courthousenews--2020-09-24--Kentucky Supreme Court Rules Slot Machines Illegal

FRANKFORT , Ky. ( CN ) — The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that historical horse racing slot machines are illegal under the state ’ s definition of pari-mutuel betting , poised to put a dent into the state ’ s billion-dollar gaming industry .
The court ’ s unanimous 7-0 ruling further limits gambling in Kentucky as the state already restricts betting to only horse races and has no casinos .
Oral arguments for the case were held in August , and the court ’ s decision hinged on the exact definition of pari-mutuel wagering and if the betting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Broadly speaking , pari-mutuel wagering refers to a system of wagers where all bets are pooled together , and in which the bettors are essentially wagering among themselves .
This would be opposed by traditional games of chance like blackjack , where the bettors are directly playing and betting against the casino .
The specific machines being challenged create the bettor ’ s odds based on three randomly selected historical horse races , which are usually shown on a screen near the top of the machine .
The court found that because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same exact race , they were not actually betting among themselves which is required by the definition of pari-mutuel wagering .
Another issue found by the court is that the betting pools must be established only by the betting patrons , and that in practice the establishments actually furnish the initial money pool or in certain circumstances may have to replenish the pool if one patron wins it all .
The ruling does not specifically spell out what happens to these games or the establishments that run them , but the court did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We acknowledge the importance and significance of this industry to this Commonwealth .
We appreciate the numerable economic pressures that impact it , ” wrote Justice Laurance VanMeter who authored the opinion .
“ If a change , however , in the long-accepted definition of pari-mutuel wagering is to be made , that change must be made by the people of this Commonwealth through their duly-elected legislators , not by an appointed administrative body and not by the judiciary.
” The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky , a non-profit advocacy group and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court ’ s decision .
“ The Family Foundation is grateful to the justices for seeing through the smoke screen generated by the tracks and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission that for years has masked a form of gambling that ignored the clear legal definition of pari-mutuel wagering , ” said Martin Cothran , a spokesperson for the group , in a statement .
“ This decision reaffirms that words have meaning and that even the state ’ s most powerful industry can ’ t turn the plain language of the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are grateful to the justices on the Court for their common sense ruling that the rule of law still prevails.
” Besides just championing the court ’ s decision , the group also called on all horse racing tracks that run these games to “ cease operations until it can be demonstratively shown that their activities are legal.
” Despite the apparent setback of the court ’ s ruling , attorney Daniel Wallach of Wallach Legal LLC which specializes in sports wagering and gambling law , told Courthouse News that he thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the court was simply “ punting the issue back to the Legislature.
” “ The court is saying if you are going to operate historical horse racing in Kentucky , it has to be pari-mutuel in nature and these games don ’ t fit within that definition , ” Wallach said.
” By no means does this decision outlaw historic horse racing , it just requires it to be truly pari-mutuel in nature in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
” The ruling overturned a decision from the Franklin County Circuit Court that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the definition of pari-mutuel wagering .
Concurring on the ruling were Justices John Minton , Christopher Nickell , Debra Lambert , Lisabeth Hughes , Michelle Keller and Samuel Wright .

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that historical horse racing slot machines are illegal under the state’s definition of pari-mutuel betting, poised to put a dent into the state’s billion-dollar gaming industry.
FRANKFORT, Ky. (CN) — The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that historical horse racing slot machines are illegal under the state’s definition of pari-mutuel betting, poised to put a dent into the state’s billion-dollar gaming industry.
The court’s unanimous 7-0 ruling further limits gambling in Kentucky as the state already restricts betting to only horse races and has no casinos.
Oral arguments for the case were held in August, and the court’s decision hinged on the exact definition of pari-mutuel wagering and if the betting machines in question fit that definition.
Broadly speaking, pari-mutuel wagering refers to a system of wagers where all bets are pooled together, and in which the bettors are essentially wagering among themselves.
This would be opposed by traditional games of chance like blackjack, where the bettors are directly playing and betting against the casino.
The specific machines being challenged create the bettor’s odds based on three randomly selected historical horse races, which are usually shown on a screen near the top of the machine.
The court found that because the bettors were not necessarily wagering on the same exact race, they were not actually betting among themselves which is required by the definition of pari-mutuel wagering.
Another issue found by the court is that the betting pools must be established only by the betting patrons, and that in practice the establishments actually furnish the initial money pool or in certain circumstances may have to replenish the pool if one patron wins it all.
The ruling does not specifically spell out what happens to these games or the establishments that run them, but the court did acknowledge the impact of its ruling.
“We acknowledge the importance and significance of this industry to this Commonwealth. We appreciate the numerable economic pressures that impact it,” wrote Justice Laurance VanMeter who authored the opinion.
“If a change, however, in the long-accepted definition of pari-mutuel wagering is to be made, that change must be made by the people of this Commonwealth through their duly-elected legislators, not by an appointed administrative body and not by the judiciary.”
The Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, a non-profit advocacy group and the case’s plaintiff, celebrated the court’s decision.
“The Family Foundation is grateful to the justices for seeing through the smoke screen generated by the tracks and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission that for years has masked a form of gambling that ignored the clear legal definition of pari-mutuel wagering,” said Martin Cothran, a spokesperson for the group, in a statement.
“This decision reaffirms that words have meaning and that even the state’s most powerful industry can’t turn the plain language of the law upside-down for its own economic benefit. We are grateful to the justices on the Court for their common sense ruling that the rule of law still prevails.”
Besides just championing the court’s decision, the group also called on all horse racing tracks that run these games to “cease operations until it can be demonstratively shown that their activities are legal.”
Despite the apparent setback of the court’s ruling, attorney Daniel Wallach of Wallach Legal LLC which specializes in sports wagering and gambling law, told Courthouse News that he thought the ruling was not doom-and-gloom, and that the court was simply “punting the issue back to the Legislature.”
“The court is saying if you are going to operate historical horse racing in Kentucky, it has to be pari-mutuel in nature and these games don’t fit within that definition,” Wallach said.” By no means does this decision outlaw historic horse racing, it just requires it to be truly pari-mutuel in nature in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”
The ruling overturned a decision from the Franklin County Circuit Court that had found that the machines were legal under the definition of pari-mutuel wagering.
Concurring on the ruling were Justices John Minton, Christopher Nickell, Debra Lambert, Lisabeth Hughes, Michelle Keller and Samuel Wright.


courthousenews--2020-09-24--Missouri Defends Abortion Restriction as Way to Save Children With Down Syndrome

ST. LOUIS — The Missouri State Solicitor General told an Eighth Circuit panel Thursday that the state ’ s tightened abortions protect fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome from discrimination .
“ A radical reduction in the number of the class of people with Down syndrome would inflict an incalculable loss in our society , ” John Sauer told the three-judge panel while making the state ’ s argument .
“ People with Down syndrome are literally one generation away from complete elimination.
” He continued , “ The epidemic of abortion targeting children with Down syndrome for elimination fully because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other reason , is a crisis.
” Planned Parenthood attorney Claudia Hammerman , of Paul , Weiss , Rifkind , Wharton & Garrison LLP in New York , argued that the state ’ s Down syndrome argument contradicts the landmark 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey , which gave women the unfettered right to a pre-viability abortion .
“ Casey is clear that not a single woman can be denied or forbidden to have an abortion , ” Hammerman told the court .
“ This is a complete and entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who in counseling volunteered to her doctor that she is seeking an abortion because they have a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
” At issue is the “ heartbeat ban , ” passed by the state ’ s GOP-dominated Legislature in 2019 , which forbids abortions on or after the eighth week of pregnancy — along with abortions sought solely because the fetus has Down syndrome — with no exceptions for rape or incest .
In addition to the eight-week cutoff , the bill also imposes a penalty of up to 15 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban .
Women who receive abortions would not be prosecuted .
The bill also includes an outright ban on abortions , but only if the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade , the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion up until 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy .
Missouri already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country , with a 72-hour waiting period in addition to the impending eight-week ban .
Planned Parenthood of Missouri filed a lawsuit against the state and its health officials in July 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill into law .
A federal judge blocked Missouri from enforcing the abortion ban in August 2019 , a day before it was set to take effect , which prompted the state ’ s appeal to the Eighth Circuit .
Granting a temporary restraining order Tuesday , U.S. District Judge Howard F. Sachs found that the law would prohibit two-thirds of Planned Parenthood patients from obtaining abortions and about half of the reported abortions in the state .
Similar laws in Arkansas and Ohio have been struck down in court in 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the only judge in the Eighth Circuit appointed by a Democratic president — Barack Obama — questioned Sauer on how the state ’ s restrictions on Down syndrome abortions would square with Casey .
“ Casey did not decide whether a state may prohibit an abortion for a discriminatory reason , ” Sauer said .
Kelly also questioned if the law interfered with a women ’ s right to a pre-viability abortion .
“ I believe Casey says the state can not present a substantial obstacle to a woman ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child , ” Sauer said .
“ It does not say there is right to bear or ( abort ) a particular child , a child with preferable characteristics .
There ’ s nothing anywhere in Casey that says you have a right to a child with these particular characteristics.
” U.S .
Circuit Judge David Stras , a Donald Trump appointee , asked Sauer if there was any consideration given to other disabilities and why just Down syndrome .
Sauer said there is nothing in the legislative record mentioning other diseases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of Down syndrome fetuses is becoming a crisis .
“ I ’ m not aware of anything like the evidence we have of any other class of people on the brink of elimination like the evidence we have in this case , ” Sauer said .
The state ’ s attorney pointed out abortion rates for children with Down syndrome in Denmark , South Korea and the United Kingdom approach 90 % .
Sauer said the United States ’ numbers are somewhere between 67 and 93 % .
Hammerman said the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s lone abortion clinic .
Stras questioned her on the actual harms of Planned Parenthood ’ s case .
“ I think what you ’ re hypothesizing , Your Honor , is that our clients and the doctors at the last remaining abortion clinic in Missouri should have to run the risk of losing their medical license , because someone disagrees as to whether they had any knowledge that Down syndrome was the sole reason for a woman seeking an abortion , ” Hammerman said .
“ And we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put on these providers.
” Hammerman said the doctors have stated they would not provide abortion care to anyone when there is even the possibility of a Down syndrome diagnosis , for fear of legal repercussions , without injunctive relief from the law .
She added the hostile climate of the state toward abortion reinforces the fear her clients have .
“ The suggestion that doctors should risk such Draconian penalty where they are aware of a Down syndrome diagnosis is just unreasonable , ” Hammerman said .
U.S .
Circuit Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointee , joined Kelly and Stras on the panel , which took the matter under advisement .
There is no timetable for a decision .
The lawsuit is the latest in an ongoing legal battle between Planned Parenthood and Missouri .
In another matter , the state attempted to deny Planned Parenthood ’ s abortion license in 2019 , which would have made Missouri the first state without any abortion providers since 1973 .
An administrative hearing commissioner granted the license in May after a week-long hearing in October 2019 .
In yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ruled that the state ’ s attempt to deny Planned Parenthood millions of medical reimbursement payments due to its status as an abortion provider was unconstitutional .

The Missouri State Solicitor General told an Eighth Circuit panel Thursday that the state’s tightened abortions protect fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome from discrimination.
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri State Solicitor General told an Eighth Circuit panel Thursday that the state’s tightened abortions protect fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome from discrimination.
“A radical reduction in the number of the class of people with Down syndrome would inflict an incalculable loss in our society,” John Sauer told the three-judge panel while making the state’s argument. “People with Down syndrome are literally one generation away from complete elimination.”
He continued, “The epidemic of abortion targeting children with Down syndrome for elimination fully because of their disability, not for any other reason, is a crisis.”
Planned Parenthood attorney Claudia Hammerman, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP in New York, argued that the state’s Down syndrome argument contradicts the landmark 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which gave women the unfettered right to a pre-viability abortion.
“Casey is clear that not a single woman can be denied or forbidden to have an abortion,” Hammerman told the court. “This is a complete and entire ban. This will prohibit any woman, who in counseling volunteered to her doctor that she is seeking an abortion because they have a diagnosis of Down syndrome.”
At issue is the “heartbeat ban,” passed by the state’s GOP-dominated Legislature in 2019, which forbids abortions on or after the eighth week of pregnancy — along with abortions sought solely because the fetus has Down syndrome — with no exceptions for rape or incest. In addition to the eight-week cutoff, the bill also imposes a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for doctors who violate the ban. Women who receive abortions would not be prosecuted.
The bill also includes an outright ban on abortions, but only if the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion up until 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Missouri already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, with a 72-hour waiting period in addition to the impending eight-week ban.
Planned Parenthood of Missouri filed a lawsuit against the state and its health officials in July 2019 after Republican Governor Mike Parson signed the bill into law.
A federal judge blocked Missouri from enforcing the abortion ban in August 2019, a day before it was set to take effect, which prompted the state’s appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
Granting a temporary restraining order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Howard F. Sachs found that the law would prohibit two-thirds of Planned Parenthood patients from obtaining abortions and about half of the reported abortions in the state.
Similar laws in Arkansas and Ohio have been struck down in court in 2019.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jane L. Kelly, the only judge in the Eighth Circuit appointed by a Democratic president — Barack Obama — questioned Sauer on how the state’s restrictions on Down syndrome abortions would square with Casey.
“Casey did not decide whether a state may prohibit an abortion for a discriminatory reason,” Sauer said.
Kelly also questioned if the law interfered with a women’s right to a pre-viability abortion.
“I believe Casey says the state cannot present a substantial obstacle to a woman’s decision to bear or (abort) a child,” Sauer said. “It does not say there is right to bear or (abort) a particular child, a child with preferable characteristics. There’s nothing anywhere in Casey that says you have a right to a child with these particular characteristics.”
U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, a Donald Trump appointee, asked Sauer if there was any consideration given to other disabilities and why just Down syndrome.
Sauer said there is nothing in the legislative record mentioning other diseases, but he emphasized that the “elimination” of Down syndrome fetuses is becoming a crisis.
“I’m not aware of anything like the evidence we have of any other class of people on the brink of elimination like the evidence we have in this case,” Sauer said.
The state’s attorney pointed out abortion rates for children with Down syndrome in Denmark, South Korea and the United Kingdom approach 90%. Sauer said the United States’ numbers are somewhere between 67 and 93%.
Hammerman said the law has a chilling effect on doctors at the state’s lone abortion clinic. Stras questioned her on the actual harms of Planned Parenthood’s case.
“I think what you're hypothesizing, Your Honor, is that our clients and the doctors at the last remaining abortion clinic in Missouri should have to run the risk of losing their medical license, because someone disagrees as to whether they had any knowledge that Down syndrome was the sole reason for a woman seeking an abortion,” Hammerman said. “And we think that this is a completely inappropriate burden to put on these providers.”
Hammerman said the doctors have stated they would not provide abortion care to anyone when there is even the possibility of a Down syndrome diagnosis, for fear of legal repercussions, without injunctive relief from the law. She added the hostile climate of the state toward abortion reinforces the fear her clients have.
“The suggestion that doctors should risk such Draconian penalty where they are aware of a Down syndrome diagnosis is just unreasonable,” Hammerman said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Roger L. Wollman, a Ronald Reagan appointee, joined Kelly and Stras on the panel, which took the matter under advisement. There is no timetable for a decision.
The lawsuit is the latest in an ongoing legal battle between Planned Parenthood and Missouri.
In another matter, the state attempted to deny Planned Parenthood’s abortion license in 2019, which would have made Missouri the first state without any abortion providers since 1973. An administrative hearing commissioner granted the license in May after a week-long hearing in October 2019.
In yet another civil matter, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the state’s attempt to deny Planned Parenthood millions of medical reimbursement payments due to its status as an abortion provider was unconstitutional.


courthousenews--2020-09-25--Minnesota Race for US House Seat Delayed Following Candidate Death

ST. PAUL , Minn. ( CN ) — A U.S. House election in Minnesota will be delayed until February following the unexpected death of a third-party candidate , setting up a special election brought by a unique state law .
Adam Weeks , 38 , died earlier this week , according to Legal Marijuana Now Party ’ s U.S. Senate candidate , Kevin O ’ Connor .
Weeks was the party ’ s candidate for Minnesota ’ s 2nd Congressional District , which includes much of the southern Twin Cities metro area and stretches southeastward .
His cause of death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner and his obituary said he had passed away unexpectedly at his home in the southern Minnesota city of Red Wing .
Weeks ’ partner , Gabby Ulan , told local news station KSTP that he had been found dead after family members requested a welfare check , and that an autopsy has been requested .
A friend of Weeks told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that Weeks had struggled with addiction and that he had worried about his friend ’ s health after a ski accident last year .
A law passed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event of the death of any candidate from a major party within the 79 days preceding the election .
Legal Marijuana Now cleared the major-party bar in the 2018 elections when its candidate for state auditor , Michael Ford , received more than 5 % of the vote .
Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon gave his condolences to Weeks ’ family and friends in a statement , adding that that statute would be followed .
“ The loss of any of us is a tragedy , and that ’ s felt especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a campaign to serve in public office , ” Simon said .
“ The law is clear on what happens next.
” The election will be held on Feb. 9 , 2021 .
Incumbent Angie Craig , of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party , is expected to vacate the seat after her term ends on Jan. 3 .
The law requiring a special election was passed in part as a response to the sudden 2002 death of U.S .
Senator Paul Wellstone in a plane crash less than two weeks before an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stepped in to replace Wellstone on the 2002 ballot , but GOP challenger Norm Coleman won the seat , which he held for one term until his 2008 defeat by Al Franken in a hotly contested recount .
Simon , then a state representative from the Minneapolis suburb of Hopkins , sponsored that bill .
Legal Marijuana Now is one of two major third parties in Minnesota ; the other , the Grassroots party , similarly focuses on marijuana legalization as its key issue .
Weeks ’ website lists the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plank , tying the issue to racial justice , fiscal responsibility and crime .
The party has until Nov. 10 to pick a new nominee , according to Simon .
Onetime Senate candidate Dennis Schuller told the Star Tribune that party meetings will happen in the next couple of weeks .
Craig and GOP opponent Tyler Kistner both offered their condolences to Weeks ’ family in statements and on Twitter , but neither has publicly discussed his death ’ s impact on the election .
The race for the Second District is considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polling showed Craig leading Kistner by seven percentage points in July , with Weeks picking up the support of 6 % of voters .
The seat has been a major target for both parties in recent years : Craig ’ s 2018 defeat of GOP incumbent and freshman representative Jason Lewis , now a candidate for the U.S. Senate , ended a string of Republican victories stretching back to 2000 .
She is the sixth-ever Democrat to hold the seat , and had lost narrowly to Lewis in 2016 .
Ballots have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the congressional race on them , Simon ’ s office said , and will not be changed in advance of the Nov. 3 general election .
Any votes cast in that race will not be counted .

A U.S. House election in Minnesota will be delayed until February following the unexpected death of a third-party candidate, setting up a special election brought by a unique state law.
Adam Weeks (Photo courtesy of Legal Marijuana Now Party)
ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) — A U.S. House election in Minnesota will be delayed until February following the unexpected death of a third-party candidate, setting up a special election brought by a unique state law.
Adam Weeks, 38, died earlier this week, according to Legal Marijuana Now Party’s U.S. Senate candidate, Kevin O’Connor. Weeks was the party’s candidate for Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes much of the southern Twin Cities metro area and stretches southeastward. His cause of death remains unclear, but family, his partner and his obituary said he had passed away unexpectedly at his home in the southern Minnesota city of Red Wing.
Weeks’ partner, Gabby Ulan, told local news station KSTP that he had been found dead after family members requested a welfare check, and that an autopsy has been requested. A friend of Weeks told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that Weeks had struggled with addiction and that he had worried about his friend’s health after a ski accident last year.
A law passed in 2013 requires a special election in the event of the death of any candidate from a major party within the 79 days preceding the election. Legal Marijuana Now cleared the major-party bar in the 2018 elections when its candidate for state auditor, Michael Ford, received more than 5% of the vote.
Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon gave his condolences to Weeks’ family and friends in a statement, adding that that statute would be followed.
“The loss of any of us is a tragedy, and that’s felt especially in someone who has put his energy into a campaign to serve in public office,” Simon said. "The law is clear on what happens next.”
The election will be held on Feb. 9, 2021. Incumbent Angie Craig, of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, is expected to vacate the seat after her term ends on Jan. 3.
The law requiring a special election was passed in part as a response to the sudden 2002 death of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone in a plane crash less than two weeks before an election.
Former Vice President Walter Mondale stepped in to replace Wellstone on the 2002 ballot, but GOP challenger Norm Coleman won the seat, which he held for one term until his 2008 defeat by Al Franken in a hotly contested recount. Simon, then a state representative from the Minneapolis suburb of Hopkins, sponsored that bill.
Legal Marijuana Now is one of two major third parties in Minnesota; the other, the Grassroots party, similarly focuses on marijuana legalization as its key issue. Weeks’ website lists the end of the war on drugs as his major platform plank, tying the issue to racial justice, fiscal responsibility and crime.
The party has until Nov. 10 to pick a new nominee, according to Simon. Onetime Senate candidate Dennis Schuller told the Star Tribune that party meetings will happen in the next couple of weeks.
Craig and GOP opponent Tyler Kistner both offered their condolences to Weeks’ family in statements and on Twitter, but neither has publicly discussed his death’s impact on the election.
The race for the Second District is considered competitive, though not a nail-biter. Polling showed Craig leading Kistner by seven percentage points in July, with Weeks picking up the support of 6% of voters.
The seat has been a major target for both parties in recent years: Craig’s 2018 defeat of GOP incumbent and freshman representative Jason Lewis, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, ended a string of Republican victories stretching back to 2000. She is the sixth-ever Democrat to hold the seat, and had lost narrowly to Lewis in 2016.
Ballots have already been mailed out for the 2020 elections with the congressional race on them, Simon’s office said, and will not be changed in advance of the Nov. 3 general election. Any votes cast in that race will not be counted.


Election Grants

MILWAUKEE — The Wisconsin Voters Alliance and a group of eligible voters sued the five most populous cities in Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ than $ 6 million in federal election grant money from a left-leaning advocacy group , @ @ @ @ @ Vote Act preempts municipalities from accepting private federal grant money .

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


courthousenews--2020-09-25--Right to Carry Gun in Public Debated at Ninth Circuit

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — In a case challenging a Hawaii gun restriction that could affect state gun laws across the country , an attorney told an en banc Ninth Circuit panel Thursday that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t categorically bar all restrictions on carrying guns outside the home .
“ Hawaii ’ s law is squarely rooted in a long historical tradition going back seven centuries , ” said attorney Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells in Washington D.C. , who represents the state and county of Hawaii .
“ That tradition shows that carrying firearms in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the right to keep and bear arms.
” Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun .
A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public .
Under a Hawaii County regulation , the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “ reason to fear injury ” to their “ person or property.
” No one other than a security guard has ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers for the county acknowledged during a previous Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018 .
In July 2018 , a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii can not deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right .
By ruling against state laws that ban carrying guns in public , the Ninth Circuit joined two other circuit courts that have issued similar rulings : the D.C .
Circuit and Seventh Circuit .
Meanwhile , the Second , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearm restrictions , making the issue ripe for potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court .
Writing for the majority in the Ninth Circuit ’ s 2018 opinion , Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O ’ Scannlain , a Ronald Reagan appointee , found the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller , which established a constitutional right to keep a gun inside one ’ s home for self-defense , also applies to carrying a gun outside the home for self defense .
Arguing before an 11-judge en banc panel Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the County of Hawaii ’ s regulations do not limit open-carry permits to security guards .
He cited the Hawaii Attorney General ’ s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “ a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.
” “ Individuals can carry firearms if they have good cause , ” Katyal said .
“ That is what Hawaii ’ s law actually is.
” Katyal implored the judges not to focus on data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open-carry permits .
The court must instead look to the plain text of the statute , he said .
Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson , a Donald Trump appointee , said he interprets the text of the county ’ s regulation as only allowing security guards to obtain open-carry permits .
“ You would agree that the regulation itself is unconstitutional , meaning the Second Amendment would not permit that , ” Nelson asked .
Katyal replied that the court need not reach the question of constitutionality because any rule that would limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inconsistent with what Hawaii ’ s state law is.
” Representing the plaintiff , attorney Alan Beck of San Diego argued that even if the Ninth Circuit accepts the Hawaii Attorney General ’ s “ curiously timed ” 2018 opinion , the law remains unconstitutional because it gives the police chief “ unbridled discretion , ” which he can use to deny permits to anyone who is not a security guard .
He said the permitting scheme also violates the right to due process by not providing fair notice of what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Katyal insisted that Young forfeited his right to challenge the county ’ s as-applied regulations by not raising the argument in district court .
He said the Ninth Circuit may only consider Young ’ s lawsuit as a facial challenge , or claim that the text of the statute is unconstitutional .
Katyal argued that the Ninth Circuit ’ s 2018 opinion failed to consider the long history of good-cause restrictions on openly carrying firearms stretching back to 1328 when the English Parliament enacted the statute of Northampton barring carrying weapons in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s justices , according to an amicus brief filed by 10 history and law professors from the nation ’ s top schools .
The attorney also cited 30 states that had restrictions on openly carrying firearms in the early 20th century to support Hawaii ’ s argument that these laws are longstanding , a factor the Supreme Court in Heller said should be considered when determining the constitutionality of gun restrictions .
Hawaii ’ s open-carry gun restriction law is 168 years old , Katyal said .
Despite the long history lesson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a George W. Bush appointee who joined O ’ Scannlain in ruling against Hawaii ’ s open-carry restriction in 2018 , seemed unimpressed .
“ The history — which I find very ambiguous — your argument as to history is merely that this right to bear arms is not a core right so that it can be restricted .
Is that correct , ” Ikuta asked .
“ No , ” Katyal replied .
“ You can see it as a core right , but it ’ s always been subject to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” After an hour of debate , the 11-judge panel took the arguments under submission .
Joining Nelson and Ikuta on the panel were Bill Clinton appointees William Fletcher , M. Margaret McKeown , Kim McLane Wardlaw , and Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas .
The panel also included George W. Bush appointees Richard Clifton , Jay Bybee and Consuelo Callahan .
Michelle Friedland , a Barack Obama appointee , rounded out the panel .

In a case challenging a Hawaii gun restriction that could affect state gun laws across the country, an attorney told an en banc Ninth Circuit panel Thursday that the Second Amendment doesn’t categorically bar all restrictions on carrying guns outside the home.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — In a case challenging a Hawaii gun restriction that could affect state gun laws across the country, an attorney told an en banc Ninth Circuit panel Thursday that the Second Amendment doesn’t categorically bar all restrictions on carrying guns outside the home.
“Hawaii’s law is squarely rooted in a long historical tradition going back seven centuries,” said attorney Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells in Washington D.C., who represents the state and county of Hawaii. “That tradition shows that carrying firearms in public without good cause has never been part of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.
Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a previous Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.
In July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.
By ruling against state laws that ban carrying guns in public, the Ninth Circuit joined two other circuit courts that have issued similar rulings: the D.C. Circuit and Seventh Circuit. Meanwhile, the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits have upheld open-carry firearm restrictions, making the issue ripe for potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Writing for the majority in the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 opinion, Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, found the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established a constitutional right to keep a gun inside one’s home for self-defense, also applies to carrying a gun outside the home for self defense.
Arguing before an 11-judge en banc panel Thursday, Katyal explained that Hawaii state law and the County of Hawaii’s regulations do not limit open-carry permits to security guards. He cited the Hawaii Attorney General’s 2018 guidance stating that an applicant can obtain an open-carry permit by demonstrating “a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.”
“Individuals can carry firearms if they have good cause,” Katyal said. “That is what Hawaii’s law actually is.”
Katyal implored the judges not to focus on data showing that only security guards have obtained open-carry permits. The court must instead look to the plain text of the statute, he said.
Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, said he interprets the text of the county's regulation as only allowing security guards to obtain open-carry permits.
“You would agree that the regulation itself is unconstitutional, meaning the Second Amendment would not permit that,” Nelson asked.
Katyal replied that the court need not reach the question of constitutionality because any rule that would limit permits to security guards “is flatly inconsistent with what Hawaii’s state law is.”
Representing the plaintiff, attorney Alan Beck of San Diego argued that even if the Ninth Circuit accepts the Hawaii Attorney General’s “curiously timed” 2018 opinion, the law remains unconstitutional because it gives the police chief “unbridled discretion,” which he can use to deny permits to anyone who is not a security guard. He said the permitting scheme also violates the right to due process by not providing fair notice of what’s required to qualify for an open-carry license.
Katyal insisted that Young forfeited his right to challenge the county’s as-applied regulations by not raising the argument in district court. He said the Ninth Circuit may only consider Young’s lawsuit as a facial challenge, or claim that the text of the statute is unconstitutional.
Katyal argued that the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 opinion failed to consider the long history of good-cause restrictions on openly carrying firearms stretching back to 1328 when the English Parliament enacted the statute of Northampton barring carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices, according to an amicus brief filed by 10 history and law professors from the nation’s top schools.
The attorney also cited 30 states that had restrictions on openly carrying firearms in the early 20th century to support Hawaii’s argument that these laws are longstanding, a factor the Supreme Court in Heller said should be considered when determining the constitutionality of gun restrictions.
Hawaii’s open-carry gun restriction law is 168 years old, Katyal said.
Despite the long history lesson, Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, a George W. Bush appointee who joined O’Scannlain in ruling against Hawaii’s open-carry restriction in 2018, seemed unimpressed.
“The history — which I find very ambiguous — your argument as to history is merely that this right to bear arms is not a core right so that it can be restricted. Is that correct,” Ikuta asked.
“No,” Katyal replied. “You can see it as a core right, but it’s always been subject to a good cause restriction in every time period.”
After an hour of debate, the 11-judge panel took the arguments under submission.
Joining Nelson and Ikuta on the panel were Bill Clinton appointees William Fletcher, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas. The panel also included George W. Bush appointees Richard Clifton, Jay Bybee and Consuelo Callahan. Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, rounded out the panel.


courthousenews--2020-09-25--Los Angeles DA Declines to Charge Journalist Arrested While Reporting

LOS ANGELES ( CN ) — Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey declined Thursday to criminally charge a journalist who was violently arrested while she was filming an arrest , saying in a memo the reporter was not interfering with the officers ’ actions and clearly identified herself as press .
KPCC reporter Josie Huang was reporting on a Sep. 13 protest in South LA against police violence and on the apparent ambush shooting of two LA County Sheriff ’ s Department officers the day prior .
Just after midnight , while Huang was filming LASD officers arresting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a police officer not part of the arrest approached Huang and asked her to move away from the scene .
Huang recorded the next sequence of events on her cell phone and , according to the video , she backed up and identified herself as press .
But the officer immediately grabbed Huang ’ s arm and violently pulled her to the ground before she was arrested by LASD deputies .
In the cell phone video and in videos captured by other news media outlets , Huang is seen lying face down on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reporter and yelling out the call letters KPCC .
The arrest drew widespread condemnation from LA County elected officials and news media organizations , including NPR and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press .
The sheriff ’ s department later refuted Huang ’ s claims that she identified herself as a credentialed member of the press , saying she only carried her KPCC work ID around her neck when she was arrested .
In a charge evaluation report released Thursday by the district attorney ’ s office , prosecutors said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself as a journalist because they told her , “ Do what you ’ re told if you ’ re a reporter.
” In declining to pursue LASD ’ s criminal charges , prosecutors affirmed Huang ’ s assertion that she was not interfering with law enforcement that night .
“ It does not appear that she was intentionally attempting to interfere with the deputies , but merely trying to record the occurrence , ” the DA ’ s office report said .
“ While she was in close proximity to deputies making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to ask her to back up , Ms. Huang was not given the opportunity to comply with their demand.
” LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the DA ’ s decision , but an LASD spokesperson spoke about the matter .
“ Unfortunately , Ms. Huang inserted herself too close to the highly charged situation as an arrest was being made .
This case was investigated and all the elements of the crime were present .
The case was presented to the Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ultimately declined to prosecute .
This is not uncommon , as they must weigh many factors into their decision .
An internal investigation was opened in this matter and appropriate administrative action will be taken .
We are unable to provide further comment at this time , due to personnel privacy laws.
” Villanueva has defended Huang ’ s arrest , adding another layer to his feud with LA County leaders who say he should resign for continuously hampering efforts to infuse LASD with transparency and accountability .
In a press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to identify herself as a reporter , a claim that was disproven by video evidence of the arrest , and that she crossed from journalism to “ activism ” when she recorded officers arresting a protester .
Earlier this month , LA County Inspector General Max Huntsman told an LASD watchdog group the department is impeding his investigation into Huang ’ s arrest and other issues including recent fatal police shootings .

Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey declined Thursday to criminally charge a journalist who was violently arrested while she was filming an arrest, saying in a memo the reporter was not interfering with the officers’ actions and clearly identified herself as press.
LOS ANGELES (CN) — Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey declined Thursday to criminally charge a journalist who was violently arrested while she was filming an arrest, saying in a memo the reporter was not interfering with the officers’ actions and clearly identified herself as press.
KPCC reporter Josie Huang was reporting on a Sep. 13 protest in South LA against police violence and on the apparent ambush shooting of two LA County Sheriff’s Department officers the day prior.
Just after midnight, while Huang was filming LASD officers arresting a protester outside a hospital in Lynwood, a police officer not part of the arrest approached Huang and asked her to move away from the scene.
Huang recorded the next sequence of events on her cell phone and, according to the video, she backed up and identified herself as press.
But the officer immediately grabbed Huang’s arm and violently pulled her to the ground before she was arrested by LASD deputies.
In the cell phone video and in videos captured by other news media outlets, Huang is seen lying face down on the ground, clearly identifying herself as a reporter and yelling out the call letters KPCC.
The arrest drew widespread condemnation from LA County elected officials and news media organizations, including NPR and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The sheriff’s department later refuted Huang’s claims that she identified herself as a credentialed member of the press, saying she only carried her KPCC work ID around her neck when she was arrested.
In a charge evaluation report released Thursday by the district attorney’s office, prosecutors said at least one officer heard Huang identify herself as a journalist because they told her, “Do what you’re told if you’re a reporter.”
In declining to pursue LASD’s criminal charges, prosecutors affirmed Huang’s assertion that she was not interfering with law enforcement that night.
“It does not appear that she was intentionally attempting to interfere with the deputies, but merely trying to record the occurrence,” the DA’s office report said. “While she was in close proximity to deputies making an arrest, and while deputies had reason to ask her to back up, Ms. Huang was not given the opportunity to comply with their demand.”
LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the DA’s decision, but an LASD spokesperson spoke about the matter.
“Unfortunately, Ms. Huang inserted herself too close to the highly charged situation as an arrest was being made. This case was investigated and all the elements of the crime were present. The case was presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and they ultimately declined to prosecute. This is not uncommon, as they must weigh many factors into their decision. An internal investigation was opened in this matter and appropriate administrative action will be taken. We are unable to provide further comment at this time, due to personnel privacy laws.”
Villanueva has defended Huang’s arrest, adding another layer to his feud with LA County leaders who say he should resign for continuously hampering efforts to infuse LASD with transparency and accountability.
In a press conference, the sheriff said Huang failed to identify herself as a reporter, a claim that was disproven by video evidence of the arrest, and that she crossed from journalism to “activism” when she recorded officers arresting a protester.
Earlier this month, LA County Inspector General Max Huntsman told an LASD watchdog group the department is impeding his investigation into Huang’s arrest and other issues including recent fatal police shootings.


courthousenews--2020-09-25--Amid Battle Over Ginsburg’s Seat, Bipartisan Votes Advance District Judges

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — While the warring over President Donald Trump ’ s forthcoming pick to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat raged in the Senate , members cast bipartisan votes to confirm two nominees to fill district judgeships .
With a 93-2 vote , both parties sealed the confirmation of Roderick C. Young to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia on Thursday morning .
Virginia senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine recommended Young for the judgeship , to fill a seat in Norfolk held by a George H.W .
Bush appointee taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia , Young served as deputy criminal supervisor in 2012 before his appointment as a magistrate judge in 2014 .
“ Recommendations from various bar associations and their individual members within the commonwealth reflect that practitioners would respect his rulings and that litigants would have reassurance of receiving a fair trial , ” Warner and Kaine wrote to the White House in March .
By a slimmer margin , the Senate with a 70-27 vote confirmed John Charles Hinderaker to be U.S. District Judge for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hinderaker advances to the federal court after serving two years on the Arizona Superior Court for Pima County , appointed by Governor Doug Ducey to the seat in 2018 .
Before donning robes , Hinderaker litigated for two decades at the Tucson , Arizona firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie , where he specialized in commercial litigation .

While the warring over President Donald Trump’s forthcoming pick to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat raged in the Senate, members cast bipartisan votes to confirm two nominees to fill district judgeships.
WASHINGTON (CN) — While the warring over President Donald Trump’s forthcoming pick to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat raged in the Senate, members cast bipartisan votes to confirm two nominees to fill district judgeships.
With a 93-2 vote, both parties sealed the confirmation of Roderick C. Young to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia on Thursday morning.
Virginia senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine recommended Young for the judgeship, to fill a seat in Norfolk held by a George H.W. Bush appointee taking senior status.
After 12 years as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Young served as deputy criminal supervisor in 2012 before his appointment as a magistrate judge in 2014.
“Recommendations from various bar associations and their individual members within the commonwealth reflect that practitioners would respect his rulings and that litigants would have reassurance of receiving a fair trial,” Warner and Kaine wrote to the White House in March.
By a slimmer margin, the Senate with a 70-27 vote confirmed John Charles Hinderaker to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona on Wednesday afternoon.
Hinderaker advances to the federal court after serving two years on the Arizona Superior Court for Pima County, appointed by Governor Doug Ducey to the seat in 2018.
Before donning robes, Hinderaker litigated for two decades at the Tucson, Arizona firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, where he specialized in commercial litigation.


That’s Bull

PARIS , Ark .
— A woman says she was “ gored , trampled and almost killed ” by a @ @ @ @ @ the ring at an Independence Day rodeo event .


Scooter Dangers

SAN FRANCISCO — A class claims Uber placed its Jump scooters in cities around the nation but did not equip @ @ @ @ @ — a dangerous problem when users attempting to use hand signals drive the scooters with @ @ @


courthousenews--2020-09-25--Federal Judge Suspicious of Trump Officials Hiking Immigration Fees

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — Fees paid by immigrants applying for asylum , work permits and U.S. citizenship will skyrocket next month , advocates warned in Washington Thursday , arguing the increases are unlawful because the two federal officials who signed off on the hikes were not Senate confirmed .
“ The proper place for DHS to seek these funds is Congress , not the pockets of immigrants , ” Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Rebecca Smullin said in the hearing .
The Department of Homeland Security argued Thursday that overturning the rule set to go into effect on Oct. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration applications and likely result in higher fees down the road .
The hikes will more than double the fee to apply for naturalization , bringing the total cost to $ 1,735 .
The rule also creates a never-before-seen nonwaivable $ 50 fee for asylum applications — making the United States one of only four countries in the world with such a charge for humanitarian protection — and will require biometric services fees of $ 30 to $ 85 for multiple immigration-related applications .
The preliminary injunction argument heard in Washington Thursday was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought against the DHS rule , with hearings scheduled in California on Friday and Massachusetts next month .
The weight of the case by immigrant advocates focuses on former acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan proposing the final rule , later finalized by Chad Wolf , the current acting Homeland Security Secretary .
A government watchdog recently concluded that both officials ’ appointments were invalid .
President Donald Trump is currently in the process of officially naming Wolf as head of DHS .
While Wolf has ratified the rule developed under McAleenan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ smoke and mirrors on the agency ’ s behalf , ” Smullin said , representing the immigrant advocates .
DHS directing the funds to cover expenses outside naturalization and adjudication , specifically intelligence work , fraud deterrence and an interagency program providing information on immigrants , is equally problematic , the attorney argued .
The Government Accountability Office said both McAleenan and Wolf evaded the lawful order of succession after former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen stepped down in 2019 .
Months prior , a federal judge ruled the Trump administration also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the case heard Thursday , to head the U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services .
Critics of the new DHS fees say they reflect a “ willingness to disregard the rule of law in pursuit of its anti-immigrant and xenophobic agenda.
” But the Justice Department argued Thursday that both McAleenan and Wolf were well within their authority as acting officials to roll out the new policy .
U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss drilled the government with detailed questions on the constitutionality of their argument .
Harkening as far back as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Constitutional Convention , the judge said Trump ’ s succession of immigration leadership does not seem to be what the Framers had in mind .
The government argued that as acting secretary , McAleenan had the power to designate Wolf as his successor , pointing to a 2019 D.C .
Circuit decision that “ an acting officer is vested with the same authority that could be exercised by the officer for whom he acts.
” But Moss questioned whether that “ same authority ” covers appointing successors to be head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not aware of any precedent that says that can be done .
But maybe you can point me to some , ” the judge said .
However , the government failed to provide a prior case to back the argument that McAleenan and Wolf were vested with the same full power as an official approved by the Senate .
An Obama appointee , Moss said there also needed to be more explanation on the budgets outlined in the final rule issued Aug. 3 .
Justice Department attorney Chetan Patil said the agency laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fee increase , arguing against the “ plaintiffs ’ claim that what the agency is saying is ‘ just trust our budget.
’ ” But Smullin said the spending breakdown was difficult for the average person to interpret during the mandated notice-and-comment period of the rulemaking process and “ sheds no light on how the budget was built in the first place .
”

Fees paid by immigrants applying for asylum, work permits and U.S. citizenship will skyrocket next month, advocates warned in Washington Thursday, arguing the increases are unlawful because the two federal officials who signed off on the hikes were not Senate confirmed.
WASHINGTON (CN) — Fees paid by immigrants applying for asylum, work permits and U.S. citizenship will skyrocket next month, advocates warned in Washington Thursday, arguing the increases are unlawful because the two federal officials who signed off on the hikes were not Senate confirmed.
“The proper place for DHS to seek these funds is Congress, not the pockets of immigrants,” Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Rebecca Smullin said in the hearing.
The Department of Homeland Security argued Thursday that overturning the rule set to go into effect on Oct. 2 would only swell the backlog of immigration applications and likely result in higher fees down the road.
The hikes will more than double the fee to apply for naturalization, bringing the total cost to $1,710, or $1,610 for online applications. The rule also creates a never-before-seen nonwaivable $50 fee for asylum applications — making the United States one of only four countries in the world with such a charge for humanitarian protection — and will require biometric services fees of $30 to $85 for multiple immigration-related applications.
The preliminary injunction argument heard in Washington Thursday was the first of three such legal challenges brought against the DHS rule, with hearings scheduled in California on Friday and Massachusetts next month.
The weight of the case by immigrant advocates focuses on former acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan proposing the final rule, later finalized by Chad Wolf, the current acting Homeland Security Secretary.
A government watchdog recently concluded that both officials’ appointments were invalid. President Donald Trump is currently in the process of officially naming Wolf as head of DHS.
While Wolf has ratified the rule developed under McAleenan, the move amounts to nothing more than “smoke and mirrors on the agency's behalf,” Smullin said, representing the immigrant advocates.
DHS directing the funds to cover expenses outside naturalization and adjudication, specifically intelligence work, fraud deterrence and an interagency program providing information on immigrants, is equally problematic, the attorney argued.
The Government Accountability Office said both McAleenan and Wolf evaded the lawful order of succession after former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen stepped down in 2019. Months prior, a federal judge ruled the Trump administration also unconstitutionally selected Ken Cuccinelli, a co-defendant in the case heard Thursday, to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Critics of the new DHS fees say they reflect a “willingness to disregard the rule of law in pursuit of its anti-immigrant and xenophobic agenda.”
But the Justice Department argued Thursday that both McAleenan and Wolf were well within their authority as acting officials to roll out the new policy.
U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss drilled the government with detailed questions on the constitutionality of their argument.
Harkening as far back as the initial debates on the appointments clause at the Constitutional Convention, the judge said Trump’s succession of immigration leadership does not seem to be what the Framers had in mind.
The government argued that as acting secretary, McAleenan had the power to designate Wolf as his successor, pointing to a 2019 D.C. Circuit decision that “an acting officer is vested with the same authority that could be exercised by the officer for whom he acts.”
But Moss questioned whether that “same authority” covers appointing successors to be head of an agency.
“I’m not aware of any precedent that says that can be done. But maybe you can point me to some,” the judge said.
However, the government failed to provide a prior case to back the argument that McAleenan and Wolf were vested with the same full power as an official approved by the Senate.
An Obama appointee, Moss said there also needed to be more explanation on the budgets outlined in the final rule issued Aug. 3.
Justice Department attorney Chetan Patil said the agency laid out how each cost equated to a fee increase, arguing against the “plaintiffs’ claim that what the agency is saying is ‘just trust our budget.’”
But Smullin said the spending breakdown was difficult for the average person to interpret during the mandated notice-and-comment period of the rulemaking process and “sheds no light on how the budget was built in the first place.”


courthousenews--2020-09-26--Federal Judge Removes Acting Director of Bureau of Land Management

( CN ) — A Montana federal judge ruled Friday that Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management William Perry Pendley has been unlawfully serving in the position for over a year .
Despite being on the verge of completing a full term in the White House , President Donald Trump has faced criticism for allowing a number of ranking administration officials to carry out official duties in an acting capacity only , and therefore without receiving any kind of official confirmation from the Senate .
Trump , for his part , has seemingly showed an openness to having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and officials , telling reporters last year that “ I sort of like ‘ acting , ’ ” and that it “ gives me more flexibility.
” Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than at the Bureau of Land Management , a crucial agency within the Department of the Interior that is responsible for overseeing and managing over 200 million acres of public land .
During Trump ’ s term in office , five different individuals have served in some capacity as director of the BLM , but none of them have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting director Pendley was appointed by Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt in July 2019 to serve as a deputy director , a position he held for just three months before becoming acting director .
Pendley has served as acting director of the BLM ever since , even after his official nomination to lead the agency was withdrawn earlier this month .
Some have opted to take the Trump administration to task over its usage of acting directors , notably Democratic Montana Governor Steve Bullock .
Earlier this year , Bullock filed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Interior , Pendley and Bernhardt with allegations that the officials had violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act by allowing Pendley to remain in office for so long without an official confirmation hearing .
“ The Federal Vacancies Reform Act bars Presidents from circumventing the Constitution by putting people in charge of federal agencies before they are Senate-confirmed , ” the complaint filed in July states .
“ But that is precisely what has happened here .
Pendley ’ s tenure—and the actions the Bureau has taken , and continues to take during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court to declare that Pendley ’ s time at the BLM has been unlawful and that he should be stopped from carrying out any more official duties as an acting director .
On Friday , U.S. District Judge Brian Morris , an Obama appointee , did exactly that .
In a 34-page ruling , Morris found that while disagreements between the president and the Senate can result in delays regarding confirmation hearings on certain officials , and that there are some allowances given to ensure that a department can continue operating during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far .
“ The President can not shelter unconstitutional ‘ temporary ’ appointments for the duration of his presidency through a matryoshka doll of delegated authorities , ” Morris wrote .
Morris specifically discussed a pair of memos and orders that made Pendley acting director in the first place , orders that used careful language to avoid designating Pendley as such — despite empowering him with acting authority and being repeatedly presented by the White House as an acting director .
Morris pushed back on these linguistic efforts , saying that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their constitutional and legal requirements .
The judge said that while the president does have broad discretion over who operates federal agencies , that discretion is not boundless and Pendley ’ s tenure as acting BLM director has clearly crossed the line .
According to Judge Morris , his rise to acting director status did not “ follow any of the permissible paths ” set out by the law , Bernhardt lacked the authority to appoint him to the role in the first place and that Pendley has been unlawfully serving as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 424 days .
The judge officially halted Pendley from exercising any authority as a BLM director and ordered that Bernhardt can not unlawfully delegate that authority .
Morris also asked both parties in the lawsuit to bring forward briefs on what actions Pendley took during his tenure at the BLM that should be set aside and voided , given that they were actions taken by a director without the proper legal authority to enforce them .
Representatives from Bullock and the BLM did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday evening .

A Montana federal judge ruled Friday that Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management William Perry Pendley has been unlawfully serving in the position for over a year.
(CN) — A Montana federal judge ruled Friday that Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management William Perry Pendley has been unlawfully serving in the position for over a year.
Despite being on the verge of completing a full term in the White House, President Donald Trump has faced criticism for allowing a number of ranking administration officials to carry out official duties in an acting capacity only, and therefore without receiving any kind of official confirmation from the Senate.
Trump, for his part, has seemingly showed an openness to having an executive branch filled with acting directors and officials, telling reporters last year that “I sort of like ‘acting,’” and that it “gives me more flexibility.”
Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than at the Bureau of Land Management, a crucial agency within the Department of the Interior that is responsible for overseeing and managing over 200 million acres of public land. During Trump’s term in office, five different individuals have served in some capacity as director of the BLM, but none of them have been officially confirmed by the Senate.
Current acting director Pendley was appointed by Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt in July 2019 to serve as a deputy director, a position he held for just three months before becoming acting director. Pendley has served as acting director of the BLM ever since, even after his official nomination to lead the agency was withdrawn earlier this month.
Some have opted to take the Trump administration to task over its usage of acting directors, notably Democratic Montana Governor Steve Bullock. Earlier this year, Bullock filed a lawsuit against the BLM, Department of the Interior, Pendley and Bernhardt with allegations that the officials had violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act by allowing Pendley to remain in office for so long without an official confirmation hearing.
“The Federal Vacancies Reform Act bars Presidents from circumventing the Constitution by putting people in charge of federal agencies before they are Senate-confirmed,” the complaint filed in July states. “But that is precisely what has happened here. Pendley’s tenure—and the actions the Bureau has taken, and continues to take during that tenure—violate the law.”
Bullock asked the court to declare that Pendley’s time at the BLM has been unlawful and that he should be stopped from carrying out any more official duties as an acting director.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris, an Obama appointee, did exactly that.
In a 34-page ruling, Morris found that while disagreements between the president and the Senate can result in delays regarding confirmation hearings on certain officials, and that there are some allowances given to ensure that a department can continue operating during transitional periods, such allowances only stretch so far.
“The President cannot shelter unconstitutional ‘temporary’ appointments for the duration of his presidency through a matryoshka doll of delegated authorities,” Morris wrote.
Morris specifically discussed a pair of memos and orders that made Pendley acting director in the first place, orders that used careful language to avoid designating Pendley as such — despite empowering him with acting authority and being repeatedly presented by the White House as an acting director.
Morris pushed back on these linguistic efforts, saying that the department cannot use wordplay to avoid their constitutional and legal requirements.
The judge said that while the president does have broad discretion over who operates federal agencies, that discretion is not boundless and Pendley’s tenure as acting BLM director has clearly crossed the line.
According to Judge Morris, his rise to acting director status did not “follow any of the permissible paths” set out by the law, Bernhardt lacked the authority to appoint him to the role in the first place and that Pendley has been unlawfully serving as an acting director at the BLM for exactly 424 days.
The judge officially halted Pendley from exercising any authority as a BLM director and ordered that Bernhardt cannot unlawfully delegate that authority.
Morris also asked both parties in the lawsuit to bring forward briefs on what actions Pendley took during his tenure at the BLM that should be set aside and voided, given that they were actions taken by a director without the proper legal authority to enforce them.
Representatives from Bullock and the BLM did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday evening.


courthousenews--2020-09-26--Claiming Federal Inaction, Newsom Signs Bills to Protect California Consumers

SACRAMENTO , Calif. ( CN ) — Citing inaction by the Trump administration , California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a consumer protection bill giving state regulators greater ability to fight predacious debt collectors and lenders .
Intended as a junior version of the federal Dodd-Frank Act , Newsom said the bill is a warning to financial service providers known to target Californian ’ s oldest and most vulnerable populations .
In a virtual signing ceremony , Newsom claimed California will establish the “ nation ’ s strongest ” consumer watchdog agency and enforce portions of the Obama-era act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the state to lead as the federal government is pulling away from financial protection , ” the Democratic governor said .
Assembly Bill 1864 officially creates the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation , which will focus on rooting out unfair , deceptive and abusive financial practices .
It authorizes the department to partner with the California Department of Justice to pursue civil penalties and issue cease and desist orders when pertinent .
To staff the new endeavor , Newsom said he and the bill ’ s supporters were able to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually add 90 new positions by 2023 at a cost of $ 19 million .
Proponents celebrated the signing as a major step toward fighting swindlers hawking predatory high-interest rate deals , noting that reported cases of financial fraud have jumped during the pandemic .
“ We don ’ t want the products taking advantage of the people of California , ” said the bill ’ s author Assemblywoman Monique Limon , D-Santa Barbara .
Limon , who sponsored a 2019 bill that greatly capped interest rates on payday loans , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies offering debt settlement , credit repair , rent-to-own deals and check cashing services .
Supporters say the department will help fill the void at the federal level , as financial lobbyists have combined with the Trump administration to weaken the role and independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .
Created as part of congress ’ Wall Street reforms during the Great Recession , the bureau was tasked with preventing and weeding out predatory mortgage and other high-interest consumer loans .
Its jurisdiction includes banks , credit unions , payday lenders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris to make sure banks held up their end of a $ 25 billion mortgage servicing settlement , California Congresswoman Katie Porter said AB 1864 will buffer the ongoing lack of enforcement at the federal level .
“ This historic bill will strengthen our state ’ s economy by adding guardrails to our capitalist system so that it creates prosperity for all Californians , ” Porter said during the signing ceremony .
The measure was widely opposed by state Republicans , payday lenders and the California New Car Dealers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Assembly on the final day of the legislative session .
Limon ’ s proposal does not create any new state consumer laws and goes into effect on Jan. 1 .
Along with AB 1864 , Newsom signed several other consumer protection bills including a law requiring debt collectors and buyers to obtain state licensing , as well as legislation creating a so-called Student Borrower Bill of Rights .
“ It ’ s at this moment especially — when so many Californians are strapped for cash and struggling to pay their bills — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to predatory and abusive financial products , ” Newsom said of the consumer protection package .
“ These bills ensure that financial predators are subjected to alert oversight and agile enforcement .
”

Citing inaction by the Trump administration, California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a consumer protection bill giving state regulators greater ability to fight predacious debt collectors and lenders.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Citing inaction by the Trump administration, California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a consumer protection bill giving state regulators greater ability to fight predacious debt collectors and lenders.
Correspondence between a state university professor and a nonprofit associated with the payday lending industry is to, be made public. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)
Intended as a junior version of the federal Dodd-Frank Act, Newsom said the bill is a warning to financial service providers known to target Californian’s oldest and most vulnerable populations. In a virtual signing ceremony, Newsom claimed California will establish the “nation’s strongest” consumer watchdog agency and enforce portions of the Obama-era act as Congress initially intended.
“We need the state to lead as the federal government is pulling away from financial protection,” the Democratic governor said.
Assembly Bill 1864 officially creates the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which will focus on rooting out unfair, deceptive and abusive financial practices. It authorizes the department to partner with the California Department of Justice to pursue civil penalties and issue cease and desist orders when pertinent.
To staff the new endeavor, Newsom said he and the bill’s supporters were able to secure enough money in the recent budget to eventually add 90 new positions by 2023 at a cost of $19 million.
Proponents celebrated the signing as a major step toward fighting swindlers hawking predatory high-interest rate deals, noting that reported cases of financial fraud have jumped during the pandemic.
“We don’t want the products taking advantage of the people of California,” said the bill’s author Assemblywoman Monique Limon, D-Santa Barbara.
Limon, who sponsored a 2019 bill that greatly capped interest rates on payday loans, said the new department will be able to regulate companies offering debt settlement, credit repair, rent-to-own deals and check cashing services.
Supporters say the department will help fill the void at the federal level, as financial lobbyists have combined with the Trump administration to weaken the role and independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Created as part of congress’ Wall Street reforms during the Great Recession, the bureau was tasked with preventing and weeding out predatory mortgage and other high-interest consumer loans. Its jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, payday lenders and debt collectors.
Appointed in 2012 by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris to make sure banks held up their end of a $25 billion mortgage servicing settlement, California Congresswoman Katie Porter said AB 1864 will buffer the ongoing lack of enforcement at the federal level.
“This historic bill will strengthen our state's economy by adding guardrails to our capitalist system so that it creates prosperity for all Californians," Porter said during the signing ceremony.
The measure was widely opposed by state Republicans, payday lenders and the California New Car Dealers Association, but nonetheless cleared the Senate and Assembly on the final day of the legislative session. Limon’s proposal does not create any new state consumer laws and goes into effect on Jan. 1.
Along with AB 1864, Newsom signed several other consumer protection bills including a law requiring debt collectors and buyers to obtain state licensing, as well as legislation creating a so-called Student Borrower Bill of Rights.
“It’s at this moment especially — when so many Californians are strapped for cash and struggling to pay their bills — that families are likely to fall victim to predatory and abusive financial products,” Newsom said of the consumer protection package. “These bills ensure that financial predators are subjected to alert oversight and agile enforcement.”


courthousenews--2020-09-25--American Samoa Loses Fishing Rights Decision in Ninth Circuit

( CN ) — The American Samoa government was dealt a setback Friday when the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a decision that blocks large fishing vessels from fishing in a zone around their territory .
In 2016 , the government of American Samoa claimed in a federal lawsuit the United States shrank a prohibited fishing zone around the South Pacific territory that was meant specifically for local fishers .
The zone changed from 50 nautical miles to 12 .
Boats larger than 50 feet were blocked from fishing and meant to avoid gear conflicts and competition between large fishing operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through its status as an unorganized sovereign territory , is allowed a special right to maintain its traditions , culture and control of its lands and waters under a treaty signed in 1900 between several island chiefs and the U.S. government .
But in 2016 , the U.S. government said there was only one small vessel in the territory that was fishing in the waters — something the American Samoa government denied in its federal complaint filed in the District of Hawaii .
American Samoa claimed the U.S. rule change ignored the relevance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture and the 1900 treaty , referred to as the Deed of Cession of Tutuila .
The territory of American Samoa also argued the 2016 rule violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act , which determines regional stocks and catch limits meant to consider the social and economic needs of states .
In March 2017 , a federal judge found that the government ’ s final rule was invalid because it did not take into consideration whether the change was consistent with the treaty and said the U.S. government acted “ arbitrarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rationale that was contrary to the evidence before it.
” In a 4-page memorandum released Friday , a three-judge panel reversed the court ’ s judgment .
They found the government agency did not ignore input from the American Samoa government and the impact to the small alia fishing boats , sometimes called catamarans .
“ It is of little import that NMFS did not specifically cite the cessions when detailing the ‘ other applicable laws ’ it consulted , as NMFS considered the consequences of the rule on alia fishing boats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant , ” the memorandum states .
The judges noted that since 2006 just a handful of alia vessels operated on a regular basis and only one was active in 2013 and 2014 .
“ The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and ASG are developing strategies to develop and increase alia fishing , however , and NMFS will annually review the effects of the rule , providing ASG the opportunity for further input and challenge , ” the panel wrote .
An email to the American Samoa government ’ s attorney for comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit Judges Mary Margaret McKeown , a Clinton appointee , and Bridget Bade and Danielle Hunsaker , both Trump appointees , served on the panel .
The case was originally argued before a panel that included Senior U.S .
Circuit Judge Jerome Farris who died in July .
According to the Ninth Circuit , Hunsaker reviewed the briefs , records and oral arguments to replace Farris .

The American Samoa government was dealt a setback Friday when the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a decision that blocks large fishing vessels from fishing in a zone around their territory.
(CN) — The American Samoa government was dealt a setback Friday when the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a decision that blocks large fishing vessels from fishing in a zone around their territory.
In 2016, the government of American Samoa claimed in a federal lawsuit the United States shrank a prohibited fishing zone around the South Pacific territory that was meant specifically for local fishers. The zone changed from 50 nautical miles to 12.
Boats larger than 50 feet were blocked from fishing and meant to avoid gear conflicts and competition between large fishing operations and local vessels.
American Samoa, through its status as an unorganized sovereign territory, is allowed a special right to maintain its traditions, culture and control of its lands and waters under a treaty signed in 1900 between several island chiefs and the U.S. government.
But in 2016, the U.S. government said there was only one small vessel in the territory that was fishing in the waters — something the American Samoa government denied in its federal complaint filed in the District of Hawaii.
American Samoa claimed the U.S. rule change ignored the relevance of the local fishery to the Samoan culture and the 1900 treaty, referred to as the Deed of Cession of Tutuila.
The territory of American Samoa also argued the 2016 rule violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which determines regional stocks and catch limits meant to consider the social and economic needs of states.
In March 2017, a federal judge found that the government’s final rule was invalid because it did not take into consideration whether the change was consistent with the treaty and said the U.S. government acted “arbitrarily and capriciously because it relied on a rationale that was contrary to the evidence before it.”
The National Marine Fisheries Services appealed the judgment.
In a 4-page memorandum released Friday, a three-judge panel reversed the court’s judgment. They found the government agency did not ignore input from the American Samoa government and the impact to the small alia fishing boats, sometimes called catamarans.
“It is of little import that NMFS did not specifically cite the cessions when detailing the ‘other applicable laws’ it consulted, as NMFS considered the consequences of the rule on alia fishing boats, and rationally determined the effects were not significant,” the memorandum states.
The judges noted that since 2006 just a handful of alia vessels operated on a regular basis and only one was active in 2013 and 2014.
“The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and ASG are developing strategies to develop and increase alia fishing, however, and NMFS will annually review the effects of the rule, providing ASG the opportunity for further input and challenge,” the panel wrote.
An email to the American Samoa government’s attorney for comment was not immediately answered.
U.S. Circuit Judges Mary Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, and Bridget Bade and Danielle Hunsaker, both Trump appointees, served on the panel.
The case was originally argued before a panel that included Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome Farris who died in July. According to the Ninth Circuit, Hunsaker reviewed the briefs, records and oral arguments to replace Farris.


courthousenews--2020-09-25--California Courts Covid Update

California Courts Covid Update

Sept. 25 , 2020 : E-filing service has now been restored Sept. 22 , 2020 : News release regarding Riverside @ @ @ @ @ jury trials since Covid-19 closures


courthousenews--2020-09-25--Trump Expected to Nominate Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg Seat

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — President Donald Trump is expected to nominate U.S .
Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday , according to senior Republican sources .
CNN and CBS News reported Friday the sources warned Trump ’ s pick could change by the time he makes the announcement at the White House , but noted the expectation is for Barrett to be his selection .
Trump had reportedly said in 2018 , when deciding who would replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy , he was “ saving ” Barrett to fill Justice Ruth Bader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to nominate her replacement .
A devout Catholic and member of the conservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society , Barrett , 48 , clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia and graduated with honors from Notre Dame Law School in 1997 .
She wrote for the school ’ s law review that year that Catholic judges are “ morally precluded ” from enforcing the death penalty .
Barrett worked for the Washington firm Miller , Cassidy , Larroca & Lewin and remained with the firm when it merged with Baker Botts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in 2017 , when she was confirmed to the Seventh Circuit bench .
“ But , I continue to stand and vehemently believe the core proposition of that article , which is that if there is ever a conflict between a judge ’ s personal conviction and that judge ’ s duty under the rule of law , that it is never , ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case , rather than what the law requires , ” Barrett said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memorial services for Justice Ginsburg , who died at her Washington home a week ago .
On Friday , Ginsburg became the first woman and Jewish-American to lie in state at the U.S. Capitol after lying in repose at the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday .
In an analysis of Trump ’ s potential picks , the New Civil Liberties Alliance — a nonprofit civil rights organization focused on protecting constitutional freedoms — notes Barrett has not written opinions challenging various administrative law issues or dealing with deference doctrines .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the position .
Democrats highlighted Barrett as extremely conservative during her 2017 Senate confirmation hearings , dissecting her published works from her time in academia .
In written questions given to Barrett during one hearing , she was asked to elaborate what she meant when she wrote judges should not “ try to align ” the legal system with the church but “ conform their own behavior to the church ’ s standard.
” Barrett said she was implying judges should live lives of example , through their faith .
Financial disclosure reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group advocating for judicial transparency — note that at the end of last year , Barrett had up to $ 2.84 million in investments .
In 2018 and 2019 , she went on 10 trips funded by the Federalist Society and appears to own two homes valued nearly $ 600,000 combined .
Barrett also is staunchly opposed to the Affordable Care Act , writing in a 2017 article that the Supreme Court had illegitimately distorted the Constitution through its decisions in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell .
In those decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law “ beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute , ” she wrote .
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham is expected to lay out a hearing schedule Saturday following Trump ’ s official announcement .
The nominee is expected to meet with individual senators next week .
Senate Republicans have faced criticism since Ginsburg ’ s death for proclaiming they will move forward with Trump ’ s nominee during an election year .
The decision is an about-face from 2016 when they stonewalled President Barack Obama ’ s nominee to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garland .
The Lincoln Project , a group of anti-Trump Republicans , released a 60-second ad Friday highlighting the Republican senators who have agreed to push through Trump ’ s pick before Inauguration Day .
“ The choice for Americans in this election could not be more clear , ” said Reed Galen , co-founder of The Lincoln Project , in a statement .
“ In their blind support of Donald Trump and his reelection , these senators are no longer hiding that their loyalty is to the Republican Party , not the @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump is expected to nominate U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, according to senior Republican sources.
WASHINGTON (CN) — President Donald Trump announced from the White House Saturday the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“This is my third such nomination after Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh and it is a very proud moment indeed,” Trump said.
Trump had reportedly said in 2018, when deciding who would replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, he was “saving” Barrett to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat if he had the opportunity to nominate her replacement.
A devout Catholic and member of the conservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society, Barrett, 48, clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia and graduated with honors from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.
She wrote for the school’s law review that year that Catholic judges are “morally precluded” from enforcing the death penalty. Barrett worked for the Washington firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin and remained with the firm when it merged with Baker Botts in 2001.
Barrett again highlighted her faith in 2017, when she was confirmed to the Seventh Circuit bench.
“But, I continue to stand and vehemently believe the core proposition of that article, which is that if there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, that it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case, rather than what the law requires,” Barrett said.
The news comes a day after the conclusion of memorial services for Justice Ginsburg, who died at her Washington home last week. On Friday, Ginsburg became the first woman and Jewish-American to lie in state at the U.S. Capitol after lying in repose at the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday.
Trump lauded Barrett as a judge who would decide cases “based on the text of the Constitution, as written.” Thanking members of the Senate gathered for their attendance, the president said Barrett’s hearings should be “fair and timely.”
“This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation, should be very easy, good luck,” Trump said. “I’m sure it will be extremely non-controversial. We said that the last time didn’t we?”
Democrats highlighted Barrett as extremely conservative during her 2017 Senate confirmation hearings, dissecting her published works from her time in academia. In written questions given to Barrett during one hearing, she was asked to elaborate what she meant when she wrote judges should not “try to align” the legal system with the church but “conform their own behavior to the church’s standard.”
Barrett said she was implying judges should live lives of example, through their faith.
On Saturday, Barrett said she was deeply honored to have been nominated, adding that she loved the United States and the Constitution. Should she be confirmed by the Senate, she said, Barrett would be mindful of her predecessor, Justice Ginsburg.
“The flag of the United States is still flying at half-staff in memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great American life,” Barrett said. “Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession. But she not only broke glass ceilings, she smashed them. For that, she has won the admiration of women across the country and indeed, all over the world.”
Barrett also noted the friendship between Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, saying she admired the pair’s ability to argue issues “of great consequence” without destroying their friendship or affection.
Maureen Scalia, the late justice’s wife also attended the ceremony and Barrett noted her presence, recalling the more-than 20-year-old lesson she learned when under her husband’s tutelage.
“His judicial philosophy is mine too; a judge must apply the law, as written,” Barrett said. “Judges are not policy makers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”
Financial disclosure reports obtained Friday by Fix the Court — a group advocating for judicial transparency — note that at the end of last year, Barrett had up to $2.84 million in investments. In 2018 and 2019, she went on 10 trips funded by the Federalist Society and appears to own two homes valued nearly $600,000 combined.
Barrett also is staunchly opposed to the Affordable Care Act, writing in a 2017 article that the Supreme Court had illegitimately distorted the Constitution through its decisions in NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. In those decisions, Chief Justice John Roberts had pushed the law “beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” she wrote.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham is expected to lay out a hearing schedule late Saturday afternoon. The nominee is expected to meet with individual senators next week.
Senate Republicans have faced criticism since Ginsburg’s death for proclaiming they will move forward with Trump’s nominee during an election year. The decision is an about-face from 2016 when they stonewalled President Barack Obama’s nominee to the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland.
Barrett said she recognized the importance of the moment of being nominated to the high court, saying the institution “belongs to all of us.”
“If confirmed, I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle and certainly not for my own sake,” Barrett said. “I would assume this role to serve you. I would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.”
She added: “I have no illusions that the road ahead of me will be easy, for the short term, or the long haul.”
In a statement Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Trump couldn’t have made a better decision by selecting Barrett. She had demonstrated the “independence, impartiality and fidelity” to the Constitution deserving of being selected to the high court, he said.
“The Senate will evaluate this nomination on the basis of Judge Barrett’s objective qualifications,” McConnell said in a statement. “But it cannot escape notice that this nominee has also already won national admiration for her shining example of strong female leadership at the very top of her field."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would strongly oppose the nomination, noting that Barrett was a long-time rival of the Affordable Care Act. The futures of DACA recipients, LGBTQ rights and voting rights also could be adversely affected if Barrett was confirmed, he said, based on her writings and judicial history.
“Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish was that she not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Schumer said. “Republicans are poised to not only ignore her wishes, but to replace her with someone who could tear down everything that she built.”