Former President Barack Obama continued the Democratic campaign theme this week in arguing that democracy is in danger if Republicans prevail in the midterm elections. I have a new column out this weekend addressing the over-the-top rhetoric coming from Democratic politicians and pundits. However, the former president’s speech was revealing as he cited the very arguments made by Democrats . . . as attacks on democracy. Obama did not go as far as some but he also seemed to channel the dire warnings of the imminent collapse of our democracy if the Republicans should prevail in the elections.
Category: Courts
A panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seemed to be channeling the lyrics of the musical Hamilton in noting that “Everything is legal in New Jersey.” The panel ruled against a transgender woman who brought a discrimination claim against a beauty pageant that allowed only “natural-born females” to compete. In a prior 2016 column, I discussed the racially discriminatory consideration of only “non-Whites” for the cast of the much-celebrated production. The majority opinion written by Judge Lawrence VanDyke noted the policy in upholding a policy that excluded trans women from the Miss United States of America pageant in Oregon. Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Rules Against Transgender Woman in Beauty Pageant Competition . . . Citing the Musical Hamilton”
There was an interesting torts question raised last week over an abortion rights video ad shared by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, and others. The video was made to support Proposition 1, a pro-choice amendment to the California State Constitution. Macy Petty is a pro-life activist who was falsely portrayed as crying outside of the Supreme Court after its overturning of Roe v. Wade this year. The video ad was reportedly paid for by the California Democratic Party.
This weekend, I ran a column on President Joe Biden’s off-base boast that the Supreme Court and a lower court had declared that they are “on Biden’s side” on tuition forgiveness. After the column ran, however, the President claimed that he pushed through the loan forgiveness program through Congress on a narrow margin. That boast is particularly embarrassing because the Administration is in court claiming that he did not need to get congressional approval for the plan. It is likely to be raised by challengers in the next stage of litigation. It also may strangely reflect a moment of clarity in his subconscious mind, a faint recognition of the constitutional principles that he once defended as a United States senator. Continue reading ““I Got it Passed by a Vote or Two”: Biden’s Latest Bizarre Boast on Student Loans May Come Back to Haunt Him”
We are waiting for the potential blockbuster case of 303 Creative before the Supreme Court this term. However, a similar case just reached a final decision in California. In the case, Cathy Miller, a cake designer who owns the popular Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, California, prevailed against the Department of Fair Housing and Employment. She was sued for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, due to her religious beliefs.
Below is my column in The Hill on the challenges to President Joe Biden’s massive loan forgiveness program. President Biden boasted that the courts declared that they are “on Biden’s side.” It is not clear if Biden’s counsel explained the actual holdings in these cases or whether Biden simply forgot or ignored that explanation. Either way, the President’s boast was wildly off-base.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Biden’s Boast: Blocking Judicial Review of a Half-Trillion Tuition Giveaway is Nothing to Celebrate”
North Carolina Judge Charles Gilchrist is under fire this week for sending prospective juror Gregory Hahn into custody for contempt after he refused to wear a mask. There is no mask mandate at the courthouse and the state mandate was lifted months ago. The controversy highlights a conflict between a health policy set for the court system as a whole and the individual authority of judges over their courtrooms. Continue reading “North Carolina Judge Jails Prospective Juror for Not Wearing Mask in a Mask-Optional Courthouse”
Among the slew of challenges to state abortion laws after the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a newly filed action in Kentucky may be one of the most creative. The complaint by three Jewish women from Louisville seeks to block the state trigger law on the basis that it violates their religious rights since they do not believe that life begins at fertilization under Jewish law, or Halakha. I am highly skeptical of the religious claims, which have also been made in other states. Continue reading “Halakha Challenge: Three Kentucky Women Argue Abortion Law “Imposed Sectarian Theology on Jews.””
We recently discussed a federal court upholding the Georgia election law as constitutional, rejecting challenges based on voter suppression by a group associated with Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. President Biden has denounced pre-2020 and post-2020 changes to the state election laws as not just “Jim Crow on steroids” but “Jim Eagle,” an awkward effort to suggest something more scary than Jim Crow. However, some of us pointed out that provisions criticized by the President are found in many blue states, including his own state of Delaware. Now, the Delaware Supreme Court has rejected a Democratic universal mail-in voting law as unconstitutional. Continue reading “Has “Jim Eagle” Landed in Delaware? State Supreme Court Blocks Universal Mail-in Balloting”
Below is my expanded column in Fox.com on the recent decision finding the Georgia election law constitutional. That was the law widely denounced by President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders as unconstitutional as a “new Jim Crow” law. The media repeated the claim despite some of us noting that the law fit well within existing precedent and even shared conditions with blue states like Delaware. Now that the challenge to election law changes denounced as voter suppression have been entirely rejected, there is little more than a shrug from some of the same figures and outlets.
Here is the column: Continue reading ““Jim Eagle” Has Landed: A Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Georgia Election Law”
Below is my column in The Hill on the start of the new Term for the Supreme Court. The column predicts that critics will likely respond to the expected new precedent by attacking the integrity rather than the interpretations of the justices. I was wrong. The New York Times did not wait for any new decisions and attacked the integrity of the conservative justices as the “judicial arm of the Republican Party.” Does that make the three liberals justices voting together on the Court the “judicial arm of the Democratic Party”? Of course not. Justices are only partisan to the degree that you disagree with their jurisprudential views.
Here is the column: Continue reading “From Affirmative Action to Andy Warhol: Buckle up for a Wild Supreme Court Term”
There has been much talk in the last week about a letter from the University of Idaho General Counsel’s Office warning professors about discussing abortion. The warning is outgrowth of the No Public Funds for Abortion Act (Idaho Code Section 18-8701 through Section 18-8711). However, in my view, the media’s interpretation of the letter has exceeded any reasonable construction of the law. The law does not prevent professors from discussing abortion or supporting the right in their classes. Such a bar would be a serious denial of free speech and academic freedom principles. If that were the intention of sponsors, it should be denounced by people on both sides of this abortion debate. However, I do not see the evidence (as claimed by some) that this is a bar on professors either discussing abortion or expressing their support for the right. Continue reading “University of Idaho Warns Professors About Discussing Abortion”
Late Friday, the Justice Department filed its long-awaited appellate filing related to the special master order of United States District Judge Aileen Cannon. While the Administration previously argued that the appointment itself is a threat to national security and unsupportable, it notably dropped its opposition to the appointment on appeal and only appealed one aspect of the order. In its motion for a stay pending appeal, it is only asking the 11th Circuit to allow it to continue using classified documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in a criminal investigation. The filing may reflect that time is running out for the Administration since a special master is now in place and is likely to prioritize (and release) these very documents. The motion pending appeal does not prevent the DOJ from later challenging the whole appointment but it will come after the special master has begun his work.
Today I have the honor of speaking to the judges and lawyers in the 2022 Ohio Judicial conference on the Supreme Court in Columbus, Ohio. I will be discussing the last year of cases and controversies for the Court from leaks to threats as well as the recent and upcoming decisions.
Continue reading “Turley Speaks to the 2022 Ohio Judicial Conference”