Court: Pennsylvania Must Release Records On Non-Citizens Voting In Elections

Pennsylvania must release records pertaining to a 'glitch' that allowed non-citizens to register to vote in the state for decades.

Federal judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing near total ban on abortions



A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the state of Arkansas from enforcing one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, a law the Republican governor previously said was intended as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker, an Obama appointee, said the law was "categorically unconstitutional" in her court order issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent it from taking effect on July 28. The law would have banned all abortions in the state of Arkansas, including in cases of rape or incest, with the only exception being the rare instance when the life of the mother is in danger.

She said the plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, were "likely to succeed on the merits" of their argument that the Arkansas law bans abortions before the unborn child could survive outside the womb and is therefore unconstitutional given Supreme Court precedent.

"Defendants do not make any argument to the contrary and concede that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits," Baker wrote. "Instead, defendants argue that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. As a federal district court, this Court 'is bound by the Supreme Court's decisions in Casey.' Accordingly, the Act is categorically unconstitutional, and plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to succeed on the merits.

"Defendants make no argument as to whether or not plaintiffs or plaintiffs' patients will experience irreparable harm. Since the record at this stage of the proceedings indicates that women seeking abortions in Arkansas face an imminent threat to their constitutional rights, the court concludes that they will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief," she added.

The plaintiffs in the case applauded the decision.

"We're relieved that the court has blocked another cruel and harmful attempt to criminalize abortion care and intrude on Arkansans' deeply personal medical decisions," ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson said, according to the Associated Press.

Brandon Hill, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, added the decision "demonstrates that the court fully understands the harmful and immediate effects this law would have on Arkansans."

Arkansas Republicans were clear that the intention of the near-total ban on abortions was to advance to the Supreme Court and directly challenge precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion.

Speaking in March, Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) said the "whole design" of the law was to go before the Supreme Court after President Donald Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which purportedly created a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.

"It is not constitutional under Supreme Court cases right now," Hutchinson said at the time. "I signed it because it is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. That was the intent of it."

Arkansas has enacted 20 pro-life laws this year, the most of any state since 1978.

In 2019, Hutchinson signed a law that would ban abortions in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Another 2019 Arkansas law that would ban abortions after 18 weeks into a woman's pregnancy and ban selective abortions of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome was temporarily blocked in January amid an ongoing legal challenge.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions. The expected landmark decision could determine whether it is legal to outlaw abortions before an unborn baby could survive outside the womb, which is generally considered to occur at 22 weeks or later.

Federal judge denies request to block parts of Georgia's election law, for now



A federal judge has denied an attempt by a left-leaning election integrity group to invalidate parts of Georgia's sweeping election law Wednesday, ahead of runoff elections for the state House, the Associated Press reported.

The Coalition for Good Governance had filed a lawsuit seeking an emergency order to block parts of the Georgia law related to election observation and the deadline to submit absentee ballot applications before the elections. But U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee would not "change the law in the ninth inning," citing Supreme Court precedent that instructs courts to refrain from changing existing election rules when an election is imminent.

"Election administrators have prepared to implement the challenged rules, have implemented them at least to some extent and now would have to grapple with a different set of rules in the middle of the election," Boulee wrote in his order. "The risk of disrupting the administration of an ongoing election ... outweigh[s] the alleged harm to plaintiffs at this time."

While Boulee would not grant the emergency order sought by the plaintiffs, his ruling does not preclude parts of the Georgia law being struck down in the future, as the full lawsuit is still pending in federal court. The lawsuit is one of eight federal lawsuits challenging Georgia's election law.

Democrats and left-wing voting rights activists have lambasted the Georgia law, accusing Republicans of attempting to suppress the votes of black Americans and other minority groups through restrictive voter ID requirements and other changes. The Biden Department of Justice is currently suing Georgia, claiming that its new election law unconstitutionally discriminates against black Americans.

The Coalition for Good Governance's lawsuit challenged lesser-known provisions of the Georgia law, including a prohibition on observing how someone votes while they are in the midst of casting a ballot; a rule forbidding election observers to discuss information they see while processing and scanning absentee ballots with anyone besides other election officials; a ban on estimating the number of absentee ballots cast; a ban on photographing voted ballots; and a shortening of the time period to submit an absentee ballot application to at least 11 days before election day.

Reacting to the judge's decision, Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said, "This is just another in the line of frivolous lawsuits against Georgia's election law based on misinformation and lies. We will continue to meet them and beat them in court."

Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, expressed disappointment with the order but vowed to press on with the lawsuit.

"We're concerned about the voter confusion that will no doubt occur with these little-known rapid changes to the rules, including the required information on ballot applications and the short deadline for applications to be received in this last week before the election," Marks said.

Federal judge strikes down California's 30-year-old ban on assault weapons



A federal judge on Friday struck down California's three-decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons", declaring the law unconstitutional in a ruling hailed by gun rights activists.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said the state's assault weapons ban unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of the right to own firearms that are commonly owned in other states and do not fall under the Supreme Court's definition of a weapon that is not protected by the Second Amendment.

"Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller," Benitez wrote in his opinion. " Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional."

He called the California law a "failed experiment" to prevent mass shootings or attacks on law enforcement. "Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez declared. The judge issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ban but stayed his order for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal the court's decision.

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned 'assault weapons' are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes," Benitez said. "Instead, the firearms deemed 'assault weapons' are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes."

California was the first state in the nation to ban the sale of "military-style assault weapons" in 1989. State law defined an "assault weapon" as one of three types of firearms. The first is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has one of the following features: a pistol grip that protrudes "conspicuously" beneath the action of the rifle, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a grenade or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or a forward pistol grip. The second type is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that can hold 10 or more rounds. The third type of banned firearm is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

In 2019, California resident James Miller and several state gun rights groups including the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition challenged the law in court. Plaintiffs argued that gun owners who wanted to use high-capacity magazines in their legal semiautomatic rifles or pistols were prohibited from doing so by the California law, which would impose criminal penalties on otherwise law-abiding citizens for modifying their firearms.

The lawsuit said California is "one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels."

The state argued that firearms classified as assault weapons under the law were more dangerous and were used in more crimes and mass shootings.

Benitez observed that facts don't support the state's assertions and that the law has not demonstrably prevented mass shootings.

"One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles," he said. "The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter."

Benitez also ridiculed the term "assault weapon", calling it a "misnomer."

"These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called 'home defense rifles' or 'anti-crime guns,'" said the judge.

Reacting to the decision, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) slammed the court's opinion.

"Today's decision is a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period," he said in a statement. "As the son of a judge, I grew up with deep respect for the judicial process and the importance of a judge's ability to make impartial fact-based rulings, but the fact that this judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that's used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who've lost loved ones to this weapon. We're not backing down from this fight, and we'll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives."

But gun rights groups praised the ruling.

"In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called 'assault weapons' are unconstitutional and cannot stand," said Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs. "This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court."


Federal judge strikes down nationwide ban on evictions; Biden DOJ to appeal



A federal judge on Wednesday struck down the national moratorium on evictions, allowing landlords to resume eviction proceedings against tenants who have stopped paying rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

When Congress passed the CARES Act in March 2020, it created a 120-day ban on evictions that applied to rental properties receiving federal assistance. When that order expired, the Trump administration Department of Health and Human Services issued a second eviction moratorium through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that unlike the CARES Act applied to all rental properties nationwide. President Joe Biden subsequently renewed that order twice, with the current moratorium set to expire on June 30, 2021.

The eviction moratorium was intended to protect some of the 13.5 million American adults — nearly 1 in 5 renters — who reported that they have fallen behind on their rent payments during the pandemic due to economic hardship. But landlords opposed to the policy say they can't continue to house people for free.

Rental property managers Danny Fordham and Robert Gilstrap, along with the Alabama and Georgia Associations of Renters, brought a lawsuit against the CDC challenging the order as unlawful and unconstitutional. They claimed the CDC exceeded its statutory authority, rushed to enact the order without proper procedure, and acted unconstitutionally by essentially depriving landlords of their property without due process.

D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, sided with their argument in her opinion, ruling that the CDC did not have the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium.

"The pandemic has triggered difficult policy decisions that have had enormous real-world consequences. The nationwide eviction moratorium is one such decision," she wrote.

"It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic," the opinion reads.

"The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not."

Ruling: https://t.co/3csVUPcKgo

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) 1620227275.0

Housing advocates and tenants-rights activists immediately called on the Biden administration to appeal the decision, and hours after the ruling the Department of Justice announced it would indeed challenge Friedrich's opinion.

"The CDC's eviction moratorium — which Congress extended last December and the CDC later extended through June 30, 2021 — protects many renters who cannot make their monthly payments due to job loss or health care expenses. Scientific evidence shows that evictions exacerbate the spread of COVID-19, which has already killed more than half a million Americans, and the harm to the public that would result from unchecked evictions cannot be undone," Brian M. Boynton, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Division, said in a statement.

"The Department of Justice respectfully disagrees with today's decision of the district court in Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS concluding that the moratorium exceeds CDC's statutory authority to protect public health. In the department's view, that decision conflicts with the text of the statute, Congress's ratification of the moratorium, and the rulings of other courts," Boynton continued.

"The department has already filed a notice of appeal of the decision and intends to seek an emergency stay of the order pending appeal," the statement said.

In incredible dissent, federal judge launches broadside attack on SCOTUS precedent protecting left-wing press



A federal judge called for a landmark Supreme Court decision on freedom of the press and libel laws to be overturned in a fiery dissent decrying "bias against the Republican Party," blasting the near "one-party control" of legacy news media, slamming Silicon Valley's censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and warning that the current state of American media is "a threat to a viable democracy."

U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee, launched a broad attack on the Supreme Court's unwillingness to revisit precedent and the news media in a dissent in Tah v. Global Witness — a defamation case. After arguing against the court majority's ruling on the merits of the case, Silberman was "prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan" — a landmark ruling that established what a plaintiff must show to prove a claim of defamation or libel made against a publisher.

Silberman described that ruling, which has made it extraordinarily difficult for an individual to successfully sue the press for false reporting, as a "policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law" that "badly constitutionalized an area of law refined over centuries of common law adjudication."

Acknowledging that the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse its opinion, he nevertheless said "new considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision a threat to American Democracy. It must go."

New York Times v. Sullivan is a Civil Rights-era decision that established additional First Amendment protections for the press against lawsuits for defamation or libel.

In the 1960s, the New York Times published a full-page advertisement soliciting donations for the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who had been charged with perjury. The ad contained several factual inaccuracies and claims that police in Montgomery, Alabama, had locked civil rights demonstrators in a college campus dining room "in an attempt to starve [the students] into submission," among other threats of violence. Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner L.B. Sullivan — who was not named in the advertisement but was in charge of the police force — sued the Times for defamation in a case that was litigated up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the New York Times in a decision that was influenced in part by the practice of southern officials threatening northern newspapers reporting on civil rights abuses with lawsuits to silence them.

The court established a test for defamation or libel claims, ruling that the First Amendment requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant had acted with "actual malice," that he knew that a published statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish that information without investigating whether it was accurate.

"One can understand, if not approve, the Supreme Court's policy-driven decision. There can be no doubt that the New York Times case has increased the power of the media," Silberman wrote. "Although the institutional press, it could be argued, needed that protection to cover the civil rights movement, that power is now abused."

"As the case has subsequently been interpreted, it allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity. It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon," the judge continued, observing that the press "more often manufactures scandals involving political conservatives."

"The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions," he warned.

Silberman goes on to state that "bias against the Republican Party" is long-standing, blasting the New York Times and the Washington Post as "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets." He calls other news outlets including the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe, along with "nearly all television — network and cable" "a Democratic Party trumpet."

He further decried the "enormous influence" that Silicon Valley exerts over the distribution of the news, saying "it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party." He cited Facebook and Twitter's censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story as proof of "viewpoint discrimination."

"Ideological homogeneity in the media — or in the channels of information distribution — risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government," Silberman wrote.

He concluded: "It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press' power."