sunk under scintillating snow, justice can'testablish itself when society's worldviews don't accept it. Nonetheless, there is hope. The snow willthaw, the desert flower blossom, and people living under injustice like Sylvia Mendez and millions ofothers at the time and at the present will eventually triumph in their battles for liberation, per Mr.King's famous words.

Sophia Liu,8th grade (Chippewa Middle School)

Throughout history, justice has always been difficult to obtain. In some cases people have losthope that one day there will be equality for everyone. Justice is a principle that every person, community,and culture deserves. Dr. Martin Luther King was a beacon of light showing us how to change the moralclimate by increasing awareness and protesting against injustice.

MLK was conveying a deeply resounding message when stating these words: In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. He believed that later on in time, therewould be a generation that would emphasize the importance of justice and what it truly means.During the time Martin said these words, there was a lot of injustice specifically to those withanother skin color and diverse ethnicities. Despite the lack of equity, MLK always saw the lightat the end of the tunnel. He never gave up on his hope that one day people of color would gainjustice.

In our present time, the world still isn't perfect, and it may never be. We still see peoplefighting for all sorts of justice, but the question that persist is: What can I/we do to contribute tothe goodness of our society? We can start by always treating people nicely, gently, andrespectfully. Each person has a challenge, an obstacle to face, and a hindrance that limitspossibilities but we can all make attempts at understanding because we never know whatsomeone is going through. We can initiate and support a moral climate change by not lookingdown on a certain community of people and by speaking up for the weak and the vulnerable.Giving equal and equitable opportunities no matter of background, religion, ethnicity, andculture is what will help us heal and advance the call for justice and pursuit of happiness.

Every little simple gesture of kindness, acceptance, tolerance, and perseverance paves theway for a better future. One that we aspire for ourselves, our families, and our communities.Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, but one thing we should all do is strive tocontribute to the equity and the freedom of living in a moral climate that celebrates ourdifferences and enriches our unity bringing to fruition the dream that Martin Luther King Jr.Though it takes time, the arch of justice get served and in that is my hope for a prosperousfuture.

Diana Carrosco-Guerrero, 11th grade (Sexton High School)

Like how when you played the violin

a little too aggressively,

and the string snapped back hitting you in the face,

the same violin hidden forever in the corner of your basement.

The mortal race forever lost,

seeking out something that is never meant to be found.

For why would justice be found

in a garbage dump?

The quote said must,"

Not might," or perhaps, or definitely not,

It must spring out of the ashes, and shadows,

in order for justice to be found.

Like when you're looking for something,

but it's right there hidden in plain sight.

We must allow the pogo stick to be fixed,

start training to swim and run,

computer to be reprogrammed,

violin strings repaired,

Emma Heinzelmann,8th grade (Chippewa Middle School)

Essay winners will be recognized LIVEat 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 17 airing locally onWILX TV-10 and WLNS TV-6,part of the day of celebration fromthe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission of Mid-Michigan.

Link:
Greater Lansing students find personal meaning in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. - Lansing State Journal

RELIST WATCH ByJohn Elwood on Jan 12, 2022 at 3:35 pm

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

At this Fridays conference, the Supreme Court will vote to grant the last cases that will be argued this term (barring expedited briefing on some emergency matter). The court has an unusual number of relists this week, including an unusual number of cases that would be blockbusters if the court decides to take them. There are so many relists 17 cases, and thats if you only count a cluster of 33 (!) Oklahoma cases as a single case that I have to be extremely summary. Its like the long conference in January.

I could reach the limit of our Twitter-shortened attention spans just talking about relists that explicitly ask the Supreme Court to overrule its precedents. There are a pair of cases asking the court to invalidate Harvards and the University of North Carolinas affirmative action programs, and in the process overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld diversity-based affirmative action programs. The cases are Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 21-707. The court earlier asked for the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on the Harvard case; she recommended that the court deny review, saying that the challengers seek[] to relitigate case-specific factual disputes that both lower courts resolved against them and that the case would be a poor vehicle for reconsidering Grutter. Well see if the court is persuaded.

Then theres 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476, presenting a recurring question the court first confronted in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, about whether an artist (here, a website designer) can be compelled to perform work celebrating a same-sex wedding that is inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The case also presents the question whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable underEmployment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overruleSmith. (The court faced but did not decide the issue of whether to overrule Smith in last terms Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.)

Two terms ago, the Supreme Court held by a 5-4 vote in McGirt v. Oklahoma that Congress had not clearly disestablished a Creek Nation reservation covering much of eastern Oklahoma, and thus the area remained Native American territory for the purposes of a federal criminal law, eliminating the states ability to prosecute crimes there. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who provided a necessary vote to the McGirt majority, and the confirmation of her replacement, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the state is now asking the court to reverse itself. The state has 33 petitions pending in criminal cases asking that McGirt be overruled so many petitions they have two petitions just involving respondents named Jones, and another two with respondents named Martin. The state has designated Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 21-429, the lead petition, but if the court decides to grant review, it could choose a different vehicle. If the court grants review, it may want to ask the parties to brief the additional question whether Oklahoma was required to file an environmental impact statement in view of the sheer tonnage of paper filings.

Moving on to potential blockbusters that dont explicitly call on the court to overrule precedent. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 21-454, is a long-running Clean Water Act dispute that has already been the subject of one major Supreme Court decision. The Sacketts are a husband and wife who are challenging the governments assertion of CWA authority over their home. They invoke Rapanos v. United States in which a splintered majority of the Supreme Court held that theCWA does not regulate all wetlands. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a four-justice plurality, concluded that only wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated under the act. Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred only in the judgment, applying a more fact-intensive (critics would say vague) significant nexus test. The Sacketts argue that the court should adopt the pluralitys narrower test as the governing standard.

There are also four cases challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Congress passed ICWA to respond to concerns that state child-welfare practices were causing large numbers of Native American children to be inappropriately removed from their families and tribes and placed with non-Native foster families or adoptive parents. ICWA established minimum federal standards for most child-custody proceedings involving Native American children. The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuitstruck down some provisions of ICWA as unconstitutional. According to the 5th Circuit, some provisions violate the 10th Amendment because they impermissibly commandeer the states. Those provisions, it concluded, include a requirement that state agencies bear the cost and burden of providing expert testimony to support placing Native children in foster care, a requirement that state agencies provide remedial services to Native families, and a requirement that state agencies maintain certain child-placement records.

The 5th Circuit also affirmed the district courts judgment that ICWAs preference for adoptive placement with other Indian families and Indian foster home[s] violates the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The 5th Circuit upheld other provisions of the act. The court has relisted a total of four petitions, two filed by the federal government and a group of Native American tribes seeking to revisit 5th Circuit holdings invalidating provisions, and two filed by the state of Texas and private challengers seeking to overturn parts of the 5th Circuit decision upholding other ICWA provisions. The petitions are Haaland v. Brackeen, 21-376, Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, 21-377, Texas v. Haaland, 21-378, and Brackeen v. Haaland, 21-380.

In January 2019, the Supreme Court denied apetition for certiorarifiled by a football coach at a public high school in Washington state who claimed that he lost his job because he prayed on the field after games. At that time, four justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh notedthat they concurred in the decision to deny review because the factual record was too undeveloped to grant preliminary relief to the coach, emphasizing that they did not necessarily agree with the decision (much less the opinion) below. Since then, the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit have again rejected the coachs claims. InKennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418, Coach Kennedy is back, asking the justices to review whether his conduct is private and protected by the First Amendment.

California has enacted a number of laws over the years that regulate the sale of items ranging from foie gras to fuel based on the method of production that the state believes is too carbon-intensive. Challengers regularly argue that such laws violate so-called dormant commerce clause principles by discriminating against (or seeking to alter) disfavored out-of-state production methods. A number of challenges to such laws have reached the court over the years, but National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468, is the first one since 2014 (the foie gras case) that I can recall being relisted. California bans the sale of pork in the state unless the sow from which it was derived was housed with 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching her enclosure. Challengers argue that almost no farms satisfy those standards, and farmers almost universally keep sows in individual pens that do not satisfy those standards during the period between weaning and confirmation of pregnancy, for animal health and business reasons. Challengers argue that the law is impermissibly extraterritorial because virtually all the pork consumed in California is raised outside the state.

With that, we have to go into full Relist Watch Select mode if we are going to have any hope of ever getting through all these relists. The remaining relists raise the following issues. Each of them is fascinating on its own terms; I give them brief treatment only because there is such an embarrassment of riches this week.

Thats all for this week. Until next time, stay safe!

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 20-1199Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overruleGrutter v. Bollingerand hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violatingTitle VIof the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.CVSG: 12/8/2021(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 21-707Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overruleGrutter v. Bollingerand hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Wisconsin v. Jensen, 21-210Issues: (1) Whether a persons statement expressing fear about a possible future crime is testimonial under the Sixth Amendments confrontation clause; and (2) whether, when a person reports ongoing psychological domestic abuse and expresses fear about future physical harm, the persons statement aimed at ending an ongoing emergency is non-testimonial.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

George v. McDonough, 21-234Issue: Whether, when the Department of Veterans Affairs denies a veterans claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, that is the kind of clear and unmistakable error that the veteran may invoke to challenge VAs decision.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Haaland v. Brackeen, 21-376Issues: (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 namely, the minimum standards ofSection 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions ofSection 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions ofSections 1915(e)and1951(a) violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWAs placement preferences for other Indian families and for Indian foster home[s]; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, 21-377Issues: (1) Whether the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by invalidating six sets of Indian Child Welfare Act provisions 25 U.S.C. 1912(a), (d), (e)-(f),1915(a)-(b), (e), and1951(a) as impermissibly commandeering states (including via its equally divided affirmance); (2) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by reaching the merits of the plaintiffs claims that ICWAs placement preferences violate equal protection; and (3) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by affirming (via an equally divided court) the district courts judgment invalidating two of ICWAs placement preferences, 25 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), (b)(iii), as failing to satisfy the rational-basis standard ofMorton v. Mancari.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Texas v. Haaland, 21-378Issues: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Indian commerce clause or otherwise to enact laws governing state child-custody proceedings merely because the child is or may be an Indian; (2) whether the Indian classifications used in theIndian Child Welfare Actand its implementing regulations violate the Fifth Amendments equal-protection guarantee; (3) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the anticommandeering doctrine by requiring states to implement Congresss child-custody regime; and (4) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing individual tribes to alter the placement preferences enacted by Congress.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Brackeen v. Haaland, 21-380Issues: (1) Whether theIndian Child Welfare Act of 1978s placement preferences which disfavor non-Indian adoptive families in child-placement proceedings involving an Indian child and thereby disadvantage those children discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether ICWAs placement preferences exceed Congresss Article I authority by invading the arena of child placement the virtually exclusive province of the States, as stated inSosna v. Iowa and otherwise commandeering state courts and state agencies to carry out a federal child-placement program.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418Issues: (1) Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection; and (2) whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the free speech and free exercise clauses, the establishment clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Nance v. Ward, 21-439Issues: (1) Whether an inmates as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas petition instead of through a42 U.S.C. 1983action if the inmate pleads an alternative method of execution not currently authorized by state law; and (2) whether, if such a challenge must be raised in habeas, it constitutes a successive petition when the challenge would not have been ripe at the time of the inmates first habeas petition.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 21-454Issue: WhetherRapanos v. United States in which the Supreme Court held that theClean Water Actdoes not regulate all wetlands, but without a majority opinion explaining why that is so should be revisited to adopt the pluralitys test for wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, in which only those wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468Issues: (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Courts decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a claim underPike v. Bruce Church, Inc.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476Issues: (1) Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artists sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment; and (2) whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable underEmployment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overruleSmith.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Vega v. Tekoh, 21-499Issue: Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under42 U.S.C. 1983based simply on an officers failure to provide the warnings prescribed inMiranda v. Arizona.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Shoop v. Twyford, 21-511Issues: (1) Whether federal courts may use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in28 U.S.C. 2241(c); and (2) whether, before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, it must determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and whether the evidence may permissibly be considered by a habeas court.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Love v. Texas, 21-5050Issues: (1) Whether Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court of last resort reviewing direct appeals in death penalty cases, has decided an important federal question concerning a racially biased juror being allowed on a capital death penalty jury in violation of petitioner Kristopher Loves rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (2) whether Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court of last resort reviewing direct appeals in death penalty cases, has decided an important federal question concerning a racially biased juror in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the Supreme Court in violation of Loves rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Oklahoma v. Brown, 21-251; Oklahoma v. Kepler, 21-252; Oklahoma v. Hathcoat, 21-253; Oklahoma v. Mitchell, 21-254; Oklahoma v. Jackson, 21-255; Oklahoma v. Starr, 21-257; Oklahoma v. Davis, 21-258; Oklahoma v. Howell, 21-259; Oklahoma v. Bain, 21-319; Oklahoma v. Perry, 21-320; Oklahoma v. Johnson, 21-321; Oklahoma v. Harjo, 21-322; Oklahoma v. Spears, 21-323; Oklahoma v. Grayson, 21-324; Oklahoma v. Janson, 21-325; Oklahoma v. Sizemore, 21-326; Oklahoma v. Ball, 21-327; Oklahoma v. Epperson, 21-369; Oklahoma v. Stewart, 21-370; Oklahoma v. Jones, 21-371 ; Oklahoma v. Cooper, 21-372; Oklahoma v. Beck, 21-373; Oklahoma v. Jones, 21-451; Oklahoma v. McCombs, 21-484; Oklahoma v. McDaniel, 21-485; Oklahoma v. Shriver, 21-486; Oklahoma v. Martin, 21-487; Oklahoma v. Fox, 21-488; Oklahoma v. Cottingham, 21-502; Oklahoma v. Martin, 21-608Issue: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Oklahoma v. Williams, 21-265; Oklahoma v. Mize, 21-274; Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 21-429Issues: (1) Whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country; and (2) whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Knight v. Pennsylvania, 20-7805Issue: Whether a state may require a defendant to present an IQ score of 75 or below that was documented prior to age 18 to have his intellectual disability claim considered as a basis to disqualify him from the death penalty, when this requirement is contrary to clinical standards for diagnosis and contrary to multiple decisions where the Supreme Court has granted relief to petitioners who lacked any such documentation.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Holcombe v. Florida, 21-53Issues: (1) Whether a criminal defendant establishes an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects counsels representation when the attorney engages in joint and dual representation i.e., simultaneously representing both the defendant and a key prosecution witness during a trial; (2) whether the presumed prejudice conflict of interest standard applies when the prosecutor (rather than defense counsel) puts the trial judge on notice at the beginning of a trial of defense counsels conflict of interest a conflict which is described by the prosecutor as not waivable and the judge thereafter fails to inquire into the nature and scope of the conflict.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Trustees of the New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, 21-164Issues: (1) Whether civil authorities violate the First Amendment when they engage in their own interpretation of church doctrine to overrule a churchs determination that a particular official is a minister and, if so, whether summary reversal is appropriate; (2) whether, in the alternative, the Supreme Court should grant, vacate, and remand in light ofFulton v. City of Philadelphia, because Virginia has enacted a system of individual exemptions to its property tax law, and the city may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to [the Church] without compelling reason.(rescheduled before the Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 conferences; relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Arrow Highway Steel, Inc. v. Dubin, 21-27Issues: (1) Whether the dormant commerce clause may be used to invalidate the application of a states neutral, non-discriminatory tolling statute to defeat the enforcement of a former residents stipulated judgment where there is no showing of any burden on or discrimination against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the dormant commerce clause applies to a state statute with no intended or demonstrated effect on interstate commerce.(relisted after the Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan 7 conferences)

See the original post here:
Blockbuster watch: Affirmative action, same-sex weddings, and other big relists - SCOTUSblog

HAMPTON It's perfectly legal to erect a giant "F--- OFF" banner on the front of your house and currently there is nothing the town government can legally do about it.

"I think it's ridiculous," said Selectman James Waddell, who found out the town's hands were tied in regulating offensive language on signs after receiving complaints about one on Mill Road.

"When I was a kid and you (used that language) someone would smack you. It wouldn't be out there long. But times have changed."

The town's Planning Board is putting forth a zoning amendment to voters March 8 to strike what has been deemed non-enforceable language in the town's sign ordinance prohibiting profanity and explicit content.

However, they are seeking to add wording that limits the owners of residential properties especially the few who display offensive content from displaying banners to two occasions per year, and for no more than 14 consecutivedays per occasion.

A banner, according to the town's zoning ordinance, is defined as a sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole or a building. National flags, state or municipal flags, according to the ordinance, are not considered banners.

Planning Board Chairman Tracy Emerick said the impetus behind the amendment was a "F--- OFF" banner put up on a home on Mill Road in 2020 in protest of a new development in the neighborhood. The sign was placed under another banner that read, "Thank God for the First Amendment.

Previous story: Hampton mans F--- OFF yard sign riles neighbors

"There was a lot of heat taken at the town hall about this particular banner," Emerick said.

Selectmen received a number of complaints from neighbors upset children had to walk by it, as well as from motorists who traveleddown the road and saw it.

And they were upset the town leaders were not doing anything about it.

While the town's current sign ordinance prohibits words or pictures that are "obscene, pornographic or immoral character," Emerick said it's considered unenforceable.

"The truth of the matter is that it's a First Amendment right," he said. "The right to free speech is the right to free speech."

Emerick said Town PlannerJasonBachand requested the board remove the language regarding content from the sign ordinance on the advice of the town counsel.

He cited two U.S. Supreme court actions: Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), which involved a municipality restricting content-based messaging in signage, and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), which involved prohibiting the use of a trademark for FUCT clothing line"that was considered immoral and obscene.

Both were deemed unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment by the court.

Bachand told the Planning Board at a recent meeting the wording could leave the town open to lawsuits, including from a resident challenging why they are not enforcing it.

"We can't do anything on what people put on a banner," Emerick said. "All we can do is try and control the use of banners."

Initially, the first draft of the zoning amendment banned all banners in residential zones.

Emerick said the problem was what if someone wanted to put up a "Welcome Home" sign for a soldier returning from overseas or a "Congratulations" one for a birthday or graduation.

"That's where the two and for only 14 days come from," Emerick said. "We didn't want to restrict positive banners and most positive banners have an event and a timeframe."

Emerick said enforcement, if the amendment is approved, would be done by the town's building department.

The "F--- Off" banner on Mill Road that spurred the zoning amendment is no longer on display.

While selectmen sent a letter to the homeowner requestinghe take down the sign, Waddell said he doesn't believe that did the trick as it was up for months after the request was made.

"I'm not sure why the sign went down," he said. "I don't know if he felt his purpose was served or not."

The sign regarding the First Amendment remains proudly displayed on the home as well as a new small banner of a gnome giving what appears to be the middle finger.

Waddell said he supports the proposed zoning amendment because it gives the town an enforcement tool if future cases arise.

"It's a way to control signs because signs can get totally out of control," he said.

The zoning amendment only pertains to banners and not other signs defined in the ordinance like political signs.

Waddell said he was recently asked what the board could do about people holding up offensive political signs in downtown Hampton.Signs that have led to complaints include "Let's go Brandon" signs (an anti-President Joe Biden slogan) as well as a flag that directly states "(Expletive) Biden," with the swear word made out of guns.

Waddell said again, it's protected by free speech. According to the ACLU, "generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks and parks" and a permit is not required to picket or hold up signs.

Waddell said he's had people ask him if selectmen could restrict the hourspeople can hold signs downtown, "or type of signs they can hold."

"It's a slippery slope," Waddell said. "It's a shame that we even have to think about that."

See the rest here:
Perfectly legal: 'F--- OFF' sign in Hampton irks neighbors, could lead to zoning change - Seacoastonline.com

Marilou Rickert did not set Washington politics on fire when she ran for the Legislature in 2003.

Rickert, an attorney and Green Party candidate who tried to unseat long-term incumbent Tim Sheldon in the West Sides 35th district, lost by a huge margin, with Sheldon gathering about 80% of the vote.

Rickert nevertheless holds an important legacy in Washington politics as a free-speech figure. It was Rickert who was charged with violating state law for telling a falsehood about Sheldon in her campaign she incorrectly characterized a vote he took on a flyer and it was her case that the state Supreme Court used to throw out that law.

A political candidate making knowingly false and reckless statements, the court ruled, is constitutionally protected speech.

The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment, the courts 5-4 majority opinion read.

Now the governor is looking to take on the tsunami of election lies that is animating a large part of the conversation on the political right and taking a run directly at the boundaries established in Rickert v. Washington.

Gov. Jay Inslee is supporting legislation that would make it a crime to tell lies about election results. The legislation is still being drafted, but his notion is to make it a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and $5,000 in fines, for candidates to tell lies about elections with the knowledge that such lies can incite violence.

It should not be legal in the state of Washington for elected officials or candidates for office to willfully lie about these election results, Inslee said

In laying out his reasoning, Inslee is right about a whole lot. He is 100% correct that too many elected officials have been lying about elections just pulling blatantly idiotic nonsense out of thin air. Hes correct that these lies have fueled dangerous, destructive violence, and hes accurate in identifying the rotting head of that stinky fish as the former president, who seems unable to speak without lying.

Hes right that the election lies are a threat to our democracy, and that the lying is not limited to national elections. If you think the Trump won lies are a steaming pile of horse flop, try Culp won. This is an actual thing, too dumb to be believed, and yet it is being advanced by some Republicans right now, including Joe Kent, a Trumpworld favorite trying to unseat Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. Kent calls Loren Culp the real governor of Washington.

All of these lies, and the large numbers of people who swallow them, are a huge problem for our country. But this proposal is no answer. For constitutional, legal, practical and political reasons, its a bad idea.

Free speech is such a fundamental right that there is a significant degree of protection for some false speech as in the Rickerts case as well as important barriers to the state acting as the arbiter for what speech is accurate or acceptable.

Its not as if lying is completely protected. Perjury, fraud and libel are instances in which false speech is not protected by the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court has often elevated freedom over accuracy or honesty, especially in political speech. It has struck down laws attempting to prohibit people from lying about their military service (the so-called Stolen Valor Act) and protected the press from libel claims when it publishes incorrect information about public figures, unless such publication is done with actual malice (the landmark Times v. Sullivan case).

Thats to name just two cases. The constitution and a long history of case law establishes the freedom to say certain false things as an important indicator of true freedom. It is no kind of freedom at all, in other words, to say only that which is governmentally vetted.

At a time of rampant, destructive dishonesty in politics, its not hard to see the appeal of Inslees proposal. Journalists and online platforms have been challenged with an ever-greater need to act as editors and gatekeepers against the dissemination of lies; this is not, as people often claim, a violation of the First Amendment. Journalists and online platforms, as opposed to the government, have a responsibility to edit, vet, fact-check, challenge and be discerning about who they amplify.

That is the marketplace of ideas, and it is theoretically the way that bad speech is combatted. Ideally, the existence of ample, robust volumes of accurate, factual information will overwhelm false ones. Im not sure this is true anymore, if it ever was. The edifice of media organizations and online platforms that sustain lies has grown so large that people can simply climb inside it and never learn an accurate fact.

Still, that doesnt mean its time to begin empowering government to prosecute political speech. There are legal obstacles, including the difficulty of proving a statement is a lie rather than simply incorrect, as well as the challenge of establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, an intention to incite violence.

And there is an absolute certainty of a spectacular backfire. Think of the Culp won crowd. Imagine their delight at being prosecuted for telling this lie one based on the premise that the government is conspiring to hide the truth from people. Imagine their delight at being handed this badge of honor, and how good it will be for their ability to raise money from the millionaires who support the election lies.

Inslees right about the sickness, wrong about the cure. The Rickert case differs from Inslees proposal in key respects. As the governor noted, Rickert dealt with falsehoods told by one candidate against another; his proposal would go after lies about the electoral system generally, and those intended to incite violence.

Its hard to imagine, though, that the state Supreme Court would not come to the same conclusion with this proposal as it did in Rickert: government censorship is not a constitutionally permitted remedy.

Here is the original post:
Shawn Vestal: Inslee's right about the disease, but wrong about the cure - The Spokesman Review