Mediaboss Marketing

Some public officials want to roll back long-standing legal protections for journalists. Might they succeed? Here's everything you need to know:

Before the Revolutionary War, any criticism of colonial officials was considered "seditious libel" a criminal offense under English common law. It did not matter if critical statements about authorities were true. That changed with America's first landmark libel case, in 1735. John Peter Zenger, printer of the New York Weekly Journal, had angered the crown-appointed governor, William Cosby, with frequent criticism and mockery. Cosby had Zenger jailed and tried for sedition but his lawyer argued that people have a "natural right" to complain about malevolent or incompetent rulers, and convinced a jury to acquit Zenger on the grounds that the paper's criticisms were true. The principle that the truth cannot be libelous became a bedrock of American free-speech law, and was incorporated into the laws of many states after the U.S. was founded. But until the mid20th century, state laws put the burden of proof on defendants to show their statements were true. That changed with the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, which set a groundbreaking precedent.

L.B. Sullivan was a city commissioner in Alabama who sued The New York Times for defamation over an ad placed by civil rights activists accusing Alabama police of mistreating protesters. Sullivan said the ad got several minor details wrong, and won a $500,000 jury verdict. But the Supreme Court unanimously overturned that verdict and set a new libel standard: Plaintiffs must prove "actual malice" that the defendant published a statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Erroneous statements are "inevitable in free debate," wrote Justice William Brennan, declaring that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Subsequent rulings extended the "actual malice" standard to public figures as well as government officials. (The standard for libeling private individuals is lower: The news organization or accuser must be found to have acted with "negligence" in making a false, damaging statement.) Free speech advocates say Sullivan's standards have been crucial to the functioning of a free press. But some Republicans say the ruling should be overturned.

They say the "actual malice" standard makes it too hard for public officials to successfully sue news organizations. Donald Trump, who last year sued CNN for libel for airing statements that he's "a racist" and "Russian lackey," has frequently said legislators or courts should "open up" libel laws so he and others could sue news outlets that "write purposely negative and horrible and false articles." Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), a frequent press combatant, has also assailed the Sullivan standards, saying they enable the press to "smear" public figures. Two bills his allies recently introduced in the Florida legislature would drastically weaken reporters' legal protections.

One provision would establish a presumption that "statements by anonymous sources" are false, and compel reporters to reveal such sources. Accusing public officials or religious leaders of "discrimination" against gays, women, or racial minorities would be deemed libelous. The bills put the onus on news organizations to "validate or corroborate the alleged defamatory statement"; plaintiffs who won such suits would get all legal fees paid by losing media organizations. Critics of the proposal say that if that new standard were established, the press could face a blizzard of lawsuits that would lead to financial ruin even if the suits failed. It's "a deliberative effort to punish media organizations" that criticize DeSantis, said Thomas Julin, a Florida First Amendment attorney. If the bills became law, their constitutionality would be challenged giving conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to revisit the Sullivan ruling and possibly overturn it. There's "a growing sense" among Sullivan opponents that "this is their day," said veteran First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have both criticized the Sullivan standard. It has "evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods," wrote Gorsuch last year. How many other justices might potentially vote to overturn Sullivan is unclear, but First Amendment lawyers believe it's a matter of time before the court chooses to hear a challenge to that precedent.

If libel standards are lowered, say First Amendment advocates, it would lead to a flood of lawsuits designed to stifle criticism of government officials and inhibit investigative journalism. "It would have a chilling effect on the press," said Samantha Barbas, a University of Buffalo law professor who wrote a book on the Sullivan case. Under a lowered standard, however, conservative media outlets like Fox News which routinely attack people on the left in very caustic, personal terms would also become vulnerable, said Edward Birk, a First Amendment lawyer in Florida. "These kinds of changes will cut far right and far left and everywhere in between," he said.

The "actual malice" standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan sets a high bar for libel plaintiffs that is rarely cleared. But legal experts say a possible exception might be the $1.6 billion suit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion says it suffered serious reputational damage when the network aired false statements by Donald Trump's lawyers that it was part of a plot to rig voting machines to change Trump votes to votes for Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Uncovered texts and emails have revealed that Fox hosts and executives called the claims "ludicrous" and "mind-blowingly nuts," with Fox owner Rupert Murdoch calling them "terrible stuff damaging everybody." These statements are the kind of smoking-gun evidence plaintiffs can rarely find, say libel experts. "I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof" that the defendant "was making up fake information," said Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe. In its defense, Fox's lawyers say the network simply covered newsworthy claims that election machines were rigged a "fundamental" right "protected by New York Times v. Sullivan."

ADVERTISEMENT: Article continues below

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. If you want to read more like it, you can try six risk-free issues of the magazine here.

Read the rest here:
Targeting the press - The Week

From the brief in support of motion for TRO in Spectrum WT v. Wendler (N.D. Tex.), filed Friday (see the brief for more factual details, and some further analysis); the argument seems correct to me:

Introduction

West Texas A&M University's President, Defendant Walter Wendler, has declared that he will not obey "the law of the land." Instead, he insists on banning a recognized student group's event from campus simply because he dislikes the event's entirely lawful message. By moving for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs ask this Court to put a swift end to Wendler's disdain for the First Amendment and prevent further irreparable harm to Plaintiffs' constitutional freedoms.

On March 20, 2023, President Wendler announced to the campus community that he is forbidding Plaintiff Spectrum WT from holding its scheduled PG-13 charity drag show because he disagrees with the show's viewpoint. Making matters worse, President Wendler has all but confessed that he is knowingly violating the Constitution: "A harmless drag show? Not possible. I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it." (Dkt. 1, Verified Compl., Ex. A.) That is textbook viewpoint discrimination. And it violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has concluded that even controversial live theater is protected First Amendment expression. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 55758 (1975). If officials in Tennessee could not exclude a group from presenting the provocative play Hair in a public theatre because they disagreed with Hair's message, then surely President Wendler and the other Defendants cannot exclude students wanting to put on a PG-13 charity drag show in a campus space open to student groups for expressive activities, simply because the show does not match Wendler's worldview. Id.

Indeed, the Constitution's bar against viewpoint discrimination is vital to preserving freedom of speech at public colleges and universities. "[N]o matter how offensive to good taste" some may find it, expression "on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency.'" Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973). So, whether students gather on campus to support a political candidate, talk about the Bible, or put on a drag show, public college administrators cannot censor student expression just because they find it disagreeable or offensive.

Yet that is exactly what President Wendler is doing by refusing to let the show go on. The result is ongoing irreparable harm to Spectrum WT and its student officers, Plaintiffs Barrett Bright and Lauren Stovall. Above all, the eleventh-hour cancelation of their March 31 charity drag showand President Wendler's moratorium on campus drag shows altogetherare depriving Spectrum WT's members of their First Amendment rights, which is always an irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). What's more, Spectrum WT carefully followed West Texas A&M's process for getting event approvalwith the full backing of campus staffonly for Wendler to pull the rug out at the last minute. If Spectrum WT cannot hold its March 31 event on campus, or similar events it plans to hold in the future, it will suffer significant injury to its mission of advocating for the LGBTQ+ community at West Texas A&M.

[I.] Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Succeed on the Merits Against the University's Brazen Censorship of Protected Expression.

"The First Amendment is not an art critic," and drag shows, like other forms of theatrical performance, are expressive conduct that the First Amendment prohibits President Wendler from censoring. Norma Kristie, Inc. v. City of Okla. City, 572 F. Supp. 88, 91 (W.D. Okla. 1983) (holding drag shows are protected First Amendment expression).

The freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment "does not end at the spoken or written word." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989). Whatever the mode of expression, the First Amendment protects conduct "inten[ded] to convey a particularized message," (id. at 404, 406), and it prohibits public university officials from suppressing student expression simply because they disagree with its viewpoint or find the message offensive. Papish, 410 U.S. at 670. If anything, whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is a legal, not moral, analysis. Dodds v. Childers, 933 F.2d 271, 273 (5th Cir. 1991). President Wendler imposing his morals at the expense of free expression violates the First Amendment.

The First Amendment also bars public university officials from denying student groups access to campus public forums because of the content or viewpoint of a group's message. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 26770 (1981); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 82829 (1995). And messaging within a broader genresuch as art, theater, and dancingis also protected even if it does not convey a "narrow, succinctly articulable message." Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp., 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995). Indeed, "[e]ven crude street skits come within the First Amendment's reach." Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386, 390 (4th Cir. 1993) (fraternity "ugly woman contest" is protected expression). See also Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992, 999 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding a blackface performance is protected First Amendment expression, even when it is "sheer entertainment" without a political message).

Under core First Amendment principles, Defendants' ongoing suppression of a peaceful charity drag show constitutes unlawful viewpoint and content discrimination. The Court should stop the ongoing injury to Plaintiffs' First Amendment freedoms and restore constitutional order on West Texas A&M's campus by issuing a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

[A.] President Wendler's Censorship of a Drag Show Based on Personal Disagreements with the Expression's Message Is Textbook Viewpoint Discrimination.

President Wendler's abuse of his powers to quash a PG-13 charity drag show because he disagrees with the show's messagereal or perceivedviolates the First Amendment. It is "axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 828. "Viewpoint discrimination is censorship in its purest form," and government action "that discriminates among viewpoints threatens the continued vitality of free speech." Bible Believers v. Wayne Cnty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 248 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (cleaned up). Indeed, government officials like college administrators are "inherently" incapable of making "principled distinctions" between offensive and inoffensive speech, and the state has "no right to cleanse" public expression such that it is "palatable to the most squeamish among us." Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971).

To that end, "state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment." Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972). And that includes the First Amendment prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 83536 (invalidating college's denial of funding to Christian student newspaper). True, courts often employ "forum analysis" to determine when public university administrators "in regulating property in [their] charge, may place limitations on speech." Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the Univ. of Cali, Hastings Coll. of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 679 (2010). But regardless of the forum's classification, "any access barrier must be viewpoint neutral." Id. (citing Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829).

By picking and choosing which performances fit his moral tastes, President Wendler is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Indeed, "the essence of viewpoint discrimination" is "the Government's disapproval of messages it finds offensive." Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294, 2299 (2019) (quoting Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 24849 (2017) (Kennedy, J., concurring)). And as President Wendler proclaims, he personally finds that "drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent." (Verif. Compl., Ex. A.)

President Wendler's stance mirrors that of the censorial officials in Southeastern Promotions. 420 U.S. 546. There, a group petitioned to use a city- operated municipal auditorium to present the rock musical "Hair." Id. at 547. The auditorium directors denied the application, reasoning that allowing the play "was not in the best interest of the community" and the board would only "allow those productions which are clean and healthful and culturally uplifting, or words to that effect." Id. at 549. The Supreme Court struck down the directors' censorship as an unconstitutional prior restraint. To the same end, this Court should put a stop to Defendants' ongoing viewpoint-based censorship of Plaintiffs' PG-13 charity drag show.

The Fourth Circuit's decision in Iota Xi also shows why the Court should enjoin Defendants' censorship. 993 F.2d 386. There, George Mason University imposed sanctions on a fraternity for hosting an "ugly woman contest" riddled with "racist and sexist" overtones, including contestants "dressed as caricatures of different types of women[]" (i.e., in drag). Id. at 38788. George Mason's administrators cited many of the same concerns President Wendler relies onthat the event was degrading, amounted to harassment, and conflicted with the institution's mission. Id. at 388; Verif. Compl., Ex. A.

The Fourth Circuit had no trouble brushing aside the administrators' excuses. As the court explained, "First Amendment principles governing live entertainment are relatively clear: short of obscenity, it is generally protected." Iota Xi, 993 F.2d at

389 (collecting cases). The court likewise held the fraternity's drag skit was constitutionally protected, since it intended to convey a message, both through the mode of dress and use of a theatrical medium. Id. at 392. The court held GMU engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by sanctioning the fraternity as the sanction arose from the fact that "the 'ugly woman contest' ran counter to the views the University sought to communicate to its students and the community." Id. at 393.

Even if President Wendler's opinion were shared by all but the students here, he cannot justify stifling Plaintiffs' expression on moral grounds. That argument lost in Southeastern Promotions. It lost in Iota Xi. And it must lose here. See also Gay Student Servs. v. Tex. A & M Univ., 737 F.2d 1317, 132227 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding Texas A&M violated the First Amendment by refusing to recognize a gay student organization when the official responsible for the denial justified the decision "based on his perception that the organization would attempt to convey ideas" he found morally repugnant).

This Court should refuse Wendler's viewpoint-driven reasons for violating the First Amendment, grant Plaintiffs' motion, and put a stop to Wendler and the other Defendants' ongoing censorship of Plaintiffs' protected expression.

President Wendler's denial of use of a campus public forum to Plaintiffs also violates the First Amendment, to their ongoing injury. Legacy Hall is a designated public forum for First Amendment purposes. West Texas A&M opens its facilities, like Legacy Hall, to West Texas A&M students and student organizations for exactly these expressive purposes: theatrical performances before a willing audience, music, dancing, and banter. (Verif. Compl. 3132, 4142.) Thus, because "the University has created a forum generally open for use by student groups," "the University must therefore satisfy the standard of review appropriate to content-based exclusions." Widmar, 454 U.S. at 270. See also Pro-Life Cougars v. Univ. of Houston, 259 F. Supp. 2d 575, 582 (S.D. Tex. 2003) ("When as here a University by policy and practice opens up an area for indiscriminate use by some segment of the public, such as student organizations, such area may be deemed to be a designated public forum").

Under the First Amendment, "a government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content" unless it satisfies strict scrutiny. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (cleaned up). To meet that high bar here, Defendants "must show that [their] regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." Widmar, 454 U.S. at 270. They cannot meet that burden. See United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000) ("When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions").

For starters, a ban on drag shows is content-based (if not outright viewpoint- based, as shown above). It singles out a particular type of expressiondragfor differential treatment. That is textbook content discrimination. Reed, 576 U.S. at 169 (content discrimination exists when the government "singles out a specific subject matter for differential treatment").

Defendants' content-based ban of campus drag showsincluding canceling Plaintiffs' March 31 showfails strict scrutiny. And Widmar shows why. In Widmar, the University of Missouri at Kansas City denied an evangelical Christian student group the use of university facilities otherwise "generally available for registered student groups." Id. at 26465. The Supreme Court explained that such restrictions, which single out a particular subject for differential treatment, are subject to "the most exacting scrutiny." Id. at 276. The Court held that the university unlawfully "discriminated against student groups and speakers based on their desire to use a generally open forum to engage in" protected expression and that the university's stated goal, "achieving greater separation of church and State," was not sufficiently "'compelling' to justify content-based discrimination against respondents' religious speech." Id. at 269, 278.

Here, advancing President Wendler's belief that drag shows promote "misogyny" is not a compelling state interest. (Verif. Compl. Ex. A.) As a threshold matter, banning drag shows does not prevent tangible harm to women. Any women (or men) who might take offense from a drag show can simply opt to not attend. Likewise, those who agree with President Wendler's estimation of the value of the students' expression can exercise a time-honored means of "effectively avoid[ing] further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes." Cohen, 403

U.S. at 21.

Rather, President Wendler, like the administrators in Iota Xi, seeks to suppress Plaintiffs' speech "because it r[uns] counter to the views the University s[eeks] to communicate to its students and the community." 993 F.2d at 393. That is not redressing a harm. It is big-brother government insisting it "knows what's best" for women and that it can silence dissenting expression. But "[t]he state may not ordain preferred viewpoints [about women and femininity] in this way. The Constitution forbids the state to declare one perspective right and silence opponents." Am. Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 325 (7th Cir. 1985).

Nor is Defendants' ban on drag shows narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means of furthering their goals. See Playboy Ent. Grp., 529 U.S. at 813 (content regulation permissible only if the government "chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest") (cleaned up). Neither President Wendler nor the other Defendants have banned any other type of expression from campus which might tend to disparage or demean women. And a content-based law is not narrowly tailored if it leaves untouched a significant amount of expression causing the same problem. Reed, 576 U.S. at 172. Plus, the government's objection to a speaker's message is not even a legitimate government interest, let alone a compelling one.

America's college campuses are no stranger to censorship, which is often visited upon students and faculty who find themselves among the minority viewpointincluding, in many cases, conservative and religious groups. See, e.g., Widmar, 454 U.S. at 265; Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 830. From Central Washington University threatening to defund the College Republicans for protected speech, to Iowa State University threatening to punish the College Republicans for protected speech, to pro-life groups having to fight for recognition at the University of Arizona, censorship of expression on public campuses continues to fester. But students' expressive rights should not, and do not, turn on the whims of college administrators. The First Amendment does not play favorites.

President Wendler's censorship singles out one type of artistic expression out of manydrag showsfor differential treatment and censorship simply because he dislikes the message he perceives. It is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination for the reasons explained. And putting aside President Wendler's confessed motives, the ban is unlawful content discrimination. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are necessary to secure Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.

Read more here:
FIRE Sues West Texas A&M Over Its Blocking of Student Group's Drag Show - Reason

Patent owners worry about what they can and cannot publicly say about infringement of their patent rights. Accused infringers may believe that certain public statements by patent owners are actionable on the basis that such statements interfere with business, are defamatory, or both. Last month, the Federal Circuit clarified what can and cannot be said about patent rights and infringement when it vacateda preliminary injunction that restricted patent owner Lite-Netics, LLC, from speaking publicly about infringement of its magnetic holiday string lights patents by competitor Holiday Bright Lights (HBL). As a result, Lite-Netics (and other patent owners similarly situated) has the green light to speak publicly about infringing activity, and infringers provided that its patent-related speech is not objectively baseless.

A few months before bringing suit against HBL in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,549,779 and 8,128,264 for magnetic decorative lights (Lite Patents), Lite-Netics sent a first notice to its customers (some of which were shared customers with HBL) making them aware of recent attempts by other companies to make and sell similar products as claimed in the Lite Patents and stating its intention to go after these allegedly infringing competitors. Shortly after the suit against HBL was filed, Lite-Netics sent a second notice to its customers specifically identifying HBL as an infringer of the Lite Patents. The second notice included a copy of the first page of the complaint filed against HBL and also threatened suit against any company using or reselling HBLs Magnetic Cord and Magnetic Clip string light products. In response to the complaint and Second Notice, HBL moved to dismiss the complaint, filed counterclaims based on federal and state-law unfair competition, as well as several other state-law torts, and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction based on two of the state law counterclaims (i.e., tortious-interference and defamation) in an attempt to stop Lite-Netics from making accusatory statements about HBL.

The district court initially granted the TRO for 14 days and then extended it for another 14 days. In deciding on the preliminary injunction motion, the district court evaluated the (1) HBLs likelihood of success on the merits of its tortious-interference and defamation claims; (2) the likelihood of irreparable injury to HBL without the injunction; (3) the balance of equities; and (4) the public interest. With respect to the first factor, the district court acknowledged that state-law tort claims based on the communication of patent rights are preempted by federal patent laws, unless the claimant can show that the patent holder acted in bad faith. However, the court found that federal preemption did not apply because Lite-Neticss infringement allegations lacked any merit and, as such, its assertions to its customers against HBL were made in bad faith. On that basis, the court ruled that HBL would likely succeed on its tortious-interference and defamation claims and, because the other three factors favored issuance, granted the preliminary injunction.

The injunction ordered Lite-Netics (and its officers, directors, shareholders, and other agents) to refrain:

from making statements via letters, emails, Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media, mass media, direct marketing, robocalls, press releases, blogs, websites or otherwise suggesting copying by HBL, suggesting HBL customers will be burdened as additional defendants in this or any lawsuit, or suggesting that HBL is a patent infringer.

Lite-Netics appealed.

While the Federal Circuit agreed that precedent dictated that HBLs state-law claims could survive federal preemption if there was a showing of bad faith by Lite-Netics in asserting infringement, the panel disagreed with the lower court that there was such a bad-faith showing. The appellate panel explained that (a) bad faith cannot be met in the absence of a showing that the claims asserted were objectively baseless and (b) an infringement allegation is objectively baseless only if no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. In reviewing Lite-Neticss infringement allegations, the panel found that there was an objectively reasonable basis for a number of those allegations at this stage of the litigation (i.e., before full claim-construction proceedings and/or expert reports). It thus held that the lower court abused its discretion in finding that Lite-Netics could not have realistically expect[ed] success on the merits and acted in bad faith.

The Federal Circuit noted here that [t]he First Amendment principles are particularly significant when an injunction against speech is at issue and previously explained that [t]his is . . . an injunction against communication, a much more serious matter. . . that must be used with care and only in exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional circumstances require a showing of bad faith, which requires a showing that the infringement allegations are objectively baseless. A patent infringement allegation is objectively baseless only if no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. To be clear, an incorrect allegation of patent infringement is not necessarily objectively baseless (even if claim construction ultimately goes in a direction that does not support the patent owners infringement allegations). In fact, a patent owner that is acting in good faith on its belief as to the nature and scope of its rights, is fully permitted to press those rights even though he may misconceive what those rights are.

Enjoining a patent owners communication of its patent rights is rare (even if that communication turns out to be incorrect). Patent owners have the green light to speak freely about their rights (and others infringing on those rights) but must do so in good faith.

See more here:
Green Light at the Intersection of First Amendment and Patent ... - JD Supra

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - In an effort to defend Missourians religious liberty, Attorney General Bailey and 21 other states directed a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, urging his department to retain a provision that compels public universities to comply with the First Amendment or else lose grant funding a provision put in place to protect religious groups on campuses nationwide. The Biden Administration is threatening to rescind this protection.

As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution and Missourians right to religious liberty, which is explicitly enshrined in the First Amendment, said Attorney General Bailey. The First Amendment is not up for debate - the Biden Administration doesnt get to play games with the right of students to express their views on their college campuses. My office is putting President Biden and Secretary Cardona on notice that we will use every legal mechanism available to us to defend the fundamental right to religious liberty.

The existing rule, established by the Trump Administration in 2020 to implement Supreme Court precedent, prohibits public universities from denying religious student groups any right, benefit or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the public institution because of a groups beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership standards or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely held religious beliefs.

The attorneys general argue that student religious organizations are worthy of protection. The religious practice of student groups and individuals is under immense fire at universities, they assert in the letter. Religious students have greatly enriched campus communities, through charity, service, temperance, and commitment to learning. They are owed the right to freely exercise their religion, however out of fashion with an increasingly anti-religious bureaucratic regime that might be.

Removing the rule, the letter continues, would conflict with Supreme Court rulings forbidding the government from weaponizing the government against religion. The department is blessing the targeting of religious groups, the letter says. That is wrong.

Joining Attorney General Bailey in sending the letter are the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

The letter can be read here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/ohio-rl-letter.pdf?sfvrsn=e3db4670_2

Visit link:
Attorney General Bailey Pushes Back on Biden's Attempt to Rescind ... - Missouri Attorney General's Office

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

More:
LETTER: Members of Congress should protect the First Amendment - Dyersville Commercial