Mediaboss Marketing

The Biden administrations visible support of Gov. Gavin Newsoms vaccination campaign is just one of many ways that changes at the federal level are affecting the Golden State.

But one transition thats been less discussed is how former President Donald J. Trumps legacy shaping the Supreme Court will play out in California.

This month, we got a glimpse of the new order when a splintered Supreme Court handed challengers of Californias pandemic restrictions their most significant legal victory, blocking the states total ban on in-person worship in most counties.

[Read more about the ruling here.]

I talked with Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law and an expert on constitutional law, about what it means.

Heres our conversation, lightly edited and condensed:

First, can you talk broadly about the dynamic between Californias government and the courts? Im thinking in particular about how many times California sued the Trump administration.

Sure. Let me just say the obvious: What you have is a liberal state and a conservative court. During the Trump administration, you had a liberal state and a conservative president.

I think Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against Trump administration policies. Many of them were on their way to the Supreme Court at the end of the administration, many of them didnt get there. Some are there now.

Youve got California challenging the Texas lawsuit, with the Trump administration on their side, trying to have the Affordable Care Act declared unconstitutional. You have Trumps threatening to withhold money from sanctuary cities and states that was on its way to the Supreme Court. And you could go on with a long list.

I dont expect youre going to see California challenging the Biden administration nearly as frequently.

[Read about the Biden administrations recent disavowal of the Trump administrations challenge to the Affordable Care Act.]

One thing thats less obvious, but still important: There are places where the Supreme Court can find theres no constitutional right, but the state can find a right. Like abortion.

I think theres a real likelihood the Supreme Courts going to overturn Roe v. Wade. But California will continue to protect the right to abortion under the California constitution.

But there are still places where the Supreme Court is going to find a right that limits what the state can do.

Ill give you an example: California adopted a law that said that religiously affiliated pregnancy crisis centers had to post notices saying the state would provide free and low-cost abortion and contraception to women who couldnt afford them and that unlicensed facilities had to disclose they were unlicensed.

The Supreme Court, five to four, declared that unconstitutional, saying it compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. There, the Supreme Court used a right to strike down a progressive state law.

I think we saw that where Gavin Newsom imposed restrictions on religious worship and the Supreme Court enjoined some of it, but allowed other parts of it to stay.

I was going to ask what you made of that ruling specifically.

In the ruling about worship restrictions, you have to piece together opinions. But I think the shift from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Justice Amy Coney Barrett has created a court thats been much more protective of religious institutions and less deferential to governors about Covid.

There are two things going on there. One is that conservatives and liberals just disagree about the need for aggressive government action to deal with Covid. And I think conservatives and liberals disagree about how much we should be protecting the free exercise of religion.

Are there any similar big, looming fights youre anticipating already like over public health regulation, immigration or labor regulation?

California courts have tried to limit the enforcement of arbitration clauses in many contexts. But the United States Supreme Court has been very aggressive in enforcing arbitration clauses I would expect more cases like that, with the liberal courts in California wanting to do more to protect the right of people to go to court, and the conservative Supreme Court saying no, we want to enforce them.

[Read more about arbitration clauses and how theyve affected corporations and workers.]

I think the Supreme Court is going to take up many more Second Amendment cases. Many of the more progressive gun regulations you see from cities in California and the state are going to face a much more conservative Supreme Court.

What about immigration? That was a source of a lot of the conflict between California and the Trump administration.

The key there is going to be the administration. Because what you saw is California challenging many of the very restrictive Trump administration policies.

If we go back in four or eight years to a Trump-like administration on immigration, youre going to see those conflicts again, but theyre going to be much less frequent with Biden.

Anything else Californians should be paying particular attention to?

One thing youre going to see is a lot more civil rights litigation choosing to go to state court and use state law, rather than going to federal court, given how conservative the Supreme Court is and how much more liberal the California Supreme Court is.

We saw that with regard to marriage equality the initial cases for gay and lesbian marriage all were in state court under state law.

What kinds of cases might that affect?

Imagine it was suing a police officer for use of excessive force. A plaintiff might say, Id rather do that in state court, under state law, especially if the California Legislature adopts new laws in that regard.

And certainly anything with regard to the right to education.

The crisis in Texas sounded an alarm for power systems throughout the country: As climate change accelerates, electric grids will face extreme weather events that go beyond the historical conditions those systems were designed for. [The New York Times]

The state has cited Kaiser Permanente more than any other health care employer for failing to adequately protect its workers. [CalMatters]

Los Angeless school board voted to cut its police force and divert funds to improve the education of Black students. [The Los Angeles Times]

San Franciscos school board delayed a vote confirming the districts reopening plan, angering parents. [The San Francisco Chronicle]

California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here.

Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter.

California Today is edited by Julie Bloom, who grew up in Los Angeles and graduated from U.C. Berkeley.

The rest is here:
Californias Shifting Relationship With the Supreme Court - The New York Times

Joe Biden spoke during the First State Democratic Dinner in Dover, Delaware, on March 16, 2019. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Joe Biden is ramping up his push to eliminate Second Amendment rights under the pretext of public safety. In a statement on Sunday, Biden marked the anniversary of the Parkland shooting in Florida, saying he would take new steps to take guns away from Americans.

His plans include a ban on private ownership of military style rifles, tougher background checks and growing bureaucratic obstacles to buying legal guns. Meanwhile, Biden has proposed little to contain the inflow of illegal weapons into the U.S.

Many Americans said if Biden wants their guns, he may come and get them.

Im very worried about this country, where its going, gun dealer Scott Pickett said. If it keeps heading down the same way, theyre going to push people into another Civil War.

Biden baselessly claimed tougher gun control would reduce crime. However, gun violence is at its highest in cities like Chicago and New York that have stringent gun control already in place.

View original post here:
Biden's assault on 2nd Amendment sparks fears of Civil War - One America News Network

As White House officials are meeting to discuss gun violence prevention, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming says that attacking the 2ndAmendment Rights of law-abiding citizens isnt the answer.

According to The Hill, Biden Administration officials are meeting with advocates backing gun law reforms, such as strengthening background checks.

Gun sales are on the rise in the U.S., with some believing its due to Biden making his intentions about gun laws very well-known during his presidential campaign.

The Hill reports that during Bidens campaign, he vowed to pass legislation banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and buy back the ones already in circulation.

President Bidens campaign website also said that he would enact universal background check legislation.

John Feinblatt, the President of Everytown for Gun Safety, had nothing but encouraging words about his recent meeting with President Biden.

This meeting provided more evidence that the Biden Administration is committed to being the strongest weve ever seen on gun safety, Fleinblatt stated. With COVID making gun violence worse and armed extremists literally holding our democracy at gunpoint, the time for action is now and we fully expect to see it soon.

Of course, any laws that the President tries to enact must also be passed by Congress which has proven difficult on such divisive issues as gun control.

Any laws regarding gun control will inevitably run up against Republican Senate members and, if Senator Barrassos words are any indication, thats going to be an uphill battle.

In a tweet posted Tuesday morning, Senator Barrasso said that he wont let Joe Biden threaten the right of people in Wyoming to keep and bear arms. We all agree that we must wind ways to control violent crime & keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Attacking the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens isnt the way to do that.

Though Democrats control the house, all 50 Democratic members of the Senate would need to support the idea of gun legislation, and they would need to be joined by at least 10 Republican Senators, before any sort of legislation could actually pass.

Go here to see the original:
Barrasso 'Won't Let Joe Biden Threaten the Right of People' - K2 Radio

Good morning from Augusta. We hope you shoveled, scraped or salted in a timely fashion. Heres your soundtrack.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: The problem, to be honest, is that the Republicans are so far from what the president proposed its hard to figure out how that gap can be sufficiently narrowed, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told Maine Public about prospects for a coronavirus relief bill. He doubts the eventual package will be bipartisan.

Maine may crack down on hospitals that give COVID-19 vaccines outside the states plan, but the tough rhetoric comes late in the game. Attorney General Aaron Frey warned providers in a Tuesday memo that administering the vaccine to people ineligible under state guidelines could get a provider removed from the states vaccination program or result in criminal charges or civil penalties.

The move comes weeks after MaineHealth, the states largest hospital system, gave vaccines to out-of-state consultants hired to discourage nurses from unionizing and MaineGeneral offered early vaccinations to donors. Frey referenced both of those incidents in a release, saying providers were put on notice that they must follow state requirements.

Health care providers in other states have faced fines or criminal penalties for offering vaccines to ineligible people, though most states have tried to balance the desire to target vaccinations for the neediest populations with concerns that leftover vaccinations could get thrown out. Punishing providers is also dicey because it could slow down vaccination efforts.

Freys statement, though firm, does not come off as sharply as those in other states. Embattled New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for instance, proposed a $1 million fine on providers who administer vaccines to people not eligible under the states plan.

For now, demand for vaccines in Maine continues to far exceed supply since the state extended eligibility to residents age 70 and older nearly a month ago. Public-facing health care workers, first responders, residents and staff of long-term care facilities and certain other COVID-19 response workers are also eligible.

Facing rebuke over Trump vote, Susan Collins says GOP should focus on growing ranks, Caitlin Andrews, BDN: Responding to the party criticisms for the first time on Tuesday, [U.S. Sen. Susan] Collins said in a statement that there is room for people who disagree with one another in our party. She noted her rarity in New England as the last Republican in federal office, something she said her party should fix while uniting around principles and not figures.

The Maine Republican Party drafted a letter to Collins rebuking her vote in the strongest possible terms while seeking to keep relations with her. The draft letter, which was sent to state committee members on Tuesday night and is being published first in the Daily Brief, notes that the conservative grassroots is almost universally outraged at the vote but counterbalances that somewhat with praise for the considerable support that you have provided for not only the Maine Republican Party, but for our County Committees and our candidates across the state. Demi Kouzounas, the state party chair, gave committee members until 3 p.m. Wednesday to sign onto the letter, which was drafted at the request of county party chairs.

Mainers say theyll get COVID-19 vaccine at one of the highest rates in US, Jessica Piper, Bangor Daily News: About 62 percent of Maine adults who have not yet received the vaccine say they definitely plan to get vaccinated, according to a survey the U.S. Census Bureau conducted over several weeks in January and early February. That share was eighth highest among states. Another 18.6 percent of Mainers said they would probably take the vaccine once it is available to them.

Top Democrats push for a COVID-19 Patient Bill of Rights gets a public hearing on Wednesday. The bill from Senate President Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, and co-sponsored by House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, would require insurers to cover COVID-19 tests and vaccinations while waiving any copayments related to them. Many tests are now free to Mainers under a standing state order and vaccines distributed by the federal government are given at no cost to recipients, but the bill looks to establish that as an ongoing standard.

Aroostook town declares itself a Second Amendment sanctuary, Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli, BDN: Modeled after immigration sanctuary cities, Second Amendment sanctuaries are popping up around the nation with more than 1,200 jurisdictions in 37 states. In states like North Carolina, nearly two-thirds of the jurisdictions are Second Amendment sanctuaries.

The lengthy process begins today, after a short delay, with the second-most expensive part of the budget and various other agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services takes up 33 percent of Gov. Janet Mills $8.4 billion two-year budget proposal. The overall package is mostly flat with current spending, but constitutes an increase over the last budget approved in 2019. Hearings start with that part of the budget.

Taking up most of the agenda will be discussions about provider rate payments, an annual subject in the state and one Maine is currently evaluating. Rates will be scrutinized even more this year as the state faces a budget shortfall that it must address.

Todays Daily Brief was written by Jessica Piper, Caitlin Andrews and Michael Shepherd. If youre reading this on the BDNs website or were forwarded it, you can sign up to have it delivered to your inbox every weekday morning here.

To reach us, do not reply directly to this newsletter, but contact the political team at mshepherd@bangordailynews.com, candrews@bangordailynews.com or jpiper@bangordailynews.com.

Read more:
Maine will crack down on hospitals that vaccinate ineligible people - Bangor Daily News

On February 16, 2021, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Norris Cochran, published in the Federal Register the Sixth Amendment to the Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Act [PREP Act]. 86 Fed. Reg. 9516-9520 (Feb. 16, 2021). This is the second amendment to the Declaration issued since President Biden took office and continues the Trump Administrations practice of providing broad liability protection for those responding to COVID19.

The Declaration originally was issued on January 31, 2020, by former HHS Secretary Azar. Pursuant to the PREP Act, the Declaration allows the Secretary to extend liability immunity to covered persons for taking allowed actions with respect to covered countermeasures, in prescribed circumstances, all as declared by the Secretary. A covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law for all claims of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure, which includes FDA-authorized COVID19 vaccines and tests. See 42 U.S.C. 247d6d(a)(1). Under the PREP Act, covered persons include manufacturers, distributors, program planners, qualified persons, and their officials, agents and employees. 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2).

In the Sixth Amendment to the Declaration, the Acting Secretary augmented the covered persons protected from liability with an additional category of qualified persons. Although the Unites States is, by statute, a covered person, the structure of the statutory provision defining covered person does not make clear that direct contractors and employees of the United States are similarly covered. See 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2). To clear up that ambiguity, the Sixth Amendment provides that a qualified person includes any Federal government employee, contractor or volunteer who prescribes, administers, delivers, distributes or dispenses a Covered Countermeasure, if the federal department or agency has authorized or could authorize that person even if those authorized duties or responsibilities ordinarily would not extend to members of the public or otherwise would be more limited in scope than the activities such employees, contractors or volunteers are authorized to carry out under this declaration. 86 Fed. Reg. at 9519 (Feb. 16, 2021).

This expanded liability protection is fully consistent with and will support President Bidens National Strategy for the COVID19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness, which envisions federal vaccination sites and deploy[ing] thousands of federal staff, contractors and volunteers to support state and local vaccination efforts. See National Strategy, pp. 9, 52.

The rest is here:
Biden Administration Confirms COVID-19 Liability Protections for Federal Contractors, Employees and Volunteers - Lexology