courthousenews--2020-07-24--Justice Department Asks Federal Judge to Terminate Flores Agreement

( CN ) — Following a group of nonprofit legal groups seeking to intervene earlier this week , the Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to decertify the class in the Flores class action that deals with the detention of immigrant children and terminate the settlement agreement .
Lawyers for the DOJ asked U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee , a Barack Obama appointee , to decertify the 23-year-old federally recognized class based on the nonprofits ’ claim that class counsel did not adequately represent their clients .
The government argued in Thursday ’ s court filing that if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify decertification of the class .
“ While the government agrees with Proposed Intervenors that class representation is not adequate… if this Court concurs in Proposed Intervenors ’ claims regarding adequacy , it must decertify the class , ” the DOJ filing states .
The Flores settlement requires the federal government to provide standards of care for child detainees or release them within 20 days if such standards can ’ t be maintained .
The nonprofits , Aldea – The People ’ s Justice Center and The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement would force families to separate as adult detainees could either allow their children to stay in detention centers or move in with a sponsor .
“ The very act of presenting families in prison together with this question is cruel .
We are disappointed that Class Counsel does not share our understanding of the realities facing Flores Class Members detained with their parents , ” the groups said in a statement on Wednesday .
The DOJ argued that too much time had passed for the nonprofits to intervene , given that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago .
“ Having long been aware that their interests might be impacted , Proposed Intervenors have no plausible explanation for having delayed their intervention until now , and thus their motion is untimely , ” the filing states .
Brought on by concerns over the pandemic , Gee ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 26 to release children from three facilities , but pushed the deadline back from July 17 to July 27 .

Following a group of nonprofit legal groups seeking to intervene earlier this week, the Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to decertify the class in the Flores class action that deals with the detention of immigrant children and terminate the settlement agreement.
(CN) — Following a group of nonprofit legal groups seeking to intervene earlier this week, the Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to decertify the class in the Flores class action that deals with the detention of immigrant children and terminate the settlement agreement.
Lawyers for the DOJ asked U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee, a Barack Obama appointee, to decertify the 23-year-old federally recognized class based on the nonprofits' claim that class counsel did not adequately represent their clients.
The government argued in Thursday's court filing that if the class counsel were inadequate, it would justify decertification of the class.
"While the government agrees with Proposed Intervenors that class representation is not adequate… if this Court concurs in Proposed Intervenors’ claims regarding adequacy, it must decertify the class," the DOJ filing states.
The Flores settlement requires the federal government to provide standards of care for child detainees or release them within 20 days if such standards can't be maintained.
The nonprofits, Aldea - The People's Justice Center and The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, argued that the agreement would force families to separate as adult detainees could either allow their children to stay in detention centers or move in with a sponsor.
"The very act of presenting families in prison together with this question is cruel. We are disappointed that Class Counsel does not share our understanding of the realities facing Flores Class Members detained with their parents," the groups said in a statement on Wednesday.
The DOJ argued that too much time had passed for the nonprofits to intervene, given that the consent decree was entered into record 23 years ago.
"Having long been aware that their interests might be impacted, Proposed Intervenors have no plausible explanation for having delayed their intervention until now, and thus their motion is untimely," the filing states.
Brought on by concerns over the pandemic, Gee ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 26 to release children from three facilities, but pushed the deadline back from July 17 to July 27.


Former Student Athlete

BATON ROUGE , La .
— A federal court denied a former Louisiana State University football player ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ school to lift sanctions — including his suspension and removal from the football team — @ @ @ @ @ found him responsible for sexual misconduct alleged by another student .

The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.


Covid-19 in Prison

OLYMPIA , Wash. — Mandamus “ can not deliver the relief ” five inmates in Washington state prisons seek in @ @ @ @ @ immediate release because of Covid-19 , the state ’ s Supreme Court ruled , finding @ @ @ @ @ respect the discretion vested in ” the state ’ s executive branch .


Surgery

SHREVEPORT , La .
— A Louisiana appeals court revived a patient ’ s suit claiming an orthopedic surgeon harvested @ @ @ @ @ without his consent during surgery to repair a fracture in his upper right arm , @ @ @ @ @ factual dispute as to whether a patient in such a position would not have consented @ @ @ @ @ known the knee was a potential donor site .


Photography and Harassment

MINNEAPOLIS — A resident of Bloomington , Minnesota , who describes herself as a “ point person for delivering neighborhood @ @ @ @ @ her suit challenging the city ’ s child photography ordinance and the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ .
The woman was interviewed by police after she was reported for photographing children — @ @ @ @ @ within an Islamic center — during their recess in a public park .


Theme Songs

NEW YORK — The copyright holder of the theme song of a popular 1980s Hungarian television show sufficiently pleaded that @ @ @ @ @ ” to the X-Men theme song , a federal court in New York ruled , @ @ @ @ @ survive various defendants ’ motions to dismiss .


courthousenews--2020-07-24--Trump Administration Faces Suit Over Plan to Exclude Immigrants From Census

( CN ) — The city of Atlanta , along with a coalition of nonprofits and naturalized citizens , sued late Thursday to stop President Donald Trump ’ s plan to exclude undocumented people from the upcoming census .
In a federal lawsuit filed in Washington D.C. , the plaintiffs cast Trump ’ s unprecedented attempt to change the once-a-decade count used to divvy seats in Congress as racially and politically motivated .
“ The Constitution is unambiguous in its requirements relating to the census count and reapportionment of Congressional seats – all persons must be counted , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Common Cause .
“ This directive simply ignores those requirements in an unconstitutional attempt to manipulate the process for racial advantage and partisan political gain.
” Earlier this week , Trump ordered the Commerce Department to exclude undocumented immigrants in the census reporting used to determine states ’ seats in the House of Representatives .
The proposal would create a radical shift in how the census is conducted , as for hundreds of years population counts were conducted regardless of immigration status .
Critics responded that the memo-titled “ Excluding Illegal Aliens From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” - was a blatant attempt to reduce House seats in Democratic-controlled states with large immigrant communities like California and New York .
With an estimated 2.2 million undocumented residents , Trump ’ s directive would likely cost California multiple seats .
Both New York and California , which own a combined 80 seats , led the successful fight against the Trump administration ’ s quest to include a citizenship question on the census .
“ Counting every person in our country through the census is a principle so foundational that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor Gavin Newsom said in response to the memo .
“ This latest action by the administration to exclude undocumented immigrants when determining representation in Congress , rooted in racism and xenophobia , is a blatant attack on our institutions and our neighbors.
” Per the Constitution , the census is conducted every 10 years and is used to determine the number of seats each state gets in Congress and impacts how federal funding is divvied up .
After the census is completed , the Commerce Department delivers a report to the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
A short time later , typically in early January , the president then sends Congress a statement on how seats in the House should be divided based on the Commerce Department ’ s report .
In their 31-page lawsuit , Atlanta accuses the White House of continuing its quest to dilute the political power of minorities .
They additionally argue the president lacks the authority to amend the apportionment process .
“ The President ’ s memorandum is the culmination of a years-long effort to transfer political power en masse from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Latino voters—to ‘ Republicans and non-Hispanic whites , ’ ” the lawsuit states .
“ In other words , the memorandum , and the policy changes embodied therein , was motivated by intentional invidious discrimination on the basis of race , ethnicity , and/or national origin.
” Other plaintiffs include the New Jersey city of Paterson , the Advancement of New Americans and eight U.S. citizens from a variety of ethnicities .
The plaintiffs are represented by Bondurant Mixson & Elmore of Atlanta and claim the memo violates the Equal Protection Clause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names the U.S. Department of Commerce , Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Jr. and Cheryl Johnson , clerk for the House of Representatives .
In justifying the contentious order , Trump maintains the Constitution is ambiguous regarding which “ persons must be included in the apportionment base.
” He says he has the power to exclude undocumented residents from the count and that it ’ s crucial to ensure the “ integrity of the democratic process ” in order to prevent states like California from additional congressional representation .
“ I have accordingly determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base , to the extent feasible and to the maximum extent of the president ’ s discretion under the law , ” the memo states .
The White House and Commerce Department didn ’ t immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit late Thursday .

The city of Atlanta, along with a coalition of nonprofits and naturalized citizens, sued late Thursday to stop President Donald Trump’s plan to exclude undocumented people from the upcoming census.
(CN) — The city of Atlanta, along with a coalition of nonprofits and naturalized citizens, sued late Thursday to stop President Donald Trump’s plan to exclude undocumented people from the upcoming census.
Filing their federal lawsuit in Washington, the plaintiffs cast Trump’s unprecedented attempt to change the once-a-decade count used to divvy seats in Congress as racially and politically motivated.
“The Constitution is unambiguous in its requirements relating to the census count and reapportionment of Congressional seats — all persons must be counted,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of co-plaintiff Common Cause. “This directive simply ignores those requirements in an unconstitutional attempt to manipulate the process for racial advantage and partisan political gain.”
Earlier this week, Trump ordered the Commerce Department to exclude undocumented immigrants in the census reporting used to determine states’ seats in the House of Representatives. The proposal would create a radical shift in how the census is conducted, as for hundreds of years population counts were conducted regardless of immigration status.
Critics responded that the memo — titled “Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census” — was a blatant attempt to reduce House seats in Democratic-controlled states with large immigrant communities like California and New York.
With an estimated 2.2 million undocumented residents, Trump’s directive would likely cost California multiple seats. Both New York and California, which own a combined 80 seats, led the successful fight against the Trump administration’s quest to include a citizenship question on the census.
“Counting every person in our country through the census is a principle so foundational that it is written into our Constitution,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in response to the memo. “This latest action by the administration to exclude undocumented immigrants when determining representation in Congress, rooted in racism and xenophobia, is a blatant attack on our institutions and our neighbors.”
Per the Constitution, the census is conducted every 10 years and is used to determine the number of seats each state gets in Congress and impacts how federal funding is divvied up.
After the census is completed, the Commerce Department delivers a report to the president that details the total residents in each state. A short time later, typically in early January, the president then sends Congress a statement on how seats in the House should be divided based on the Commerce Department’s report.
In their 31-page lawsuit, Atlanta accuses the White House of continuing its quest to dilute the political power of minorities. They additionally argue the president lacks the authority to amend the apportionment process.
“The President’s memorandum is the culmination of a years-long effort to transfer political power en masse from voters of color — chiefly, but not exclusively, Latino voters — to ‘Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,’” the complaint states. “In other words, the memorandum, and the policy changes embodied therein, was motivated by intentional invidious discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and/or national origin.”
Other plaintiffs include the New Jersey city of Paterson, the Advancement of New Americans and eight U.S. citizens from a variety of ethnicities.
The plaintiffs are represented by Bondurant Mixson & Elmore of Atlanta and claim the memo violates the Equal Protection Clause. Along with Trump, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Jr. and Cheryl Johnson, clerk for the House of Representatives, are named as defendants.
In justifying the contentious order, Trump maintains the Constitution is ambiguous regarding which “persons must be included in the apportionment base.” He says he has the power to exclude undocumented residents from the count, and that such action is crucial to ensure the “integrity of the democratic process” and prevent states like California from additional congressional representation.
“I have accordingly determined that respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base, to the extent feasible and to the maximum extent of the president's discretion under the law,” the memo states.
The White House and Commerce Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit late Thursday.


courthousenews--2020-07-24--Feds Ordered Not to Assault, Arrest Journalists in Portland

PORTLAND , Ore. ( CN ) — Federal police are now under a court order not to arrest or assault journalists and legal observers for doing their jobs , after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that the government said it would appeal .
“ An open government has been a hallmark of our democracy since our nation ’ s founding , ” U.S. District Judge Michael Simon wrote Thursday , citing precedent from the Ninth Circuit case Leigh v. Salazar .
“ When wrongdoing is underway , officials have great incentive to blindfold the watchful eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press is the guardian of the public ’ s interests and the independent judiciary is the guardian of the free press.
” To that hallmark , he added : “ This lawsuit tests whether these principles are merely hollow words.
” Journalists and legal observers sued the city in June , claiming Portland police were specifically arresting and using violence against journalists of all stripes and legal observers with the National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union .
The city agreed in a preliminary injunction not to enforce orders to disperse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use violence or the threat of violence and arrest against them and promised not to seize their photographic equipment or press passes , as had happened to several plaintiffs in the case .
Then President Donald Trump sent federal agents with the U.S .
Marshals Service and the Department of Homeland Security to Portland , ostensibly to protect federal property officials claimed was endangered by weeks of daily protests in the movement against systemic racism and police brutality .
But federal agents seemed to pick up where Portland police left off , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , legal observers and volunteer street medics .
Since then , nearly two dozen journalists and legal observers , including Courthouse News , have filed declarations in the case , memorializing the violence used against them by police .
On Wednesday , the 56th consecutive night of Portland ’ s civil unrest , federal police teargassed Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler as he stood with hundreds of activists in front of the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse .
Judge Simon on Friday granted the journalists ’ motion to add the federal agencies as defendants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granted their motion for a temporary restraining order similar to the one the city was under before the preliminary injunction .
Attorney Matthew Borden told Judge Simon at Thursday ’ s hearing that federal police had mounted “ incredible and despicable attacks ” against journalists and legal observers .
“ A 70-year-old man marked ‘ press ’ from head to toe .
Multiple attacks on a 17-year-old girl who stood far from the front .
They shot Jungho Kim right in the press pass [ with less lethal munitions ] and Lewis Rolland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was standing under a streetlight so police could see the big block letters saying he was press .
“ These are not accidents , ” Borden continued .
“ These are not inadvertent shots .
These are trained marksmen and these are the actions of a tyrant .
They do not have a place in Portland , Oregon and they do not have a place under the First Amendment .
If you do not have the press reporting on events first-hand , then you only have the version put forth by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have under a totalitarian state.
” Borden brushed off arguments from Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Warden , claiming that the chaotic atmosphere of Portland ’ s protests is too “ volatile and dangerous ” for federal police to differentiate between journalists and protesters accused of breaking the law .
He said local police have managed to abide by the same restrictions journalists are now asking of the feds for 21 days .
“ It ’ s very workable , ” Borden said .
“ Everybody understands who is press.
” Borden cited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought against a California court system that refused to provide immediate access to court records .
“ That case says , ‘ if you don ’ t let press observe , then the news is gone , ” Borden said .
“ And that gets to the heart of the argument : if you don ’ t have press observing , then you only have the government ’ s version of events .
The First Amendment is about speaking truth to power .
But it only works if people get to see what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simon said that ’ s why the restraining order is necessary .
“ Absent an injunction , the federal defendants will continue to target journalists and legal observers and require them to disperse or face force and violence by federal officers , even when the journalists and legal observers are not engaged in any harmful or illegal conduct , ” Simon wrote in the order .
Warden , the government ’ s attorney , said at the hearing that the terms of the temporary restraining order were “ an extraordinary request ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though he admitted that there was zero evidence that any journalist or legal observer had broken any laws at the protests .
Warden asked for a preliminary injunction that his office could appeal .
“ In a chaotic circumstance where public safety is threatened , law enforcement officials shouldn ’ t have to segregate individuals , ” Warden said .
“ The government respects the First Amendment right to protest , and the media ’ s right to cover that protest .
But when public safety and federal property is threatened by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement has the right to disperse them and the media is not exempt from that request.
” The Justice Department Inspector General announced Thursday that it will investigate the use of force and chemical agents like tear gas and pepper bullets by federal police in Portland .
The federal police there wear vague forms of identification with small insignias that are difficult to see at night , when the protests happen .
The Inspector General said it will look into whether that practice is legal .
Judge Simon said in his order allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendants in the case that the case raised legal questions that should be answered by both the city and the federal government .
“ Will press scrutiny play a significant positive role in ensuring that police and federal conduct remains consistent with the constitution ?
” Simon asked in his order .
“ Does using force against members of the media and legal observers chill their expressive conduct ?
Do Plaintiffs have alternative observation opportunities to remaining at the scene where police and federal agents are using violent force against the people ?
@

Federal police are now under a court order not to arrest or assault journalists and legal observers for doing their jobs, after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that the government said it would appeal.
PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — Federal police are now under a court order not to arrest or assault journalists and legal observers for doing their jobs, after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that the government said it would appeal.
“An open government has been a hallmark of our democracy since our nation’s founding,” U.S. District Judge Michael Simon wrote Thursday, citing precedent from the Ninth Circuit case Leigh v. Salazar. “When wrongdoing is underway, officials have great incentive to blindfold the watchful eyes of the fourth estate. The free press is the guardian of the public’s interests and the independent judiciary is the guardian of the free press.”
To that hallmark, he added: “This lawsuit tests whether these principles are merely hollow words.”
Journalists and legal observers sued the city in June, claiming Portland police were specifically arresting and using violence against journalists of all stripes and legal observers with the National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The city agreed in a preliminary injunction not to enforce orders to disperse against journalists and legal observers, not to use violence or the threat of violence and arrest against them and promised not to seize their photographic equipment or press passes, as had happened to several plaintiffs in the case.
Then President Donald Trump sent federal agents with the U.S. Marshals Service and the Department of Homeland Security to Portland, ostensibly to protect federal property officials claimed was endangered by weeks of daily protests in the movement against systemic racism and police brutality. But federal agents seemed to pick up where Portland police left off, with relentless violence directed specifically at journalists, legal observers and volunteer street medics.
Since then, nearly two dozen journalists and legal observers, including Courthouse News, have filed declarations in the case, memorializing the violence used against them by police.
On Wednesday, the 56th consecutive night of Portland’s civil unrest, federal police tear-gassed Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler as he stood with hundreds of activists in front of the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse.
Judge Simon on Friday granted the journalists’ motion to add the federal agencies as defendants in the case, and today he granted their motion for a temporary restraining order similar to the one the city was under before the preliminary injunction.
Attorney Matthew Borden told Judge Simon at Thursday’s hearing that federal police had mounted “incredible and despicable attacks” against journalists and legal observers. “A 70-year-old man marked ‘press’ from head to toe. Multiple attacks on a 17-year-old girl who stood far from the front. They shot Jungho Kim right in the press pass [with less lethal munitions] and Lewis Rolland a dozen times in the back when he was standing under a streetlight so police could see the big block letters saying he was press.
“These are not accidents,” Borden continued. “These are not inadvertent shots. These are trained marksmen and these are the actions of a tyrant. They do not have a place in Portland, Oregon and they do not have a place under the First Amendment. If you do not have the press reporting on events first-hand, then you only have the version put forth by the government. And that’s what you have under a totalitarian state.”
Borden brushed off arguments from Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Warden, claiming that the chaotic atmosphere of Portland’s protests is too “volatile and dangerous” for federal police to differentiate between journalists and protesters accused of breaking the law. He said local police have managed to abide by the same restrictions journalists are now asking of the feds for 21 days.
“It’s very workable,” Borden said. “Everybody understands who is press.”
Borden cited a Ninth Circuit case Courthouse News successfully brought against a California court system that refused to provide immediate access to court records.
“That case says, ‘if you don’t let press observe, then the news is gone,” Borden said. “And that gets to the heart of the argument: if you don’t have press observing, then you only have the government’s version of events. The First Amendment is about speaking truth to power. But it only works if people get to see what’s going on.”
And Judge Simon said that’s why the restraining order is necessary.
“Absent an injunction, the federal defendants will continue to target journalists and legal observers and require them to disperse or face force and violence by federal officers, even when the journalists and legal observers are not engaged in any harmful or illegal conduct,” Simon wrote in the order.
Warden, the government’s attorney, said at the hearing that the terms of the temporary restraining order were “an extraordinary request” that was “impracticable and unworkable,” even though he admitted that there was zero evidence that any journalist or legal observer had broken any laws at the protests.
Warden asked for a preliminary injunction that his office could appeal.
“In a chaotic circumstance where public safety is threatened, law enforcement officials shouldn’t have to segregate individuals,” Warden said. “The government respects the First Amendment right to protest, and the media’s right to cover that protest. But when public safety and federal property is threatened by the violence of opportunists, federal law enforcement has the right to disperse them and the media is not exempt from that request.”
The Justice Department Inspector General announced Thursday that it will investigate the use of force and chemical agents like tear gas and pepper bullets by federal police in Portland. The federal police there wear vague forms of identification with small insignias that are difficult to see at night, when the protests happen. The Inspector General said it will look into whether that practice is legal.
Judge Simon said in his order allowing federal law enforcement to be added as defendants in the case that the case raised legal questions that should be answered by both the city and the federal government.
“Will press scrutiny play a significant positive role in ensuring that police and federal conduct remains consistent with the constitution?” Simon asked in his order. “Does using force against members of the media and legal observers chill their expressive conduct? Do Plaintiffs have alternative observation opportunities to remaining at the scene where police and federal agents are using violent force against the people?”


courthousenews--2020-07-24--Poll: Biden Tops Trump in Battlegrounds Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania

( CN ) — President Donald Trump continues to trail former Vice President Joe Biden in a series of crucial battleground states , according to new polling data .
A new Fox News Poll released Thursday reports that in three battleground states potentially critical to Trump ’ s re-election prospects — Michigan , Minnesota and Pennsylvania — the president lags well behind the presumptive Democratic nominee and is notably underperforming compared to his 2016 results .
In Michigan , Biden currently commands a nine-point advantage over the president , 49-40 % , a one-point boost for the Democrat compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 11 % of voters in Michigan say they are either undecided or intend to support a third party candidate — a potentially significant pool of voters given Michigan is a state Trump won in 2016 by less than a quarter of a percent .
Biden ’ s advantage stems from his strong support among women .
Among female Michiganders , 35 % say they back Trump while 53 % say they are behind Biden .
Support from men , however , is spilt between the two candidates .
Despite Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the backing of 45 % of male Michigan voters apiece .
Biden ’ s lead also comes from a series of other crucial voting blocs in Michigan , according to the poll .
The former vice president and senator from Delaware currently holds a 61-point lead among nonwhite voters , a 19-point lead among independents , a 17-point lead among voters over the age of 65 and a 9-point lead among suburban voters .
Voters most enthusiastic about the upcoming presidential contest tend to back Biden as well .
Of the 53 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ extremely interested ” in the election , over half say they are throwing their support behind Biden and 43 % say they are behind Trump .
Trump ’ s polling woes in the state also extend to his approval numbers , with just 45 % of Michigan voters approving of the job he ’ s doing while 54 % disapprove .
In April , Trump ’ s ratings were only four points upside down , 47-51 .
Trump ’ s silver lining in Michigan rests with white voters and white voters without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden among these voters by 5 and 10 points , respectively .
Biden also continues to do well in Minnesota , a state Trump lost in 2016 by just a point and a half .
According to the poll , Biden currently enjoys 51 % support of Minnesota voters while 38 % support Trump .
Another 12 % say they have not made up their minds yet or will support a third-party option .
Biden ’ s support in Minnesota comes virtually from the same groups and demographics that give Biden the edge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women voters , white voters with a college degree and seniors .
Trump does slightly better than Biden among white voters without a college degree and holds on to a small lead among male Minnesotans .
Trump ’ s approval rating in the state , however , is in the red .
Just 42 % of Minnesota voters say they think Trump is doing a good job in office while 57 % say they think he ’ s done poorly — a 15-point negative margin for the president .
This troubling polling trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state he won in 2016 by less than a point .
Biden tops the president among Keystone State voters by a double-digit figure , 50 % -39 % .
Much like the other two battleground states , both Biden and Trump are drawing the bulk of their support from groups that have always been behind them .
Biden does well among Pennsylvania suburbanites and women , while Trump does well with white voters without a college degree and rural voters .
Like the other states , however , Trump ’ s approval rating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -56 % .
In all three battleground states , Biden also holds the most trust from voters on the issues of race relations and the nation ’ s response to Covid-19 , while voters are more split on who they trust the most regarding the economy .
Thursday ’ s Fox News poll contained a sample size of 756 Michigan voters , 776 Minnesota voters and 793 Pennsylvania voters .
The poll has a 3.5 % margin of error .

President Donald Trump continues to trail former Vice President Joe Biden in a series of crucial battleground states, according to new polling data.
(CN) — President Donald Trump continues to trail former Vice President Joe Biden in a series of crucial battleground states, according to new polling data.
A new Fox News Poll released Thursday reports that in three battleground states potentially critical to Trump’s re-election prospects — Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania — the president lags well behind the presumptive Democratic nominee and is notably underperforming compared to his 2016 results.
In Michigan, Biden currently commands a nine-point advantage over the president, 49-40%, a one-point boost for the Democrat compared to an April poll.
The poll shows that 11% of voters in Michigan say they are either undecided or intend to support a third party candidate — a potentially significant pool of voters given Michigan is a state Trump won in 2016 by less than a quarter of a percent.
Biden’s advantage stems from his strong support among women. Among female Michiganders, 35% say they back Trump while 53% say they are behind Biden.
Support from men, however, is spilt between the two candidates. Despite Biden’s notable lead among women, both candidates have the backing of 45% of male Michigan voters apiece.
Biden’s lead also comes from a series of other crucial voting blocs in Michigan, according to the poll. The former vice president and senator from Delaware currently holds a 61-point lead among nonwhite voters, a 19-point lead among independents, a 17-point lead among voters over the age of 65 and a 9-point lead among suburban voters.
Voters most enthusiastic about the upcoming presidential contest tend to back Biden as well. Of the 53% of voters who said they are “extremely interested” in the election, over half say they are throwing their support behind Biden and 43% say they are behind Trump.
Trump’s polling woes in the state also extend to his approval numbers, with just 45% of Michigan voters approving of the job he’s doing while 54% disapprove. In April, Trump’s ratings were only four points upside down, 47-51.
Trump’s silver lining in Michigan rests with white voters and white voters without a college degree. The president leads Biden among these voters by 5 and 10 points, respectively.
Biden also continues to do well in Minnesota, a state Trump lost in 2016 by just a point and a half. According to the poll, Biden currently enjoys 51% support of Minnesota voters while 38% support Trump. Another 12% say they have not made up their minds yet or will support a third-party option.
Biden’s support in Minnesota comes virtually from the same groups and demographics that give Biden the edge in Michigan, with Biden leading among women voters, white voters with a college degree and seniors.
Trump does slightly better than Biden among white voters without a college degree and holds on to a small lead among male Minnesotans.
Trump’s approval rating in the state, however, is in the red. Just 42% of Minnesota voters say they think Trump is doing a good job in office while 57% say they think he’s done poorly — a 15-point negative margin for the president.
This troubling polling trend continues for Trump in Pennsylvania, a state he won in 2016 by less than a point. Biden tops the president among Keystone State voters by a double-digit figure, 50%-39%.
Much like the other two battleground states, both Biden and Trump are drawing the bulk of their support from groups that have always been behind them. Biden does well among Pennsylvania suburbanites and women, while Trump does well with white voters without a college degree and rural voters.
Like the other states, however, Trump’s approval rating in Pennsylvania is underwater, 42%-56%.
In all three battleground states, Biden also holds the most trust from voters on the issues of race relations and the nation’s response to Covid-19, while voters are more split on who they trust the most regarding the economy.
Thursday’s Fox News poll contained a sample size of 756 Michigan voters, 776 Minnesota voters and 793 Pennsylvania voters. The poll has a 3.5% margin of error.


courthousenews--2020-07-24--Homeland Security Rescinds New York Traveler Program Ban After Admitting to Making False Statements

( CN ) — New Yorkers will again be allowed to enroll in expedited traveler programs after government lawyers admitted Thursday to making false statements in order to defend the Trump administration ’ s ban on New York residents from the programs .
In a surprising court filing , the government admitted that inaccuracies “ undermine a central argument ” in defending their action against a federal lawsuit brought by the state and the New York Civil Liberties Union .
The Trusted Traveler programs , headed by the Department of Homeland Security , act as an express lane for those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. borders .
DHS banned New Yorkers from the programs in February after state lawmakers passed a law in December that barred the sharing of information of undocumented immigrants with federal law enforcement .
Known as the Green Light Law , it allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver ’ s licenses .
The state filed a federal complaint against the Trump administration shortly after the ban was announced .
The New York Legislature amended the law in April , allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to view driving records of those who apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government admitted that 13 other states and the District of Columbia had similar laws , but were not targeted by the ban .
They apologized to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman from the Southern District of New York in Thursday ’ s court filing .
“ Defendants deeply regret the foregoing inaccurate or misleading statements and apologize to the Court and plaintiffs for the need to make these corrections at this late stage in the litigation , ” wrote Audrey Strauss , the acting United States attorney .
“ We appreciate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel program , which enables DHS to move forward and begin once again processing New York residents , ” Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a press release .
While lifting the ban , Wolf also reproached state leaders for refusing to accede to all of the Trump administration ’ s demands to share information on immigrants .
“ Nonetheless , local New York law continues to maintain provisions that undermine the security of the American people and purport to criminalize information sharing between law enforcement entities , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing in his statement .
Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement Thursday he had met with President Donald Trump shortly after the ban was announced in an effort to have it rescinded .
He said he discussed what “ needed to be done to address the issue while still protecting the privacy of all New Yorkers.
” Attorney General Letitia James took a more aggressive stance against the Trump administration , calling it “ a victory for travelers , workers , commerce , and our state ’ s economy.
” “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s right to pass its own laws and will fight to protect our state ’ s residents anytime they are bullied by the president because safety and fairness are not mutually exclusive under the law .
”

New Yorkers will again be allowed to enroll in expedited traveler programs after government lawyers admitted Thursday to making false statements in order to defend the Trump administration's ban on New York residents from the programs.
(CN) — New Yorkers will again be allowed to enroll in expedited traveler programs after government lawyers admitted Thursday to making false statements to defend the Trump administration's attempted ban against them.
In a surprising court filing, the government admitted that inaccuracies "undermine a central argument" in defending their action against a federal lawsuit brought by the state and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
The Trusted Traveler programs, headed by the Department of Homeland Security, act as an express lane for those that want to bypass security lines at U.S. borders. DHS banned New Yorkers from the programs in February after state lawmakers passed a law in December that barred the sharing of information of undocumented immigrants with federal law enforcement.
Known as the Green Light Law, it allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. The state filed a federal complaint against the Trump administration shortly after the ban was announced. The New York Legislature amended the law in April, allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to view driving records of those who apply to the federal programs.
Lawyers for the government admitted that 13 other states and the District of Columbia had similar laws, but were not targeted by the ban. They apologized to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman from the Southern District of New York in Thursday's court filing.
"Defendants deeply regret the foregoing inaccurate or misleading statements and apologize to the Court and plaintiffs for the need to make these corrections at this late stage in the litigation," wrote Audrey Strauss, the acting United States attorney.
"We appreciate the information sharing to CBP for the trusted travel program, which enables DHS to move forward and begin once again processing New York residents," Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a press release.
While lifting the ban, Wolf also reproached state leaders for refusing to accede to all of the Trump administration's demands to share information on immigrants.
"Nonetheless, local New York law continues to maintain provisions that undermine the security of the American people and purport to criminalize information sharing between law enforcement entities," he said.
Wolf did not mention the court filing in his statement.
Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement Thursday he had met with President Donald Trump shortly after the ban was announced in an effort to have it rescinded. He said he discussed what "needed to be done to address the issue while still protecting the privacy of all New Yorkers."
Attorney General Letitia James took a more aggressive stance against the Trump administration, calling it "a victory for travelers, workers, commerce, and our state's economy."
"We will continue to defend New York's right to pass its own laws and will fight to protect our state's residents anytime they are bullied by the president because safety and fairness are not mutually exclusive under the law."


courthousenews--2020-07-25--Comedian Hannibal Buress Sues Miami Police Over 2017 Arrest

MIAMI , Fla. ( CN ) — Popular stand-up comedian and actor Hannibal Buress says he was wrongfully arrested in Miami in a federal lawsuit filed against the city on Friday .
Buress filed the lawsuit in Florida ’ s Southern District against the city , the Miami Police Department and Miami police officers Luis Verne and Elio Villegas , who arrested the comedian outside a venue in 2017 .
The 37-year-old actor said that his phone had died after a night of drinking with friends , causing him to approach Verne to ask him to call an Uber .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Buress ’ s request , Mr. Buress observed Defendant Officer Verne—who was wearing his MPD uniform and clearly on duty—interacting with and kissing young women who were leaving a club , ” the complaint states .
After Buress cracked a joke about the officer ’ s alleged conduct and refusal to call a ride for him , Verne ordered the comedian to leave the street .
Buress says he complied by entering a nearby bar to look for a phone charger , but was followed by the officer , who told him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buress shouted while walking away from the officer outside the bar , and Verne arrested him on a charge of disorderly intoxication .
The case was swiftly dropped by prosecutors after the comedian was detained for about five hours .
In his recent YouTube comedy special “ Miami Nights , ” Buress addressed the audience via Verne ’ s body camera footage of that night that had recorded him saying , “ Hey what ’ s up .
It ’ s me , Hannibal Buress .
This cop ’ s stupid as fuck.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was released by the Miami-Dade Police Department in 2018 .
According to the 30-page complaint , the arrest was wrongful as Buress had committed no crime .
Additionally , the comedian says Verne has been the subject of multiple investigations relating to use of force and other rights violations .
Attorneys for Buress said that the officer has not been appropriately disciplined by the police department in relation to Buress ’ arrest as well as for his other alleged inappropriate conduct .
“ The MPD has a long standing , widespread policy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers who—like Defendant Officer Verne—violate the law , ” wrote attorneys with the Community Justice Civil Rights Clinic , Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center and the law firm Pierre Simon .
In 2018 , Verne was disciplined for his involvement in a bar fight , which he had failed to report to the department .
The MPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment .

Popular stand-up comedian and actor Hannibal Buress says he was wrongfully arrested in Miami in a federal lawsuit filed against the city on Friday.
Hannibal Buress performs at the FYF Fest in Los Angeles in 2017. (Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP)
MIAMI, Fla. (CN) — Popular stand-up comedian and actor Hannibal Buress says he was wrongfully arrested in Miami in a federal lawsuit filed against the city on Friday.
Buress filed the lawsuit in Florida’s Southern District against the city, the Miami Police Department and Miami police officers Luis Verne and Elio Villegas, who arrested the comedian outside a venue in 2017.
The 37-year-old actor said that his phone had died after a night of drinking with friends, causing him to approach Verne to ask him to call an Uber.
“Moments after Defendant Officer Verne declined Mr. Buress’s request, Mr. Buress observed Defendant Officer Verne — who was wearing his MPD uniform and clearly on duty — interacting with and kissing young women who were leaving a club,” the complaint states.
After Buress cracked a joke about the officer’s alleged conduct and refusal to call a ride for him, Verne ordered the comedian to leave the street.
Buress says he complied by entering a nearby bar to look for a phone charger, but was followed by the officer, who told him to leave that location as well.
Buress shouted while walking away from the officer outside the bar, and Verne arrested him on a charge of disorderly intoxication.
The case was swiftly dropped by prosecutors after the comedian was detained for about five hours.
In his recent YouTube comedy special “Miami Nights,” Buress addressed the audience via Verne's body camera footage of that night that had recorded him saying, "Hey what's up. It's me, Hannibal Buress. This cop's stupid as fuck."
The footage went viral after it was released by the Miami-Dade Police Department in 2018.
According to the 30-page complaint, the arrest was wrongful as Buress had committed no crime.
Additionally, the comedian says Verne has been the subject of multiple investigations relating to use of force and other rights violations.
Attorneys for Buress said that the officer has not been appropriately disciplined by the police department in relation to Buress’ arrest as well as for his other alleged inappropriate conduct.
“The MPD has a long standing, widespread policy and practice of failing to hold accountable police officers who — like Defendant Officer Verne — violate the law,” wrote attorneys with the Community Justice Civil Rights Clinic, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center and the law firm Pierre Simon.
In 2018, Verne was disciplined for his involvement in a bar fight, which he had failed to report to the department.
The MPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


courthousenews--2020-07-25--California Court Administrator Grapples With Crippling Covid Cuts

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — California ’ s Judicial Council deliberated Friday over how to apportion both crippling budget cuts and some one-time emergency funding for courts struggling with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic .
The budget package signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in June included $ 50 million in total emergency funding to alleviate mountainous case backlogs caused by monthslong court shutdowns from Covid-19 .
An additional $ 25 million allocation will depend on each court ’ s need .
It also included a painful $ 168.7 million ongoing cut to court operations .
The council took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to parcel out the $ 167.8 million reduction to each of the state ’ s 58 trial courts based on workload .
Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee chair Judge Jonathan Conklin said the committee established a statewide average funding band of 4 % .
Courts falling within that range will take a pro rata cut .
The courts that are currently funded above the average line — with the exception of the smallest courts — would take that pro rata cut plus an additional 1 % .
The extra cut will allow courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a hit .
“ We can try to all , as uncomfortable as it is to say , instead of share the gain share the pain , ” Conklin told the council Friday .
“ Unfortunately everybody has to share in the cut , but those courts that are above the average funding range can take little bit more of a hit on that cut to the benefit of those courts that are below the range.
” And just as all courts are expected to share the pain , they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50 million in emergency funding , the first half of which will be distributed to the courts pro rata based on workload .
“ It essentially takes each trial court ’ s share of the overall budget and allocates the $ 50 million , ” Conklin explained .
“ A trial court that might get 2 % of the overall general fund budget for trial courts would get 2 % of the $ 50 million.
” Conklin ’ s committee proposed immediately distributing the full $ 50 million to the courts struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an uncertain future in the face of ever-changing state health guidelines .
“ Our thought in saying we need the money instantly is because we ’ re moving so quickly , ” Conklin said .
“ I talked to a judge the other day who on paper doesn ’ t appear to be immediately impacted , but is very concerned that they ’ re going to become a hotspot tomorrow and wants to make sure that if they do become a hotspot they can immediately react to that to reduce workload.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the council , suggested that the $ 50 million be split into two portions , with some need-based criteria established for the second half .
“ I was thinking that perhaps a staggered distribution has some merit given the need to demonstrate to the Legislature and the governor that we are being good stewards of the public funds , ” he said , adding courts should report on how they used their first distribution and their plans for the second .
Hill said this will likely entail a lot of work on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s budget advisory committee , but seems necessary given the council may need to seek additional emergency dollars from the Legislature .
“ This need for additional funds may extend beyond this $ 50 million , and we may need to be prepared to make a documented case for additional funds to the Legislature .
And those funds will never come unless we fully document our ongoing needs , ” he said .
Judge David Rubin of San Diego , who chairs the council budget committee , said , “ Whatever we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be flexible enough to contemplate new changes in our operations , as new shelter in place are rolled out or rolled out differently and how those will impact our backlogs.
” He moved that Conklin ’ s committee develop a more precise definition of what a Covid-related backlog is , and that the committee gather data from the courts on how they spent their first $ 25 million .
Both factors will guide how the council distributes the second $ 25 million .
“ It gives us a baseline of what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governor ’ s office and legislative branch where we spent the money , ” Rubin said .
Conkin said he was concerned about how the timing might affect each court ’ s chances of getting their share of the second round of funding .
“ I would hate to create the restriction that if on the first day those funds are available and you don ’ t meet the criteria , you give them up .
Allow the courts the time they need .
We all know the folks are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together.
” Rubin said the committee will have flexibility to decide what to do after the data comes in .
“ We ’ re going to see what the need is , ” he said .
“ There may be counties that have dealt with it with the first distribution and won ’ t need it.
” The budget cuts come as Congress debates a new pandemic stimulus bill that could send $ 14 billion in funding to California .
“ The system is setting up to execute and implement that reduction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trigger for restoration in the form of the $ 150 million — and the trigger is the federal government by the passage of a second pandemic relief budget act that would then restore $ 14 billion to the state of California , ” Judicial Council staff director Martin Hoshino said .
“ If that happens there ’ s the prospect of $ 150 million of that $ 14 billion being restored.
” Also Friday , Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye also delivered the news that temporary rules halting evictions and foreclosure proceedings in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The council will very soon resume voting to terminate the temporary orders having to do with unlawful detainer evictions and foreclosures , ” she said .
If the council votes to terminate the two rules , the rescission will be effective Aug. 14 .
Cantil-Sakauye said the issue rests with the governor and Legislature , and the Aug. 14 deadline should give the legislative and executive branches more time to deliberate , hold hearings and pass legislation .
“ I urge our sister branches to turn their attention to this critical work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic and its recent resurgence , ” she said .

California’s Judicial Council deliberated Friday over how to apportion both crippling budget cuts and some one-time emergency funding for courts struggling with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — California’s Judicial Council deliberated Friday over how to apportion both crippling budget cuts and some one-time emergency funding for courts struggling with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The seal of the Judicial Council of California, the policymaking body of the California courts. (Photo the Judicial Council of California via YouTube)
The budget package signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in June included $50 million in total emergency funding to alleviate mountainous case backlogs caused by monthslong court shutdowns from Covid-19. It also included a painful $168.7 million ongoing cut to court operations.
The council took up the budget cut first, voting to parcel out the $167.8 million reduction to each of the state’s 58 trial courts based on workload.
Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee chair Judge Jonathan Conklin said the committee established a statewide average funding band of 4%. Courts falling within that range will take a pro rata cut. The courts that are currently funded above the average line — with the exception of the smallest courts — would take that pro rata cut plus an additional 1%. The extra cut will allow courts below the funding band to take less of a hit.
“We can try to all, as uncomfortable as it is to say, instead of share the gain share the pain,” Conklin told the council Friday. “Unfortunately everybody has to share in the cut, but those courts that are above the average funding range can take little bit more of a hit on that cut to the benefit of those courts that are below the range.”
And just as all courts are expected to share the pain, they’ll also share in a portion of the $50 million in emergency funding, the first half of which will be distributed to the courts pro rata based on workload.
“It essentially takes each trial court's share of the overall budget and allocates the $50 million,” Conklin explained. “A trial court that might get 2% of the overall general fund budget for trial courts would get 2% of the $50 million.”
Conklin’s committee proposed immediately distributing the full $50 million to the courts struggling to address immediate needs and plan for an uncertain future in the face of ever-changing state health guidelines.
“Our thought in saying we need the money instantly is because we're moving so quickly,” Conklin said. “I talked to a judge the other day who on paper doesn't appear to be immediately impacted, but is very concerned that they're going to become a hotspot tomorrow and wants to make sure that if they do become a hotspot they can immediately react to that to reduce workload.”
But Justice Brad Hill, a member of the council, suggested that the $50 million be split into two portions, with some need-based criteria established for the second half. “I was thinking that perhaps a staggered distribution has some merit given the need to demonstrate to the Legislature and the governor that we are being good stewards of the public funds,” he said, adding courts should report on how they used their first distribution and their plans for the second.
Hill said this will likely entail a lot of work on the part of the courts and the council’s budget advisory committee, but seems necessary given the council may need to seek additional emergency dollars from the Legislature. “This need for additional funds may extend beyond this $50 million, and we may need to be prepared to make a documented case for additional funds to the Legislature. And those funds will never come unless we fully document our ongoing needs,” he said.
Judge David Rubin of San Diego, who chairs the council budget committee, said, “Whatever we do with this money, it needs to be flexible enough to contemplate new changes in our operations, as new shelter in place are rolled out or rolled out differently and how those will impact our backlogs.”
He moved that Conklin’s committee develop a more precise definition of what a Covid-related backlog is, and that the committee gather data from the courts on how they spent their first $25 million. Both factors will guide how the council distributes the second $25 million.
“It gives us a baseline of what we've done and we can show the governor's office and legislative branch where we spent the money,” Rubin said.
Conkin said he was concerned about how the timing might affect each court’s chances of getting their share of the second round of funding. “I would hate to create the restriction that if on the first day those funds are available and you don't meet the criteria, you give them up. Allow the courts the time they need. We all know the folks are going to need some time to put this data together.”
Rubin said the committee will have flexibility to decide what to do after the data comes in.
“We're going to see what the need is,” he said. “There may be counties that have dealt with it with the first distribution and won't need it.”
The budget cuts come as Congress debates a new pandemic stimulus bill that could send $14 billion in funding to California.
"The system is setting up to execute and implement that reduction, but there is a hope and a trigger for restoration in the form of the $150 million — and the trigger is the federal government by the passage of a second pandemic relief budget act that would then restore $14 billion to the state of California," Judicial Council staff director Martin Hoshino said. "If that happens there's the prospect of $150 million of that $14 billion being restored.”
Also Friday, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye also delivered the news that temporary rules halting evictions and foreclosure proceedings in the courts could soon be rescinded.
“The council will very soon resume voting to terminate the temporary orders having to do with unlawful detainer evictions and foreclosures,” she said.
If the council votes to terminate the two rules, the rescission will be effective Aug. 14.
Cantil-Sakauye said the issue rests with the governor and Legislature, and the Aug. 14 deadline should give the legislative and executive branches more time to deliberate, hold hearings and pass legislation.
“I urge our sister branches to turn their attention to this critical work to protect people from the devastating effect of this pandemic and its recent resurgence,” she said.


courthousenews--2020-07-25--Judge Denies Oregon’s Request to Halt Federal Agents in Portland

( CN ) — A federal judge on Friday denied the Oregon attorney general ’ s request to stop federal agents from arresting Portland protesters , as nightly protests against police violence continue in the state ’ s largest city .
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum last week sued the government and requested a temporary restraining order , asking the court to require federal officers to identify themselves , explain to any protester seized that they are being arrested and stop any arrests lacking probable cause .
U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman , a George W. Bush appointee , denied the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing to sue .
Mosman said the state did not provide sufficient evidence of harm being done to protesters , citing that Rosenblum only offered two examples of probable cases where civil rights violations occurred .
“ While the complaint paints a picture of numerous protesters being seized from the streets of Portland by unidentified agents , the State ’ s evidence in its brief and at the hearing consists of just two examples , ” Mosman wrote in the 14-page ruling .
His decision comes one day after another federal judge issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Portland , ordering them not to arrest journalists and legal observers there to witness the protests .
The state argued that the arrests made by unidentified federal agents in unmarked vans could give anti-protesters the opportunity to kidnap protesters .
Mosman scoffed at that claim , saying that the state offered no evidence of that happening .
“ I do not discount the animosity among these groups and had I been asked to assume that something would result in fistfights , or theft , or destruction of signs , or damage to vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he wrote .
“ But the idea that seizures by law enforcement will lead to kidnappings by private parties is a bridge too far.
” Rosenblum said Friday she was disappointed with the decision .
“ While I respect Judge Mosman , I would ask this question : If the state of Oregon does not have standing to prevent this unconstitutional conduct by unidentified federal agents running roughshod over her citizens , who does ?
” she said in a statement .
“ Individuals mistreated by these federal agents can sue for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a judge to restrain this unlawful conduct more generally .
Today ’ s ruling suggests that there may be no recourse on behalf of our state , and if so that is extremely troubling.
” President Donald Trump dispatched agents to Portland earlier this month , vowing to crack down on protesters he called “ agitators.
” Trump announced he would send more federal police to Democratic-led cities , as part of a new reelection strategy meant to emphasize “ law and order .
”

A federal judge on Friday denied the Oregon attorney general's request to stop federal agents from arresting Portland protesters, as nightly protests against police violence continue in the state's largest city.
Organizers lead thousands of protesters along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. in Portland Friday night. (Courthouse News photo/Karina Brown)
(CN) — A federal judge on Friday denied the Oregon attorney general's request to stop federal agents from arresting Portland protesters, as nightly protests against police violence continue in the state's largest city.
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum last week sued the government and requested a temporary restraining order, asking the court to require federal officers to identify themselves, explain to any protester seized that they are being arrested and stop any arrests lacking probable cause.
U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman, a George W. Bush appointee, denied the request, finding that the state lacked standing to sue.
Mosman said the state did not provide sufficient evidence of harm being done to protesters, citing that Rosenblum only offered two examples of probable cases where civil rights violations occurred.
"While the complaint paints a picture of numerous protesters being seized from the streets of Portland by unidentified agents, the State's evidence in its brief and at the hearing consists of just two examples," Mosman wrote in the 14-page ruling.
His decision comes one day after another federal judge issued a restraining order against federal police in Portland, ordering them not to arrest journalists and legal observers there to witness the protests.
The state argued that the arrests made by unidentified federal agents in unmarked vans could give anti-protesters the opportunity to kidnap protesters.
Mosman scoffed at that claim, saying that the state offered no evidence of that happening.
“I do not discount the animosity among these groups and had I been asked to assume that something would result in fistfights, or theft, or destruction of signs, or damage to vehicles, that would have made sense,” he wrote. “But the idea that seizures by law enforcement will lead to kidnappings by private parties is a bridge too far.”
Rosenblum said Friday she was disappointed with the decision.
"While I respect Judge Mosman, I would ask this question: If the state of Oregon does not have standing to prevent this unconstitutional conduct by unidentified federal agents running roughshod over her citizens, who does?" she said in a statement.
"Individuals mistreated by these federal agents can sue for damages, but they can’t get a judge to restrain this unlawful conduct more generally. Today’s ruling suggests that there may be no recourse on behalf of our state, and if so that is extremely troubling."
President Donald Trump dispatched agents to Portland earlier this month, vowing to crack down on protesters he called "agitators." Trump announced he would send more federal police to Democratic-led cities, as part of a new reelection strategy meant to emphasize "law and order."


Top Eight

Your Friday night briefing from the staff of Courthouse News Top eight CNS stories for today including the Chinese scientist who had been hiding out in a San Francisco consulate in a bid to evade U.S. authorities was booked into Sacramento County Jail ; A Netherlands human rights watchdog ruled Dutch airline KLM discriminated against a woman when it asked her to change seats to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish man ; A new study shows life in Covid-19 lockdown is unsettling the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their children , and more .
Sign up for CNS Top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top stories delivered directly to your email Monday through Friday .
1 . )
The Chinese scientist who had been hiding out in a San Francisco consulate in a bid to evade U.S. authorities was booked into Sacramento County Jail on Friday morning .
2 . )
Life in Covid-19 lockdown is unsettling the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their children , according to a new national survey published Friday in the journal Pediatrics .
3 . )
The Trump administration has revoked an Obama-era housing rule created to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawing criticism that the rollback will promote segregation .
4 . )
In a sign of the times , a federal judge heard remote arguments Friday on a lawsuit filed by Republicans to block remote proxy voting in the House , a historically unprecedented procedure initiated by Democrats to limit the spread of Covid-19 .
5 . )
A Georgia judge has ordered Governor Brian Kemp and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to enter mediation over the governor ’ s lawsuit seeking to block the city from requiring face masks in public during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A proposed Alaskan mining project cleared another regulatory hurdle Friday despite vehement opposition from environmental advocacy groups who say pollution from the project will harm the salmon industry and the local watershed .
7 . )
Dutch airline KLM discriminated against a woman when it asked her to change seats to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish man , a human rights watchdog in the Netherlands has ruled .
8 . )
A new study uses mathematical modeling of typhus infections in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II to understand how public health interventions @ @ @ @

Top eight CNS stories for today including the Chinese scientist who had been hiding out in a San Francisco consulate in a bid to evade U.S. authorities was booked into Sacramento County Jail; A Netherlands human rights watchdog ruled Dutch airline KLM discriminated against a woman when it asked her to change seats to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish man; A new study shows life in Covid-19 lockdown is unsettling the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their children, and more.
Your Friday night briefing from the staff of Courthouse News
Top eight CNS stories for today including the Chinese scientist who had been hiding out in a San Francisco consulate in a bid to evade U.S. authorities was booked into Sacramento County Jail; A Netherlands human rights watchdog ruled Dutch airline KLM discriminated against a woman when it asked her to change seats to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish man; A new study shows life in Covid-19 lockdown is unsettling the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their children, and more.
Sign up for CNS Top Eight, a roundup of the day’s top stories delivered directly to your email Monday through Friday.
National
1.) The Chinese scientist who had been hiding out in a San Francisco consulate in a bid to evade U.S. authorities was booked into Sacramento County Jail on Friday morning.
A man walks across the street from the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco, Thursday, July 23, 2020. The Chinese consulate in San Francisco is harboring a Chinese researcher who the FBI says lied about her military background. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
2.) Life in Covid-19 lockdown is unsettling the physical and mental wellbeing of parents and their children, according to a new national survey published Friday in the journal Pediatrics.
A sample is taken from a child's nose at a mobile Coronavirus testing site at the Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science Wednesday, July 22, 2020, in Los Angeles. California's confirmed coronavirus cases have topped 409,000, surpassing New York for most in the nation. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
3.) The Trump administration has revoked an Obama-era housing rule created to fight racial disparities in suburban areas, drawing criticism that the rollback will promote segregation.
FILE - In this June 15, 2020, file photo Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson speaks during a roundtable with President Donald Trump about America's seniors, in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. The Trump administration said Thursday, July 23, that it is revoking an Obama-era housing regulation designed to eliminate racial disparities in the suburbs. In a statement, Carson said the regulation known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, or the AFFH rule, was “unworkable and ultimately a waste of time for localities to comply with.” (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
4.) In a sign of the times, a federal judge heard remote arguments Friday on a lawsuit filed by Republicans to block remote proxy voting in the House, a historically unprecedented procedure initiated by Democrats to limit the spread of Covid-19.
The U.S. Capitol building in Washington. (Courthouse News photo/Jack Rodgers)
Regional
5.) A Georgia judge has ordered Governor Brian Kemp and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to enter mediation over the governor’s lawsuit seeking to block the city from requiring face masks in public during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks at the Georgia Cancer Center in Augusta, Ga., Wednesday morning July 2, 2020, as part of his "Wear a Mask" Fly-Around Tour to promote the wearing of masks as COVID numbers rise in Georgia. (Michael Holahan/Augusta Chronicle via AP)
6.) A proposed Alaskan mining project cleared another regulatory hurdle Friday despite vehement opposition from environmental advocacy groups who say pollution from the project will harm the salmon industry and the local watershed.
The Nushagak River, draining into Bristol Bay in Alaska. (AlaskaTrekker via Wikipedia)
International
7.) Dutch airline KLM discriminated against a woman when it asked her to change seats to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish man, a human rights watchdog in the Netherlands has ruled.
A KLM passenger plane approaches for landing at Lisbon Airport on Aug. 21, 2019. (Armando Franca/AP)
8.) A new study uses mathematical modeling of typhus infections in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II to understand how public health interventions eradicated the disease.


courthousenews--2020-07-24--California Courts Covid Update

California Courts Covid Update

July 23 , 2020 : Notice to attorneys regarding scheduling remote appearances in non-central district civil cases July 17 , @ @ @ @ @ relief for extending time for arraignments and criminal trials


courthousenews--2020-07-24--Republicans Urge Judge to Shut Down Remote Voting in House

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — In a sign of the times , a federal judge heard remote arguments Friday on a lawsuit filed by Republicans to block remote proxy voting in the House , a historically unprecedented procedure initiated by Democrats to limit the spread of Covid-19 .
Democrats cleared the way for the congressional body to legislate remotely — for the first time in its more than 200-year history — with the passage of H.R .
965 in May .
The resolution allows for remote proxy voting as well as committee hearings held by videoconference .
Republicans filed suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had “ flinched from its constitutional duty to assemble at the nation ’ s capital.
” But House General Counsel Douglas Letter said the new rules allow democracy to function despite the grave threat posed by the novel coronavirus outbreak .
The Covid-19 death toll in the United States topped 145,000 as Friday ’ s hearing was ongoing .
“ Technology here has enabled our democracy to work better even when it is threatened by a global pandemic , ” Letter said .
But GOP attorney Charles Cooper argued members of Congress must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to constitute the quorum required for a vote .
“ Our plaintiffs ’ vote has been denied its full validity by the dilution created by proxy votes that are null and void , ” Cooper said .
Pointing to Representative Jamie Raskin , D-Md.
, recently casting his own vote and seven votes for absent members , the Republicans ’ attorney argued the court must consider the proxy-cast votes invalid .
The Constitution is riddled with language that supports the claim brought by 160 of the 198 House Republicans , Cooper argued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that purpose ” and “ the Congress shall assemble.
” U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras opened the remote proceedings affirming for the parties that he had not made a decision on the motion for preliminary injunction based on the briefs .
“ Give me your best pitch , ” the Obama appointee said at the outset of the nearly three-hour videoconference hearing .
Letter struck the strongest blow to the GOP ’ s case when he noted that Republicans failed to address the fact that the Supreme Court has made clear it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House and the Senate to set their own rules .
“ The rules clause is absolutely essential here and Mr. Cooper has to address it ; he has to face it , ” the Democrats ’ attorney said .
Cooper instead took the judge through historical examples of national crises that did not deter Congress from legislating in person — among them the War of 1812 , the Civil War , the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 9/11 terror attacks .
He also focused closely on the 1793 Yellow Fever epidemic in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the newly born government .
The GOP attorney outlined how Alexander Hamilton , Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all advised President George Washington that the Constitution did not permit him to mandate Congress convene outside the disease-plagued city .
“ It was a given , your honor , to all four of these founders , that the members of Congress would have no choice but to convene in person , in their respective houses , in the seat of government despite the contagion that awaited them , ” Cooper said .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and told the judge that the founders were at the time addressing the power of the president , and furthermore did not pass an amendment requiring physical presence in the chamber to vote .
The House is also currently convened in Washington , the attorney added , having affirmed in response to a question from the judge that the members of the body have constituted a quorum since the disputed rules passed .
“ Nothing in the Constitution talks about physical presence of the members…under the Capitol dome , ” Letter said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raines v. Byrd overruled the 1994 appeals court decision that their GOP counterparts are heavily relying on .
The case before the high court in 1997 involved several members of Congress challenging the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act .
However , Cooper proffered on Friday that if Raines inhibits challenges to the resolution allowing remote proxy voting , it could likewise shut down concerns raised over hypothetical rules forbidding congresswomen from voting , or reducing the power of their vote by half .
Urging the judge to rely on his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly that the absence of the word “ physical ” in the Constitution does not mean the intent of the founders is up for debate .
“ He is asking you to ignore the plain and clear meaning of these passages , ” the GOP attorney said .
During the lengthy hearing , Contreras asked few questions that indicated how he intends to rule on the matter .
Recognizing the complex dispute is likely bound for the Supreme Court , the judge said he planned to issue a quick decision in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

In a sign of the times, a federal judge heard remote arguments Friday on a lawsuit filed by Republicans to block remote proxy voting in the House, a historically unprecedented procedure initiated by Democrats to limit the spread of Covid-19.
WASHINGTON (CN) — In a sign of the times, a federal judge heard remote arguments Friday on a lawsuit filed by Republicans to block remote proxy voting in the House, a historically unprecedented procedure initiated by Democrats to limit the spread of Covid-19.
Democrats cleared the way for the congressional body to legislate remotely — for the first time in its more than 200-year history — with the passage of H.R. 965 in May. The resolution allows for remote proxy voting as well as committee hearings held by videoconference.
Republicans filed suit within two weeks, claiming the majority had “flinched from its constitutional duty to assemble at the nation’s capital.”
But House General Counsel Douglas Letter said the new rules allow democracy to function despite the grave threat posed by the novel coronavirus outbreak. The Covid-19 death toll in the United States topped 145,000 as Friday’s hearing was ongoing.
“Technology here has enabled our democracy to work better even when it is threatened by a global pandemic,” Letter said.
But GOP attorney Charles Cooper argued members of Congress must be physically present on the House floor to constitute the quorum required for a vote.
“Our plaintiffs’ vote has been denied its full validity by the dilution created by proxy votes that are null and void,” Cooper said.
Pointing to Representative Jamie Raskin, D-Md., recently casting his own vote and seven votes for absent members, the Republicans' attorney argued the court must consider the proxy-cast votes invalid.
The Constitution is riddled with language that supports the claim brought by 160 of the 198 House Republicans, Cooper argued, citing examples like “when sitting for that purpose” and “the Congress shall assemble.”
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras opened the remote proceedings affirming for the parties that he had not made a decision on the motion for preliminary injunction based on the briefs.
“Give me your best pitch,” the Obama appointee said at the outset of the nearly three-hour videoconference hearing.
Letter struck the strongest blow to the GOP’s case when he noted that Republicans failed to address the fact that the Supreme Court has made clear it will not interfere in the power of both the House and the Senate to set their own rules.
“The rules clause is absolutely essential here and Mr. Cooper has to address it; he has to face it,” the Democrats’ attorney said.
Cooper instead took the judge through historical examples of national crises that did not deter Congress from legislating in person — among them the War of 1812, the Civil War, the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 9/11 terror attacks.
He also focused closely on the 1793 Yellow Fever epidemic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, then the seat of the newly born government.
The GOP attorney outlined how Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all advised President George Washington that the Constitution did not permit him to mandate Congress convene outside the disease-plagued city.
“It was a given, your honor, to all four of these founders, that the members of Congress would have no choice but to convene in person, in their respective houses, in the seat of government despite the contagion that awaited them,” Cooper said.
But Letter pushed back on the historical example and told the judge that the founders were at the time addressing the power of the president, and furthermore did not pass an amendment requiring physical presence in the chamber to vote.
The House is also currently convened in Washington, the attorney added, having affirmed in response to a question from the judge that the members of the body have constituted a quorum since the disputed rules passed.
“Nothing in the Constitution talks about physical presence of the members...under the Capitol dome,” Letter said.
Democrats also argued the Supreme Court in Raines v. Byrd overruled the 1994 appeals court decision that their GOP counterparts are heavily relying on. The case before the high court in 1997 involved several members of Congress challenging the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act.
However, Cooper proffered on Friday that if Raines inhibits challenges to the resolution allowing remote proxy voting, it could likewise shut down concerns raised over hypothetical rules forbidding congresswomen from voting, or reducing the power of their vote by half.
Urging the judge to rely on his ability to interpret the text, Cooper stressed repeatedly that the absence of the word “physical” in the Constitution does not mean the intent of the founders is up for debate.
“He is asking you to ignore the plain and clear meaning of these passages,” the GOP attorney said.
During the lengthy hearing, Contreras asked few questions that indicated how he intends to rule on the matter.
Recognizing the complex dispute is likely bound for the Supreme Court, the judge said he planned to issue a quick decision in order to “send everyone on their way."


courthousenews--2020-07-24--Judge Asked to Block Overhaul of Campus Sexual Assault Rules

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — Saying the impending regulations will be costly and make it harder to discipline sexual misconduct , a group of blue states urged a federal judge on Friday to block the Trump administration ’ s changes to how schools must adjudicate sexual harassment and assault claims .
“ In short , your honor , the states have sued because the rule makes it harder for schools to fulfill Title IX ’ s promise that no student on the basis of sex should be limited or denied the benefits and opportunities of an education , ” Aimee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Office , said Friday .
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols did not rule from the bench following a two-hour hearing held remotely on Friday afternoon , but said he will issue a ruling on whether to block the new regulations in “ relatively due course.
” In 2018 , the Trump administration announced plans to roll back a series of Obama-era guidance documents detailing how colleges adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct under Title IX .
The Obama rules required schools to put in place stricter policies for addressing such claims , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evidence standard of proof for determining misconduct .
The Obama rules were hailed by advocates as a key step towards curbing an epidemic of sexual assault on campus and correcting schools ’ lax responses .
But some experts warned the regulations did not include sufficient due process protections for the accused and many accused students won lawsuits challenging their discipline under the rules .
The Trump administration rules , which were formalized in May , were aimed at that critique of the regulations .
The new rules require schools to hold a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims , allowing representatives for the victim and accuser to conduct cross-examination .
Under the Obama rules , many schools adopted streamlined adjudication processes that did not include in-person hearings , which critics say risk re-traumatizing the victim .
The Trump regulation also requires the accused to have equal access to evidence .
In addition , the rules narrow the definition of sexual harassment and limit who can file a complaint .
Led by Pennsylvania , a group of 17 states and the District of Columbia filed suit last month challenging the regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Title IX .
On June 23 , the states asked a federal judge to enjoin the rule , which is set to take effect in August .
Thomson , who argued for the states Friday , said the new regulations will require schools to stand up an entirely new process for weighing sexual misconduct claims .
She said this would be an extremely costly process , requiring new hiring , the renegotiation of union contracts and outreach efforts to explain the new procedure to students and faculty .
Setting up the new procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic and the financial strain many schools and universities are facing , Thomson argued .
“ It involves a massive undertaking at a time when schools are really on the back foot with responding to the current national pandemic , ” Thomson said .
“ And this is why , your honor , we are particularly concerned about the upcoming effective date , only 21 days from today , because it is requiring schools in less than three months to completely overhaul almost every aspect of their operations to be in compliance.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who argued for the Trump administration , said the new rule did give schools more time to comply than the administration would have thought necessary absent the pandemic .
She said pausing the implementation of the regulations over schools ’ claims that they will have a hard time complying overlooks that the administration views the change as an important correction implicating constitutional and statutory concerns .
“ This is the culmination of a nearly three-year process to identify and respond to a serious issue of sexual harassment across the country , ” Dickey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware that schools have adopted a series of approaches to respond to sexual harassment , not all of which have fairly treated the accuser and the accused , and Title IX obligations are not suspended during a pandemic.
” Turning away from the timing issues , Thomson argued for the states that the changes will chill the reporting of harassment in schools and universities and lead to mistrust of the system .
By requiring the dismissal of complaints that do not fit within its definition of sexual harassment , the Trump rule raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cutting out conduct Title IX was meant to prohibit , the attorney said .
Nichols asked several times during the hearing whether schools could still hand down discipline based on personal conduct policies and other mechanisms that go beyond what is required under Title IX and Dickey confirmed to the Trump appointee that a school could do so .
On the merits of the rule , Dickey argued the federal government has an interest in curtailing policies it views as violating due process rights .
She also said having a clear definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Title IX will bolster the effectiveness and legitimacy of the disciplinary actions the institutions take .
Having too burdensome a requirement might discourage institutions from taking Title IX funds , frustrating the purpose of the law , Dickey argued .
“ Congress did not set schools up as sort of an alternative police force , ” Dickey said .
“ They did not subject schools to open-ended liability , rather they set forth a reasonable condition on federal funds that recipients can respond to and apply.
” Nichols struggled , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor essentially also the ceiling ” with its definition of harassment and punish schools for having stricter policies than the federal government requires .
“ Does the educational institution itself , by acting inconsistent with the rule , is that a violation of Title IX in the department ’ s view ?
” Nichols asked .
“ And if so , where does the department get the power to prohibit a school , a university , from defining as sexual harassment something beyond what the department thinks is sexual harassment ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing on that particular issue before he rules on the injunction request .

Saying the impending regulations will be costly and make it harder to discipline sexual misconduct, a group of blue states urged a federal judge on Friday to block the Trump administration’s changes to how schools must adjudicate sexual harassment and assault claims.
WASHINGTON (CN) — Saying the impending regulations will be costly and make it harder to discipline sexual misconduct, a group of blue states urged a federal judge on Friday to block the Trump administration’s changes to how schools must adjudicate sexual harassment and assault claims.
“In short, your honor, the states have sued because the rule makes it harder for schools to fulfill Title IX’s promise that no student on the basis of sex should be limited or denied the benefits and opportunities of an education,” Aimee Thomson, with the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, said Friday.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols did not rule from the bench following a two-hour hearing held remotely on Friday afternoon, but said he will issue a ruling on whether to block the new regulations in “relatively due course.”
In 2018, the Trump administration announced plans to roll back a series of Obama-era guidance documents detailing how colleges adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct under Title IX. The Obama rules required schools to put in place stricter policies for addressing such claims, including putting in place a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for determining misconduct.
The Obama rules were hailed by advocates as a key step towards curbing an epidemic of sexual assault on campus and correcting schools’ lax responses. But some experts warned the regulations did not include sufficient due process protections for the accused and many accused students won lawsuits challenging their discipline under the rules.
The Trump administration rules, which were formalized in May, were aimed at that critique of the regulations. The new rules require schools to hold a live hearing when adjudicating harassment and assault claims, allowing representatives for the victim and accuser to conduct cross-examination.
Under the Obama rules, many schools adopted streamlined adjudication processes that did not include in-person hearings, which critics say risk re-traumatizing the victim. The Trump regulation also requires the accused to have equal access to evidence. In addition, the rules narrow the definition of sexual harassment and limit who can file a complaint.
Led by Pennsylvania, a group of 17 states and the District of Columbia filed suit last month challenging the regulation as going against the core function of Title IX. On June 23, the states asked a federal judge to enjoin the rule, which is set to take effect in August.
Thomson, who argued for the states Friday, said the new regulations will require schools to stand up an entirely new process for weighing sexual misconduct claims. She said this would be an extremely costly process, requiring new hiring, the renegotiation of union contracts and outreach efforts to explain the new procedure to students and faculty.
Setting up the new procedures would be especially difficult given the Covid-19 pandemic and the financial strain many schools and universities are facing, Thomson argued.
“It involves a massive undertaking at a time when schools are really on the back foot with responding to the current national pandemic,” Thomson said. “And this is why, your honor, we are particularly concerned about the upcoming effective date, only 21 days from today, because it is requiring schools in less than three months to completely overhaul almost every aspect of their operations to be in compliance.”
Jennifer Dickey, a Justice Department attorney who argued for the Trump administration, said the new rule did give schools more time to comply than the administration would have thought necessary absent the pandemic. She said pausing the implementation of the regulations over schools’ claims that they will have a hard time complying overlooks that the administration views the change as an important correction implicating constitutional and statutory concerns.
“This is the culmination of a nearly three-year process to identify and respond to a serious issue of sexual harassment across the country,” Dickey said. “The department is well aware that schools have adopted a series of approaches to respond to sexual harassment, not all of which have fairly treated the accuser and the accused, and Title IX obligations are not suspended during a pandemic.”
Turning away from the timing issues, Thomson argued for the states that the changes will chill the reporting of harassment in schools and universities and lead to mistrust of the system. By requiring the dismissal of complaints that do not fit within its definition of sexual harassment, the Trump rule raises the bar for what is considered misconduct, cutting out conduct Title IX was meant to prohibit, the attorney said.
Nichols asked several times during the hearing whether schools could still hand down discipline based on personal conduct policies and other mechanisms that go beyond what is required under Title IX and Dickey confirmed to the Trump appointee that a school could do so.
On the merits of the rule, Dickey argued the federal government has an interest in curtailing policies it views as violating due process rights. She also said having a clear definition of what schools must do to comply with Title IX will bolster the effectiveness and legitimacy of the disciplinary actions the institutions take.
Having too burdensome a requirement might discourage institutions from taking Title IX funds, frustrating the purpose of the law, Dickey argued.
“Congress did not set schools up as sort of an alternative police force,” Dickey said. “They did not subject schools to open-ended liability, rather they set forth a reasonable condition on federal funds that recipients can respond to and apply.”
Nichols struggled, however, with whether the administration can “make the floor essentially also the ceiling” with its definition of harassment and punish schools for having stricter policies than the federal government requires.
“Does the educational institution itself, by acting inconsistent with the rule, is that a violation of Title IX in the department’s view?” Nichols asked. “And if so, where does the department get the power to prohibit a school, a university, from defining as sexual harassment something beyond what the department thinks is sexual harassment?”
Nichols said he may ask for additional briefing on that particular issue before he rules on the injunction request.