judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “order”

10th Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Inmate’s 1st Amendment Claims

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Khan v. Barela, (10th Cir., March 26, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 35-page opinion reversed a New Mexico federal district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a federal pre-trial detainee’s pro se 1st and 4th Amendment claims. Erik Khan was a pre-trial detainee for some four years. His 1st Amendment free speech claims involved a prohibition on his reading hard-cover books, newspaper and newspaper clippings. His 1st Amendment free-exercise claims revolved around prison chaplains’ refusal to allow him a clock, prayer schedule, and Muslim calendar to track the timing of Ramadan, and his inability to obtain Ramadan-compliant meals.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Court Interprets Defenses Under Illinois RFRA and Right of Conscience Act

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Rojas v. Martell, (IL App., March 6, 2020), an Illinois state appellate court answered four certified questions on the state’s  Health Care Right of Conscience Act and its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court held that neither the analytic framework not the reasonable accommodation defense of Title VII should be read into these state statutes. It also concluded that transfer of an employee to a job that does not include the religiously objectionable duties may be permissible under the Right of Conscience Act. The issues arose in a case in which a county health department nurse claimed that the health department discriminated against her after she asserted that her Catholic religious beliefs prevented her from providing birth control, from providing Plan B emergency contraception, and from making abortion referrals.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Mansplaining Mansplanation

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today by my old philosophy professor Dr. Crispin Sartwell from back in my Penn State days which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

Please have a little himpathy.

Allow me to mansplain the international situation to you in broad strokes. I’ve really got a lot to say, as I range from Caracas to the Uighur regions of western China, Rodrigo Duterte to Amy Klobuchar, UFOs to polar bears, quantum mechanics to tornadoes, Game of Thrones to the Women’s World Cup. You may assert with some accuracy that my base of knowledge on these matters is thin. Nevertheless, my certainty about them and much else is impressive, especially to me.

I am all man, and have enough pride and self-confidence to make pronouncements about almost anything. And I make those pronouncements in a rich baritone voice that seems to be construed by people like you, among others, as emanating authority, no matter what I’m actually saying. I’m grateful for this, and would hate to see it end. But now campus feminists have identified mansplanation as a central dimension of patriarchal oppression.

Mansplanation is all I have left, really. Please, leave me this last soiled vestige of dignity. Have a little himpathy. Perhaps I offer valuable insights, perhaps not. Either way, I’m going to mansplain some stuff to you. I can’t help it, really, and to reach the point of being a quasi-effective mansplainer was hard work; I had to spend long minutes gathering up certainties and formulating the sort of dogmata that, according to me, cannot rationally be gainsaid.

Hearing myself talk, I sometimes sound awfully certain to myself. Reaching the point where I could convey that impression effectively took some doing. My status as a mansplainer is an achievement, in other words, perhaps my only one.

If you knew me well, you’d know that my mansplanatory tone is probably the least problematic thing about me, all in all. So I express myself mansplanatorily. So what, really? At worst, it’s liable to be kind of irritating. And at best the manformation I am providing is himformative. Now perhaps certain phenomena, even mansplainability itself, will remain forever unmansplainable, or possibly inmansplicable, but you never know until you try, and you’re never really done until you admit defeat, which a real man such as myself never does.

Perhaps people of all kinds can learn the art of mansplanation. I can teach you, but I’ll have to charge. Meanwhile if you run into me and I’m pontificating about Hindu nationalism or vaccinations, just mansplain some stuff right back at me, or ’splain with whatever prefix you care to use as you drive your point relentlessly home.

If it’s any comfort to you, I’ll probably lapse into silence, eventually. I’d like to be the sort of mansplainer who knows when the time for mansplanations is over, though members of my gender of my age are notoriously bad at noticing things like that. And look, sweetie. If you weren’t so entirely ignorant, I wouldn’t have to mansplain this stuff to you, would I?

I remark in conclusion that there are also a couple of very big reasons for manspreading, which at some point soon I will share with America. The international situation, meanwhile, is very much a mixed bag.

This article can be found here.

Justice Department Sides With Wedding Photographer In District Court Case

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a Statement of Interest (full text) in Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, filed 2/27/20).  As previously reported, in the case the owner of a wedding photography business seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Louisville’s public accommodation ordinance against her. Plaintiff “only accepts requests for services which are consistent with her editorial, artistic, and religious judgment.”  This precludes her from providing photography and social media services for same-sex weddings. DOJ sides with the photographer, arguing in part:

Most commercial transactions will not involve requiring an unwilling speaker to participate in someone else’s expressive activity. But where public accommodations laws do intrude on expression in this way, they are subject to heightened scrutiny….

Photography—and particularly the bespoke wedding photography in which Ms. Nelson engages—is inherently expressive…. By … compelling her to engage in expression promoting and celebrating a ceremony in violation of her conscience, Defendants infringe upon the fundamental “principle of autonomy to control one’s own speech.”

… That is not to say that every application of a public accommodations law to protected expression will violate the Constitution. In particular, laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny….  The Supreme Court has not similarly held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny or that eradicating private individuals’ opposition to same-sex marriage is a uniquely compelling interest.

You can learn more about this issue here.

N.J. lawmakers want to protect residents from other states’ red-light camera fines

I have been writing in opposition to traffic cameras for a few years now (you can find all of my articles and posts on traffic cameras here).  They are consistently controversial and violative of basic rights as described in the article below.

__________________________________

Jay Lassiter drove back home to Cherry Hill last month after burying his Marine Corps veteran father at Arlington National Cemetery. A few days later, he got a surprise in the mail.  It was a message from Washington. And it wasn’t a sympathy card.

It was a speeding ticket. Two more had come by the end of the week. The Metropolitan Police Department said cameras had caught his Audi speeding on New York Avenue (twice) and on Rhode Island Avenue. He owed $400. Yeah, he was speeding, he said, but in his opinion at least, a 35-mph speed limit on one stretch of road felt as if it should have been set at 55 mph. And besides, this never would have happened back home. New Jersey doesn’t have automated speed cameras.

“Why are we obliging another jurisdiction doing to us what we’ve determined is illegal to do in New Jersey?” said Lassiter, a 46-year-old LGBT activist and freelance writer. (He did pay the fines.)

“Why are we obliging another jurisdiction doing to us what we’ve determined is illegal to do in New Jersey?” said Lassiter, a 46-year-old LGBT activist and freelance writer. (He did pay the fines.)

But if a few New Jersey lawmakers get their way, the state’s Motor Vehicle Commission will stop giving residents’ identifying information to out-of-state agencies — including those in Pennsylvania and New York — trying to cite drivers for speed- and red-light camera violations. South Dakota did the same four years ago.

New Jersey ended its five-year red-light camera pilot program in December 2014 after 25 communities recorded hundreds of thousands of violations. The state did not renew the program.

The cameras are controversial. Officials in communities that have them say they promote safety and discourage drivers from running red lights. Those with laws banning the cameras say the devices are more about making money than safety and infringe on driver’s rights. Both perspectives have support from traffic studies — depending on who was funding them. Judges across the country have thrown out tickets. In 2012, the Chicago Tribune uncovered a bribery scheme between one red-light camera vendor and a city official.

The number of communities across the country that use red-light cameras has been falling. In 2012, more than 530 communities used them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. About 420 have them now, according to a September report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which supports the cameras.

In Pennsylvania, only two municipalities use automated red-light cameras — but one of them happens to be the biggest city in the state. In Philadelphia, 32 intersections have them, and in Abington Township, Montgomery County, three. Both municipalities send all net income to PennDot, which uses the money for safety grants across the state.

The city issued more than 215,000 citations between April 1, 2017, and March 31, according to an August report by the Philadelphia Parking Authority. The city amassed over $20 million in revenue and $11 million in profit from the cameras. Philadelphia started using them in 2005. In the fiscal year that ended in March, the parking authority sent just under 10 percent of its red-light violations to New Jersey license-holders; Pennsylvania tag-holders constituted the majority.

A bill allowing speed cameras in certain areas is making its way through the Pennsylvania legislature.

Philadelphia’s parking authority has agreements with out-of-state agencies, including New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission, that allow access to driver databases for purposes of issuing red-light camera citations, PPA spokesman Martin O’Rourke said.

“If that were to stop then the PPA would have no ability to get the owner’s vehicle information or address to send him or her a notice of violation,” he said.

“If that were to stop then the PPA would have no ability to get the owner’s vehicle information or address to send him or her a notice of violation,” he said.

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D., Union), who has cosponsored the bill with State Sen. Nicholas Sacco (D., Bergen) since 2014, became deputy majority leader this year. He said he thinks they “might actually be able to get some movement,” citing bipartisan support.

State Sen. Declan O’Scanlon, a Republican from Monmouth County who cosponsored this year’s bill, said he’s not worried about the previous stalling of the legislation.

“The best thing [we] have going for us is time,” he said. “Because every single day people get these tickets and realize they’re a scam.”

Local governments in 14 states and the District of Columbia use speed cameras, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The nation’s capital and communities in 23 states use red-light cameras.

South Dakota, which does not allow the cameras, did in 2014 what New Jersey legislators have been trying to do. Whenever an out-of-state agency asks South Dakota for a driver’s information for a traffic camera citation — which state officials acknowledge is rare — the state declines the request. Only one state at its border — Iowa — allows the cameras.

New Jersey is surrounded by states that have red-light cameras, speed cameras, or both.

“If we don’t believe in the program as it stands in New Jersey,” Scutari said, “why should we help to prosecute our motoring public that resides in New Jersey?”

By Michaelle Bond and published on September 10, 2018 in The Philadelphia Inquirer and can be found here.

No 1st Amendment Violation In Requiring Parolee To Live At Christian Homeless Shelter

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Janny v. Gamez, (D CO, Feb. 21, 2020), a Colorado federal district court dismissed an inmate’s First Amendment challenge to his arrest for parole violations. Mark Janny’s parole officer directed him to stay at a Christian homeless shelter in order to meet the parole requirement that he establish a residence of record. Janny was expelled from the shelter’s program when he refused to attend chapel religious services. The court held that plaintiff’s Establishment Clause rights were not infringed because there was a secular purpose for the homeless shelter requirement. The court also accepted defendant’s qualified immunity defense to an assertion of free exercise violations, saying that it was not clearly established that a parole officer violates a parolee’s rights by requiring him to reside at a facility that provides religious programming.

You can learn more about this issue here.

6th Circuit: Non-Recognition Substantially Burdened Christian Identity Inmates

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Fox v. Washington, (6th Cir., Feb, 6, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial court had misapplied RLUIPA in upholding Michigan’s refusal to recognize prison inmates’ Christian Identity, white separatist religion. The prison system denied Christian Identity adherents the right to group worship and full immersion baptism. The court said in part:

… [P]laintiffs have met their burden ,,, to show that the Department has imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise with respect to group worship for the Sabbath and holidays….

At step three of RLUIPA, the burden shifts to the Department to make two showings. First, it must prove that the imposition of the substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise was “in  furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” … Second, the Department must establish that it used “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”… The district court made no such rulings, and the record is not well developed on these issues. “As ‘a court of review, not of first view,’ we will remand the case to the district court to resolve the point in the first instance.”

You can learn more about this issue here.

Family Law Tip: Custody Orders and School Buses

I  post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too. Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

DC Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Test For Jurisdiction Over Adjunct Faculty At Religiously-Affiliated Colleges

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over adjunct faculty at Duquesne University.  In doing so, the majority rejected the test developed by the National Labor Relations Board in its 2014 Pacific Lutheran decision. The NLRB took the position that it lacks jurisdiction over adjunct faculty at non-profit religiously-affiliated colleges only if both the school holds itself out to the public as a religious institution and the particular faculty group petitioning performs a specific religious role. The majority held that the role played by the particular faculty may not be considered:

Pacific Lutheran impermissibly intrudes into religious matters. The Board suggests that it can avoid constitutional problems by considering only whether a religious school “holds out” faculty members as playing a specific religious role, … but such an inquiry would still require the Board to define what counts as a “religious role” or a “religious function.” … Defining which roles qualify would be far outside the competence of Board members and judges.

Judge Pillard dissenting said in part:

The Board’s approach has several advantages…. It recognizes the significant structural and functional differences between adjuncts and full faculty at many schools, as well as the heterogeneity of schools’ religious exercise. It thereby not only respects precedent and protects religious exercise, but also affords schools leeway to delineate for themselves the scope of the academic teaching corps that embodies their religious mission. In contrast to the automatic presumption of religiosity that the court adopts today, the Board’s approach adds a measure of tailoring at the exemption’s outer edge, eliminating needless sacrifice of adjuncts’ NLRA rights but extending the exemption to them where called for by a religious role the school itself identifies.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.

You can learn more about this issue here.

HHS Says California Violated Federal Conscience Protections On Abortion Coverage

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights today issued a Notice of Violation (full text) to the state of California finding that the state violated federal law by making elective abortion coverage mandatory in all policies offered by insurance companies regulated by the state’s Department of Managed Health Care. A Christian church and a Catholic religious order filed complaints with HHS saying that California’s Mandate Letters to health care plans resulted in the religious organizations being required to offer their employees policies that cover abortions, in violation of the conscience provisions of the federal Weldon Amendment.

The Notice of Violation explains:

… [T]he only exemption California offered (to a health plan issuer) was limited to plans covering a narrow set of “religious employers” under California law. However, the Weldon Amendment protects from discrimination all plans that decline to cover abortion, without requiring any plan issuers, sponsors, or beneficiaries to have a religious character or have a religious reason for not providing or paying for such coverage…. [E]ven a categorical exemption of “religious employers,” as defined by California law, would have only been available to approximately 37% of those employer groups who, prior to the Mandate Letters, had health care coverage that limited or excluded abortion.

The Notice of Violation concludes:

If OCR does not receive sufficient assurance that California will cease requiring all health care plans, as a class, to cover abortion, or that it is willing to negotiate in good faith towards that end, OCR will forward this Notice of Violation and the evidence supporting OCR’s findings in this matter to the appropriate HHS funding components for further action under applicable grants and contracts regulations. Such referral may ultimately result in limitations on continued receipt of certain HHS funds in accordance with the Constitution and applicable Supreme Court case law.

HHS also issued a press release explaining its action which in part quotes the Director of HHS’s Office of Civil Rights:

We are putting California on notice that it must stop forcing people of good will to subsidize the taking of human life, not only because it’s the moral thing to do, but because it’s the law.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Post Navigation