The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: May 7, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------


** Supreme Court Paves the Way for Government to Punish Anti-Government Speech That Encourages Resistance to Tyranny
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, DC —In refusing to strike down an overly broad law criminalizing pro-immigration speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for the government to punish anyone engaging in so-called “anti-government” speech ([link removed]) that encourages resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience.

Elevating judicial technicalities and procedure over fundamental rights, the Court unanimously ruled ([link removed]) in United States v. Sineneng-Smith that the lower court had overstepped its authority when it, and not the defendant, noticed that the federal statute which makes it a crime to “encourage” undocumented aliens to remain in the country was overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. The Rutherford Institute, in conjunction with the ACLU and the Service Employees International Union, filed an amicus brief ([link removed]) in the case arguing that the statute is overbroad and could serve as a model for laws used to punish anyone who urges resistance to government tyranny.

“With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts, largely lacking in vision and scope, rendering narrow rulings focused on the letter of the law,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “The justices would do well to heed former Justice William O. Douglas’s reminder that ‘The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.’”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Evelyn Sineneng-Smith is an immigration consultant in California, helping individuals and employers navigate the nation’s complex immigration system so that noncitizens, including undocumented workers, can become lawful and productive residents in the United States. In the course of assisting two undocumented workers and their employer with the process of obtaining a status that would allow the workers to remain and work in the U.S., Sineneng-Smith prepared and filed paperwork and applications that gave the workers a better chance of eventually obtaining permanent lawful residency status, although obtaining that status still depended on changes in the law extending the workers’ eligibility dates. Sineneng-Smith was charged with and convicted of violating an immigration statute making it a crime to “encourage” or “induce” an alien to reside in the U.S. in violation of the law.

On appeal, she argued that she had not misled the workers and that statute’s ban on “encouraging” another to stay in the country violates the First Amendment’s. On appeal, a federal appeals court asked that the issue of the statute’s overbreadth be briefed, and then reversed the conviction on that basis. In overruling the appeals court, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lower court’s ruling should have been limited strictly to the issues raised by the parties and should not have ruled on the basis of legal defects noticed by the court. ([link removed]) The Rutherford Institute and its partners filed an amicus brief supporting Sineneng-Smith, arguing that the criminal prohibition on “encouraging” aliens to stay in the U.S. discriminates against speech on the basis of its viewpoint in violation of
the First Amendment.

Affiliate attorneys Erin Glenn Busby, Lisa R. Eskow and Michael F. Sturley of the University of Texas School of Law Supreme Court Clinic assisted The Rutherford Institute and its coalition partners in advancing the arguments in Sineneng-Smith ([link removed]) .

The Supreme Court’s opinion ([link removed]) and the amicus brief ([link removed]) of The Rutherford Institute, the ACLU and the SEIU in United States v. Sineneng-Smith are available at www.rutherford.org.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed] https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-paves-the-way-for-government-to-punish-speech-that-encourages-resistance-to-tyranny Tweet ([link removed] https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fsupreme-court-paves-the-way-for-government-to-punish-speech-that-encourages-resistance-to-tyranny)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2020 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])