Mediaboss Marketing

Digital generated image of purple circular helium balloon with bitcoin sign on it exploding against ... [+] grey background visualising stock market crash.

The looming prospect of compliance with the reporting requirements in section 6050I has been a problem for the digital asset industry since the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) last November.

The requirements pose procedural obstacles and privacy concerns for taxpayers, but the government has an interest in ensuring compliance with the tax laws.

The revised version of section 6050I requires taxpayers engaged in a trade or business to file an information return when they receive $10,000 or more in digital assets in one transaction or two or more related transactions in the course of that trade or business. The information required is the name, address, and tax identification number of the person from whom the assets were received; the amount of the assets; and the date and nature of the transaction. The provision was originally designed for cash transactions.

The brief push for legislative repeal of the crypto-related portions of the infrastructure bill last year never stood a great chance. The new proposal by Sens. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., and Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., includes an instruction to the IRS to write guidance implementing the changes to section 6050I.

The Responsible Financial Innovation Act is crypto- and taxpayer-friendly on the whole, suggesting that at least two senators who are interested enough in ensuring that the digital asset industry has a favorable regulatory environment in the United States to sponsor comprehensive legislation arent looking to repeal the expansion of section 6050I.

That appears to be something of a trend. The Keep Innovation in America Act (H.R. 6006), introduced in November 2021, would have only delayed implementation of the section 6050I reporting requirements until 2026.

But it would have required the IRS and Treasury to study the effects of including digital assets in the scope of the reporting regime, including the effects on the privacy and liberty rights and interests of taxpayers and other persons affected.

Such a comprehensive study of the cryptocurrency industry and possible legislative design ramifications is a good idea.

Also last November, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced S. 3206, which would have repealed the information reporting requirement, along with the change to the definition of broker in section 6045.

HOUSTON, TEXAS - MAY 27: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during the National Rifle Association ... [+] (NRA) annual convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center on May 27, 2022 in Houston, Texas. The annual National Rifle Association comes days after the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas which left 19 students and 2 adults dead, with the gunman fatally shot by law enforcement officers. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

He explained that he wanted Congress to study the digital asset industry more carefully before legislating because when it comes to legislating in an area where most Members of this body have very little familiarity of the details, it is highly perilous.

Cruz pointed to the technical difficulty that digital asset industry participants may have in getting the information required under section 6050I, and suggested that aggressive enforcement could decimate the digital asset industry, in a Joint Economic Committee hearing on November 17.

A recent case highlights the pressing need for Congress to be more circumspect in its attempts to regulate both the digital asset industry and the digital privacy of Americans more generally.

Coin Center, along with Dan Carman, Raymond Walsh, and Quiet Industries Corp., filed a suit on June 10 to stop enforcement of the infrastructure bills expansion of section 6050Is reporting requirement for digital assets, arguing that it is facially unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.

In Carman v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-00149-KKC (E.D. Ky. 2022), the plaintiffs allege that the requirement would force the disclosure of sensitive information in violation of their reasonable expectations of privacy and their property rights.

The complaint also says that it would threaten to expose the plaintiffs protected associations and thereby chill their expressive activities.

As an example of the breadth of information that the reporting requirements could reveal, the complaint notes that from one [section] 6050I report in 2024, the government could discover that a person donated to a local mosque in 2016, paid for a sons sobriety treatment in 2018, contributed to an unpopular political cause in 2020, and hired a marriage counselor in 2022.

Absent the information reporting, the government typically needs a warrant for a cryptocurrency address to make those types of connections. Extending [section] 6050I to digital assets would not meaningfully assist the IRSs administration of the income tax, the complaint argues.

At the November 2021 JEC hearing, Peter Van Valkenburgh of Coin Center explained that although the Bank Secrecy Act passed constitutional muster because the third parties who bear the reporting requirements hold private information that has been voluntarily given to them for a legitimate business purpose, theres no third party in the section 6050I context.

bitcoin wallet for online cryptocurrency trading

Accordingly, he said the third-party doctrine cannot render a warrant unnecessary for the collection of information such as Social Security numbers. That argument is reflected in the Carman complaint. One of the central stated goals of cryptocurrency is to allow transactions without the intermediary institutions that implicate the third-party doctrine, such as banks and telephone companies, the complaint says.

The Carman plaintiffs first argument is that the reporting requirement constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Digital asset users have developed and adopted a technology designed to preserve personal agency and protect enhanced privacy in transactions, which entitles them to an enhanced expectation of privacy, the complaint states.

The response to the complaint will likely address the legitimacy of the governments interest in getting the information it seeks about transactions in digital assets. There should be some mechanism to allow the government to enforce the tax and other laws.

How to do that when theres no obvious intermediary from whom to require information reporting on specific transactions is a broader debate that was exemplified last year in the expansive proposal for financial account information reporting.

The Carman complaint cites opinions concerning the privacy implications of various laws, including an opinion from Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1974 that explains, Financial transactions can reveal much about a persons activities, associations and beliefs. At some point, governmental intrusion upon these areas would implicate legitimate expectations of privacy.

The problem is that the justices and judges who wanted to recognize that line werent writing the majority opinions.

The Carman complaint highlights one of the central privacy issues of the digital age in its First Amendment claim based on freedom of association.

The plaintiffs might have difficulty succeeding with this argument in court, because their claim that the inviolability of privacy in associations means that Americans presumptively enjoy a right against reporting mandates is hard to square with the other reporting requirements in the tax code.

They might stand a better chance of finding a sympathetic ear in Congress with their other argument that truly private associations have become the last refuge of Americans fearful of the consequences of engaging in public life.

Part of the challenge here is that financial activities, even in decentralized forms, arent exclusively expressive. Sometimes financial choices are just that business transactions that have no particular First Amendment implications.

Many of them, if exposed, wouldnt reveal expressive associations so much as everyday financial decisions. That could implicate privacy concerns generally, but whether you ordered a book from a huge online retailer or a small local shop doesnt necessarily implicate freedom of association.

The argument is that by forcing disclosure of transactions that arent necessarily expressive, the government could use the information gleaned from them to uncover expressive transactions as well.

Once the government knows how to identify an individual on the public ledger from disclosure of a large transaction, it can find all the smaller transactions too. The trade or business limitation is insufficient because many contributions to advocacy groups would fall within the course of a trade or business, the complaint notes.

The ability to easily produce a full picture of the financial choices of taxpayers because of advances in technology cant be ignored when considering the impact of seemingly limited reporting regimes.

That should now be a universal consideration in the development of reporting requirements, although Congress doesnt seem to be up to speed with the relevant technology.

By highlighting critical modern privacy issues, the complaint provides an opening for their further consideration in the development of reporting regimes. Congress should do its share here, rather than leaving the questions entirely to the courts.

Still, this case will be important to watch because it could offer insight into how the courts might view a proposal like the one from the Biden administration last year to require broad financial account reporting. The contexts are different digital assets versus bank accounts but the arguments about transactional privacy have enough similarities that they could be a preview should that type of proposal be revived.

The Carman complaint notes that the third-party doctrine is restricted to the sharing of information that provides a limited view of a persons affairs, not a detailed mosaic.

In the financial account reporting regime, the $600 threshold for gross inflows and outflows, or even a slightly higher one, would likely have created a situation in which the limited collection of individual information, when aggregated across all accounts and individuals, would have offered a detailed picture.

The plaintiffs have a worthy and serious point about Congresss near-total disregard for individual privacy, but that failure isnt new, and it isnt limited to digital assets.

Protection of digital privacy in the United States is almost entirely absent, leaving those concerns to be addressed by what amounts to a privacy-exploding scheme based on a facade of consent. But the appropriate venue for this broader debate is the legislature.

Read more here:
Tax Information Reporting On Digital Assets Steps Into The Spotlight - Forbes

Receive in your inbox every Saturday by subscribing to any of our newsletters.

Jen Patja Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast in which Benjamin Wittes Wittes sat down on Twitter Spaces with Roger Parloff, Quinta Jurecic, and Molly Reynolds to discuss day four of the Jan. 6 committee hearings:

She alsoshared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast in which Wittes talked with Jurecic, Parloff, and Katie Benner of the New York Times about day five of the Jan. 6 select committee hearings:

Pollard shared a livestream of day four of the Jan. 6 select committee hearings. He also shared a livestream of day five of the Jan. 6 select committee hearings.

Elena Kagan shared an episode of Lawfare No Bull which features audio from the fourth public hearing held by the Jan. 6 select committee:

Bob Bauer argued that presidents seeking reelection can pose unique challenges to democratic elections in situations in which their desire to win can lead to disastrous results.

Daniel Richman discussed the role that the doctrine of willful blindness might have in proving Trumps criminal liability if a case were brought against the former president for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

David Priess shared an episode of Chatter in which Shane Harris sat down with Tim Naftali to discuss the legacy of Watergate in light of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack:

Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast from the November 2020 archives in which Evelyn Douek and Jurecic sat down with Alex Stamos to discuss the state of election security and the difficulty of countering false election claims:

Robert Chesney and Steve Vladeck shared an episode of the National Security Law Podcast in which they discussed the latest Jan. 6 conspiracy indictment, the Navarro contempt of Congress charge, the lawsuits challenging the Texas and Florida social media content-moderation laws, and more:

Stewart Baker shared an episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast in which he sat down with Amy Gajda to discuss her book, Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy:

Baker shared another episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast in which he sat down with Matthew Heiman, Scott Shapiro, and Nick Weaver to discuss the bipartisan effort to transform the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, cryptocurrency firms on the verge of collapse, TikTok, and more:

Herb Lin discussed the functional trade-offs in baked-in cybersecurity in product management.

Susan Landau argued that the EU proposal on combating child sexual abuse material online could present national security problems and relies on technology that does not exist yet.

Steve Bunnell reviewed James E. Bakers The Centaurs Dilemma: National Security Law for the Coming AI Revolution (Brookings Institution, 2020).

Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast in which Wittes sat down with Asfandyar Mir and Daniel Byman to discuss the current position of al-Qaeda in the world:

Howell also shared an episode of Rational Security in which Alan Rozenshtein, Jurecic, and Scott R. Anderson sat down to discuss the extradition of Julian Assange, Chinese access to TikTok customer data, and Googles potentially sentient LaMDA artificial intelligence program:

Jordan Schneider shared an episode of ChinaTalk in which he sat down with Weijian Shan to discuss Shans personal story of exile during the Cultural Revolution and his view on Chinas economic transformation:

Anoush Baghdassarian analyzed recent cases from the International Court of Justice that Armenia and Azerbaijan each brought against one other for alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Max Johnston and Bryce Klehm shared the final episode of Allies, which they discuss the uncertain long-term legal status of Mahnaz, a former member of the Afghan militarys Female Tactical Platoon, and other Afghans who are on parole after coming to the U.S. during the U.S.s withdrawal from Afghanistan:

Matthew Tokson discussed what a recent ruling from the First Circuit means for Fourth Amendment cases concerning the use of telephone pole cameras for surveillance purposes.

Kyleanne Hunter discussed the potential impacts that overturning Roe v. Wade would have on women in uniform.

And Hyemin Han and Katherine Pompilio shared an application for the fall 2022 Lawfare internship.

And that was the week that was.

See the original post here:
The Week That Was: All of Lawfare in One Post - Lawfare - Lawfare

Published: 06/23/2022 21:08 GMTFord Motor Co. (F) - Ford Motor Co - on June 23, 2022, Co Entered Into Nineteenth Amendment to Its Credit Agreement Dated As of December 15, 2006.Ford- As Result of Amendment, Lenders Have $3.4 Billion of Commitments Maturing on June 23, 2025 & $10.1 Billion of Commitments Maturing on June 23, 2027.Ford Motor Co - Entered Into a 364-day Revolving Credit Agreement on June 23, 2022.Ford Motor Co - Also on June 23, 2022, Co Entered Into Fourth Amendment to Its Revolving Credit Agreement Dated As of April 23, 2019.Ford Motor Co - Lenders Under 364-day Revolving Credit Agreement Have Provided $1.75 Billion of Commitments to Ford With a Maturity Date of June 22, 2023.Ford- Due to Supplemental 4th Amendment, Lenders Maintained Same Level of Total Commitments With $0.1 Billion Commitments Maturing on Sept 29, 2024.Ford - Due to Supplemental 4th Amendment, Lenders Maintained Same Level of Total Commitments With $1.9 Billion of Commitments Maturing on June 23, 2025. Revenue is expected to be $36.91 Billion Adjusted EPS is expected to be $0.43

Next Quarter Revenue Guidance is expected to be $39.35 BillionNext Quarter EPS Guidance is expected to be $0.57

More details on our Analysts Page.

Excerpt from:
$F Ford Motor Co Co Entered Into Nineteenth Amendment To Its Credit Agreement Dated As Of December 15, 2006 - CML News

Searches and Seizures under the Fourth Amendment

Brian T. Hobson

Introduction:

The United States Constitution is a document which aims to limit the power of the federal government. In order to achieve this goal, the Constitution limits what the federal government can do by establishing a base line of rights for all persons in the United States. In criminal law, one of the most important base line rights given to persons by the Constitution is found in the 4thamendment. The 4thamendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of the government. If evidence is obtained through a search or seizure that violates the 4thamendment then the exclusionary rule (discussed later) may prevent the evidence from being used by the government at trial.

Originally, the 4thamendment only applied to actions in federal court. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court stated that the 14thamendment incorporates the 4thamendment as a tool to limit the powers of the state governments as well as the federal government. Under our current laws, the 4thamendment applies equally to searches and seizures regarding criminal cases in both state and federal courts. Due to this application in both courts, the state and federal courts of appeals have created parallel case law pertaining to a 4thamendment analysis. This case law differs in some areas, but the overarching standards are set by the Supreme Court of the United States in a long line of cases that analyze the scope and meaning of the 4thamendment and how the amendment should apply under certain fact situations.

In this article, we will go step by step in analyzing a 4thamendment challenge based on a search or seizure from law enforcement. We will focus largely on federal case law as stated by the Supreme Court, but will highlight important differences in Texas when necessary.

This article will be broken down in five parts:

PART ONE: THE PRELIMINARY HURDLES STATE ACTION AND STANDING

The first element that must be shown for a successful challenge under the 4thamendment is that the search or seizure involved state action. The 4thamendment is designed to protect a person from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government only. This means that a private person may enter your home illegally, find evidence, and turn it over to the police with no 4thamendment violation. This is commonly found when a private investigator is hired by a private individual for their services.

Usually, the state action element is obvious in a criminal case as the person that is obtaining the evidence is a FBI agent, state law enforcement officer, or someone else that is affiliated with the State or Federal government. However, this element becomes less clear when a private actor illegally obtains evidence while working for the government. The question is at what point does a private actor become a state actor for purposes of a 4thamendment analysis? The Courts have determined that a search or seizure by a private actor can meet the state action element if the private actor is operating as an instrument for law enforcement or other state entity. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662 (1980).

For example, if an officer tells a private citizen to search your car to obtain evidence, that evidence would still be subject to a 4thamendment analysis as the private actor was acting at the direction of the state. The State action prong would be met under those facts despite the fact that the evidence was obtained by a private individual. The government cannot hide behind the state action doctrine in this scenario to circumvent a 4thamendment challenge.

Noteworthy here is a caveat that occurs in Texas law under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.23. This section states that no evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of the United States Constitution, Texas Constitution, or Texas law shall be admitted against the accused in a criminal trial. The Texas law is more restrictive than the federal standard as state action is not a prerequisite to challenging the admission of illegally obtained evidence. The challenge would not be under the 4thamendment in this situation, but instead, a challenge under 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Standing

For a defendant to challenge a search or seizure under the 4thamendment, the defendant must have standing to do so. Standing is an idea found throughout Constitutional law that states that a person cannot challenge government action without a recognized personal injury. In the context of 4thamendment law, there are three separate ways that a defendant may have standing. One, the defendant was subject to a seizure of his person by a state action. Two, the defendant had an interest in the property seized. Three, the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. Illinois v. Rakas, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). The first two means to obtain standing regard the prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Any seizure must be justified by the appropriate level of suspicion to be reasonable under the 4thamendment. Normally, whether the defendant was seized or detained is obvious from the facts. Likewise, determining whether a defendant had an interest in the property seized by a state actor is normally not a complex issue. Instead of standing, the main issue that stems from the legality of seizures revolves around having the appropriate level of suspicion to justify the seizure that takes place an arrest or detention. This will be discussed in detail in parts 2 and 3.

The most litigated topic for standing relates to the third means to obtain standing outlined above whether a defendant has the right to complain of an illegal search. For a defendant to have standing under a search, the issue can become quite complex. In Rakas, the Supreme Court pushed aside the longstanding rule that a defendant had standing to challenge a search if he was legitimately on the premises. In its place the Supreme Court gave life to the overarching theme for all standing issues involving a search whether the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. To meet this standard the defendant must show that 1) the defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched and 2) that subjective expectation is one that society would deem reasonable.

In line with the legal test determined in Rakas the Supreme Court has issued case law that helps to determine standing in relation to some of the more common search issues that arise in criminal law.

1. Search of a Vehicle whether the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in an automobile

Often times, criminal cases begin with the search of a vehicle that has been stopped by law enforcement. The Supreme Court has looked at two different types of defendants in these cases the driver/owner and the passengers. The Supreme Court has established a rule that passengers of a vehicle do not have standing to challenge the search of most compartments of a vehicle. In order to obtain standing to challenge a search of these compartments in a vehicle, the defendant must be the driver or the owner of that vehicle. This ruling is an outgrowth of the rule established in Rakas the Supreme Court will find that a passenger in a vehicle does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in most areas of an automobile. This includes the glove box, under the seats, the trunk, and most other compartments. This is true because an owner could peruse through these compartments as he wished or allow others into the car. The passenger does not have the same connection to, or control over, the vehicle as the driver/owner. A passenger is likely not able to exclude others from someone elses vehicle. Due to these assumptions, his expectation of privacy is not reasonable under the eyes of the law. The Supreme Courts findings make sense in this case. Most individuals in our society would not find it to be a personal intrusion on their expectation to privacy for an officer to go through another persons car that he is merely riding in.

The rule in Rakas does not preclude all passengers from challenging any search in an automobile. If an officer went through the personal belongings of the passenger (like a purse), then certainly the Supreme Court, and all other courts, would agree that the passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing searched. In an analysis, the ultimate question must always be the test in Rakas does the defendant have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing or place searched.

2. Search of Another Persons Home

Many of the same issues regarding standing in an automobile search apply to a defendants challenge to the search of another persons home. Lets say that a defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance in state court. The controlled substance was obtained when officers entered the home of the defendants friend without a warrant and without probable cause. Without some established exigency, this would be an illegal search of the friends home. However, the defendant in this case would be unlikely to have standing unless he lived at that house or was more than a casual visitor. State case law dictates that an individual does not have the requisite expectation of privacy in anothers home if that individual is a visiting guest. The defendant here would have to show that he was living at his friends house or that he was at the very least an overnight guest to have a chance at meeting the standing prong in a 4thamendment challenge to the search. So even if the officers in this case violate the 4thamendment in obtaining the controlled substance, the defendant here will not have standing to challenge the search. He cannot suppress the evidence. The rightful person to suppress the controlled substance would be the defendants friend if he was charged. But even a successful challenge by the friend would not prohibit the State from admitting the controlled substance in the defendants trial as the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches is considered a personal right. This right requires a personal injury to warrant the exclusion of the evidence at that defendants trial. A more detailed breakdown of the inability to suppress evidence in another persons trial will be discussed in detail in Part 5 exclusionary rule.

3.Conclusion

The two preliminary hurdles in a 4thamendment analysis are often forgotten by defense attorneys as well as prosecutors. While state action has lost its foothold in Texas case law, the standing doctrine is a tricky area that often finds itself as a central issue when challenging the legality of a search by law enforcement. The lynch pin to the standing analysis is to determine if the person is the owner, and then understand that the further removed you are from control over the area the more likely the Court is to find that your expectation of privacy is unreasonable in the eyes of society.

More here:
Analyzing Fourth Amendment Issues | Houston Criminal Defense Attorneys

I was away when news of the SCOTUS leak went viral. I hadnt watched TV for a week and barely signed onto social media, but when I did, I read astute and deeply troubling reactions to the policy document designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has been considered established law for 50 years.

The document, drafted by conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, was supported by four of his court colleagues, revealing that a majority of the court concurred with ending womens right to abortion. The timing of the leak was significant; it occurred when the court is scheduled to rule on the constitutionality of a Mississippi abortion law which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

If the court finds that the Mississippi law stands, it will have sanctioned ending Roe v. Wade, allowing states to make their own laws regarding abortion. Some states have already established draconian laws that include charging women with murder if they miscarry or have an abortion. Some have ruled that physicians who perform abortions can be charged with a felony crime and some have set up vigilante laws that could affect anyone who helps a woman get an abortion.

Essentially, the demise of the constitutional right to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy will end womens right to abortion in more than half the states in this country. The implications are huge, not only for American women but for the future of the country, and they are abundantly clear.

Many analysts and pundits have written cogently and urgently about the legal, physical, economic and emotional consequences for women and others in this country, and for all of us with respect to our civil and human rights. As a womens health educator and advocate, I am all too familiar with those consequences. I have heard womens testimonials, read their memoirs, listened to their stories. I have helped them access abortion care, and as a doula, I have helped them give birth to much wanted babies.

After the Alito document was revealed (and during the last confirmation hearings), I thought about the great legal minds of the past who had served as Supreme Court Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among them. Now, I mourn what has become of that institution, where several judges lied under oath to Congress regarding precedent, and where many are willing to ignore the Constitutions Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be secure in their persons and to not be violated or subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

It pains and frightens me that faulty some might say puerile logic superficial, antiquated, cliched justifications, overt sexism and religious ideology are blatantly on display. (It is worth noting that seven of the current justices are Catholic and no Protestants are on the bench.)

Couple that with the less-than-stellar records and legal experience of several justices, the alleged sexual harassment conduct of two justices, the conflict of interest on the part of a justice whose wife actively supported the insurrection, along with the majoritys willing abrogation of civil and human rights, and one can question where liberty and justice for all has gone.

How, I ask myself in these traumatic judgment days, has this largely trusted American institution so quickly deteriorated into depravity? How did its majority come to rely on bumper sticker taglines, social media tropes, and arguments so weak and sloppy that they wouldnt pass muster in a law school? Where has compassionate consideration in difficult matters gone? Why have context, untoward consequences and the reality of peoples lives disappeared?

The fact is, the Supreme Court has become a political organization with its own dark agenda and its reputation will forever be tarnished, all because two men and one woman who should know better, appointed by a far-right, self-serving autocrat, are now seated for life on the highest court in the land, along with several hundred inappropriate federal judges.

The price well all pay for judicial travesties, individually and together, grows ever clearer and more threatening. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, womens lives will be destroyed. Precedent in other matters (gay and interracial marriage, LGBTG rights and more) will no longer be valid and revision of laws that wreak havoc because of ignorance and a taste for punishment, will return.

It is no stretch to say that we will become an even more divided and dangerous nation, two-tiered and binary in ways that we cant yet imagine. Violence is likely to flourish along with racism, antisemitism, sexism and increased marginalization. The elderly, young, disabled and ill will suffer even more profoundly. Murder charges, incarcerations and suicides will become commonplace. Poverty will prevail for those in the 99%, while corporations and billionaires flourish. Family structures will be deeply and sadly impacted. The planet will be at risk sooner than predicted.

This is not solely about womens rights, and it is not hyperbole. Its a harbinger of what is to come because of laws we must live with, who makes and enforces those laws, who adjudicates disputes, what national priorities are established and by whom. It is about the future, which now is in the hands of the Supreme Court a court plunged into decline that endangers us all.

Its a court that is beyond disappointing, a court with extraordinary power to shape our lives, and it grows ever more dangerous.

Elayne Clift lives in Brattleboro.

View post:
Clift: The demise of Fourth Amendment | Perspective | rutlandherald.com - Rutland Herald