courthousenews--2020-06-16--First Amendment Groups Want California Courts to Keep Access Open

( CN ) — While some courts have made strides to preserve access to legal proceedings during the coronavirus pandemic , First Amendment advocates say others are still withholding records and shutting the press and public out of hearings .
Three chapters of the ACLU , legal nonprofit Public Justice , and the First Amendment Coalition sent a letter Monday to California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye , asking that the Judicial Council she chairs step in to ensure courts are not unconstitutionally barring the public from either the physical or virtual courthouse .
“ We understand the challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
We do not doubt that restricting access consistent with social distancing best practices and expanding remote hearings is the right thing to do .
But failures by some courts to prevent secret proceedings and extended delays in availability of records have resulted in serious , ongoing constitutional violations , ” their letter says .
“ We fear that without direction and support from the Judicial Council to all Superior Courts , the public ’ s First Amendment rights will continue to be irreparably harmed , and that these harms will fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are overrepresented in our criminal justice system.
” “ Some don ’ t appear to be aware or mindful of the general public ’ s right of access at all , while others acted promptly to provide not just audio but video access.
” First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder said in a phone interview Monday .
He praised Orange County Superior Court and Sacramento County Superior Court for moving to video arraignments on YouTube relatively quickly .
“ In other cases it took months for courts to become fully aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
Since March , these groups and others have been pushing for courts whose doors have closed because of Covid-19 to continue to hold open hearings by phone or video .
It ’ s an issue that has persisted for going on three months now , as the groups ’ research into public access around the state reveals .
Just two weeks ago , Alameda County held a closed hearing in a high profile criminal case that should have been public .
Records in the case were also withheld from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented reporters from even talking to any of the attorneys involved to learn what had transpired .
“ This is a good example of what secret proceedings could happen when courts aren ’ t focused on this issue , ” Snyder said .
“ In many instances , relatively routine criminal proceedings have been happening but there ’ s no easy way to confirm they happened , much less whether the public or press had any ability to see or hear what was going on.
” In Contra Costa County , a grandmother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge to attend her grandson ’ s preliminary hearing .
The First Amendment Coalition says its representatives were also turned away from Santa Clara Superior Court when they tried to observe criminal and civil hearings .
No alternative access was provided in either instance .
When the Judicial Council did not respond to the FAC ’ s letter in March , the group began reaching out to individual courts .
Multi-letter exchanges between the First Amendment Coalition and judges in Alameda , Contra Costa , and Santa Clara courts yielded some positive results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the court opened phone lines for criminal and civil proceedings in response to several of the FAC ’ s letters .
But Snyder said the FAC realized that it needed to take a statewide approach .
“ It became clear this problem is much bigger than a handful of courthouses , ” he said .
“ There has been progress , there have been courts that have listened to our concerns and have been tending to them appropriately , but the problem is much broader .
The only way this is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s consistent across the state is for the Judicial Council to take a leadership role and provide guidance to the courts that the rights of the press and public to witness court proceedings are observed and enforced.
” Monday ’ s letter to the chief justice also says courts have restricted the public from viewing proceedings online .
“ For example , San Mateo Superior Court requires members of the public to apply a day in advance to receive listen-in instructions .
Similarly , Marin County Superior Court limits the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires an application a day in advance .
Both cited court infrastructure as reasons for the limits , ” the letter states .
Journalists have also complained about having to pay pricey hourly rates to listen to hearings remotely via teleconferencing services like CourtCall .
“ To be clear : We do not assert that there was or is no public access to the above courts .
Indeed , we are aware of important improvements that have been made in several of the above referenced courts , ” the letter says .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a larger trend of secrecy and barriers to access throughout the California court system—barriers that have thwarted and continue to thwart even experienced users of the courts and determined relatives of the criminally accused.
” The letter also lists courts in Calaveras , Fresno , Kern , Lake , San Benito , San Bernardino , San Joaquin and Tuolumne counties whose emergency closure orders have restricted public access .
At a minimum , public proceedings should be accessible through a free public phone line that can be used by anyone , the groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council “ take immediate , concrete steps to ensure California Superior Courts provide meaningful public access to proceedings and records , ” by requesting that each court attest that the public has access either physical or remote to all trials or hearings that would normally be public .
It also asks that council respond by June 22 .
“ The Judicial Council is responsible for ensuring that administration of justice across the state is consistent and accessible .
And it is clear that the lack of public access to court has become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior staff attorney at the ACLU ’ s Northern California chapter , said in an email .
“ Access to open courts is a pillar of a free society , ” she said .
“ One of the things that distinguishes us from a police state , after all , is that we retain our commitment to the rule of law during an emergency .
Just this morning , however , we learned of a member of the public turned away from her loved one ’ s court proceeding in Kern County , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That this is still happening after the advocacy we have done is extremely troubling and warrants immediate action .
”

While some courts have made strides to preserve access to legal proceedings during the coronavirus pandemic, First Amendment advocates say others are still withholding records and shutting the press and public out of hearings.
(CN) — While some courts have made strides to preserve access to legal proceedings during the coronavirus pandemic, First Amendment advocates say others are still withholding records and shutting the press and public out of hearings.
Three chapters of the ACLU, legal nonprofit Public Justice, and the First Amendment Coalition sent a letter Monday to California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, asking that the Judicial Council she chairs step in to ensure courts are not unconstitutionally barring the public from either the physical or virtual courthouse.
“We understand the challenges that California courts face amid a global pandemic. We do not doubt that restricting access consistent with social distancing best practices and expanding remote hearings is the right thing to do. But failures by some courts to prevent secret proceedings and extended delays in availability of records have resulted in serious, ongoing constitutional violations,” their letter says.
“We fear that without direction and support from the Judicial Council to all Superior Courts, the public’s First Amendment rights will continue to be irreparably harmed, and that these harms will fall disproportionately on low-income people of color who are overrepresented in our criminal justice system.”
"Some don’t appear to be aware or mindful of the general public’s right of access at all, while others acted promptly to provide not just audio but video access.” First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder said in a phone interview Monday.
He praised Orange County Superior Court and Sacramento County Superior Court for moving to video arraignments on YouTube relatively quickly.
“In other cases it took months for courts to become fully aware of that issue and try address it," he said.
Since March, these groups and others have been pushing for courts whose doors have closed because of Covid-19 to continue to hold open hearings by phone or video. It’s an issue that has persisted for going on three months now, as the groups’ research into public access around the state reveals.
Alameda County held a closed hearing in April in a high profile criminal case that should have been public. Records in the case were also withheld from the press, and a gag order prevented reporters from even talking to any of the attorneys involved to learn what had transpired.
“This is a good example of what secret proceedings could happen when courts aren’t focused on this issue,” Snyder said. "In many instances, relatively routine criminal proceedings have been happening but there’s no easy way to confirm they happened, much less whether the public or press had any ability to see or hear what was going on."
In Contra Costa County, a grandmother was allegedly denied permission by the presiding judge to attend her grandson’s preliminary hearing. The First Amendment Coalition says its representatives were also turned away from Santa Clara Superior Court when they tried to observe criminal and civil hearings.
No alternative access was provided in either instance.
When the Judicial Council did not respond to the FAC’s letter in March, the group began reaching out to individual courts. Multi-letter exchanges between the First Amendment Coalition and judges in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara courts yielded some positive results. In Santa Clara, for example, the court opened phone lines for criminal and civil proceedings in response to several of the FAC’s letters.
But Snyder said the FAC realized that it needed to take a statewide approach.
“It became clear this problem is much bigger than a handful of courthouses,” he said. “There has been progress, there have been courts that have listened to our concerns and have been tending to them appropriately, but the problem is much broader. The only way this is going to be resolved in a way that’s consistent across the state is for the Judicial Council to take a leadership role and provide guidance to the courts that the rights of the press and public to witness court proceedings are observed and enforced."
Monday’s letter to the chief justice also says courts have restricted the public from viewing proceedings online.
“For example, San Mateo Superior Court requires members of the public to apply a day in advance to receive listen-in instructions. Similarly, Marin County Superior Court limits the number of people allowed to access remote proceedings and requires an application a day in advance. Both cited court infrastructure as reasons for the limits,” the letter states.
Journalists have also complained about having to pay pricey hourly rates to listen to hearings remotely via teleconferencing services like CourtCall.
“To be clear: We do not assert that there was or is no public access to the above courts. Indeed, we are aware of important improvements that have been made in several of the above referenced courts,” the letter says.
“However, the above specific problems illustrate a larger trend of secrecy and barriers to access throughout the California court system—barriers that have thwarted and continue to thwart even experienced users of the courts and determined relatives of the criminally accused.”
The letter also lists courts in Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Lake, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Joaquin and Tuolumne counties whose emergency closure orders have restricted public access.
At a minimum, public proceedings should be accessible through a free public phone line that can be used by anyone, the groups say.
Their letter asks that the council “take immediate, concrete steps to ensure California Superior Courts provide meaningful public access to proceedings and records,” by requesting that each court attest that the public has access either physical or remote to all trials or hearings that would normally be public. It also asks that council respond by June 22.
"The Judicial Council is responsible for ensuring that administration of justice across the state is consistent and accessible. And it is clear that the lack of public access to court has become a statewide issue,” Kathleen Guneratne, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Northern California chapter, said in an email.
"Access to open courts is a pillar of a free society," she said. "One of the things that distinguishes us from a police state, after all, is that we retain our commitment to the rule of law during an emergency.
Just this morning, however, we learned of a member of the public turned away from her loved one’s court proceeding in Kern County, with no ability for remote access. That this is still happening after the advocacy we have done is extremely troubling and warrants immediate action.”


courthousenews--2020-06-15--California Lawmakers Pass Budget Meant to Avoid Deep Education Cuts

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( CN ) – Veering from Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s strategy , California lawmakers on Monday just hours before deadline approved a budget bill that is less reliant on potential federal pandemic aid and contains reduced education and social programs cuts .
Assembly Budget Chair Phil Ting described the plan as imperfect but necessary to deflect devastating cuts to schools and the health care industry in light of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ We could have done all the devastating cuts like some folks have asked about and maybe that would have helped us with Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francisco .
“ But this is a budget for Main Street and making sure the money that ’ s needed there is going there.
” The Legislature seeks to avoid deep cuts to schools and low-income Californians and assumes additional federal pandemic relief will reach the state by Oct. 1 .
If not , lawmakers are proposing to backfill the spending in various ways such as allowing schools to borrow , raising taxes on companies that carry out the state ’ s Medicaid program , eliminating certain commercial tax breaks and dipping further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The proposal , approved in the Assembly by a 61-13 vote and in the Senate 29-11 , is essentially a placeholder document passed to comply with a constitutionally mandated deadline requiring lawmakers to approve a balanced budget or lose their paychecks .
The final version is expected to look much different as lawmakers ’ plans to patch the state ’ s massive deficit vary from the Newsom ’ s .
Legislative leaders say they will continue negotiating in coming weeks with Newsom , who has until the end of the month to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what his office believes could be a record-high deficit $ 54 billion hole , Newsom in May proposed cutting billions to social programs and education , reducing state worker salaries by 10 % and suspending net operating losses for medium and large businesses for the next three years .
The plan is also heavily reliant on the federal government , with Newsom arguing much of the state ’ s pandemic-induced fiscal pain can be relieved by Congress and the Trump administration .
“ The federal government , we need you ; these cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
This is your moment , ” Newsom pleaded while introducing his plan last month .
The governor ’ s proposal drew immediate criticism within his own party as two weeks later the Democratic-controlled state Senate responded with a vastly different spending plan .
During concurrent floor sessions Monday , Democrats painted their proposal as more compassionate and flexible than the governor ’ s .
“ I ’ m impressed by this budget , I ’ m impressed by the cooperation between the two houses , ” said state Sen. Bob Hertzberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an appropriate , thoughtful approach.
” Over the last few months , a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers have complained about Newsom ’ s emergency spending and variety of executive orders taken during the pandemic .
Lawmakers granted Newsom authority over a $ 1 billion relief fund in March but are pushing for more oversight now that California ’ s pandemic-related spending could exceed $ 8 billion .
As a result , the budget requires the Newsom administration to be more transparent when it comes to future pandemic spending .
The budget bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received little support from the state ’ s minority party .
Senate and Assembly Republicans argued against the Democrats ’ heavy reliance on deferrals , and in favor of making cuts .
They warned shifty budgeting and suspending tax credits for businesses would bite the state in the long run , considering the deficit is likely to persist for several budget cycles .
Assemblyman Jay Obernolte , R-Hesperia , vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee , said the blueprint was patched together with “ budgetary gimmicks ” and encouraged his colleagues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The Legislature has a constitutional role to play here in partnering with the executive branch , ” Obernolte said .
“ I would also like to express my hope that we will continue to hold the line as negotiations with the governor proceed.
” State Sen. Jim Nielsen , R-Chico , complained that Republican lawmakers were largely left out of the truncated budget process and was skeptical about how money generated by ending business tax breaks would be spent .
“ My fear is as usual that will be revenue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another year , we ’ ll be on the precipice of another deficit because we ’ ve not done the job required to get this budget long-term and multi-year under control , ” Nielsen said .
Additionally , the Legislature is calling for the closure of two state prisons and some adjustments to the cap-and-trade program .
The plan also slashes nearly $ 100 million from the state ’ s judiciary .
California ’ s finances have been shattered by the coronavirus pandemic , which ended the state ’ s 118 months of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment .
With tax collections halted and deadlines extended , lawmakers and Newsom are attempting to craft a balanced budget with flimsy revenue projections and an uncertain amount of pending federal relief .
The plan now goes to Newsom who can issue line-item vetoes or nix the entire plan , as former Gov .
Jerry Brown did in 2011 .
When asked Monday about lawmakers ’ budget , Newsom said the sides were in the “ throes of negotiation ” and that he was pleased with recent progress .
“ Deep respect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Newsom said in a press conference .
“ Deep realization of the pressures the Legislature is under and all of us are under to meet the needs at a time when people demand more , not less , of their government.
” Newsom also complimented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for proposing the $ 3 trillion aid and reiterated the need for federal help .
“ I remain confident that something will happen at the federal level to help mitigate the impact of cuts at the state level , ” Newsom said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will act on the relief package after the July 4 holiday break .

Veering from Governor Gavin Newsom’s strategy, California lawmakers on Monday just hours before deadline approved a budget bill that is less reliant on potential federal pandemic aid and contains reduced education and social programs cuts.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Veering from Governor Gavin Newsom’s strategy, California lawmakers on Monday just hours before deadline approved a budget bill that is less reliant on potential federal pandemic aid and contains reduced education and social programs cuts.
Assembly Budget Chair Phil Ting described the plan as imperfect but necessary to deflect devastating cuts to schools and the health care industry in light of the coronavirus pandemic.
“We could have done all the devastating cuts like some folks have asked about and maybe that would have helped us with Wall Street,” said Ting, D-San Francisco. “But this is a budget for Main Street and making sure the money that’s needed there is going there.”
The Legislature seeks to avoid deep cuts to schools and low-income Californians and assumes additional federal pandemic relief will reach the state by Oct. 1. If not, lawmakers are proposing to backfill the spending in various ways such as allowing schools to borrow, raising taxes on companies that carry out the state’s Medicaid program, eliminating certain commercial tax breaks and dipping further into the state’s reserves.
The proposal, approved in the Assembly by a 61-13 vote and in the Senate 29-11, is essentially a placeholder document passed to comply with a constitutionally mandated deadline requiring lawmakers to approve a balanced budget or lose their paychecks. The final version is expected to look much different as lawmakers’ plans to patch the state’s massive deficit vary from the Newsom’s.
Legislative leaders say they will continue negotiating in coming weeks with Newsom, who has until the end of the month to sign a finalized 2020-2021 budget.
To shield what his office believes could be a record-high deficit $54 billion hole, Newsom in May proposed cutting billions to social programs and education, reducing state worker salaries by 10% and suspending net operating losses for medium and large businesses for the next three years. The plan is also heavily reliant on the federal government, with Newsom arguing much of the state’s pandemic-induced fiscal pain can be relieved by Congress and the Trump administration.
“The federal government, we need you; these cuts can be negated and dismissed with your support. This is your moment,” Newsom pleaded while introducing his plan last month.
The governor’s proposal drew immediate criticism within his own party as two weeks later the Democratic-controlled state Senate responded with a vastly different spending plan.
During concurrent floor sessions Monday, Democrats painted their proposal as more compassionate and flexible than the governor’s.
“I’m impressed by this budget, I’m impressed by the cooperation between the two houses,” said state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, a Los Angeles Democrat. “This really is an appropriate, thoughtful approach.”
Over the last few months, a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers have complained about Newsom’s emergency spending and variety of executive orders taken during the pandemic. Lawmakers granted Newsom authority over a $1 billion relief fund in March but are pushing for more oversight now that California’s pandemic-related spending could exceed $8 billion.
As a result, the budget requires the Newsom administration to be more transparent when it comes to future pandemic spending.
The budget bill passed both chambers in bipartisan votes but received little support from the state’s minority party.
Senate and Assembly Republicans argued against the Democrats’ heavy reliance on deferrals, and in favor of making cuts. They warned shifty budgeting and suspending tax credits for businesses would bite the state in the long run, considering the deficit is likely to persist for several budget cycles.
Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, a Republican from Hesperia, vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, said the blueprint was patched together with “budgetary gimmicks” and encouraged his colleagues to negotiate in good faith with the governor.
“The Legislature has a constitutional role to play here in partnering with the executive branch,” Obernolte said. “I would also like to express my hope that we will continue to hold the line as negotiations with the governor proceed.”
State Sen. Jim Nielsen, a Chico Republican, complained that Republican lawmakers were largely left out of the truncated budget process and was skeptical about how money generated by ending business tax breaks would be spent.
“My fear is as usual that will be revenue that goes down a dark hole and in another year, we’ll be on the precipice of another deficit because we’ve not done the job required to get this budget long-term and multi-year under control,” Nielsen said.
Additionally, the Legislature is calling for the closure of two state prisons and some adjustments to the cap-and-trade program. The plan also slashes nearly $100 million from the state’s judiciary.
California’s finances have been shattered by the coronavirus pandemic, which ended the state’s 118 months of consecutive job growth and resulted in record unemployment.
With tax collections halted and deadlines extended, lawmakers and Newsom are attempting to craft a balanced budget with flimsy revenue projections and an uncertain amount of pending federal relief. The plan now goes to Newsom who can issue line-item vetoes or nix the entire plan, as former Gov. Jerry Brown did in 2011.
When asked Monday about lawmakers’ budget, Newsom said the sides were in the “throes of negotiation” and that he was pleased with recent progress.
“Deep respect, deep admiration for the task at hand,” Newsom said in a press conference. “Deep realization of the pressures the Legislature is under and all of us are under to meet the needs at a time when people demand more, not less, of their government.”
Newsom also complimented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for proposing the $3 trillion aid and reiterated the need for federal help.
“I remain confident that something will happen at the federal level to help mitigate the impact of cuts at the state level,” Newsom said, adding he hopes the U.S. Senate will act on the relief package after the July 4 holiday break.


Privacy

ST. LOUIS — A police chief , city attorney and sheriff ’ s office enforcement major are entitled to qualified @ @ @ @ @ claims relating to the release of redacted reports , the Eighth Circuit ruled .
The @ @ @ @ @ into sexual misconduct by Josh Duggar , one of the stars of the television show @ @ @ @ @ .
”

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.


courthousenews--2020-06-15--11th Circuit Tosses Virus Safety Order Against Florida Jail

MIAMI ( CN ) — Inmates seeking stronger coronavirus protections at a Miami-area jail ran into a setback in the 11th Circuit , where a three-judge panel found Monday that the prisoners fell short of showing the jail was deliberately disregarding their wellbeing .
A 2-1 majority ruled there was insufficient evidence to justify a district court injunction that forced Metro West Detention Center in Doral , Florida , to take more infection-control measures amid the novel coronavirus outbreak .
The jail was housing more than 1,500 inmates as of Sunday .
On the edge of the Everglades swamp preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those with short sentences .
 In the underlying class action against the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department , one plaintiff inmate complained that Metro West was a “ petri dish for disease.
” Among other infection-control issues , large bunk rooms with 60 inmates or more were set up with beds less than 3 feet away from each other , the lawsuit alleged .
 “ At times , there are only three showers and six toilets for over 65 people in the same cell to share , ” the lawsuit states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jail was issued , the corrections department outlined safeguards it had put in place , including expanded virus testing and a collaboration with the state officials to reduce Metro West ’ s population to 70 % capacity .
But inmates claimed measures to keep them at a safe distance from one another remained lax .
During prisoner pat-downs and lineups for food , inmates were still packed in close together , they claimed .
A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida sided again with the inmates on April 29 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Metro West to implement stronger social distancing .
 Writing for the 11th Circuit majority Monday , U.S .
Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom struck down the injunction on appeal .
He found that the jail rearranging bunk beds , performing fever screening and providing protective masks and disinfecting products to inmates was a reasonable response to the viral epidemic .
 Newsom heavily cited a line from a court-commissioned , independent inspection report completed in the midst of the litigation .
The report found that the jail staff were “ doing their best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facility.
”  “ We simply can not conclude that , when faced with a perfect storm of a contagious virus and the space constraints inherent in a correctional facility , the defendants here acted unreasonably by ‘ doing their best , ' ” wrote Newsom , a Donald Trump appointee .
 The majority decision concluded that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence that the jail administrators deliberately disregarded the risks that inmates were facing from the coronavirus outbreak .
Showing deliberate disregard was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their constitutional rights .
 The plaintiffs ’ attorney Quinn Smith said they plan to continue pursuing the case and seeking better infection control at the jail .
He claimed the majority decision did not give fair weight to sections of the inspection report that say the Metro West staff dolled up the facility in anticipation of the inspection .
 “ There was substantial testimony that the jail was made to look nice for the inspection , that spaces were emptied on a temporary basis , that soap was put in places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , ” Smith said in an interview .
 Smith said that once the record is more fully developed , the plaintiff prisoners will be able to show that prison officials have been ignoring grave safety concerns at Metro West .
 The appellate court ’ s Monday ruling may be akin to an after-the-fact decision , given that the injunction at issue would have expired on Saturday .
The injunction had been stayed pending appeal .
 The parties were debating last week whether extra days should be tacked onto the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With questions of mootness lingering , the 11th Circuit handed down the decision on the first court day following the injunction ’ s expiration .
Newsom noted that when reconsidering the case on remand , the lower court “ might be faced … with a factual landscape that has changed since it issued its injunction.
”  He was joined in the majority by U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins , a George W. Bush appointee sitting by designation from the Middle District of Alabama .
In a dissenting opinion , U.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inmates have already shown “ repeated failures to enact adequate social distancing measures ” at Metro West .
 “ The Covid-19 pandemic is a global health crisis that has taken the lives of thousands and strained every level of our society and government .
But crises do not lower the constitutional limits on the conditions in which people may be confined against their will , ” wrote Martin , a Barack Obama appointee .

Inmates seeking stronger coronavirus protections at a Miami jail ran into a setback in the 11th Circuit, where a three-judge panel found Monday that the prisoners fell short of showing the jail was deliberately disregarding their wellbeing.
MIAMI (CN) — Inmates seeking stronger coronavirus protections at a Miami-area jail ran into a setback in the 11th Circuit, where a three-judge panel found Monday that the prisoners fell short of showing the jail was deliberately disregarding their wellbeing.
A 2-1 majority ruled there was insufficient evidence to justify a district court injunction that forced Metro West Detention Center in Doral, Florida, to take more infection-control measures amid the novel coronavirus outbreak.
The jail was housing more than 1,500 inmates as of Sunday. On the edge of the Everglades swamp preserve, the facility houses pretrial prisoners and those with short sentences.
In the underlying class action against the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, one plaintiff inmate complained that Metro West was a "petri dish for disease." Among other infection-control issues, large bunk rooms with 60 inmates or more were set up with beds less than 3 feet away from each other, the lawsuit alleged.
"At times, there are only three showers and six toilets for over 65 people in the same cell to share," the lawsuit states.
After an initial restraining order against the jail was issued, the corrections department outlined safeguards it had put in place, including expanded virus testing and a collaboration with the state officials to reduce Metro West's population to 70% capacity.
But inmates claimed measures to keep them at a safe distance from one another remained lax. During prisoner pat-downs and lineups for food, inmates were still packed in close together, they claimed.
A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida sided again with the inmates on April 29 and granted a 45-day preliminary injunction, ordering Metro West to implement stronger social distancing.
Writing for the 11th Circuit majority Monday, U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom struck down the injunction on appeal. He found that the jail rearranging bunk beds, performing fever screening and providing protective masks and disinfecting products to inmates was a reasonable response to the viral epidemic.
Newsom heavily cited a line from a court-commissioned, independent inspection report completed in the midst of the litigation. The report found that the jail staff were "doing their best balancing social distancing and regulation applicable to the facility."
"We simply cannot conclude that, when faced with a perfect storm of a contagious virus and the space constraints inherent in a correctional facility, the defendants here acted unreasonably by 'doing their best,'" wrote Newsom, a Donald Trump appointee.
The majority decision concluded that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence that the jail administrators deliberately disregarded the risks that inmates were facing from the coronavirus outbreak. Showing deliberate disregard was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove their claims that the jail is violating their constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs' attorney Quinn Smith said they plan to continue pursuing the case and seeking better infection control at the jail. He claimed the majority decision did not give fair weight to sections of the inspection report that say the Metro West staff dolled up the facility in anticipation of the inspection.
"There was substantial testimony that the jail was made to look nice for the inspection, that spaces were emptied on a temporary basis, that soap was put in places where they normally didn't have it," Smith said in an interview.
Smith said that once the record is more fully developed, the plaintiff prisoners will be able to show that prison officials have been ignoring grave safety concerns at Metro West.
The appellate court's Monday ruling may be akin to an after-the-fact decision, given that the injunction at issue would have expired on Saturday. The injunction had been stayed pending appeal.
The parties were debating last week whether extra days should be tacked onto the injunction in light of the stay.
With questions of mootness lingering, the 11th Circuit handed down the decision on the first court day following the injunction's expiration.
Newsom noted that when reconsidering the case on remand, the lower court "might be faced ... with a factual landscape that has changed since it issued its injunction."
He was joined in the majority by U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins, a George W. Bush appointee sitting by designation from the Middle District of Alabama.
In a dissenting opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly Martin wrote that the inmates have already shown "repeated failures to enact adequate social distancing measures" at Metro West.
"The Covid-19 pandemic is a global health crisis that has taken the lives of thousands and strained every level of our society and government. But crises do not lower the constitutional limits on the conditions in which people may be confined against their will," wrote Martin, a Barack Obama appointee.


courthousenews--2020-06-15--Judge Calls Amazon’s Efforts to Keep Worker Injury Data Secret ‘Disturbing’

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) – In a dispute over the withholding of workplace safety records , a federal judge on Monday called Amazon ’ s practice of marking as “ confidential ” government-mandated logs of injuries and illnesses at its warehouses potentially disturbing .
U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim made those comments during a hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Investigative Reporting against the U.S. Department of Labor .
The center sued in September 2019 after the department ’ s Occupational Safety and Health Administration refused to turn over workplace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ohio and Illinois .
After the suit was filed , the department released employee statements provided to OSHA investigators for Amazon ’ s Stoughton , Massachusetts warehouse and a few pages of heavily redacted Form 300As , logs of workplace injuries and illnesses , for warehouses in Ohio and Illinois .
The center is challenging the redactions and withholding of injury logs , which the government says are necessary to protect confidential business information .
Arguing in Kim ’ s virtual courtroom Monday , U.S. Department of Labor attorney Pamela Johann said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury logs , it changed its policy after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its June 2019 decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media .
In that 6-3 decision , the court found disclosure of food stamp spending data at specific stores could financially harm retailers .
Because Amazon believed the injury logs would remain confidential , Johann insisted the data falls within Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act , which exempts sensitive business information from disclosure .
Amazon ’ s vice president of workplace health and safety , Heather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written statement that Amazon considers the information to be commercially sensitive .
Injury statistics can affect the company ’ s insurance rates , and the data guides decisions on where it allocates resources to reduce injuries and illnesses .
The injury reporting rule , which has since been partly rescinded by the Trump administration , also required workplace injury logs be released to current and former employees upon request .
It further mandated that employers post the logs in workplaces where employees can see them for three months each year .
Judge Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that information is allowed to disclose it .
Johann answered , “ Yes , but when Amazon provides that information , it provides it with an explicit warning that the information is confidential.
” Kim voiced discomfort with the idea of Amazon marking documents “ confidential ” when the law requires they be disclosed .
“ That ’ s disturbing if it ’ s not confidential under the law , ” Kim said .
Johann retorted that the data is meant to be used by companies for health and safety purposes , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The regulation did not contemplate that it would be publicly disseminated , ” Johann said .
“ It did not contemplate that an employee would use it for anything other than an employee ’ s own personal use.
” Representing the Center for Investigative Reporting , attorney Diana Baranetsky argued that no such ban on public disclosure exists in the regulation .
The rule includes no fines or sanctions for employees who disclose the information , she said .
She further insisted that the government has failed to meet the legal standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information exempt from disclosure .
No financial information is contained in the logs , she argued .
“ There are no costs on these records , ” Baranetsky said .
“ The data is very limited.
” Judge Kim also asked the government to opine on the significance of a recent ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu in Oakland , who found the Labor Department could not withhold workplace injury logs because the department explicitly warned companies in 2016 that it intended to post the data on a publicly accessible website .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ position in November 2017 before the next round of workplace injury logs were submitted .
Ryu concluded that because the department failed to make its position public until June 2018 after the logs were submitted , the employers had no expectation of privacy .
Kim said she disagreed with the department ’ s position that Ryu ’ s ruling still permits the withholding of workplace injury data in certain circumstances .
“ The main thrust of her opinion was that there could be no confidentiality requirement when employers are told the information could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After 30 minutes of debate , Kim took the arguments under submission .
In January 2019 , the Labor Department published a final rule rescinding requirements that companies submit annual reports on workplace injuries and illnesses .
Three public health advocacy groups and six states – Illinois , Maryland , Massachusetts , Minnesota , New Jersey , and New York – filed two separate lawsuits against the rollback last year .
Both lawsuits are still pending in the District of Columbia federal court .

In a dispute over the withholding of workplace safety records, a federal judge on Monday called Amazon’s practice of marking as “confidential” government-mandated logs of injuries and illnesses at its warehouses potentially disturbing.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — In a dispute over the withholding of workplace safety records, a federal judge on Monday called Amazon’s practice of marking as “confidential” government-mandated logs of injuries and illnesses at its warehouses potentially disturbing.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim made those comments during a hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Investigative Reporting against the U.S. Department of Labor.
The center sued in September 2019 after the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration refused to turn over workplace safety records for Amazon warehouses in Massachusetts, Ohio and Illinois.
After the suit was filed, the department released employee statements provided to OSHA investigators for Amazon’s Stoughton, Massachusetts warehouse and a few pages of heavily redacted Form 300As, logs of workplace injuries and illnesses, for warehouses in Ohio and Illinois. The center is challenging the redactions and withholding of injury logs, which the government says are necessary to protect confidential business information.
Arguing in Kim’s virtual courtroom Monday, U.S. Department of Labor attorney Pamela Johann said although the department has previously disclosed workplace injury logs, it changed its policy after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its June 2019 decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media. In that 6-3 decision, the court found disclosure of food stamp spending data at specific stores could financially harm retailers.
Because Amazon believed the injury logs would remain confidential, Johann insisted the data falls within Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, which exempts sensitive business information from disclosure.
Amazon’s vice president of workplace health and safety, Heather McDougall, told the court in a written statement that Amazon considers the information to be commercially sensitive. Injury statistics can affect the company’s insurance rates, and the data guides decisions on where it allocates resources to reduce injuries and illnesses.
The injury reporting rule, which has since been partly rescinded by the Trump administration, also required workplace injury logs be released to current and former employees upon request. It further mandated that employers post the logs in workplaces where employees can see them for three months each year.
Judge Kim asked if an Amazon employee who receives that information is allowed to disclose it.
Johann answered, “Yes, but when Amazon provides that information, it provides it with an explicit warning that the information is confidential.”
Kim voiced discomfort with the idea of Amazon marking documents “confidential” when the law requires they be disclosed.
“That’s disturbing if it’s not confidential under the law,” Kim said.
Johann retorted that the data is meant to be used by companies for health and safety purposes, not for disclosure to the general public.
“The regulation did not contemplate that it would be publicly disseminated,” Johann said. “It did not contemplate that an employee would use it for anything other than an employee’s own personal use.”
Representing the Center for Investigative Reporting, attorney Diana Baranetsky argued that no such ban on public disclosure exists in the regulation. The rule includes no fines or sanctions for employees who disclose the information, she said.
She further insisted that the government has failed to meet the legal standard for showing the data is confidential business information exempt from disclosure. No financial information is contained in the logs, she argued.
“There are no costs on these records,” Baranetsky said. “The data is very limited.”
Judge Kim also asked the government to opine on the significance of a recent ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu in Oakland, who found the Labor Department could not withhold workplace injury logs because the department explicitly warned companies in 2016 that it intended to post the data on a publicly accessible website.
The department argued that it changed its position in November 2017 before the next round of workplace injury logs were submitted. Ryu concluded that because the department failed to make its position public until June 2018 after the logs were submitted, the employers had no expectation of privacy.
Kim said she disagreed with the department’s position that Ryu’s ruling still permits the withholding of workplace injury data in certain circumstances.
“The main thrust of her opinion was that there could be no confidentiality requirement when employers are told the information could be published,” Kim said.
After 30 minutes of debate, Kim took the arguments under submission.
In January 2019, the Labor Department published a final rule rescinding requirements that companies submit annual reports on workplace injuries and illnesses.
Three public health advocacy groups and six states — Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York — filed two separate lawsuits against the rollback last year. Both lawsuits are still pending in the District of Columbia federal court.


CARES Act Grants

SPOKANE , Wash. — A federal court in Washington preliminarily enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing in the state @ @ @ @ @ education institutions from using their own discretion to determine which students receive CARES Act emergency @ @ @ @ @ restrictions limit distribution of such grants to students who are eligible for federal financial aid @

Strictly Necessary Cookies Strictly Necessary Cookies Always active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.


courthousenews--2020-06-15--California Judges Will Soon Be Allowed to Comment on Rulings

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Under changes to the code of judicial ethics released by the California Supreme Court on Monday , judges will be allowed to comment publicly about colleagues ’ decisions and respond to criticism of their own rulings during a re-election or recall campaign .
The amended canon reads : “ In connection with a judicial election or recall campaign , this canon does not prohibit a judge from making a public comment about a pending proceeding , provided ( a ) the comment would not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ b ) the comment is about the procedural , factual , or legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during the election or recall campaign.
” Judges have long been barred by the ethics canon from speaking out about pending cases , but beliefs have shifted in recent years in response to heightened public outcry over controversial rulings in high-publicity cases .
One of the most notorious current examples is the successful 2018 recall campaign against Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky after he imposed a rather light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault , a decision he based on applicable statutes and a recommendation from the California Department of Probation .
The rule change was first proposed in 2018 by the Judicial Fairness Coalition , a group launched by the California Judges Association ( CJA ) , that includes active and retired justices and judges , lawyers , law school deans , and professors concerned about the criticism and attacks against judges and how they decide cases .
“ One of our very first objectives was to have this rule changed .
Attacks on judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s trust in the rule of law and their confidence in a fair and just judicial system , ” said former CJA President Judge Paul Bacigalupo of Los Angeles during a phone interview Monday .
He is a co-founding chair of the Judicial Fairness Coalition along with Judge Barbara Kronlund of San Joaquin County Superior Court .
The coalition pitched it to the Supreme Court ’ s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics , which recommended it to the high court for approval .
The court took public comment for two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Voters will be able to receive and evaluate all information before casting their ballots in judicial elections , including recalls , ” said Justice Richard Fybel , chair of the Advisory Committee , in a statement .
“ They will be able to hear a judge defend a ruling when that ruling is at issue .
The amendments permit a more open and fair exchange of all views at a time when contested judicial elections and recalls have become more common.
” The amendment has support from the legal community , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes the rule change strikes the right balance in giving judges more freedom to comment in cases where they deem it appropriate or necessary , ” said Ona Alston Dosunmu , CLA chief executive and executive director .
“ Given the modern media landscape , this helps even the playing field.
” Erwin Chemerinsky , dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley , said in an email : “ I think this is a desirable change in the law.
” “ I think when a judge is attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to reply .
No judge will be required to do so .
My basic premise is that more speech is a good thing and this will facilitate that , ” Chemerinsky said .
While the rule is broad and extends to judges commenting on cases where they are not involved , it has its limitations .
Comments must be on the procedural , factual , and legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during an election or recall campaign .
The comment must also not be expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
A judge may also consider whether a third party should make a statement on their behalf .
“ If an individual is uncomfortable in responding that individual can decline to do so , ” Bacigalupo said .
“ A judge should be cautious when making any such comments .
There ’ s always a risk that a comment can be misheard , misinterpreted or repeated .
Ultimately whatever a judge says , a judge has to be mindful and always promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional updates to the ethics canon , including barring judges from commenting , recommending , or criticizing a business on sites like Facebook or Yelp if it ’ s likely they ’ ll be identified as a judge , and prohibits them from using public resources for campaign activities .
Other changes allow judges to publicly oppose a judicial candidate , fundraise from retired judges , and act as a healthcare representative for someone with whom they have a pre-existing relationship .
All amendments take effect on July 1 .

Under changes to the code of judicial ethics released by the California Supreme Court on Monday, judges will be allowed to comment publicly about colleagues’ decisions and respond to criticism of their own rulings during a re-election or recall campaign.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Under changes to the code of judicial ethics released by the California Supreme Court on Monday, judges will be allowed to comment publicly about colleagues’ decisions and respond to criticism of their own rulings during a re-election or recall campaign.
The amended canon reads: “In connection with a judicial election or recall campaign, this canon does not prohibit a judge from making a public comment about a pending proceeding, provided (a) the comment would not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding, and (b) the comment is about the procedural, factual, or legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during the election or recall campaign.”
Judges have long been barred by the ethics canon from speaking out about pending cases, but beliefs have shifted in recent years in response to heightened public outcry over controversial rulings in high-publicity cases.
One of the most notorious current examples is the successful 2018 recall campaign against Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky after he imposed a rather light sentence on a man convicted of sexual assault, a decision he based on applicable statutes and a recommendation from the California Department of Probation.
The rule change was first proposed in 2018 by the Judicial Fairness Coalition, a group launched by the California Judges Association, that includes active and retired justices and judges, lawyers, law school deans, and professors concerned about the criticism and attacks against judges and how they decide cases.
“One of our very first objectives was to have this rule changed. Attacks on judges that go unanswered erodes the public’s trust in the rule of law and their confidence in a fair and just judicial system,” said former association President Judge Paul Bacigalupo of Los Angeles during a phone interview Monday. He is a co-founding chair of the Judicial Fairness Coalition along with Judge Barbara Kronlund of San Joaquin County Superior Court.
The coalition pitched it to the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, which recommended it to the high court for approval. The court took public comment for two months before making its final decision.
“Voters will be able to receive and evaluate all information before casting their ballots in judicial elections, including recalls,” said Justice Richard Fybel, chair of the Advisory Committee, in a statement. “They will be able to hear a judge defend a ruling when that ruling is at issue. The amendments permit a more open and fair exchange of all views at a time when contested judicial elections and recalls have become more common.”
The amendment has support from the legal community, including the California Lawyers Association.
“CLA believes the rule change strikes the right balance in giving judges more freedom to comment in cases where they deem it appropriate or necessary,” said Ona Alston Dosunmu, CLA chief executive and executive director. “Given the modern media landscape, this helps even the playing field.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, said in an email: “I think this is a desirable change in the law.”
“I think when a judge is attacked, he or she should have the chance to reply. No judge will be required to do so. My basic premise is that more speech is a good thing and this will facilitate that,” Chemerinsky said.
While the rule is broad and extends to judges commenting on cases where they are not involved, it has its limitations.
Comments must be on the procedural, factual, and legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during an election or recall campaign. The comment must also not be expected to affect the outcome of a pending case.
A judge may also consider whether a third party should make a statement on their behalf.
"If an individual is uncomfortable in responding that individual can decline to do so,” Bacigalupo said. “A judge should be cautious when making any such comments. There’s always a risk that a comment can be misheard, misinterpreted or repeated. Ultimately whatever a judge says, a judge has to be mindful and always promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”
The high court also approved a spate of additional updates to the ethics canon, including barring judges from commenting, recommending, or criticizing a business on sites like Facebook or Yelp if it’s likely they’ll be identified as a judge, and prohibits them from using public resources for campaign activities.
Other changes allow judges to publicly oppose a judicial candidate, fundraise from retired judges, and act as a healthcare representative for someone with whom they have a pre-existing relationship.
All amendments take effect on July 1.


courthousenews--2020-06-15--Governor Newsom on Reopening California: ‘A State That is Holding Strong’

( CN ) – California health officials are keeping a close eye on Los Angeles and 12 other counties that continue to see rising trends related to the spread of Covid-19 just as more sectors of the state ’ s economy reopen and infections continue to rise .
Nearly all 58 counties in the Golden State have reopened multiple sectors of their economy by following the state ’ s required guidelines , California Governor Gavin Newsom announced during a Covid-19 briefing .
There are 13 counties that have had three consecutive days where the data on positive infections , hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for concern for state health officials , including Los Angeles , Kern , Fresno , San Jose , Tulare , Santa Barbara , Imperial and King counties .
The remaining counties were not listed by the state ’ s health agency .
Roughly 150,000 Californians have been infected with Covid-19 and over 5,000 have died , according to the state ’ s health agency .
Ramped up testing across the state has yielded a 4.5 % average positive rate for all tests , which is a dramatic decrease from the beginning of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate was nearly 41 % .
Still , the rise in deaths and infections continues unabated as more parts of the state reopen .
“ The last few weeks have been challenging , ” Newsom said .
“ Our focus remains very , very direct at addressing the issue of the spread of Covid-19.
” While individual counties call for their own policies on the wearing of face masks and social distancing , Newsom said , “ We are not out of the woods yet.
” “ It ’ s incumbent on us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Newsom , warning of the need to avoid a second wave of the novel coronavirus .
“ We have a state that is holding strong , ” Newsom said , comparing California ’ s stable hospitalization rate to other states that experienced a surge of infections .
On March 19 , Newsom made the monumental order for the state ’ s 40 million residents to stay home as infections began to rise .
But earlier this month his office announced guidelines to allow local health officials to make the final determination on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slowing down and tracking the spread of the virus is still a priority for California health officials and the state has over 2,000 contact tracers and expects to have 10,000 by July 1 .

California health officials are keeping a close eye on Los Angeles and 12 other counties that continue to see rising trends related to the spread of Covid-19 just as more sectors of the state’s economy reopen and infections continue to rise.
(CN) — California health officials are keeping a close eye on Los Angeles and 12 other counties that continue to see rising trends related to the spread of Covid-19 just as more sectors of the state’s economy reopen and infections continue to rise.
Nearly all 58 counties in the Golden State have reopened multiple sectors of their economy by following the state’s required guidelines, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced during a Covid-19 briefing.
There are 13 counties that have had three consecutive days where the data on positive infections, hospital bed use and other factors were cause for concern for state health officials, including Los Angeles, Kern, Fresno, San Jose, Tulare, Santa Barbara, Imperial and King counties. The remaining counties were not listed by the state’s health agency.
Roughly 150,000 Californians have been infected with Covid-19 and over 5,000 have died, according to the state’s health agency.
Ramped up testing across the state has yielded a 4.5% average positive rate for all tests, which is a dramatic decrease from the beginning of the pandemic in March when California’s rate was nearly 41%.
Still, the rise in deaths and infections continues unabated as more parts of the state reopen.
"The last few weeks have been challenging," Newsom said. "Our focus remains very, very direct at addressing the issue of the spread of Covid-19."
While individual counties call for their own policies on the wearing of face masks and social distancing, Newsom said, “We are not out of the woods yet.”
“It’s incumbent on us as individuals to be smart,” said Newsom, warning of the need to avoid a second wave of the novel coronavirus.
“We have a state that is holding strong,” Newsom said, comparing California’s stable hospitalization rate to other states that experienced a surge of infections.
On March 19, Newsom made the monumental order for the state’s 40 million residents to stay home as infections began to rise. But earlier this month his office announced guidelines to allow local health officials to make the final determination on when they can reopen their economies.
Slowing down and tracking the spread of the virus is still a priority for California health officials and the state has over 2,000 contact tracers and expects to have 10,000 by July 1.


courthousenews--2020-06-16--Larry Flynt Wins a Hand on California Casino Regulations

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( CN ) — Extending Hustler founder Larry Flynt ’ s fight against a longstanding California organized crime rule , a federal judge on Monday allowed a deeper look at a law barring cardroom operators from investing in out-of-state casinos .
The porn mogul , who owns Hustler Casino and Larry Flynt ’ s Luck Lady Casino in Southern California , says he ’ s been denied opportunities to expand his gambling portfolio outside the Golden State due to an “ anachronistic ” 1986 law intended to keep the mob out of legal cardrooms and casinos .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outdated but an attempt to regulate interstate commerce .
In a 14-page ruling Monday , U.S. District Judge John Mendez in the Eastern District of California sided in part with Flynt and denied California officials ’ attempt to squash the resilient casino owners ’ lawsuit .
The sticking point for Mendez , a President George W. Bush appointee , appears to be Flynt ’ s argument that the law could have the unintended effect of forcing him to divest from his nongambling businesses , such as his chain of strip clubs .
Flynt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no choice but to divest if one of his partners decided to independently open a casino outside California .
He claims the law adds “ excessive burdens ” to California cardroom holders and notes that California politicians — including former governors — have said the ownership restrictions are due for an update .
Flynt and fellow cardroom owners Haig Kelegian Sr. and Haig Kelegian Jr. capped off their argument by saying lawmakers have granted other businesses exemptions from the law .
More than three years after filing their lawsuit , the plaintiffs ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying off .
“ Defendants fail to illustrate how these allegations are insufficient as a matter of law , ” the ruling states .
“ To the extent that plaintiffs ’ dormant commerce doctrine claims rest upon an indirect-regulation theory of liability , the court denies defendants ’ motion to dismiss.
” The California Gambling Control Commission and Attorney General Xavier Becerra ’ s office did not respond to a request for comment late Monday .
Mendez initially rejected the matter with prejudice in 2017 , deciding plaintiffs ’ claims fell outside a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his co-plaintiffs appealed and a Ninth Circuit panel in 2019 ordered Mendez to restart the clock .
“ That all three licensees continue to be precluded from exploring other investment opportunities is not a consequence of the commission ’ s decision , as the dissent would have us conclude , but rather a result of the continued existence of the statutes themselves and the realistic threat of future enforcement , ” Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O ’ Scannlain wrote .
The case is being closely watched by gambling operators who have sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At issue is California Business and Professions Code Section 19858 , enacted in 1986 by the Legislature under the mantle of crime prevention .
Known as the Gambling Registration Act , the section was an attempt by state lawmakers to keep organized crime out of California gambling operations by limiting cardroom operators ’ financial resources .
The legislation not only prevents residents with California gaming licenses from investing in outside casinos , it bars out-of-state residents who own gambling activities from obtaining California cardroom licenses .
Flynt says the law has outlived its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to weed out organized crime .
He cited a 2002 state-funded nonpartisan study that recommended updating state law and allowing publicly traded companies to operate cardrooms .
More recently in 2016 , then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have exempted the owners of Hollywood Park Casino an exemption from the gambling law .
But in the veto message , Brown said lawmakers should “ thoughtfully examine those laws and amend them so that all participants in the industry receive the same benefits and opportunities.
” The plaintiffs are not seeking punitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law unconstitutional .
They are represented by Paul Cambria Jr. with Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria .
On remand from the Ninth Circuit , Mendez , who made the decision without hearing oral arguments , did side with the state by ruling that the law does not directly regulate interstate commerce .
He also found the plaintiffs lack standing to continue with their argument that California is discriminating against out-of-state investors .
But Mendez cracked the door open by allowing Flynt ’ s to continue arguing that the law indirectly regulates interstate commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to amend their complaint .
The case stems from a $ 210,000 fine the state ’ s gambling commission issued Kelegian Jr. in June 2014 for his ownership in an out-of-state casino .
To renew the licenses at his two California cardrooms , Kelegian Jr. was forced to divest his out-of-state holdings and he and Flynt filed their lawsuit in December 2016 .
In the amended complaint , plaintiffs claim they are “ ready , willing and able ” to invest in non-California and perhaps foreign casinos if it were not for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect to Mr. Flynt ’ s investment in an out-of-state adult entertainment establishment , the California ownership restrictions currently impact the ability of a cardroom licensee to maintain an ownership interest in an entity that has nothing to do with gambling , to the extent that the majority owner in that entity elects to pursue an ownership interest in an out-of-state casino-style gambling entity in excess of 1 % , ” the complaint states .

Extending Hustler founder Larry Flynt’s fight against a longstanding California organized crime rule, a federal judge on Monday allowed a deeper look at a law barring cardroom operators from investing in out-of-state casinos.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Extending Hustler founder Larry Flynt’s fight against a longstanding California organized crime rule, a federal judge on Monday allowed a deeper look at a law barring cardroom operators from investing in out-of-state casinos.
The porn mogul, who owns Hustler Casino and Larry Flynt’s Luck Lady Casino in Southern California, says he’s been denied opportunities to expand his gambling portfolio outside the Golden State due to an “anachronistic” 1986 law intended to keep the mob out of legal cardrooms and casinos. Flynt says the law is not only outdated but an attempt to regulate interstate commerce.
Larry Flynt at a Free Speech Coalition event in Los Angeles, Calif., on Nov. 14, 2009. Photo by Glenn Francis, www.PacificProDigital.com.
In a 14-page ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge John Mendez in the Eastern District of California sided in part with Flynt and denied California officials’ attempt to squash the resilient casino owners’ lawsuit.
The sticking point for Mendez, a President George W. Bush appointee, appears to be Flynt’s argument that the law could have the unintended effect of forcing him to divest from his nongambling businesses, such as his chain of strip clubs.
Flynt said in briefs that he would have no choice but to divest if one of his partners decided to independently open a casino outside California. He claims the law adds “excessive burdens” to California cardroom holders and notes that California politicians — including former governors — have said the ownership restrictions are due for an update. Flynt and fellow cardroom owners Haig Kelegian Sr. and Haig Kelegian Jr. capped off their argument by saying lawmakers have granted other businesses exemptions from the law.
More than three years after filing their lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ courtroom gambles appear to have finally started paying off.
“Defendants fail to illustrate how these allegations are insufficient as a matter of law,” the ruling states. “To the extent that plaintiffs’ dormant commerce doctrine claims rest upon an indirect-regulation theory of liability, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
The California Gambling Control Commission and Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office did not respond to a request for comment late Monday.
Mendez initially rejected the matter with prejudice in 2017, deciding plaintiffs’ claims fell outside a statute of limitations. But Flynt and his co-plaintiffs appealed and a Ninth Circuit panel in 2019 ordered Mendez to restart the clock.
“That all three licensees continue to be precluded from exploring other investment opportunities is not a consequence of the commission’s decision, as the dissent would have us conclude, but rather a result of the continued existence of the statutes themselves and the realistic threat of future enforcement,” Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain wrote.
The case is being closely watched by gambling operators who have sought changes to the law for years.
At issue is California Business and Professions Code Section 19858, enacted in 1986 by the Legislature under the mantle of crime prevention. Known as the Gambling Registration Act, the section was an attempt by state lawmakers to keep organized crime out of California gambling operations by limiting cardroom operators’ financial resources.
The legislation not only prevents residents with California gaming licenses from investing in outside casinos, it bars out-of-state residents who own gambling activities from obtaining California cardroom licenses.
Flynt says the law has outlived its purpose because casinos now are thoroughly regulated to weed out organized crime. He cited a 2002 state-funded nonpartisan study that recommended updating state law and allowing publicly traded companies to operate cardrooms.
More recently in 2016, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have exempted the owners of Hollywood Park Casino from the gambling law. But in the veto message, Brown said lawmakers should “thoughtfully examine those laws and amend them so that all participants in the industry receive the same benefits and opportunities.”
The plaintiffs are not seeking punitive damages but want the court to find the law unconstitutional. They are represented by Paul Cambria Jr. with Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria.
On remand from the Ninth Circuit, Mendez, who made the decision without hearing oral arguments, did side with the state by ruling that the law does not directly regulate interstate commerce. He also found the plaintiffs lack standing to continue with their argument that California is discriminating against out-of-state investors.
But Mendez cracked the door open by allowing Flynt to continue arguing that the law indirectly regulates interstate commerce. He gave the plaintiffs 20 days to amend their complaint.
The case stems from a $210,000 fine the state’s gambling commission issued Kelegian Jr. in June 2014 for his ownership in an out-of-state casino. To renew the licenses at his two California cardrooms, Kelegian Jr. was forced to divest his out-of-state holdings and he and Flynt filed their lawsuit in December 2016.
In the amended complaint, plaintiffs claim they are “ready, willing and able” to invest in non-California and perhaps foreign casinos if it were not for the ownership restrictions.
“Thus, with respect to Mr. Flynt’s investment in an out-of-state adult entertainment establishment, the California ownership restrictions currently impact the ability of a cardroom licensee to maintain an ownership interest in an entity that has nothing to do with gambling, to the extent that the majority owner in that entity elects to pursue an ownership interest in an out-of-state casino-style gambling entity in excess of 1%,” the complaint states.


courthousenews--2020-06-16--Nevada Water Order Kills Real Estate Project

( CN ) — Nevada restricted groundwater pumping Tuesday in an area north of Las Vegas , potentially killing a real-estate project that threatens an endangered fish clinging to existence in a handful of spring-fed desert pools , the Center for Biological Diversity said .
“ We ’ re pleased that the state engineer recognizes that these critical groundwater supplies must be protected to save the Moapa dace from extinction , ” said Patrick Donnelly , the center ’ s Nevada state director .
“ There ’ s still too much groundwater pumping , and further reductions are necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order from State Engineer Tim Wilson is the latest move in a battle that stretches back 15 years for the Tucson-based center , including a 2010 lawsuit over the 5-inch fish , which has been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1967 and lives only in Muddy River pools fed by a few warm springs .
In 2012 , the center lost that bid to nullify the Fish & Wildlife biological opinion clearing the way for pumping , and the Ninth Circuit also sided with Fish & Wildlife in 2015 .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 50 miles north of Las Vegas , Coyote Springs , would dangerously increase groundwater withdrawals , making the new restrictions critical , the center said .
“ This order may be the death knell for Coyote Springs , ” Donnelly said .
“ Greedy real estate developers have no business building subdivisions in the middle of the desert , and now they have no water to do it with.
” In his order Monday , Wilson said previous allocations totaling 38,000 acre-feet from the Lower White River Flow System , which includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ greatly exceed the total water budget that may be developed without … proving detrimental to the public interest.
” The order limits pumping in the system to 8,000 acre-feet — twice the amount suggested by environmental groups but far below acceptable estimates from other stakeholders , which ranged as high as 36,000 acre-feet .
An acre-foot is enough water to cover 1 acre 1 foot deep .
It can sustain an average suburban family for a year .
Excessive pumping around the warm springs in the Coyote Spring Valley would affect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount and the temperature of the water , Wilson said .
Nineteen stakeholders , including U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service , the Moapa Band of Paiutes , Southern Nevada Water Authority , several other water utilities , and environmental and energy groups testified in a two-week Carson City hearing about pumping rules from Sept. 23 to Oct. 4 , 2019 .
No consensus was reached , and estimates on acceptable pumping ranged from zero to 36,000 acre-feet , Wilson said .
The order also declares that seven areas that developers claimed were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not connected as a unit , are one hydrographic basin , nixing developers ’ arguments that they could pump in some areas without affecting the Muddy River springs .

Nevada restricted groundwater pumping Tuesday in an area north of Las Vegas, potentially killing a real estate project that threatens an endangered fish clinging to existence in a handful of spring-fed desert pools, the Center for Biological Diversity said.
(CN) — Nevada restricted groundwater pumping Tuesday in an area north of Las Vegas, potentially killing a real estate project that threatens an endangered fish clinging to existence in a handful of spring-fed desert pools, the Center for Biological Diversity said.
“We’re pleased that the state engineer recognizes that these critical groundwater supplies must be protected to save the Moapa dace from extinction,” said Patrick Donnelly, the center’s Nevada state director. “There’s still too much groundwater pumping, and further reductions are necessary to ensure long-term conservation and recovery.”
The order from state engineer Tim Wilson is the latest move in a battle that stretches back 15 years for the Tucson-based center, including a 2010 lawsuit over the 5-inch fish, which has been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1967 and lives only in Muddy River pools fed by a few warm springs.
In 2012, the center lost that bid to nullify the Fish & Wildlife biological opinion clearing the way for pumping, and the Ninth Circuit also sided with Fish & Wildlife in 2015.
A planned real estate project in the area about 50 miles north of Las Vegas, Coyote Springs, would dangerously increase groundwater withdrawals, making the new restrictions critical, the center said.
“This order may be the death knell for Coyote Springs,” Donnelly said. “Greedy real estate developers have no business building subdivisions in the middle of the desert, and now they have no water to do it with.”
In his order Monday, Wilson said previous allocations totaling 38,000 acre-feet from the Lower White River Flow System, which includes springs that sustain the Moapa dace, “greatly exceed the total water budget that may be developed without … proving detrimental to the public interest.”
The order limits pumping in the system to 8,000 acre-feet — twice the amount suggested by environmental groups but far below acceptable estimates from other stakeholders, which ranged as high as 36,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot is enough water to cover 1 acre 1 foot deep. It can sustain an average suburban family for a year.
Excessive pumping around the warm springs in the Coyote Spring Valley would affect the dace in two ways — reducing the amount and the temperature of the water, Wilson said.
Nineteen stakeholders, including U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Moapa Band of Paiutes, Southern Nevada Water Authority, several other water utilities, and environmental and energy groups testified in a two-week Carson City hearing about pumping rules from Sept. 23 to Oct. 4, 2019.
No consensus was reached, and estimates on acceptable pumping ranged from zero to 36,000 acre-feet, Wilson said.
The order also declares that seven areas that developers claimed were separate “bathtubs” of water, not connected as a unit, are one hydrographic basin, nixing developers’ arguments that they could pump in some areas without affecting the Muddy River springs.


courthousenews--2020-06-16--‘Sharpiegate’ Controversy Laid to Uneasy Rest

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — Putting a cap on last fall ’ s dustup known as “ Sharpiegate , ” a report released Monday found National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials committed ethical violations in a September statement that suggested Alabama was at risk from Hurricane Dorian .
Across 58 pages , the report prepared for NOAA by the National Academy of Public Administration delves into the events following President Trump ’ s erroneous tweet on Sept. 1 warning that Alabama would “ most likely be hit ( much ) harder than anticipated ” by Hurricane Dorian .
Seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Weather Service ’ s Birmingham office 20 minutes later corrected the record with a tweet of its own stating simply that Dorian was not a threat to Alabama .
“ We repeat , no impacts from Hurricane # Dorian will be felt across Alabama , ” the tweet stated .
But Trump repeatedly maintained he was correct about the path of the storm , culminating in a Sept. 4 gaggle in the Oval Office in which Trump displayed a map of Dorian ’ s predicted trajectory , which had been manually extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report released Monday mentions the infamous “ Sharpiegate ” gaggle , but focuses primarily on a Sept. 6 statement from NOAA that said Alabama was for a time at risk of tropical storm-force winds and disavowed the Sept. 1 tweet from the Birmingham office of the National Weather Service .
“ The Birmingham National Weather Service ’ s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with the probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time , ” the statement said in part .
In between the initial Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report shows NOAA and Department of Commerce staffers scrambled behind the scenes to respond to what had by then become a national news story .
This included changing policies about interacting with press , directing all media inquiries to the central NOAA communications office and explicitly telling forecasters not to speak with reporters on Twitter .
The Sept. 6 statement was drafted before 10:30 a.m. on Department of Commerce deputy general counsel David Dewhirst ’ s table and edited and submitted for agency officials ’ approval over the next six hours , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statement were high .
Those who attended the meeting thought their jobs were are risk , with acting NOAA director Neil Jacobs telling investigators that given “ the amount of panic and concern , and getting called at 3 in the morning , it was pretty well implied that this was something that was a fireable offense if you disobeyed.
” In a phone call around 2:30 a.m. on Sept. 6 , Commerce Department Chief of Staff Mike Walsh told NOAA Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications Julie Roberts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Roberts told investigators she believed Walsh was suggesting that Jacobs or people in the Birmingham office could be shown the door .
Ultimately , the report concludes Roberts and Jacobs committed ethical violations in drafting the Sept. 6 statement that disavowed the Birmingham tweet .
“ Further the panel finds that they engaged in the misconduct intentionally , knowingly , or in reckless disregard of the code of scientific conduct or code of ethics for science supervision and management in NOAA ’ s scientific integrity policy , ” the report states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings , Roberts and Jacobs did express concerns about the statement , only to be overridden by people higher up in the Commerce Department .
According to the report , Roberts and Jacobs wanted to ax the portion of the statement that mentioned Birmingham , but were told they could not take it out .
The report recommends NOAA require staffers undergo scientific integrity training and develop policies for public communications about scientific findings and the role of political appointees .
It does not recommend any sort of formal discipline for either Roberts @ @ @

Putting a cap on last fall’s dustup known as “Sharpiegate,” a report released Monday found National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials committed ethical violations in a September statement that suggested Alabama was at risk from Hurricane Dorian.
WASHINGTON (CN) — Putting a cap on last fall’s dustup known as “Sharpiegate,” a report released Monday found National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials committed ethical violations in a September statement that suggested Alabama was at risk from Hurricane Dorian.
Across 58 pages, the report prepared for NOAA by the National Academy of Public Administration delves into the events following President Trump’s erroneous tweet on Sept. 1 warning that Alabama would “most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated” by Hurricane Dorian.
FILE - In this Sept. 4, 2019 file photo, President Donald Trump holds a chart as he talks with reporters after receiving a briefing on Hurricane Dorian in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. A flurry of newly released emails from scientists and top officials at the federal agency responsible for weather forecasting clearly illustrates the consternation and outright alarm caused by President Donald Trump’s false claim that Hurricane Dorian could hit Alabama. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Seeking to tamp down concern from Alabamans, the National Weather Service’s Birmingham office 20 minutes later corrected the record with a tweet of its own stating simply that Dorian was not a threat to Alabama.
“We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama,” the tweet stated.
But Trump repeatedly maintained he was correct about the path of the storm, culminating in a Sept. 4 gaggle in the Oval Office in which Trump displayed a map of Dorian’s predicted trajectory, which had been manually extended into Alabama with a marker.
The report released Monday mentions the infamous “Sharpiegate” gaggle, but focuses primarily on a Sept. 6 statement from NOAA that said Alabama was for a time at risk of tropical storm-force winds and disavowed the Sept. 1 tweet from the Birmingham office of the National Weather Service.
“The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with the probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time,” the statement said in part.
In between the initial Trump tweet and the pivotal statement, the report shows NOAA and Department of Commerce staffers scrambled behind the scenes to respond to what had by then become a national news story.
This included changing policies about interacting with press, directing all media inquiries to the central NOAA communications office and explicitly telling forecasters not to speak with reporters on Twitter.
The Sept. 6 statement was drafted before 10:30 a.m. on Department of Commerce deputy general counsel David Dewhirst’s table and edited and submitted for agency officials’ approval over the next six hours, according to the report.
The stakes of the statement were high. Those who attended the meeting thought their jobs were are risk, with acting NOAA director Neil Jacobs telling investigators that given “the amount of panic and concern, and getting called at 3 in the morning, it was pretty well implied that this was something that was a fireable offense if you disobeyed.”
In a phone call around 2:30 a.m. on Sept. 6, Commerce Department Chief of Staff Mike Walsh told NOAA Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications Julie Roberts that “there are jobs on the line.”
Roberts told investigators she believed Walsh was suggesting that Jacobs or people in the Birmingham office could be shown the door.
Ultimately, the report concludes Roberts and Jacobs committed ethical violations in drafting the Sept. 6 statement that disavowed the Birmingham tweet.
“Further the panel finds that they engaged in the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the code of scientific conduct or code of ethics for science supervision and management in NOAA’s scientific integrity policy,” the report states.
But the report cautions that despite its findings, Roberts and Jacobs did express concerns about the statement, only to be overridden by people higher up in the Commerce Department.
According to the report, Roberts and Jacobs wanted to ax the portion of the statement that mentioned Birmingham, but were told they could not take it out.
The report recommends NOAA require staffers undergo scientific integrity training and develop policies for public communications about scientific findings and the role of political appointees. It does not recommend any sort of formal discipline for either Roberts or Jacobs.