Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court of the United States released a decision blocking Gov. Cuomo from imposing strict attendance limits on New York City churches and synagogues to contain the spread of the coronavirus on Nov. 25.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America were the plaintiffs who sued Cuomo because they believed they were being unfairly and severely targeted by the limitations of the Cluster Action Initiative that placed them in red and orange zones. They said the orders violated their First Amendment rights of religious expression.

Gov. Cuomo released this initiative on Oct. 6, which introduced new restrictions and rules aimed towards reducing the COVID-19 infection rate by focusing on areas of NYC where cases had increased. The initiative categorized hotspots into three color zones: red, orange and yellow. In red zones, places of worship were limited to a maximum of 10 people and orange zones were limited to 25.

The court was split on the decision with a 5-4 vote. The three liberal Supreme Court justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, cast the dissenting votes, while most of the conservative justices: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, voted to block the restrictions. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with the liberals.

Justice Barrett casted her first publicly discernable vote as a justice, The Guardian reported. This vote was pivotal, because her vote helped the court depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The plaintiffs argued that their restrictions were harsher because businesses deemed essential by the state, like grocery stores, are not subject to the same level of restrictions. This may imply that churches and synagogues consider themselves to be essential businesses too.

However, New York argued that they are already being lenient with houses of worship. The state specifically said that churches and synagogues are treated more favorably than activities considered comparable, such as lectures, concerts, cinemas and sporting events, which are completely shut down in high-risk zones, the Wall Street Journal said.

Some of the justices released their opinions on the case and the reasoning behind their choices. The decisions reflect that the justices were split. Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area, but the restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendments guarantee of religious liberty, the decision said.

Some of the conservative justices disagreed with Cuomos restrictions because they felt New York has been extreme in their restrictions. New Yorks restrictions on houses of worship are much more severe than the California and Nevada restrictions, Justice Kavanaugh said.

Some of the conservative justices also believed that churches and synagogues have more importance than some of the other businesses that were allowed to stay open. In fact, There is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques, Justice Gorsuch said.

On the other hand, the liberal justices argued that the court should not interfere with public health authorities, the Wall Street Journal discusses. The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations, Justice Breyer wrote.

Gov. Cuomo responded to the Supreme Court opinions and ruling by calling them irrelevant. Since the plaintiffs are no longer in areas of high risk, the zone that they were talking about has already been moot, Gov. Cuomo claimed.

Additionally, Cuomo saw this case as an opportunity for the now conservative-leaning Supreme Court to express its philosophy and politics, he said in a press conference on Nov. 26.

Cuomo also said the ruling had no effect on the states virus control efforts.

Since being in the yellow zone, the plaintiffs have not challenged the restrictions. This is an historic victory, Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America, said per The Guardian.

View original post here:
Supreme Court declares NYC houses of worship exempt from attendance limits The Ticker - The Ticker

Thanks to Kate for sending: Police have blocked off all traffic, including pedestrians, on H street from 17th to Vermont. Im thinking its to protect all of the artwork on the fence surrounding Lafayette Square. Could definitely be for something else though.

From MPD:

TRAFFIC ADVISORY: First Amendment Activity

From Friday, December 11, 2020 through Sunday, December 13, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with these demonstrations, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Thursday, December 11, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:59 p.m:

H Street from 15th Street to 17th StreetI Street from 15th Street to 17th StreetConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (west side of McPherson Square)17th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (east side of Franklin Square)

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking for Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to 23rd Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWI Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWH Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(west side of Farragut Square)

15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(east side of McPherson Square)

16th Street from K Street to O Street14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NWNew York Avenue from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWC Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWMadison Drive from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Drive from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW

Street Closures

On Saturday, December 12, 2020, the following streets will be restricted to vehicular traffic from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. The decision to restrict vehicles will be based upon public safety and if safe to do so, vehicles will be allowed to enter the restricted area if they are on essential business or traveling to-and-from their residence.

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to 23rd Street, NWIndependence Avenue, SW from 14th Street to Ohio Drive, SWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWG Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWG Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWF Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWF Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWE Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWE Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWD Street from 5th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWD Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWC Street from 3rd Street, NW to 6th Street, NWC Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWIndiana Avenue from 3rd Street to 5th Street, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to D Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW4th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW5th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW15th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW16th Street from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW17th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NWMadison Street from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Street from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW12th Street Tunnel9th Street Tunnel

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures on Friday, December 11, 2020 or Sunday, December 13, 2020, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety. For timely traffic information, please visit twitter.com/DCPoliceTraffic,

The public should expect parking restrictions along the street and should be guided by the posted emergency no parking signage. All vehicles that are parked in violation of the emergency no parking signs will be ticketed and towed.

Motorists could encounter possible delays if operating in the vicinity of downtown area and may wish to consider alternative routes. The Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Department of Transportation also wishes to remind motorists in the vicinity of this event to proceed with caution as increased pedestrian traffic can be anticipated.

See the original post here:
"Police have blocked off all traffic, including pedestrians, on H street from 17th to Vermont." - PoPville

When do our First Amendment rights become wrongs?

Well, when it comes to exercising your rights of free speech, assembly and petition in Tennessee, be careful. Setting up a up a tent for an overnight stay during a protest could land you in prison for up to six years.

A new law signed quietly into effect on Nov. 5 by Gov. Bill Lee changes the crime of overnight camping on state property without a permit aimed at deterring protesters who have done that from a misdemeanor to the much more serious felony. It also provides for stricter penalties and minimum jail terms for such clear threats to the republic as drawing in chalk on state property or interrupting legislators or local officials who are in a meeting.

In recent years, police have resorted to sweeps during demonstrations that operate on the theory of arrest all and sort them out later, sometimes taking into custody non-protesters simply walking to lunch or shopping. The Volunteer States new anti-protest law advocates call it criminal justice reform requires a magistrates intervention to gain early release for anyone sooner than a mandatory 12-hour minimum stay behind bars.

A move in states to silence public protest began about a decade ago, around the time of the Occupy movement. The latest Tennessee statute was sparked by demonstrators who set up camp in Nashvilles War Memorial Plaza for nearly two months this year while seeking removal of a bust of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, first leader the Ku Klux Klan, from the state Capitol building.

By some reports, as many as 40 states have considered or adopted direct or backdoor attempts modeled on a draft law prepared by a conservative alliance of legislators and corporations to restrain public protest. Some proposals include providing legal immunity for motorists who essentially absent a declaration of intent to injure or kill strike demonstrators standing in a public thoroughfare.

Some proposed laws have been deemed outright to be unconstitutional for targeting certain groups or simply for being too broad or too vague. But government officials can enact lawful restrictions on time, place and manner in how we protest. If upheld by the courts, such laws can reasonably limit the hours and locations of public demonstrations or individual protests, the size of signs or the number of people who can gather in public spaces or on sidewalks.

Such laws nonetheless can chill free speech in ways seemingly distant from the 45 words of the First Amendment. Being convicted of a felony also may mean forfeiting the rights to vote, carry a gun or obtain a professional license and negatively can affect your ability to get a job or obtain a mortgage.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis recently proposed not only felony charges on protestors, but also penalties on cities and towns deemed not to be taking appropriate law and order measures in response to demonstrations. If enacted and if the provisions survive court challenge Florida would have the harshest anti-protest laws in the nation.

DeSantis proposal, to be considered when the legislature meets in March, includes felony charges for obstructing traffic during an unauthorized protest or for toppling a monument; an initial no bail provision for those arrested during a demonstration, and a mandatory six-month jail term for anyone who strikes a law enforcement officer during a protest. Anyone who organizes or donates money to protesters would risk penalties under the states racketeering laws.

Tennessees chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said that the new law in that state law requiring 12-hour holds upon arrest, putting in place mandatory minimums and enhancing petty crimes to felony-level offenses will send a message loud and clear that Tennessee is no place to exercise your constitutional rights if state or local government entities disagree with you. An op-ed writer in the Memphis Commercial Appeal noted in August about the then-proposal that In George Orwells novel 1984, the state transforms all manner of innocuous activities into the most serious crimes because in totalitarian societies, any deviation from even the smallest part of the system is perceived as a threat to the system as a whole.

U.S. Supreme Court decisions stretching back more than 140 years have upheld our rights to assemble and petition. In 1937, the US. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in De Jonge v. Oregon that that the right to peaceably assemble for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime. And in 1939 the court held in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that streets and parks have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.

Ten years later, Justice William O. Douglas, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, wrote that free speech is intended to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

More recent court rulings echo Douglas in acknowledgement that protest is inherently disruptive, may well be offensive or cause anguish to some, but is protected because of a need for robust public discussion around public policy and practices.

Yes, democracy is messy and public demonstrations at times may well inconvenience, insult or infuriate you and me. But legislative acts designed to restrain, remove or chill our rights to protest are not just unconstitutional, but unpatriotic.

As James Madison, author of the First Amendment, once observed about the new nation: The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.

Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Get Unlimited Access

$3 for 3 Months

Subscribe Now

After the initial selected subscription period your subscription rate will auto renew at $8.00 per month.

Read more:
FIRST FIVE: We cannot allow our First Amendment rights to become 'wrongs' - The Decatur Daily

Hannah Michelle BussaCONTRIBUTOR

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects five major rights, though Amy Coney Barrett seemed to forget during her confirmation hearings that the right to protest is one of them.

Sam Petto, the Communications Director for the ACLU of Nebraska, explained the importance of protests.

The right to join with others in protest is critical to a functioning democracy and at the core of the First Amendment, Petto said. We have a right to gather and tell the government how it can do better. The late Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo said the First Amendment is linked to nearly every other freedom. Thats how important it is.

Clarice Dombeck, a fourth-year double major in Black Studies and Sociology at UNO, actively exercises this right. She has participated in Black Lives Matter protests, the Rally for Trans Lives and the Wake Up West Omaha protest.

The right to protest is important because it serves as a tool for residents to show displeasure in our political, economic and social systems, Dombeck said. It also gives residents an opportunity to hold representatives and corporations responsible for harm they have caused.

Valeria Gaytan is a junior at UNO who has also attended and organized multiple protests this year. Her focus is speaking against the forced sterilization and abuse happening to immigrants at ICE detention facilities.

I am a Latinx individual and right now, I represent and am a voice for my people, she said. People of color have been targeted since America was founded. It is a crucial time in our history right now, and we must end this cycle of racism, oppression and division.

Andre Sessions Jr. is a senior at UNO and participated in multiple protests this summer. These protests focused on Mayor Stotherts policies, abolishing ICE and:the murders of George Floyd, James Scurlock and other Black individuals across the country.

You may not always be able to make the changes you wish to fight for, but in a lot of cases you are able to alter policies, he said. Protesting challenges those in power and this brings about debate, which brings awareness to these issues. Even the great abolitionist Fredrick Douglass said, Power concedes nothing without a demand.

The First Amendment is not something to take for granted.

These are rights that constantly take defending because they constantly come under attack, Petto said. Your best defense is always knowing your rights.

The right to protest gives the power back to we the people.

I am grateful for the right to protest because it is how I can voice my disagreement with the governments decisions and actions, Gaytan said. The power rests in the people. The right to protest is animportant right that allows our government to listen and take action to our demands.

Dombeck is grateful for the First Amendment for another reason.

I am thankful for the right to protest because it has allowed me to become more engaged in my community, he said.

I want to encourage those that have been thinking of fighting for something that they are passionate about to just get up and do it, Sessions Jr. said. Protesting is just as important as voting. Malcolm X said, A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

Gaytan emphasized the power in exercising the right to protest.

We the people have the power. Your voice is more powerful than you believe, she said.

comments

See the article here:
We the People: Gratitude for the First Amendment's right to protest - The Gateway

Justice Amy Coney Barretts first week as an active Supreme Court justice began on Nov. 2 and almost immediately included a case that could test her credentials as a religious conservative.

On the surface, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which was argued in front of the court on Nov. 4, concerns whether the city can require organizations it partners with to accept same-sex couples as foster parents.

But underneath are questions about how Barrett and her fellow justices will deal with a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that could have wider implications for religious liberty cases.

The case in front of the justices concerns how Philadelphia partners with private organizations both religious and secular to find homes for children in foster care. In 2018, Philadelphia learned that two organizations, Catholic Social Services and Bethany Christian Services, had religiously motivated policies against placing children with same-sex couples in violation of Philadelphias Fair Practices Ordinance.

Philadelphia stopped sending foster care placement requests to these organizations as a result, prompting Catholic Social Services to sue.

Lawyers for Catholic Social Services argue that Philadelphias response violates First Amendment protections of religion and speech. Two lower federal courts ruled in Philadelphias favor. It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the lower courts got it right.

Based on the questions asked during oral arguments, Fulton could well be decided on technical grounds over whether Catholic Social Services is a contractor or licensee of Philadelphia. But from my perspective as an attorney and First Amendment scholar, Barretts questions during oral arguments are of significant interest in considering the future of First Amendment law as it pertains to religious freedom.

Specifically, they suggest that Barrett is examining a key piece of First Amendment precedent: Employment Division v. Smith.

In Employment Division v. Smith, decided in 1990, the Supreme Court held that Oregon was not required to create an exception to its drug laws to permit the use of the hallucinogenic peyote in religious rituals. Central to the case was how to balance religious freedom with the rule of law.

In writing the courts opinion in favor of the state, Justice Antonin Scalia recognized that without some kind of limit on the Constitutions religious free exercise clause, laws could become meaningless.

He held that the Constitution does not allow religious adherents to violate a neutral law of general applicability, by which he meant a law that applies to everyone and does not favor or disfavor people based on their religion or lack thereof. Because Oregons law was neutral and generally applicable, the states refusal to exempt religious peyote use from its drug laws was deemed constitutional.

The Smith ruling has always been controversial, and many conservatives have long wanted the decision overturned.

But the Smith ruling has never been simply a left-versus-right issue. After all, its author was conservative stalwart Scalia, whom Barrett worked for as a law clerk. And even before her appointment, the Supreme Courts conservative wing had the numbers to overturn Smith if they so chose.

In addition, now that Smith has been precedent for over 30 years, justices who disagree with its reasoning face the issue of stare decisis the well-established legal principle advocating against overruling past decisions whenever possible.

Notably, limitations on stare decisis were a reoccurring topic in Barretts scholarly writing during her time as a law professor.

The lawyers for Catholic Social Services have argued that the Smith ruling should be overruled. In Nov. 4s proceedings, Barrett gave substantial attention to this line of argument in her questions.

In questioning one of Catholic Social Services lawyers, Barrett asked, What would you replace Smith with? This question might suggest that Barrett views the arguments for overturning Smith as worth taking seriously.

Barrett also made the following remarks while questioning Catholic Social Services lawyer:

You argue in your brief that Smith should be overruled. But you also say that you win even under Smith because this policy is neither generally applicable nor neutral. So, if youre right about that, why should we even entertain the question whether to overrule Smith?

These comments are important. Judges generally prefer to avoid overruling past decisions when a case can be decided for other reasons. Thus, even if Barrett were to think Smith is bad law, she might not advocate overruling it in Fulton if she thinks that Catholic Social Services can win on other grounds.

Barrett wasnt alone in picking up on the Smith argument. Justice Stephen Breyer spoke in favor of Smith at the Nov. 4 hearing, saying it was a solution to a problem that nobody could figure out how to answer. This indicates that Breyer sees Smith as striking the right balance between religious freedom and the rule of law and that he is unlikely to support overruling it.

It is unlikely that Smith would need to be overruled in order for the court to overturn the lower court decisions and side with Catholic Social Services. Still, some think that Barrett and her conservative colleagues may be willing to overrule Smith at some point.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

After all, Justice Barrett herself has written that stare decisis must be flexible in fact, not just in theory.

If Smith is someday overruled, it would likely increase the ability of courts to provide religious organizations with exemptions that allow them to discriminate against LGBTQ people. But as I believe oral arguments in the Fulton case suggest, that may be the outcome even with Smith left in place.

Read more from the original source:
Amy Coney Barrett sizes up 30-year-old precedent balancing religious freedom with rule of law - The Conversation US