Mediaboss Marketing

Imagine being forced, as the price of doing business, to pay for a trade associations speech on gun control, immigration, abortion, affirmative action, and many other hot-button political issues. Thats the situation attorneys in many states face just to do their jobs. Whether or not they agree with the bar associations political and ideological views, attorneys must join and pay dues as a condition of being licensed to practice law.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect your right to speak freely and associate with whomever you like. It also should protect against being forced to pay for other peoples speech. As Thomas Jefferson once explained, To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical.

To be sure, state bars serve a legitimate role, deciding who can practice as an attorney, how to handle attorney discipline, and the continuing education attorneys need. But when mandatory state bars combine these regulatory functions with political and ideological advocacy on issues far afield from the practice of law, as more than half the states currently allow, it infringes upon the First Amendment rights of attorneys who disagree with the messages these organizations advance.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this arrangement in 1961. That ruling was assumed as an unchallenged predicate in 1990 in Keller v. State Bar of California, where our firm represented the petitioners. The Keller ruling, which focused on the procedures attorneys could use to avoid paying for the bars overtly political and ideological activities, built on the foundation of a 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that allowed states to force public employees who opted out of union membership to nevertheless pay agency fees to a public-sector union. The Supreme Court found the relationship between a state bar and its members analogous to a public-sector union and its members, holding that a state bar may constitutionally fund activities germane to [its] goals of regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services using the mandatory dues of all members.

The court purported to restrict state bars from using compelled fees for political and ideological activities. Though our clients, led by Eddie Keller, won their fight against the California bar, in practice, bar associations have continued to engage in political and ideological battles while couching their involvement in innocuous-sounding phrases like pursuing the administration of justice. This veneer justifies the bars advocacy for a wide range of political and ideological issues ranging from felon voting to abortion to campaign finance restrictions.

In 2018, the Supreme Court overruled Abood in Janus v. AFSCME, acknowledging that it had failed to appreciate the inherently political nature of public-sector unions. Keller, likewise, did not recognize the pervasive politicization of integrated state bar associations that act as trade associations, and its foundation has crumbled. Forcing attorneys to subsidize a state bars political speech they disagree with is no less offensive to the First Amendment than forcing unwilling state employees to fund a public-sector union. The Supreme Court should harmonize its First Amendment jurisprudence across the context of compelled speech and revisit the Keller decision.

Unfortunately, the court recently declined review in such a case, Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin, over the protest of Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasFormer Thomas clerk: Roberts 'complicit' in Supreme Court 'being used as a partisan tool' against Trump The Roberts Court just gave Trump the authority to complete his agenda Republican rift opens up over qualified immunity for police MORE and Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchFormer Thomas clerk: Roberts 'complicit' in Supreme Court 'being used as a partisan tool' against Trump The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Trump under fire as SCOTUS, Bolton deal blows Acting DHS Secretary: Supreme Court DACA ruling 'usurps the clear authority of executive branch' MORE. In a statement dissenting from the Courts order denying review, Justice Thomas explained, Now that Abood is no longer good law, there is effectively nothing left supporting our decision in Keller. If the rule in Keller is to survive, it would have to be on the basis of new reasoning that is consistent with Janus. He invites future challenges to resolve the inherent contradiction of Keller and Janus.

Writing for the majority of the Supreme Court in Janus, Justice Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoThe Roberts Court just gave Trump the authority to complete his agenda Supreme Court blocks Trump plan to end DACA program The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Bending the COVID-19 curve proves temporary for many states MORE noted, Forcing free and independent individuals to enforce ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. Attorneys shouldnt have to choose between potentially losing their license to practice and financially supporting views with which they disagree. Its disappointing that the court declined to take up this issue that affects free and independent individuals across the nation. But we will keep looking for more cases to bring, so in time, perhaps the Supreme Court will ensure that attorneys nationwide enjoy protection against compelled subsidization of speech.

Deborah J. La Fetra is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, with special emphasis on First Amendment litigation.

Elizabeth Slattery is a senior legal fellow and deputy director of Pacific Legal Foundations Center for the Separation of Powers.

Original post:
The First Amendment protects attorneys from compelled speech | TheHill - The Hill

Protesters are protected by "freedom of speech" and "freedom to peaceably assemble."

MEMPHIS, Tenn.

Attorney Kevin Snider explained protesters are protected by the First Amendment in which they can peacefully assemble. He said if protesters are in the street blocking traffic, but do not incite a riot, their presence is lawful.

"Anytime somebody is involved in an organized protest they are entitled to the fullest extent of constitutional protections," Snider said.

Snider said if protesters maintain peace and keep their protest on public property they most likely will not be cited with any violation.

"If theres a clear and present danger of inciting a riot or inciting other issues the police can ask you to disperse that area," Snider said.

Saturday night, the driver of an F-150 truck continued to drive into protesters near Madison and Cooper in Overton Square. No one was hurt, but the driver, William Day, has been charged with reckless endangerment and reckless driving.

"Youre in charge of a multi-thousand-pound vehicle against a pedestrian on the street and youre not going to be given any benefit of the world," Snider said.

Witnesses tell Local 24 News some of the protesters began to punch the driver through his window before he was arrested. Snider said if at any time a situation deteriorates and could be dangerous police officers can tell you to move.

"I think the only situation that would be a little different is if youre in your vehicle and surrounded by violent, angry protesters and you were acting in some type of self-defense to try and get out of the situation," Snider said.

If officers ask protesters to move to the sidewalk, it is best to obey their request if it is reasonable.

"Certainlynobody wants to restrict free speech but at the same time weve got to do it peacefully and we got to do it without anybody getting hurt or inciting the situation," Snider said.

Here is the original post:
Protesters are protected by the First Amendment and will not be cited any violations if they remain peaceful - WATN - Local 24

Here is a pop quiz on the Constitution. What is the first freedom protected by the Bill of Rights? If you guessed speech or press, then you are close. The first protected freedom is religion. The two religion clauses in the First Amendment keep the government out of our pockets for religious purposes and out of our churches for all purposes. That was, at least, the intent of the framers.

The tyrannical behavior of many state governors, who have issued executive orders purporting to regulate private behavior on private property even religious behavior in houses of worship and in the process have enforced these orders as if they were laws, has ignored this. In America, governors do not write laws; only legislatures do. There are no pandemic or public health or emergency exceptions in the Constitution.

Here in New Jersey, Catholics were permitted permitted to attend public Masses last Sunday for the first time in 88 days.

This has deeply troubled many of the faithful, and many non-adherents, who understand the concepts that only legislatures write laws and that no legislature can write a law telling a religious institution when and how to permit worship.

So, who closed all the houses of worship? Why did Catholic bishops dispense with a nearly 1,600-year-old rule which survived all sorts of wars and pestilence requiring attendance at Sunday Mass? What became of the wall of separation?

Here is the backstory:

When first-year law students are asked the meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, they often argue that these clauses mandate a wall of separation between church and state. Some students even offer to find the wall of separation language in the Constitution. They are still looking for it.

While it is accurate to use the wall of separation phrase, it is nowhere in the Constitution or in any federal statute. It was first publicly used in an 1802 letter from President Thomas Jefferson to a congregation of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. The congregation had written to Jefferson complaining that Connecticut was taxing all landowners to pay for the state-supported Congregationalist Church.

They told him that the state regarded their religious freedom as a privilege to be doled out, rather than as an inalienable right as the congregation believed it to be and as he had characterized it and other rights in the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson understood the values underlying the religion clauses of the First Amendment to mean that while only Congress was prohibited from establishing a church or interfering with worship, the states should not do so either. In his famous letter, he opined that the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state. To Jefferson, the word state in that context meant all governments.

Though the imposition of state taxes to support churches ended during the 19th century, it wasnt until 1947 that the Supreme Court ruled with clarity that the First Amendment the language in which only restrains Congress applies to the states as well.

We know that it does because the 14th Amendment prohibits all states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The phrase privileges or immunities connotes attributes of national citizenship first among which are a prohibition on government establishing a religion or interfering with its free exercise.

Stated differently, the right to worship or not, and the right not to be charged for someone elses worship, are personal human rights as Jefferson called them, inalienable rights.

Now, back to the governors and the bishops.

The governors permitted crowds at Walmart and arrested folks for attending funerals. They permitted thousands of demonstrators in public streets and arrested not one of them for marching without masks or not socially distancing.

My friend Professor John Rao of St. Johns University wrote: Our troubled world continues along its current revolutionary path with no clear idea as of yet just how far the diabolical disorientation that has been unleashed may go. One thing and one thing alone seems definite to me in the midst of the general uncertainty. With a few very notable exceptions, the leadership of our beloved Church, legitimate though that leadership is, has proven itself to be utterly subservient to the state.

It was not the governors who shut the churches; it was with some courageous exceptions the gutless American Catholic bishops who did so. Never before in the history of America has the Church become an arm of the state. The governors told the bishops to close their churches, and they complied. Their predecessors were martyrs. They are cowards.

That is not rendering to Caesar what is Caesars. That is rendering to Caesar what is Gods.

Faithful Catholics believe that we consume the Bread of Life at Mass. The bishops have no more moral right to deny us that salvific sacrament than do the governors. Faithful Catholics also believe that Holy Mother Church is the route to eternal salvation and the Bread of Life is the food for that route. What mother would deny her children food? One in the hands of state-subservient bishops.

When the Supreme Court explained the two religion clauses, it ruled that they prohibit both conspicuous governmental aid to religion and all government interference with it, and all excessive entanglement between church and state.

In another time and place, how different this might have been. One hundred years ago, the Church was outlawed in Mexico and militias hunted down priests. Saying a public Mass then was the functional equivalent of a capital offense. Yet, there were more Masses celebrated for the faithful per day in Mexico in those years than in America in the last 88 days.

The wall of separation insulates our religious beliefs and practices from governmental tyranny. But without episcopal fidelity and courage, the wall crumbles.

View post:
Napolitano: The first freedom - Daily Herald

Rep. Elise M. Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, appeared on Fox News Saturday morning ahead of the presidents first rally since February to discuss precautions at the event, and to accuse Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of mishandling COVID-19 and nursing homes in New York.

Back

Ms. Stefanik, appearing from Tulsa, Okla., said there was a line wrapping around the event center when she got in Friday night, about a day before the rally was set to begin. Ms. Stefanik will be the opening speaker at the rally, the first for President Donald J. Trump in months.

There is so much energy in support of the president over a million RSVPs, Ms. Stefanik said on Fox. I am excited.

Ms. Stefanik was asked about potential criticism that could arise for holding the rally, and the possible effects it could have on COVID-19 cases.

We are seeing peaceful protests and assemblies of people across the country who are standing up for their First Amendment right, Ms. Stefanik said. You cant choose one group and not another to allow them to come together.

Just like weve seen people marching in the streets for justice for George Floyd, its also important to let President Trump supporters gather and really embrace their First Amendment rights. I think whats really important are the precautions that are being taken with health guidance, she added.

She was then asked about the number of COVID-19 cases being found in nursing homes and how the state handled it. Ms. Stefanik went on to accuse Gov. Cuomo of issuing an executive action that did not follow guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, forcing nursing homes to take positive COVID-19 cases regardless of the nursing homes ability to provide adequate personal protective equipment and testing capacity. Ms. Stefanik said she has called on the state Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an independent investigation. Gov. Cuomo has said the accusations against him are politically motivated and an attempt to take attention off other matters.

I have spoken to constituents in my district who have lost loved ones and in some cases have lost both their elderly parents, Ms. Stefanik said. He needs to be held accountable, and this is about the families. These families deserve answers. They deserve transparency and they deserve accountability.

Original post:
Stefanik appears on Fox News ahead of Saturday's Trump rally - NNY360

First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams on Friday savaged as pathetic the Department of Justices (DOJ) attempt to secure a temporary restraining order against the publication of John Boltons embarrassing book about the Trump White House.

What do you make of the governments argument that the Bolton book should be not published even though it has been written and shipped and all sorts of reporters have it [and] excerpts have appeared? guest host Brian Ross asked during a segment of The Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM. (Floyd Abrams is the father of Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams.)

To which the elder Abrams replied:

I really think its just a nonstarter as a legal argument. Its one thing for the government to make claims that Mr. Bolton has violated his obligationsI dont think thats a strong claim but thats a claimbut to say that, in a situation where the books already out, where its around the world, where Simon & Schuster sent it to lots of people, where the press has it and is reporting on itthe notion of asking a judge to enter into order which cannot be enforced, effectively, cant be enforced because he cant give the relief the government wants in a meaningful sense.

The DOJ argued in a telephonic hearing on Friday that their request for an injunction should apply to Bolton and other third parties, which could include his publisher, book distributors, and possibly even retail stores. That position strained the bounds of legal credulity for various reasons, of course, but one of Attorney General Bill Barrs subordinates made it anyway.

The book is out, so the idea of [telling the judge to] enter an order in effect saying: Well, no more books, is a meaningless effort, Abrams noted. And particularly because what theyre seeking is a prior restraint, an injunction, a bar on publication. Thats the hardest thing to get of all. Its what the First Amendment most clearly protects against.

Abrams is well-positioned to elucidate on the prior restraint standard; he argued the successful landmark case before the Supreme Court which ultimately established it.

In New York Times v. United States, Abrams represented the newspaper against the Nixon administration in a watershed victory for freedom of speech. The case itself had to do with the publication of the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg which showed various U.S. presidents had lied to the public about the basis and progress of Americas police action in Vietnam.

Thats what the Pentagon Papers Case was aboutand lots of other casesmaking it clear, Abrams continued, noting the almost impossible barrier the government must meet when it attempts to censor a publication. It might be possible, but the government has to show terrible harm, and it has to be sure that the harm would occur, and theres no other way to deal with it.

Boltons attorney, Charles J. Cooper, naturally cited to the case Abrams won in a 175-page legal document dropped late Thursday night in his case.Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to th[e] Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, Cooper wrote, quoting and citing the courts opinion in New York Times.

Abrams went on to say that the U.S. vs. Bolton situation as a legal matter seems to be a futile and self-defeating effort by the government and one which cannot and I believe will not be granted.

So, why would they make such an obviously pointless request you think? Ross quizzed the nations most famous First Amendment attorney. Whats the strategy?

Again, Abrams had nothing but contempt for that legal effort:

I can only conclude its not strategy, but its the president. That he told them to do everything: Fire whatever atomic bombs youve got of a legal nature. And someone was unwilling to say no, so theyre going in on that to show how strong they are and how much they care [about what the president says], etcetera, etcetera, because, as a legal claim, its really pathetic.

[image via Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Here is the original post:
Really Pathetic: First Amendment Expert Torches DOJ Efforts to Stop John Bolton Book - Law & Crime