courthousenews--2020-07-28--Barr Defends Protest Response in Fiery House Hearing

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday defended the Trump administration ’ s use of federal agents to respond to racial justice protests , as Democrats accused him of seeking conflict in the streets and using the Justice Department to aid the president ’ s re-election bid .
Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee , Barr said federal authorities that have violently clashed with protesters in cities like Portland , Oregon , have merely been protecting federal property under attack from a small group of people taking advantage of otherwise peaceful protests to do violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests for racial justice spurred by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody have captured stark images of conflicts between protesters and law enforcement , including federal agents who have fired tear gas into crowds .
Videos have shown federal agents , some of whom were not wearing identifying information , beating and using pepper spray on protesters and arresting demonstrators , sometimes from unmarked vehicles and without providing a reason .
The response from federal agents has spawned waves of lawsuits and concerns from civil liberties groups .
Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to heighten tensions in an election year with the aim of stirring up the president ’ s base and aid his re-election chances .
Representative Steve Cohen , who has introduced a resolution to launch an impeachment inquiry against Barr , said federal agents have gone too far in their actions against protesters in cities across the country , threatening important constitutional principles and norms .
“ In Portland we ’ ve seen mothers and we ’ ve seen veterans who were peacefully protesting , not threatening the federal courthouse , beaten and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unidentified armed federal agents violently attack demonstrators in a violation of the First Amendment ’ s freedom of assembly and arrested citizens without individualized suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment ’ s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and warrant requirement .
You ’ ve gone through the Fifth Amendment and due process and just negated it.
” Defending the federal agents , Barr said that alongside peaceful protests , some people have set fires outside the Portland courthouse that has become a flashpoint in the conflict , launched fireworks at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projectiles at the officers inside .
He told Representative Jim Jordan that he does not believe the courthouse would be standing today without the federal agents .
“ The U.S. marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse and that ’ s what we are doing in Portland , ” Barr said Tuesday .
“ We are at the courthouse defending the courthouse .
We ’ re not out looking for trouble.
” The incidents in Portland come amid larger concerns about how the Trump administration has responded to protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also pressed Barr on the controversial clearing of Lafayette Square outside the White House on June 1 , ahead President Donald Trump ’ s photo opportunity outside the historic St. John ’ s Episcopal Church .
Barr told the committee the use of tear gas on a group of mostly peaceful protesters was meant to push the perimeter back a block so authorities could set up fencing around the square , which is across the street from the White House and is the site of frequent protests .
Barr said that the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night before , when some demonstrators set a fire in the church .
In the face of Barr ’ s defense of the federal response to protests , Representative Pramila Jayapal accused Barr of inconsistency .
She noted the Justice Department did not appear concerned when armed demonstrators , including some white supremacists , entered the Michigan statehouse in protest of the state ’ s actions to limit the spread of Covid-19 .
“ You take an aggressive approach to Black Lives Matter protests , but not to right-wing extremists threatening to lynch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s benefit , ” Jayapal said .
Tuesday presented the first chance for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to question Barr after months of controversy over the attorney general ’ s handling of high-profile prosecutions and allegations that he has politicized the agency he leads .
“ In your time in the department , you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president , ” Representative Jerry Nadler , a New York Democrat who chairs the committee , said Tuesday .
As chief examples of those concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department ’ s handling of prosecutions of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone and Barr ’ s interest in the origins of the investigation into allegations of coordination between Russia and the Trump administration during the 2016 election .
Barr has ordered multiple reviews of the origins of the FBI ’ s Russia investigation , sparking claims from Democrats that he is leveraging the department ’ s investigatory powers to discredit the probe that has been the frequent target of Trump ’ s ire .
When asked on Tuesday , Barr would not commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review , which is being led by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham , under wraps until after the 2020 election .
The controversy over Stone began in February , when the Justice Department walked back its initial recommendation that the longtime Trump confidante spend between seven and nine years in prison for lying to Congress about his communications with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election .
A new sentencing memo , filed after Trump publicly blasted the initial recommendation as a “ miscarriage of justice , ” asked for a significantly lighter sentence for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors who worked on the case .
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson eventually sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison and Trump commuted the sentence earlier this month .
Barr denied Trump ’ s tweet had any impact on the sentencing recommendation , saying he never discussed the issue with anyone in the White House .
He said he made the decision to issue a new memo before the president weighed in on Twitter because the initial recommendation was too harsh , even though it fell within the sentencing guidelines .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was not within Justice Department policy in my view , ” Barr said .
He said he hesitated at first to go forward with the new memo because he was concerned about the political backlash and repeatedly mentioned Stone ’ s advanced age and lack of prior criminal history as justifying a lower sentence .
Aaron Zelinsky , who served on the team that prosecuted Stone , told the Judiciary Committee last month that Stone was given “ unheard of ” breaks during his prosecution because of his political ties .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition , in May after determining there was no valid basis to conduct the interview in which he lied to investigators .
Flynn , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , has sought to withdraw his guilty plea , claiming he was set up and tricked into lying by federal agents .
Trump has been vocal in his criticisms of the prosecution , saying Flynn was treated unfairly and calling the prosecution a politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Justice Department and Flynn are currently fighting in court to force the federal judge handling Flynn ’ s case to drop the charge .
Barr dismissed allegations from Democrats that the decision was politically motivated and insisted Trump has not interfered in any criminal matter during his time at the Justice Department .
“ He has never asked me , directed me , pressured me to do anything in a criminal case , ” Barr said .
The all-day hearing , which started 45 minutes late because Nadler was in a minor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Barr interrupting members and expressing frustration that Democrats did not give him a chance to respond to some of their questions .
“ You said under penalty of perjury , I want to answer the damn question , ” Barr said in response to a question from Representative Joe Neguse .

Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s use of federal agents to respond to racial justice protests, as Democrats accused him of seeking conflict in the streets and using the Justice Department to aid the president’s re-election bid.
WASHINGTON (CN) — Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s use of federal agents to respond to racial justice protests, as Democrats accused him of seeking conflict in the streets and using the Justice Department to aid the president’s re-election bid.
Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Barr said federal authorities that have violently clashed with protesters in cities like Portland, Oregon, have merely been protecting federal property under attack from a small group of people taking advantage of otherwise peaceful protests to do violence.
The scenes out of Portland amid ongoing protests for racial justice spurred by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody have captured stark images of conflicts between protesters and law enforcement, including federal agents who have fired tear gas into crowds.
Videos have shown federal agents, some of whom were not wearing identifying information, beating and using pepper spray on protesters and arresting demonstrators, sometimes from unmarked vehicles and without providing a reason.
The response from federal agents has spawned waves of lawsuits and concerns from civil liberties groups. Democrats on Tuesday suggested the deployment is meant to heighten tensions in an election year with the aim of stirring up the president’s base and aid his re-election chances.
Representative Steve Cohen, who has introduced a resolution to launch an impeachment inquiry against Barr, said federal agents have gone too far in their actions against protesters in cities across the country, threatening important constitutional principles and norms.
“In Portland we’ve seen mothers and we’ve seen veterans who were peacefully protesting, not threatening the federal courthouse, beaten and gassed,” Cohen said. “Unidentified armed federal agents violently attack demonstrators in a violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly and arrested citizens without individualized suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and warrant requirement. You’ve gone through the Fifth Amendment and due process and just negated it.”
Defending the federal agents, Barr said that alongside peaceful protests, some people have set fires outside the Portland courthouse that has become a flashpoint in the conflict, launched fireworks at the building and flashed laser pointers and thrown projectiles at the officers inside.
He told Representative Jim Jordan that he does not believe the courthouse would be standing today without the federal agents.
“The U.S. marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse and that’s what we are doing in Portland,” Barr said Tuesday. “We are at the courthouse defending the courthouse. We’re not out looking for trouble.”
The incidents in Portland come amid larger concerns about how the Trump administration has responded to protests following Floyd’s death. Democrats also pressed Barr on the controversial clearing of Lafayette Square outside the White House on June 1, ahead President Donald Trump’s photo opportunity outside the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church.
Barr told the committee the use of tear gas on a group of mostly peaceful protesters was meant to push the perimeter back a block so authorities could set up fencing around the square, which is across the street from the White House and is the site of frequent protests. Barr said that the decision to move the perimeter was reached the night before, when some demonstrators set a fire in the church.
In the face of Barr’s defense of the federal response to protests, Representative Pramila Jayapal accused Barr of inconsistency. She noted the Justice Department did not appear concerned when armed demonstrators, including some white supremacists, entered the Michigan statehouse in protest of the state’s actions to limit the spread of Covid-19.


courthousenews--2020-07-29--Judge Unlikely to Ban Police Use of Tear Gas During Oakland Protests

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Despite claims that using tear gas and other non-lethal weapons on protesters violates the First Amendment , a federal judge indicated Tuesday he would not outright ban the Oakland Police Department from deploying those tools when demonstrations turn violent or destructive .
“ What ’ s the proper response when a group of police officers is in front of a crowd that is demonstrating and a significant number of people in that crowd start throwing rocks and bottles at them , ” U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero asked during a hearing in a lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas , flash grenades and foam-tip bullets during protests .
After two weeks of settlement talks with plaintiffs who sued the city over the deployment of non-lethal weapons during a series of protests between May 29 and June 3 , Oakland agreed to abide by some terms of a limited preliminary injunction while the lawsuit remains pending .
The city consented to require that its officers will wear prominent badges or identifications on their uniforms during protests , turn their body cameras on , not use vehicles or motorcycles for crowd control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
City officials refused to ban the use of tear gas and other non-lethal weapons , however , arguing police should be allowed to use them to target a “ specific imminent threat ” after announcing they will be used and giving adequate time for crowds to disperse “ to the extent reasonably possible.
” During a video conference hearing Tuesday , civil rights attorney Dan Siegel denounced the city ’ s position as unacceptable .
He said officers shouldn ’ t be allowed to deploy tear gas and other weapons on crowds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are breaking the law .
“ Collective punishment is not appropriate in any circumstance , ” Siegel said .
David Pereda of the Oakland City Attorney ’ s Office replied that an outright ban on non-lethal weapons would prevent officers from protecting themselves and the public .
He cited destruction that occurred on July 25 in Oakland when a group of rioters broke the windows of occupied apartment buildings and tried to set a county courthouse on fire .
“ Are the officers supposed to be injured ?
” Pereda asked .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burned and threaten people ’ s safety ?
” The city says an injunction banning the use of tear gas and other non-lethal weapons would cause other law enforcement agencies to stop helping Oakland during protests .
It cited a June 3 email from the Alameda County Sheriff ’ s Office stating it will not provide mutual aid during Oakland protests if the city bans outside officers from using “ crowd management tools to protect themselves from violent encounters.
” On June 10 , U.S .
Marshal Donald O ’ Keefe told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommend closing the Oakland federal building and courthouse and moving all operations to San Francisco and San Jose if the city “ refuses to allow the use of chemical agents as a last resort to quell rioting and violence.
” Representing the plaintiffs , attorney Walter Riley argued that in situations where a small group in a larger crowd of protesters start throwing projectiles , officers could retreat or identify the individuals who are breaking the law and try to arrest them later .
Judge Spero was not especially receptive to that suggestion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require them to retreat , ” Spero said .
“ In some cases , it could be inconsistent with law enforcement objectives such as protecting public property.
” Spero said he was struggling to craft an injunction that strikes the right balance between protecting the right to assemble and voice dissent against the need to protect public safety and property .
Another dispute involves whether officers from neighboring police departments that assist Oakland police during protests should be bound by the same restrictions as Oakland police officers .
According to Oakland ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident commander in charge during protests must make sure mutual aid agencies understand they should not use non-lethal weapons unless authorized by the Oakland police commander in charge .
Spero said he could not hold the city liable if an officer from a neighboring police department deploys tear gas or rubber bullets without authorization .
He said he could hold the city liable , however , if it failed to inform the outside agency that such weapons should not be used unless authorized by the Oakland police commander in charge .
Oakland police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balls , but not all law enforcement agencies have the same restrictions .
Spero also indicated that he would require Oakland police officers to wear face masks while interacting with the public during protests while the Covid-19 pandemic is raging .
Spero said he was dismayed to see officers not wearing nose-and-mouth coverings when he reviewed videos of police responding to the protests .
“ Why is there any excuse for anybody not wearing a mask out there ?
” Spero asked .
The judge said he plans to issue a preliminary injunction @ @ @ @ @

Despite claims that using tear gas and other non-lethal weapons on protesters violates the First Amendment, a federal judge indicated Tuesday he would not outright ban the Oakland Police Department from deploying those tools when demonstrations turn violent or destructive.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Despite claims that using tear gas and other non-lethal weapons on protesters violates the First Amendment, a federal judge indicated Tuesday he would not outright ban the Oakland Police Department from deploying those tools when demonstrations turn violent or destructive.
“What’s the proper response when a group of police officers is in front of a crowd that is demonstrating and a significant number of people in that crowd start throwing rocks and bottles at them,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero asked during a hearing in a lawsuit challenging Oakland’s use of tear gas, flash grenades and foam-tip bullets during protests.
After two weeks of settlement talks with plaintiffs who sued the city over the deployment of non-lethal weapons during a series of protests between May 29 and June 3, Oakland agreed to abide by some terms of a limited preliminary injunction while the lawsuit remains pending.
The city consented to require that its officers will wear prominent badges or identifications on their uniforms during protests, turn their body cameras on, not use vehicles or motorcycles for crowd control and hold special crowd management training for commanders.
City officials refused to ban the use of tear gas and other non-lethal weapons, however, arguing police should be allowed to use them to target a “specific imminent threat” after announcing they will be used and giving adequate time for crowds to disperse “to the extent reasonably possible.”
During a video conference hearing Tuesday, civil rights attorney Dan Siegel denounced the city’s position as unacceptable. He said officers shouldn’t be allowed to deploy tear gas and other weapons on crowds because a few people in that crowd are breaking the law.
“Collective punishment is not appropriate in any circumstance,” Siegel said.
David Pereda of the Oakland City Attorney’s Office replied that an outright ban on non-lethal weapons would prevent officers from protecting themselves and the public. He cited destruction that occurred on July 25 in Oakland when a group of rioters broke the windows of occupied apartment buildings and tried to set a county courthouse on fire.
“Are the officers supposed to be injured?” Pereda asked. “Are we supposed to let courthouses be burned and threaten people’s safety?”
The city says an injunction banning the use of tear gas and other non-lethal weapons would cause other law enforcement agencies to stop helping Oakland during protests. It cited a June 3 email from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office stating it will not provide mutual aid during Oakland protests if the city bans outside officers from using “crowd management tools to protect themselves from violent encounters.”
On June 10, U.S. Marshal Donald O'Keefe told the city in an email that he would recommend closing the Oakland federal building and courthouse and moving all operations to San Francisco and San Jose if the city “refuses to allow the use of chemical agents as a last resort to quell rioting and violence.”
Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Walter Riley argued that in situations where a small group in a larger crowd of protesters start throwing projectiles, officers could retreat or identify the individuals who are breaking the law and try to arrest them later.
Judge Spero was not especially receptive to that suggestion.
“The Constitution doesn’t require them to retreat,” Spero said. “In some cases, it could be inconsistent with law enforcement objectives such as protecting public property.”
Spero said he was struggling to craft an injunction that strikes the right balance between protecting the right to assemble and voice dissent against the need to protect public safety and property.
Another dispute involves whether officers from neighboring police departments that assist Oakland police during protests should be bound by the same restrictions as Oakland police officers. According to Oakland’s October 2013 crowd control policy, the incident commander in charge during protests must make sure mutual aid agencies understand they should not use non-lethal weapons unless authorized by the Oakland police commander in charge.
Spero said he could not hold the city liable if an officer from a neighboring police department deploys tear gas or rubber bullets without authorization. He said he could hold the city liable, however, if it failed to inform the outside agency that such weapons should not be used unless authorized by the Oakland police commander in charge.
Oakland police do not shoot rubber bullets or pepper balls, but not all law enforcement agencies have the same restrictions.
Spero also indicated that he would require Oakland police officers to wear face masks while interacting with the public during protests while the Covid-19 pandemic is raging. Spero said he was dismayed to see officers not wearing nose-and-mouth coverings when he reviewed videos of police responding to the protests.
“Why is there any excuse for anybody not wearing a mask out there?” Spero asked.
In a 5-page ruling issued Wednesday, Judge Spero barred Oakland from deploying non-lethal weapons during protests “except where an immediate risk to public safety or of significant property damage makes it impossible to do so” and after the police give two loud warnings and adequate time for protesters to disperse.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--New York Law Banning Courthouse Picketing Ruled Unconstitutional

NEW YORK ( CN ) — A federal judge declared a New York state law which prohibits shouting and displaying signage outside a courthouse unconstitutional on Wednesday because it infringes upon the right to free speech .
The underlying case stemmed from an incident involving Michael Picard , who was picketing for jury nullification outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice in December 2017 when he was taken into custody by a court officer who insisted Picard was breaking a New York penal law by picketing for jury nullification within 200 feet of the courthouse .
The law in question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior in and around court proceedings .
The section relevant to Picard ’ s case prohibits people from calling , shouting , holding or displaying placards or signs containing speech within 200 feet of a courthouse which “ concerns the conduct of a trial being held in such a courthouse.
” Picard ’ s assembly , which took place on the public sidewalk outside the Bronx courthouse , included a single sign reading “ Jury Info ” and handing out flyers which read “ No Victim ?
No Crime .
Google Jury Nullification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite side featured the oft-cited Martin Luther King , Jr. quote , “ One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
” Picard had been picketing for about five minutes before being detained by the court officer and charged with violating the New York law .
He was released several hours later when a New York County assistant district attorney declined to pursue the charges against him , citing insufficient evidence because the court officer did not actually measure the distance between Picard and the courthouse .
Picard sued in April 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Chief of Public Safety for the New York Unified Court System Michael Magliano as defendants and seeking a permanent injunction declaring the New York law unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments .
U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote ’ s 18-page ruling succinctly sided with Picard and gave him his injunction on Wednesday , saying the law “ violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it is a content-based restriction on speech in a public forum that fails strict scrutiny.
” Taking into account that there are already laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public buildings , and laws that make it a crime to intentionally tamper with jurors and witnesses , Cote found that “ the defendants have not shown that the state must criminalize speech in this way to protect the integrity of ongoing trials.
” Cote , a Bill Clinton appointee , also did not buy the defendants ’ argument that the law only criminalizes expression that is likely to disrupt ongoing court proceedings , as “ the statute contains no such limitation , ” and she declined to try to narrowly construe the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the request of the defendants , who did not offer such a construction of the law themselves .
Reacting to Wednesday ’ s decision , Eric Freedman , a distinguished law professor at Hofstra University , considered Cote ’ s findings “ a completely appropriate and unsurprising application of the most basic principles of the First Amendment.
” Freedman offered that Picard ’ s actions are “ exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect ” since “ government bodies , including court bodies , are subject to criticism and advocacy about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should be changed.
” Ruthann Robson , also a distinguished law professor at City University of New York , agreed that “ the judge ’ s conclusion and opinion is consistent with well-established First Amendment doctrine.
” Robson particularly said Cote got right that the law ’ s fatal flaw is in its content regulation , and she pointed out the deficiency of the defendants ’ argument that the law practically has limitations not written into its text , noting that “ the U.S. Supreme Court has said numerous times that representations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ containing limits are not controlling.
” She also said the law is even more problematic under the First Amendment since the speech it seeks to block occurs in a public forum—that is , the public sidewalks in front of courthouses—which the U.S. Supreme Court has long held have been historically utilized by the public for free assembly and discussion of public issues .
Brian Hauss , a staff attorney with the ACLU who represented Picard , said on Wednesday that “ we ’ re very pleased with the court ’ s ruling.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings , ” Hauss said , “ but the state has plenty of tools at its disposal to do so , ” without criminalizing what Picard did .
Representatives with the Bronx District Attorney ’ s Office could not be immediately reached for comment after business hours on Wednesday .

A federal judge declared a New York state law which prohibits shouting and displaying signage outside a courthouse unconstitutional on Wednesday because it infringes upon the right to free speech.
MANHATTAN (CN) — A federal judge struck down a New York law that prohibits shouting and displaying signage outside a courthouse, ruling Wednesday that it infringes the constitutional right to free speech.
The underlying case stemmed from an incident involving Michael Picard, who was picketing for jury nullification outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice in December 2017 when he was taken into custody by a court officer who insisted Picard was breaking a New York penal law by picketing for jury nullification within 200 feet of the courthouse.
The law in question partly bans disorderly, contemptuous and peace-breaching behavior in and around court proceedings. The section relevant to Picard’s case prohibits people from calling, shouting, holding or displaying placards or signs containing speech within 200 feet of a courthouse which “concerns the conduct of a trial being held in such a courthouse.”
Picard’s assembly, which took place on the public sidewalk outside the Bronx courthouse, included a single sign reading “Jury Info” and handing out flyers which read “No Victim? No Crime. Google Jury Nullification” on one side, while the opposite side featured the oft-cited Martin Luther King Jr. quote, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
Picard had been picketing for about five minutes before being detained by the court officer and charged with violating the New York law. He was released several hours later when a New York County assistant district attorney declined to pursue the charges against him, citing insufficient evidence because the court officer did not actually measure the distance between Picard and the courthouse.
Picard sued in April 2019, naming Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark and Chief of Public Safety for the New York Unified Court System Michael Magliano as defendants and seeking a permanent injunction declaring the New York law unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments.
U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote’s 18-page ruling succinctly sided with Picard and gave him his injunction on Wednesday, saying the law “violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it is a content-based restriction on speech in a public forum that fails strict scrutiny.”
Taking into account that there are already laws to maintain public order and access to public buildings, and laws that make it a crime to intentionally tamper with jurors and witnesses, Cote found that “the defendants have not shown that the state must criminalize speech in this way to protect the integrity of ongoing trials.”
Cote, a Bill Clinton appointee, also did not buy the defendants’ argument that the law only criminalizes expression that is likely to disrupt ongoing court proceedings, as “the statute contains no such limitation,” and she declined to try to narrowly construe the law to avoid a constitutional question at the request of the defendants, who did not offer such a construction of the law themselves.
Reacting to Wednesday’s decision, Eric M. Freedman, a distinguished law professor at Hofstra University, considered Cote’s findings “a completely appropriate and unsurprising application of the most basic principles of the First Amendment.”
Freedman offered that Picard’s actions are “exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect” since “government bodies, including court bodies, are subject to criticism and advocacy about why what they are doing is wrong and should be changed.”
Ruthann Robson, also a distinguished law professor at City University of New York, agreed that “the judge’s conclusion and opinion is consistent with well-established First Amendment doctrine.”
Robson particularly said Cote got right that the law’s fatal flaw is in its content regulation, and she pointed out the deficiency of the defendants’ argument that the law practically has limitations not written into its text, noting that “the U.S. Supreme Court has said numerous times that representations by the government interpreting a statute as containing limits are not controlling.”
She also said the law is even more problematic under the First Amendment since the speech it seeks to block occurs in a public forum—that is, the public sidewalks in front of courthouses—which the U.S. Supreme Court has long held have been historically utilized by the public for free assembly and discussion of public issues.
Brian Hauss, a staff attorney with the ACLU who represented Picard, said on Wednesday that “we’re very pleased with the court’s ruling.”
“I understand the state has an interest in protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings,” Hauss said, “but the state has plenty of tools at its disposal to do so,” without criminalizing what Picard did.
Representatives with the Bronx District Attorney’s Office could not be immediately reached for comment after business hours on Wednesday.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--California High Court Debates Making Lower Bar Exam Passing Threshold Retroactive

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — The California Supreme Court is considering whether to apply a newly lowered bar passing score to the February 2020 exam , following a flurry of letters and petitions from law school graduates , deans , and legislators .
Court spokesperson Cathal Connelly said in an email that while it “ has currently taken no action , ” on the letters , the high court is drafting an order related its decision to lower the minimum passing score from 1440 to 1390 .
The justices also rescheduled the traditionally summer exam for Oct. 5-6 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut score currently applies only prospectively .
Connelly said the court “ has also taken the retroactivity issue under consideration.
” He added the court could act at any time after deliberating on an issue and holds monthly conferences on administrative matters .
“ The next regularly scheduled administrative conference would be on August 19th .
Beyond this , I can not speculate as to when any order may be finalized , ” he said .
Since announcing its decision earlier this month , the court has received letters and petitions signed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deans asking that the minimum score be extended to those who sat for the February exam .
But the latest letter from California Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Mark Stone , D-Scotts Valley , urged the court to go even further and make the 1390 cut score retroactive to 2015 .
“ If a 1390 passing score supports minimum competency to practice law today , it certainly did so in the past , ” Stone wrote .
“ Moreover , scores in the last five years are recent enough to ensure that applicants will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrated on the exam.
” The State Bar ’ s rules allow admission to the bar up to five years after taking the exam , a limit that the agency can extend “ for good cause shown.
” “ In fact , State Bar rules allow the five-year period to be extended if there is good cause shown , so the Court reasonably should also allow for the recognition of older bar exams scores , provided the applicant can show that they have stayed current in their legal knowledge , ” Stone wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he and his colleagues have heard from scores of graduates concerned about the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic .
Their initial push was for diploma privilege , where in an emergency situation like the coronavirus outbreak and ensuing public health crisis law school graduates would be able to practice law without having passed the bar .
It was a solution Stone and other lawmakers supported .
The court ’ s compromise was to direct the State Bar to implement a provisional licensure program under which 2020 graduates , who would still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some point , can practice specified areas of law over the next two years under the supervision of a licensed attorney .
Stone said Wednesday that while reducing the cut score was a good first step , the pandemic has raised questions about whether the bar exam in its current form is the best way to measure minimum competence to enter the legal profession .
“ Because of the current crisis , there ’ s been a renewed look at the practice of law and how we address the fact that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if that ’ s the right way to bring people into the profession , ” Stone said .
“ The bar exam is a bit of an artificial barrier in my mind .
I have always been much happier with multiple measures .
In my view it ’ s nothing more than a stress test .
It ’ s not the best indicator of who is going to be a good attorney .
California set a very high standard and it became sort of a rite of passage without really thinking through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high score was seen as a bulwark against substandard or unethical practices .
But the legislator believes that is something the State Bar , an agency tasked with policing and disciplining attorney misconduct , should be overseeing more vigorously .
“ If they had a very robust attorney discipline program — that ’ s how you weed out bad attorneys .
Just because someone scored X on an exam that doesn ’ t mean they ’ ll be a good attorney , ” Stone said .
“ That high cut score has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been good attorneys , competent attorneys who can hone their craft over the years and go back to their communities and provide legal services.
” Stone believes a better solution lay in something like an apprenticeship program , where aspiring attorneys could work for several years under someone with more experience .
“ We could look at ways like that in determining competence , ” he said .
“ It would be difficult because it would need to be formalized , consistent and above reproach and above someone being able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure what the right answer is .
The easiest thing is to fall back on the rather large and dramatic stress test , which is the tradition.
” He said there is an old joke among practicing attorneys about the three types of law : what you learn in law school , what you study to pass the bar exam , and then what you learn in the real world .
“ None of them have anything to do with each other , ” Stone said .
“ When you get out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you learn the practical applications of how things work , that ’ s the real law .
What you learn in law school may or may not have much applicability.
” While attorneys who have already passed the bar may be resistant to a dramatic change in measuring minimum competence , Stone said it ’ s worth serious consideration to achieve a more diverse bar .
“ We hear from attorneys ‘ I had to go through it so what ’ s their problem ?
’ That doesn ’ t mean we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different ways to ensure we ’ re bringing people with basic level of competence into the legal profession , and through that process ensuring that the legal profession — the bench and the bar — start to look more like California looks , ” Stone said .
“ I think we ’ ll have better legal services provided to our communities .
”

The California Supreme Court is considering whether to apply a newly lowered bar passing score to the February 2020 exam, following a flurry of letters and petitions from law school graduates, deans, and legislators.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The California Supreme Court is considering whether to apply a newly lowered bar passing score to the February 2020 exam, following a flurry of letters and petitions from law school graduates, deans, and legislators.
Court spokesperson Cathal Connelly said in an email that while it “has currently taken no action,” on the letters, the high court is drafting an order related its decision to lower the minimum passing score from 1440 to 1390. The justices also rescheduled the traditionally summer exam for Oct. 5-6 and moved it online.
The newly lowered cut score currently applies only prospectively. Connelly said the court “has also taken the retroactivity issue under consideration.”
He added the court could act at any time after deliberating on an issue and holds monthly conferences on administrative matters.
"The next regularly scheduled administrative conference would be on August 19th. Beyond this, I cannot speculate as to when any order may be finalized,” he said.
Since announcing its decision earlier this month, the court has received letters and petitions signed by hundreds of law graduates, professors and deans asking that the minimum score be extended to those who sat for the February exam.
But the latest letter from California Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, urged the court to go even further and make the 1390 cut score retroactive to 2015.
“If a 1390 passing score supports minimum competency to practice law today, it certainly did so in the past,” Stone wrote. “Moreover, scores in the last five years are recent enough to ensure that applicants will still retain much of the knowledge they demonstrated on the exam.”
The State Bar’s rules allow admission to the bar up to five years after taking the exam, a limit that the agency can extend “for good cause shown.”
“In fact, State Bar rules allow the five-year period to be extended if there is good cause shown, so the Court reasonably should also allow for the recognition of older bar exams scores, provided the applicant can show that they have stayed current in their legal knowledge,” Stone wrote.
In an interview Wednesday, Stone said he and his colleagues have heard from scores of graduates concerned about the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Their initial push was for diploma privilege, where in an emergency situation like the coronavirus outbreak and ensuing public health crisis law school graduates would be able to practice law without having passed the bar. It was a solution Stone and other lawmakers supported.
The court’s compromise was to direct the State Bar to implement a provisional licensure program under which 2020 graduates, who would still have to sit for the exam at some point, can practice specified areas of law over the next two years under the supervision of a licensed attorney.
Stone said Wednesday that while reducing the cut score was a good first step, the pandemic has raised questions about whether the bar exam in its current form is the best way to measure minimum competence to enter the legal profession.
“Because of the current crisis, there's been a renewed look at the practice of law and how we address the fact that it's difficult to sit for the exam and if that's the right way to bring people into the profession,” Stone said.
"The bar exam is a bit of an artificial barrier in my mind. I have always been much happier with multiple measures. In my view it’s nothing more than a stress test. It's not the best indicator of who is going to be a good attorney. California set a very high standard and it became sort of a rite of passage without really thinking through what its implications were.”
He said the high score was seen as a bulwark against substandard or unethical practices. But the legislator believes that is something the State Bar, an agency tasked with policing and disciplining attorney misconduct, should be overseeing more vigorously.
“If they had a very robust attorney discipline program — that's how you weed out bad attorneys. Just because someone scored X on an exam that doesn't mean they'll be a good attorney,” Stone said. “That high cut score has weeded out a lot of people who would have been good attorneys, competent attorneys who can hone their craft over the years and go back to their communities and provide legal services.”
Stone believes a better solution lay in something like an apprenticeship program, where aspiring attorneys could work for several years under someone with more experience.
“We could look at ways like that in determining competence,” he said. “It would be difficult because it would need to be formalized, consistent and above reproach and above someone being able to hand out favors. I’m not sure what the right answer is. The easiest thing is to fall back on the rather large and dramatic stress test, which is the tradition.”
He said there is an old joke among practicing attorneys about the three types of law: what you learn in law school, what you study to pass the bar exam, and then what you learn in the real world.
“None of them have anything to do with each other,” Stone said. “When you get out into the real world of law practice and you learn the practical applications of how things work, that’s the real law. What you learn in law school may or may not have much applicability.”
While attorneys who have already passed the bar may be resistant to a dramatic change in measuring minimum competence, Stone said it’s worth serious consideration to achieve a more diverse bar.
"We hear from attorneys ‘I had to go through it so what's their problem?’ That doesn't mean we can't look at rigorous but different ways to ensure we're bringing people with basic level of competence into the legal profession, and through that process ensuring that the legal profession — the bench and the bar — start to look more like California looks,” Stone said. “I think we'll have better legal services provided to our communities.”


courthousenews--2020-07-29--Judge Probes “Deeply Troubling” False Statements in NY Travel Case

MANHATTAN ( CN ) — Breaking his silence on the “ deeply troubling revelations ” of the Department of Homeland Security ’ s admissions of false statements in court , a federal judge signaled on Wednesday that he will hold the government ’ s feet to the fire about its now-abandoned plan to exclude New Yorkers from expedited traveler programs .
“ The court finds that a limited inquiry is appropriate now , if only to aid the court in deciding later whether and to what extent a more detailed inquiry is warranted , ” U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government to respond to a list of questions by Aug. 12 .
The judge made his inquiry in a lawsuit filed by New York State Attorney General Letitia James to block the Trump administration from excluding Empire State applicants from the Trusted Travelers Program , which allows participants to breeze through screening at airports and other border crossings .
Until last week , the Trump administration had justified the exclusion by claiming the state had uniquely burdensome sanctuary policies preventing cooperation with federal authorities , but attorneys renounced that position in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DHS advised this office that those statements and representations are inaccurate in some instances and give the wrong impression in others , ” Audrey Strauss , the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York , wrote in last week ’ s memo .
Giving some examples of “ inaccurate or misleading ” statements , government attorneys noted that Customs and Border Protection ’ s director of the program claimed that New York ’ s so-called Green Light Law uniquely kept the government in the dark about drivers .
But several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only limited access to driver ’ s license information , shielding certain information about criminal histories from the federal government .
“ Nevertheless , CBP has continued to accept , vet , and , where appropriate , approve TTP applications from these states and territories , ” the government conceded .
Reinstating New York to the program hours before these admissions , the government asked to quietly dismiss the case as moot .
“ Defendants deeply regret the foregoing inaccurate or misleading statements and apologize to the court and plaintiffs for the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage in the litigation , ” Justice Department attorneys wrote in two memos apologizing for the gaffes .
Not inclined to simply forgive and forget , Judge Furman – who grappled with allegations of perjury by government officials before in the census litigation – ordered further inquiry .
As the government ’ s walk-back stands , Furman found , the Trump administration did not “ fully ‘ correct the record , ’ as it conspicuously proffers only a few examples of inaccurate and misleading statements and does not even purport to provide an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ensuring an accurate record and to help the court in deciding how to proceed down the line , therefore , it is necessary for defendants to make a comprehensive record of any and all ‘ inaccurate ’ or ‘ misleading ’ statements in their prior submissions , ” Furman wrote in today ’ s order .
New York Attorney General Letitia James and the New York Civil Liberties Union have announced plans to seek attorneys ’ fees and sanctions against the government over the episode .
Furman warned that his inquiry could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is important to note that even if defendants are correct and these cases must be dismissed as moot , the court would retain jurisdiction to pursue such an inquiry and take appropriate action , ” he wrote in a footnote , next to citations of cases involving sanctions .
One of those cases was the census litigation in his court .

Breaking his silence on the “deeply troubling revelations” of the Department of Homeland Security’s admissions of false statements in court, a federal judge signaled on Wednesday that he will hold the government’s feet to the fire about its now-abandoned plan to exclude New Yorkers from expedited traveler programs.
MANHATTAN (CN) — Breaking his silence on the “deeply troubling revelations” of the Department of Homeland Security’s admissions of false statements in court, a federal judge signaled on Wednesday that he will hold the government’s feet to the fire about its now-abandoned plan to exclude New Yorkers from expedited traveler programs.
“The court finds that a limited inquiry is appropriate now, if only to aid the court in deciding later whether and to what extent a more detailed inquiry is warranted,” U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman wrote in a 6-page ruling, ordering the government to respond to a list of questions by Aug. 12.
The judge made his inquiry in a lawsuit filed by New York State Attorney General Letitia James to block the Trump administration from excluding Empire State applicants from the Trusted Travelers Program, which allows participants to breeze through screening at airports and other border crossings.
Until last week, the Trump administration had justified the exclusion by claiming the state had uniquely burdensome sanctuary policies preventing cooperation with federal authorities, but attorneys renounced that position in a surprising filing on July 23.
“DHS advised this office that those statements and representations are inaccurate in some instances and give the wrong impression in others,” Audrey Strauss, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote in last week’s memo.
Giving some examples of “inaccurate or misleading” statements, government attorneys noted that Customs and Border Protection’s director of the program claimed that New York’s so-called Green Light Law uniquely kept the government in the dark about drivers.
But several states and the District of Columbia provide only limited access to driver’s license information, shielding certain information about criminal histories from the federal government.
“Nevertheless, CBP has continued to accept, vet, and, where appropriate, approve TTP applications from these states and territories,” the government conceded.
Reinstating New York to the program hours before these admissions, the government asked to quietly dismiss the case as moot.
“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,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in two memos apologizing for the gaffes.
Not inclined to simply forgive and forget, Judge Furman – who grappled with allegations of perjury by government officials before in the census litigation – ordered further inquiry.
As the government’s walk-back stands, Furman found, the Trump administration did not “fully ‘correct the record,’ as it conspicuously proffers only a few examples of inaccurate and misleading statements and does not even purport to provide an exhaustive list.”
“For the sake of ensuring an accurate record and to help the court in deciding how to proceed down the line, therefore, it is necessary for defendants to make a comprehensive record of any and all ‘inaccurate’ or ‘misleading’ statements in their prior submissions,” Furman wrote in today’s order.
New York Attorney General Letitia James and the New York Civil Liberties Union have announced plans to seek attorneys’ fees and sanctions against the government over the episode.
Furman warned that his inquiry could outlast the lawsuit that precipitated it.
“It is important to note that even if defendants are correct and these cases must be dismissed as moot, the court would retain jurisdiction to pursue such an inquiry and take appropriate action,” he wrote in a footnote, next to citations of cases involving sanctions.
One of those cases was the census litigation in his court.


courthousenews--2020-07-29--House Approves $50 Billion in Aid to Child Care Industry

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — With nearly a third of the U.S. workforce at home with kids , a mostly remote school year imminent and widespread economic anxiety , the House on Wednesday voted 249-163 to approve a $ 50 billion aid package aimed at tackling a worsening child care crisis .
When the coronavirus first began surging through the U.S. in March , groups like the National Association for the Education of Young Children surveyed 6,000 child care providers to gauge where they thought they would be without federal intervention .
Even then , before the virus was spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those child care providers said their expectations were low and they fully anticipated needing to close their facilities within two weeks if the novel coronavirus went unchecked inside U.S. borders .
As infection rates shot up in April and the federal government slow-walked its response , those fears came true : of the more than 5,000 providers polled , nearly half were closed completely within two weeks .
Now , after several months of a full-on pandemic , there are 4.3 million Americans infected , more than 150,000 dead and deep-running contentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation for child care providers – be they parents , single mothers or licensed professionals – remains bleak .
“ This was a significant issue before the pandemic .
It will be one after .
This is not about going back to normal .
We can not do that either .
If we can not make families feel safe , that their kids are going to be in a safe and secure environment , we ’ re not going to get our economy back on track , ” Representative Rosa DeLauro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday as she urged passage of H.R .
7027 , or the Child Care Is Essential Act .
DeLauro first introduced the legislation in May .
It infuses $ 50 billion into a child care and development block grant already in place under Health and Human Services Department purview .
Through those grants , child care providers , whether open or temporarily closed due to Covid-19 , can apply for funds to shore up operating costs , pay staff , conduct cleanings of their facilities and prepare to reopen with social distancing measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aims to give half of the entire American essential work force population – which happens to comprise roughly 27 million women – more of a fighting chance to keep their careers and their children cared for as they disproportionately struggle to balance work and home responsibilities .
Representative Mikie Sherrill , D-N.J. , drove this point home during an impassioned plea ahead of the vote Wednesday , noting that the gender impact in child care was indisputable .
Nineteen million children live in a single parent household , and 70 % of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
“ Women will be forced to choose between staying at home or going to work and if kids feel unsafe , it will be mom staying home in the majority of cases , ” Sherrill said .
“ If women have to leave the workforce and cut back hours , these decisions will have long lasting impacts on their careers , their pay and the economic security of their children.
” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , D-Md.
, also noted from the floor Wednesday that people of color , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel the greatest pinch of the child care crisis .
They are already overrepresented in working class or essential service jobs like those at grocery stores , restaurants or hospitals , or in professions where remote work is altogether impossible .
In addition to H.R .
7027 , lawmakers passed a similar bill on Wednesday in a 250-161 vote .
H.R .
7327 , or the Child Care for Economic Recovery Act , was sponsored by Representatives Nita Lowey , D-N.Y. , and Richard Neal , D-Mass .
The legislation was first introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax credits , a refundable payroll tax credit for child care providers and incentives to keep child care workers on the job .
About $ 850 million is allocated for states to address the needs of essential workers on the frontline of the pandemic and approximately $ 10 billion in grants is earmarked for infrastructure repairs like run-down buildings , lead paint , broken water heaters and more .
“ What ’ s good for our babies is good for our budget , ” Lowey said from the floor Wednesday .

With nearly a third of the U.S. workforce at home with kids, a mostly remote school year imminent and widespread economic anxiety, the House on Wednesday voted 249-163 to approve a $50 billion aid package aimed at tackling a worsening child care crisis.
WASHINGTON (CN) — With nearly a third of the U.S. workforce at home with kids, a mostly remote school year imminent and widespread economic anxiety, the House voted 249-163 Wednesday to approve a $50 billion aid package aimed at tackling a worsening child care crisis.
When the coronavirus first began surging through the U.S. in March, groups like the National Association for the Education of Young Children surveyed 6,000 child care providers to gauge where they thought they would be without federal intervention.
Even then, before the virus was spreading like wildlife, at least 30% of those child care providers said their expectations were low and they fully anticipated needing to close their facilities within two weeks if the novel coronavirus went unchecked inside U.S. borders.
As infection rates shot up in April and the federal government slow-walked its response, those fears came true: of the more than 5,000 providers polled, nearly half were closed completely within two weeks.
Now, after several months of a full-on pandemic, there are 4.3 million Americans infected, more than 150,000 dead and deep-running contentions over how to reopen schools safely, the situation for child care providers — be they parents, single mothers or licensed professionals — remains bleak.
“This was a significant issue before the pandemic. It will be one after. This is not about going back to normal. We cannot do that either. If we cannot make families feel safe, that their kids are going to be in a safe and secure environment, we’re not going to get our economy back on track,” Representative Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said from the House floor Wednesday as she urged passage of H.R. 7027, or the Child Care Is Essential Act.
DeLauro first introduced the legislation in May. It infuses $50 billion into a child care and development block grant already in place under Health and Human Services Department purview. Through those grants, child care providers, whether open or temporarily closed due to Covid-19, can apply for funds to shore up operating costs, pay staff, conduct cleanings of their facilities and prepare to reopen with social distancing measures in place where possible.
The bill aims to give half of the entire American essential work force population — which happens to comprise roughly 27 million women — more of a fighting chance to keep their careers and their children cared for as they disproportionately struggle to balance work and home responsibilities.
Representative Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., drove this point home during an impassioned plea ahead of the vote Wednesday, noting that the gender impact in child care was indisputable.
Nineteen million children live in a single parent household, and 70% of those are households run by single mothers, she said.
“Women will be forced to choose between staying at home or going to work and if kids feel unsafe, it will be mom staying home in the majority of cases,” Sherrill said. “If women have to leave the workforce and cut back hours, these decisions will have long lasting impacts on their careers, their pay and the economic security of their children.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also noted from the floor Wednesday that people of color, and particularly women of color, will feel the greatest pinch of the child care crisis. They are already overrepresented in working class or essential service jobs like those at grocery stores, restaurants or hospitals, or in professions where remote work is altogether impossible.
In addition to H.R. 7027, lawmakers passed a similar bill on Wednesday in a 250-161 vote. H.R. 7327, or the Child Care for Economic Recovery Act, was sponsored by Representatives Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and Richard Neal, D-Mass.
The legislation was first introduced last month and proposes enhanced dependent care tax credits, a refundable payroll tax credit for child care providers and incentives to keep child care workers on the job. About $850 million is allocated for states to address the needs of essential workers on the frontline of the pandemic and approximately $10 billion in grants is earmarked for infrastructure repairs like run-down buildings, lead paint, broken water heaters and more.
“What’s good for our babies is good for our budget,” Lowey said from the floor Wednesday.


Top Eight

Your Wednesday night briefing from the staff of Courthouse News Top eight CNS stories for today including federal agents who have sparked violent clashes with peaceful protesters and assaulted journalists and legal observers in Portland for weeks will begin to leave the city ; The First Circuit appeared reluctant to intervene against the government ’ s new policy of making arrests at courthouses ; More than 200,000 Brazilians whose lives and businesses were upended by a massive dam failure in 2015 are asking a British court to hear their $ 6.3 billion case , and more .
Sign up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day ’ s top stories delivered directly to your email Monday through Friday .
1 . )
Federal agents who have sparked violent clashes with peaceful protesters and assaulted journalists and legal observers in Portland , Oregon , for weeks will begin to leave the city this week under an agreement with the Trump administration unveiled Wednesday by Governor Kate Brown .
2 . )
U.S. courthouses have become points of vulnerability for undocumented immigrants thanks to the government ’ s new policy on making arrests there , but the First Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
In the sixth iteration of congressional oversight hearings and investigation into big tech companies and their threat to competition , a House Judiciary subcommittee grilled the CEOs of Amazon , Apple , Facebook and Google — the first instance each founder has testified before lawmakers simultaneously .
4 . )
Louie Gohmert , a Republican representing East Texas cities in the U.S. House of Representatives , has tested positive for the novel coronavirus after reportedly refusing to wear a face mask or socially distance on Capitol Hill .
5 . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have paid more than a quarter-million dollars to a private law firm deputized by a federal judge to convict an environmental attorney of misdemeanors .
6 . )
Up for a seat on a federal court in the state , the solicitor general of Kansas defended his involvement Wednesday in cases taking conservative positions on funding for Planned Parenthood , voter ID laws and other contentious legal issues .
7 . )
Saying they can ’ t get justice in Brazil , more than 200,000 Brazilians whose lives and businesses were upended by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking a British court to hear their $ 6.3 billion case against BHP , one of the world ’ s largest mining companies .
8 . )
State-of-the-art imaging techniques and algorithms have allowed a team of scientists and art experts to peer beneath the layers of restorations covering a Renaissance masterpiece in a Belgian cathedral .

Top eight CNS stories for today including federal agents who have sparked violent clashes with peaceful protesters and assaulted journalists and legal observers in Portland for weeks will begin to leave the city; The First Circuit appeared reluctant to intervene against the government’s new policy of making arrests at courthouses; More than 200,000 Brazilians whose lives and businesses were upended by a massive dam failure in 2015 are asking a British court to hear their $6.3 billion case, and more.
Your Wednesday night briefing from the staff of Courthouse News
Top eight CNS stories for today including federal agents who have sparked violent clashes with peaceful protesters and assaulted journalists and legal observers in Portland for weeks will begin to leave the city; The First Circuit appeared reluctant to intervene against the government’s new policy of making arrests at courthouses; More than 200,000 Brazilians whose lives and businesses were upended by a massive dam failure in 2015 are asking a British court to hear their $6.3 billion case, 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.) Federal agents who have sparked violent clashes with peaceful protesters and assaulted journalists and legal observers in Portland, Oregon, for weeks will begin to leave the city this week under an agreement with the Trump administration unveiled Wednesday by Governor Kate Brown.
Hundreds of Black Lives Matter protesters hold their phones aloft on Monday, July 20, 2020, in Portland, Ore. Federal officers’ actions at protests in Oregon’s largest city, hailed by President Donald Trump but done without local consent, are raising the prospect of a constitutional crisis — one that could escalate as weeks of demonstrations find renewed focus in clashes with camouflaged, unidentified agents outside Portland’s U.S. courthouse. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)
2.) U.S. courthouses have become points of vulnerability for undocumented immigrants thanks to the government’s new policy on making arrests there, but the First Circuit appeared reluctant Wednesday to intervene.
Protesters brave the cold on Dec. 7, 2017, to rally against a surge of immigration arrests being carried out in New York City courthouses. (AMANDA OTTAWAY, Courthouse News Service)
3.) In the sixth iteration of congressional oversight hearings and investigation into big tech companies and their threat to competition, a House Judiciary subcommittee grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google — the first instance each founder has testified before lawmakers simultaneously.
In this April 11, 2018, file photo Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg pauses while testifying before a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Federal regulators are fining Facebook $5 billion for privacy violations and instituting new oversight and restrictions on its business. But they are only holding Zuckerberg personally responsible in a limited fashion. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
Regional
4.) Louie Gohmert, a Republican representing East Texas cities in the U.S. House of Representatives, has tested positive for the novel coronavirus after reportedly refusing to wear a face mask or socially distance on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, studies notes during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the oversight of the Department of Justice on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, July 28, 2020 in Washington. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post via AP, Pool)
5.) With trial still months away, taxpayers have paid more than a quarter-million dollars to a private law firm deputized by a federal judge to convict an environmental attorney of misdemeanors.
Steven Donziger poses for a photo in Lower Manhattan in 2013. (Photo by ADAM KLASFELD/Courthouse News Service)
6.) Up for a seat on a federal court in the state, the solicitor general of Kansas defended his involvement Wednesday in cases taking conservative positions on funding for Planned Parenthood, voter ID laws and other contentious legal issues.
The U.S. Capitol in Washington. (Courthouse News photo/Jack Rodgers)
International
7.) Saying they can’t get justice in Brazil, more than 200,000 Brazilians whose lives and businesses were upended by a massive dam failure in 2015 are asking a British court to hear their $6.3 billion case against BHP, one of the world’s largest mining companies.
The village of Bento Rodrigues, Brazil, after the 2015 dam collapse. (Photo via Senado Federal/Wikipedia Commons)
8.) State-of-the-art imaging techniques and algorithms have allowed a team of scientists and art experts to peer beneath the layers of restorations covering a Renaissance masterpiece in a Belgian cathedral.


courthousenews--2020-07-29--Trump Campaigns in West Texas Amid Polling Slump, Worsening Pandemic

( CN ) — President Donald Trump touted environmental deregulation and railed against Democrats during his visit to the heart of the U.S. oil industry in West Texas on Wednesday .
Trump toured oil and gas facilities during his 16th visit to the Lone Star State as president , boasting about his administration ’ s history of fast-tracking federal permitting , cutting environmental regulations and incentivizing private investment in energy infrastructure .
Joined by Republican Governor Greg Abbott , former Energy Secretary Rick Perry , Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and other GOP allies , Trump began his Texas trip at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraising luncheon hosted by his re-election campaign and the Republican Party .
He then addressed workers , investors , industry members and others in a large air-conditioned tent outside Double Eagle Energy in Midland , expressing pride over oil and gas production in the U.S. Trump attributed much of the sector ’ s success to his administration ’ s rollbacks of longstanding environmental regulations — conservation policies that he says were damaging to American energy efforts .
Over the past three and a half years , many environmental groups have sued the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their potential negative impact on the environment and certain endangered species .
“ Under the last administration , America ’ s energy industry was under relentless and unceasing attack , ” Trump told the crowd , noting that his administration canceled an Obama-era plan that aimed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants .
“ I approved the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline immediately upon assuming office , ” he added .
Trump on Wednesday also announced that export authorizations for liquefied natural gas will go through 2050 as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transport of fossil fuels .
“ This will include two permits allowing the export of Texas crude to Mexico , a giant victory for the workers of this state , ” he said .
Opponents of Trump ’ s visit say his political focus on Wednesday was inappropriate due to the recent spike in coronavirus cases in Texas compounded by the impacts of Hurricane Hanna .
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic , the state has counted nearly 5,900 fatalities , according to health officials .
“ Both the continued Covid-19 surges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be met with swift action from the state and federal government , ” presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said a statement Wednesday in response to the president ’ s trip .
“ Mr .
President , now isn ’ t the time for politicking or photo-ops , ” Biden added .
“ Texans need a president with the experience and vision to fight for families no matter how many catastrophes reach our shores.
” Trump mentioned the virus during his visit Wednesday , stating that the U.S. government is sending Texas 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the president downplayed the outbreak in Texas , claiming that statewide , “ the number of new cases has begun to substantially decline.
” Trump won Texas in 2016 by 9 percentage points over Democrat Hillary Clinton , but recent polls show the state could swing either way in November ’ s election .
The incumbent Republican contends the election in Texas will go his way this time around too , especially since he has been an ally of the fossil fuel industry that , according to the American Petroleum Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But a poll released last week by Quinnipiac University shows 45 % of registered voters in Texas support Biden for president , while 44 % say they back Trump .
“ With crises swirling through American society and a country deeply divided , there ’ s no other way to slice it .
It ’ s a tossup in Texas , ” Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement about the results .

President Donald Trump touted environmental deregulation and railed against Democrats during his visit to the heart of the U.S. oil industry in West Texas on Wednesday.
(CN) — President Donald Trump touted environmental deregulation and railed against Democrats during his visit to the heart of the U.S. oil industry in West Texas on Wednesday.
Trump toured oil and gas facilities during his 16th visit to the Lone Star State as president, boasting about his administration’s history of fast-tracking federal permitting, cutting environmental regulations and incentivizing private investment in energy infrastructure.
Joined by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and other GOP allies, Trump began his Texas trip at the Odessa Marriott Hotel with a private fundraising luncheon hosted by his re-election campaign and the Republican Party.
He then addressed workers, investors, industry members and others in a large air-conditioned tent outside Double Eagle Energy in Midland, expressing pride over oil and gas production in the U.S.
Trump attributed much of the sector’s success to his administration’s rollbacks of longstanding environmental regulations — conservation policies that he says were damaging to American energy efforts.
Over the past three and a half years, many environmental groups have sued the administration over these rollbacks and regulatory overhauls because of their potential negative impact on the environment and certain endangered species.
“Under the last administration, America’s energy industry was under relentless and unceasing attack,” Trump told the crowd, noting that his administration canceled an Obama-era plan that aimed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
“I approved the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline immediately upon assuming office,” he added.
Trump on Wednesday also announced that export authorizations for liquefied natural gas will go through 2050 as he signed four permits for pipeline and rail transport of fossil fuels.
“This will include two permits allowing the export of Texas crude to Mexico, a giant victory for the workers of this state,” he said.
Opponents of Trump’s visit say his political focus on Wednesday was inappropriate due to the recent spike in coronavirus cases in Texas compounded by the impacts of Hurricane Hanna.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the state has counted nearly 5,900 fatalities, according to health officials.
“Both the continued Covid-19 surges and Hurricane Hanna’s impact must be met with swift action from the state and federal government,” presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said a statement Wednesday in response to the president’s trip.
“Mr. President, now isn’t the time for politicking or photo-ops,” Biden added. “Texans need a president with the experience and vision to fight for families no matter how many catastrophes reach our shores.”
Trump mentioned the virus during his visit Wednesday, stating that the U.S. government is sending Texas 500 cases of the antiviral drug remdesivir. However, the president downplayed the outbreak in Texas, claiming that statewide, “the number of new cases has begun to substantially decline.”
Trump won Texas in 2016 by 9 percentage points over Democrat Hillary Clinton, but recent polls show the state could swing either way in November’s election.
The incumbent Republican contends the election in Texas will go his way this time around too, especially since he has been an ally of the fossil fuel industry that, according to the American Petroleum Institute, supports 9.8 million jobs nationwide.
But a poll released last week by Quinnipiac University shows 45% of registered voters in Texas support Biden for president, while 44% say they back Trump.
"With crises swirling through American society and a country deeply divided, there's no other way to slice it. It's a tossup in Texas,” Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement about the results.


courthousenews--2020-07-29--States Sue Trump Administration Over New Payday Lending Rule

OAKLAND , Calif. ( CN ) — Seeking to stop the cycle of unsophisticated borrowers getting trapped in a recurring cycle of debt , multiple states have imposed regulations on payday lenders in recent years – regulations that will no longer apply to some lenders under a new Trump administration rule .
California , Illinois and New York sued the Office of the Comptroller of Currency , a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department , Wednesday over a new rule that makes it easier for lenders to skirt state laws that cap interest rates for payday loans .
The rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner with federally regulated banks exempt from state interest rate caps on loans .
“ The OCC creates loopholes that allow predatory lenders to bypass our laws , ” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement Wednesday .
“ Particularly during this period of economic crisis , the Trump administration should fight to stop these bad actors , not enable them.
” The states are challenging the new rule on several grounds .
They claim OCC lacks the power to enact the rule , that the rule violates procedures created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ignores the potential for regulatory evasion of state laws and that OCC fails to provide evidence supporting its change in policy .
The states say the rule contradicts laws enacted by Congress after the 2007-2008 financial crisis , specifically the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 , which declares in three separate subsections that federal banking laws do not prevent states from regulating subsidiaries , affiliates or agents of national banks .
California tightened its payday lending law last year , setting a 36 % interest rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws in 2005 and 2010 , capping interest for loans at $ 15.50 per $ 100 and 36 % for certain loans .
New York state has prohibited high interest loan rates for centuries , capping rates for most loans at 25 % .
The states say the Trump administration rule will facilitate a “ rent-a-bank scheme ” in which payday lenders partner with banks , which “ act as a mere pass-through for loans that , in substance , are issued by non-bank lenders.
” These partnerships allow lenders to evade state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulated banks .
California notes that several lenders were already scheming to sidestep its consumer protection laws before the OCC finalized its rule .
It cites comments by an executive from the company Elevate , doing business in California as Rise , who stated on a July 2019 earnings call as California sought to tighten its laws that it expected “ to be able to continue to serve California consumers via bank sponsors that are not subject to the same proposed state rate limitations.
” The states complain that the OCC lacks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make third parties that partner with banks exempt from state law .
The states cite a 2014 Second Circuit ruling , Madden v. Midland Funding LLC , which found a debt collector trying to recover a debt at 27 % interest from a borrower was subject to state laws , even though the debt originally came from a national bank .
The OCC says that ruling conflicts with a common law principle called “ valid-when-made ” which exempts loan buyers from state laws if the debt originated from a national bank .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authority to enact the new rule .
According to the states , the Frank-Dodd Act lays out prerequisites that federal agencies must meet before they can finalize a rule that preempts state consumer protection laws .
It requires the federal agency to determine on a case-by-case basis if a state law significantly interferes with the national bank ’ s exercise of its powers , consult the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and have “ substantial evidence ” to support a finding of preemption .
“ In its present rulemaking , the OCC has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedural and substantive requirements , ” the 62-page lawsuit states .
The states further insist that the OCC has failed to justify its dramatic change in position from as recently as May 2018 when it issued a bulletin stating that it “ views unfavorably an entity that partners with a bank with the sole goal of evading a lower interest rate established under the law of the entity ’ s licensing state ( s ) .
” The bulletin was rescinded in May 2020 .
OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the rule was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for lenders that obtain and transfer loans from federally regulated banks .
“ The rule protects the sanctity of legal contracts and provides the legal certainty to support the orderly function of markets and availability of credit , ” Hubbard said by email .
“ We are confident in our authority to issue a rule on this matter and look forward to defending that authority.
” The states say the rule undermines their consumer protection laws .
They seek a court order invalidating the agency ’ s action .
The OCC rule follows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection Bureau on July 7 that rescinds an Obama-era regulation requiring payday lenders to assess whether borrowers taking out loans can afford to pay them back .

Seeking to stop the cycle of unsophisticated borrowers getting trapped in a recurring cycle of debt, multiple states have imposed regulations on payday lenders in recent years – regulations that will no longer apply to some lenders under a new Trump administration rule.
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — Seeking to stop the cycle of unsophisticated borrowers getting trapped in a recurring cycle of debt, multiple states have imposed regulations on payday lenders in recent years — regulations that will no longer apply to some lenders under a new Trump administration rule.
California, Illinois and New York sued the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department, Wednesday over a new rule that makes it easier for lenders to skirt state laws that cap interest rates for payday loans.
The rule finalized on June 2 makes lenders who partner with federally regulated banks exempt from state interest rate caps on loans.
“The OCC creates loopholes that allow predatory lenders to bypass our laws,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement Wednesday. “Particularly during this period of economic crisis, the Trump administration should fight to stop these bad actors, not enable them.”
The states are challenging the new rule on several grounds. They claim OCC lacks the power to enact the rule, that the rule violates procedures created by Congress after the last financial crisis, that it ignores the potential for regulatory evasion of state laws and that OCC fails to provide evidence supporting its change in policy.
The states say the rule contradicts laws enacted by Congress after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, specifically the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which declares in three separate subsections that federal banking laws do not prevent states from regulating subsidiaries, affiliates or agents of national banks.
California tightened its payday lending law last year, setting a 36% interest rate cap for payday loans. Illinois passed laws in 2005 and 2010, capping interest for loans at $15.50 per $100 and 36% for certain loans. New York state has prohibited high interest loan rates for centuries, capping rates for most loans at 25%.
The states say the Trump administration rule will facilitate a “rent-a-bank scheme” in which payday lenders partner with banks, which “act as a mere pass-through for loans that, in substance, are issued by non-bank lenders.” These partnerships allow lenders to evade state laws that do not apply to federally regulated banks.
California notes that several lenders were already scheming to sidestep its consumer protection laws before the OCC finalized its rule. It cites comments by an executive from the company Elevate, doing business in California as Rise, who stated on a July 2019 earnings call as California sought to tighten its laws that it expected “to be able to continue to serve California consumers via bank sponsors that are not subject to the same proposed state rate limitations.”
The states complain that the OCC lacks the power to unilaterally change the law and make third parties that partner with banks exempt from state law. The states cite a 2014 Second Circuit ruling, Madden v. Midland Funding LLC, which found a debt collector trying to recover a debt at 27% interest from a borrower was subject to state laws, even though the debt originally came from a national bank.
The OCC says that ruling conflicts with a common law principle called “valid-when-made” which exempts loan buyers from state laws if the debt originated from a national bank. The OCC claims that legal principle gives it the authority to enact the new rule.
According to the states, the Frank-Dodd Act lays out prerequisites that federal agencies must meet before they can finalize a rule that preempts state consumer protection laws. It requires the federal agency to determine on a case-by-case basis if a state law significantly interferes with the national bank’s exercise of its powers, consult the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and have “substantial evidence” to support a finding of preemption.
“In its present rulemaking, the OCC has failed to abide by any of these procedural and substantive requirements,” the 62-page lawsuit states.
The states further insist that the OCC has failed to justify its dramatic change in position from as recently as May 2018 when it issued a bulletin stating that it “views unfavorably an entity that partners with a bank with the sole goal of evading a lower interest rate established under the law of the entity’s licensing state(s).” The bulletin was rescinded in May 2020.
OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the rule was intended to provide “legal certainty” for lenders that obtain and transfer loans from federally regulated banks.
“The rule protects the sanctity of legal contracts and provides the legal certainty to support the orderly function of markets and availability of credit,” Hubbard said by email. “We are confident in our authority to issue a rule on this matter and look forward to defending that authority.”
The states say the rule undermines their consumer protection laws. They seek a court order invalidating the agency’s action.
The OCC rule follows another rule finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on July 7 that rescinds an Obama-era regulation requiring payday lenders to assess whether borrowers taking out loans can afford to pay them back.


courthousenews--2020-07-29--Despite New Daily Record of Covid Cases, LA County Eyes Reopening Schools

LOS ANGELES ( CN ) — Los Angeles County health officials blame a state agency for a reporting backlog on Wednesday as they reported 91 Covid-related deaths and 4,800 new infections , a new daily record .
LA officials report say a backlog from a state reporting agency since this past Thursday accounts for over 2,000 new infections in Wednesday ’ s report .
Over 1.6 million tests to detect the novel coronavirus have been administered with a 10 % positivity rate , said LA County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer .
Despite the continued spread of the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow school district to reopen for in-person classes this fall .
California will give discretion to local health officers on when public and private schools should reopen for in-person classes and LA County will launch a new application process later this week that will allow school officials to apply for that waiver .
Parents groups , teacher unions and other groups will need to participate in the application process to reopen K-12 schools , Ferrer said , and the overall process will involve consultation with the California Department of Public Health .
Ferrer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be infected with the virus and less likely to experience severe symptoms when they are infected , they can still spread the virus to older people .
“ This doesn ’ t mean Covid-19 is a completely benign disease with children , ” said Ferrer .
Child hospitalizations in Florida jumped by 23 % just as the Sunshine State is set to reopen its schools .
In LA County , children account for about 8 % of confirmed infections among residents .
Younger people between the ages of 18-49 account for most new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LA County have been closed since March 13 .
This past week , the Los Angeles Unified School District — the second largest public school district in the nation — said it would not reopen unless federal dollars poured in to provide testing for all students and faculty .
While there are no firm dates to reopen campuses , guidelines will require students to wear face masks at all times , save young children during nap time .
Hand sanitizer will be readily available , physical distancing will be enforced and team contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For schools to open effectively under a waiver program , you really need an entire school community to be behind that reopening .
You ’ re going to need teachers and staff to be there to provide high quality learning and you ’ re going to need parents willing to send their children , ” said Ferrer .
Officials say there is a concern that sending students back to school in communities with high transmission rates could exacerbate the situation .
That ’ s especially true in Black and Latino communities , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautious approach to reopening schools , its neighbor Orange County looks positively permissive — and combative : The board of education there has voted to sue the state of California to allow schools to reopen this fall .
The Orange County Board of Education plans to sue Governor Gavin Newsom and the state ’ s public health officer .
The law firm Tyler & Bursch is representing the board pro bono .
“ California children have a constitutional right to both an education and equal protection under the law , ” said attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The governor denied them these rights and did so without adequately considering the disparate impact these restrictions would have on the disadvantaged.
” Orange County — which reported 439 new infections and 6 deaths Wednesday — joins a group of parents who sued the state last week to have schools resume in-person classes this fall .
Meanwhile , the economic impact of the pandemic has worsened an already struggling working class making minimum wage .
The governor ’ s office said California will honor a minimum wage increase to $ 14 an hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsom ’ s office also noted more than 3.6 million taxpayers claimed the state ’ s earned income tax credit in the tax year 2019 .
While the amount of the credit varies depending on a person ’ s family status and their hourly wage , families with children can receive up to $ 1,000 by claiming the young child tax credit .
Californians received over $ 1 billion thanks to these credits , Newsom ’ s office said .

Los Angeles County health officials blame a state agency for a reporting backlog on Wednesday as they reported 91 Covid-related deaths and 4,800 new infections, a new daily record.
LOS ANGELES (CN) — Los Angeles County health officials blame a state agency for a reporting backlog on Wednesday as they reported 91 Covid-related deaths and 4,800 new infections, a new daily record.
LA officials report say a backlog from a state reporting agency since this past Thursday accounts for over 2,000 new infections in Wednesday’s report. Over 1.6 million tests to detect the novel coronavirus have been administered with a 10% positivity rate, said LA County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer.
Despite the continued spread of the virus, LA County is working on guidelines to allow school district to reopen for in-person classes this fall. California will give discretion to local health officers on when public and private schools should reopen for in-person classes and LA County will launch a new application process later this week that will allow school officials to apply for that waiver.
Parents groups, teacher unions and other groups will need to participate in the application process to reopen K-12 schools, Ferrer said, and the overall process will involve consultation with the California Department of Public Health.
Ferrer said while children are less likely to be infected with the virus and less likely to experience severe symptoms when they are infected, they can still spread the virus to older people.
“This doesn’t mean Covid-19 is a completely benign disease with children,” said Ferrer.
Child hospitalizations in Florida jumped by 23% just as the Sunshine State is set to reopen its schools.
In LA County, children account for about 8% of confirmed infections among residents. Younger people between the ages of 18-49 account for most new infections now.
All school districts in LA County have been closed since March 13. This past week, the Los Angeles Unified School District — the second largest public school district in the nation — said it would not reopen unless federal dollars poured in to provide testing for all students and faculty.
While there are no firm dates to reopen campuses, guidelines will require students to wear face masks at all times, save young children during nap time. Hand sanitizer will be readily available, physical distancing will be enforced and team contact sports will not be allowed.
“For schools to open effectively under a waiver program, you really need an entire school community to be behind that reopening. You’re going to need teachers and staff to be there to provide high quality learning and you’re going to need parents willing to send their children,” said Ferrer.
Officials say there is a concern that sending students back to school in communities with high transmission rates could exacerbate the situation. That’s especially true in Black and Latino communities, said Ferrer.
Given LA County’s cautious approach to reopening schools, its neighbor Orange County looks positively permissive — and combative: The board of education there has voted to sue the state of California to allow schools to reopen this fall.
The Orange County Board of Education plans to sue Governor Gavin Newsom and the state’s public health officer. The law firm Tyler & Bursch is representing the board pro bono.
“California children have a constitutional right to both an education and equal protection under the law,” said attorney Jennifer Bursch in a statement. “The governor denied them these rights and did so without adequately considering the disparate impact these restrictions would have on the disadvantaged.”
Orange County — which reported 439 new infections and 6 deaths Wednesday — joins a group of parents who sued the state last week to have schools resume in-person classes this fall.
Meanwhile, the economic impact of the pandemic has worsened an already struggling working class making minimum wage. The governor’s office said California will honor a minimum wage increase to $14 an hour set to take effect in 2021.
Newsom’s office also noted more than 3.6 million taxpayers claimed the state’s earned income tax credit in the tax year 2019. While the amount of the credit varies depending on a person’s family status and their hourly wage, families with children can receive up to $1,000 by claiming the young child tax credit.
Californians received over $1 billion thanks to these credits, Newsom’s office said.