There is an appeal filed in Dallas by a teacher, Resa Woodward, 38, who was fired because of her prior work in the adult film industry almost two decades ago. We have previously discussed such cases, which I find troubling because these are people who worked in a lawful industry. It is even more concerning when, as here, the individual claims that she was forced into the industry as a form of “sex slavery.”
There is an interesting poll out this week by Harvard-Harris for The Hill newspaper that shows an incredible eighty percent of Americans oppose so-called sanctuary cities and that cities should be required to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities. It is a striking contrast with Democrats who have gone “all in” on opposing immigration policies of the Trump Administration, including support for sanctuary cities.
Today the Supreme Court will hear Hernandez v. Mesa, a case with potentially significant impact on the current immigration debate. The case involves the shooting and killing of Sergio A. Hernandez Guereca, 15, at the border on June 7, 2010. The family argues that Hernandez was simply playing a game with his friends in running to touch the U.S. border fence when Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. shot and killed him. The agents insist that Hernandez was a known illegal alien smuggler with two prior arrests and was throwing rocks at the agents. Since the government prevailed below before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Court will only consider the facts asserted by the family in determining if dismissal was appropriate. At issue will be the right of a foreign national to assert constitutional rights — an issue that could have bearing on the ongoing debate over the Trump immigration executive order.
We previously discussed the controversy over a painting by a constituent of Democratic Rep. William Lacy Clay that depicted police as pigs in Ferguson, Missouri. As we discussed, the House had a right to remove the art and eventually did precisely that. However, before that decision from the House, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Cal.) took down the painting. Clay called for criminal charges. When the painting was rehung, another Republican member removed it. At the time, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said “We may just have to kick somebody’s ass and stop them. Then the architect stepped in and barred the hanging of the picture. Now Clay has announced that he will file a lawsuit challenging the actions of the House of Representatives. It is hard to see a strong legal basis for such a challenge. The odds heavily favor the House of Representatives in the action.
Iran is again showing the world the face of religious extremism. Previously, we discussed how chess officials were under fire for cooperating in the championship in Iran, which imposes dress codes and religious restrictions on visitors (particularly women). Now Iran has barred Dorsa Derakhshani, 18, from competing at the Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival 2017, because she appeared without an Islamic head scarf. Her brother, Borna Derakhshani, 15, was the banned for playing against an Israeli opponent. This follows a horrific account of a girl beaten by religious police for simply wearing jeans with holes in them. The brother and sister were also barred from the national team for their transgressions.
Word on the street is that the Trump Administration is prepared to issue a new executive order on immigration. While I have maintained that the law favors President Trump on this issue and I have been critical of the decision by the Ninth Circuit, I have also maintained that the original executive order was poorly written, poorly executed, and poorly defended. A second executive order could reset the litigation and cut away a key (and in my view questionable) component of the Ninth Circuit opinion in expressly exempting green card holders. The new order reportedly does precisely what many of us have suggested while keeping the majority of the prior order. By retaining the same countries and imposing the same conditions, the new order would protect the Administration politically from allegations that the President has backtracked. It would also leave the core basis for challenges on the merits of such travel limitations. I will be speaking on Capitol Hill on Tuesday about the President’s executive order authority at the US Capitol Visitors Center at noon.