October 1, 2024

In the News

Fox News: New Hampshire parents sue school district for banning them over 'silent protest' against trans soccer player

By Landon Mion

.....A group of New Hampshire parents and a grandparent filed a lawsuit against a school district on Monday over their removal from a girls soccer game for holding a protest against a transgender player.

Kyle Fellers, Anthony Foote, Nicole Foote and Eldon Rash filed the federal lawsuit against the Bow School District, Superintendent of Schools Marcy Kelley, Principal Matt Fisk, Athletic Director Mike Desilets, Bow Police Lieutenant Phil Lamy and soccer referee Steve Rossetti.

The lawsuit says Fellers and Anthony Foote were banned from a Sept. 17 girls soccer game between Bow High School and Plymouth Regional High School in which they were wearing pink wristbands with "XX" displayed to symbolize the female chromosome structure and express their support for biological female athletes.

The "silent protest" at Bow High School, the lawsuit says, intended to "show solidarity" with the Bow team and oppose a policy that allowed a transgender girl to play on Plymouth's team.

The Courts

Bloomberg Law: Cops Battle Data Brokers for Privacy in Constitutional Clash

By Tonya Riley

.....Jane Doe’s story is just one in a wave of more than 140 complaints brought this year against data brokers using a 2021 New Jersey law allowing protected citizens, including judges and police officers, to sue when these platforms fail to remove public information. Now many of those suits have transferred to federal court, morphing into a constitutional battle that could impact both state and federal privacy policies and hinder efforts to protect vulnerable individuals, like Doe, from violent threats…

Atlas’ litigation push enters a new phase Tuesday, when a judge for the US District Court for the District of New Jersey will hear arguments from Atlas and data brokers profiting from their access and sale to information key to public safety. Heavy hitters including Acxiom LLC and Thomson Reuters will argue that the law arbitrarily tramples on free speech by limiting brokers’ rights to disseminate data, such as home addresses. Atlas, backed by the New Jersey attorney general, will argue that the defendants fail to show that the law is wholly unconstitutional, and the harms defendants claim are hypothetical at best.

The Mercury News: Judge blocks California city from enforcing 1895 disorderly conduct law, rules it likely violates First Amendment

By Alex Riggins, San Diego Union-Tribune

.....A federal judge in San Diego has blocked the city from enforcing a 1895 law that bans offensive and disorderly conduct in public places, ruling that a First Amendment legal challenge is likely to succeed in showing that the law is “unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Barry “Ted” Moskowitz came in a lawsuit filed by San Diego street artist and busker William Dorsett, who was convicted of violating the ordinance — San Diego Municipal Code 56.27 — for filming and criticizing a Balboa Park ranger during the ranger’s interaction with another artist. The ranger alleged that Dorsett had interfered and obstructed him from performing his law enforcement duties.

New York Times: Adams’s Lawyers Ask Judge to Dismiss Federal Bribery Charge

By Nicole Hong and Emma G. Fitzsimmons

.....Lawyers for Mayor Eric Adams on Monday asked a federal judge to throw out the bribery charge against Mr. Adams, providing an early glimpse at how the defense plans to attack the first federal indictment of a sitting mayor in modern New York City history.

In a 25-page filing, Mr. Adams’s lawyers argued that the accusations against the mayor did not meet the federal definition of bribery, pointing to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that raised the bar for prosecutors to bring corruption cases.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): UNM Policy Used to Charge High Security Fees for Riley Gaines Talk Struck Down

By Eugene Volokh

.....From yesterday's decision by Judge David Herrera Urias in Leadership Institute v. Stokes (D.N.M.):

FCC

National Review: Soros-Backed Group Wins Biden Administration Approval for Takeover of 200 Radio Stations

By James Lynch

.....The FCC voted 3-2 earlier this month to allow a restructured Audacy Inc., now controlled by the Soros-funded nonprofit Fund for Policy Reform, to maintain over 200 broadcast licenses as it emerges from bankruptcy proceedings. On Monday, the commission released the text of its decision, which has drawn considerable scrutiny from Republican opponents concerned about the involvement of George Soros and his son Alexander...

Republican FCC commissioner Brendan Carr issued a dissenting statement accusing the commission of expediting the licensing in an “unprecedented” fashion instead of following federal law.

“The Commission’s decision today is unprecedented. Never before has the Commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license—let alone the transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations across more than 40 markets—without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law,” Carr said.

Free Expression

Knight First Amendment Institute: Title VI as a Jawbone

By Evelyn Douek & Genevieve Lakier

.....Exactly what Title VI requires of university administrators in response to protests like the one at Columbia—protests that make political claims that can be translated into claims about ethnic or religious identity—is a difficult and contested question, which no doubt other contributors to this blog series will explore. But the Department of Education (DOE), which enforces Title VI, has made clear in its recent guidance that university administrators are right to be concerned about their Title VI liability if they fail to take what the department views as adequate steps to regulate how students speak to one another, not only one-on-one but when they engage in collective protest and symbolic action. The DOE has also launched over a dozen investigations into how universities responded to student protests over the past year and reached settlements with several universities over their handling of anti-Semitic or Islamophobic incidents on their campuses. And it has met privately with administrators at schools affected by student protests to advise them about their legal risks under Title VI.

Obviously, the fact that Title VI has come to possess such importance when it comes to the regulation of protest and political expression on campus means that its implementation raises significant First Amendment questions. 

The States

New York Times: California Governor Vetoes Sweeping A.I. Legislation

By Cecilia Kang

.....Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed a California artificial intelligence safety bill, blocking the most ambitious proposal in the nation aimed at curtailing the growth of the new technology.

The first-of-its-kind bill, S.B. 1047, required safety testing of large A.I. systems, or models, before their release to the public. It also gave the state’s attorney general the right to sue companies over serious harm caused by their technologies, like death or property damage. And it mandated a kill switch to turn off A.I. systems in case of potential biowarfare, mass casualties or property damage.

New York Post: Adams indictment shows NY’s campaign-finance system enables tax-fueled corruption

By Joe Borelli

.....Despite the hype, taxpayer-funded elections are not a prophylactic against political corruption, but instead have often enabled it...

First implemented in 1988 as a dollar-for-dollar match to ward off corruption, the city’s campaign-finance spending has ballooned — like all government programs — into an eye-popping 8-to-1 match.

By the way, that’s 8-to-1 for the primary, and another 8-to-1 for the general election. A $250 donation could be worth up to $4,250 months later.

Eyeing a 16-to-1 money line on your campaign burn is better odds than blackjack.

And in this table game, not only does the player make out, but so do the dealers — the consultants, fundraisers and bundlers.