League of Women's Voters to discuss recent SCOTUS decision on Social Media Censorship

CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?

Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.

Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.

She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.

In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.

Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.

To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.

Editorial |The color of compassion

Khalil Bendib / OtherWords.org

Is the U.S. government showing its true colors when it comes to sympathy for war victims?

---

Editorial |Tipping the scales of justice

Khalil Bendib / OtherWords.org

---

Commentary |Appeals court rules against Trump, deciding presidents are not immune from prosecution

by Claire Wofford
Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston

---

---

In a 57-page opinion issued on Feb. 6, 2024, a federal appeals court ruled against former President Donald Trump, deciding that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while in office.

The decision allows the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to undermine the 2020 election to continue.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – two appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican – affirmed the Dec. 1, 2023, ruling of District Court Judge Tonya Chutkan, in which she said that a former president does not enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

The Hill reported that Trump spokesman Steven Cheung responded to the appeals court ruling by saying, “President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.” The decision, Cheung said, “threatens the bedrock of our Republic.”

The appeals court panel rejected Trump’s argument that the structure of U.S. government and the demands of the presidency necessitated immunity, instead stating that his claims of “unbounded authority to commit crimes” would “collapse our system of separated powers.” In their words, “President Trump has become citizen Trump,” and therefore had only the defenses available to any criminal defendant, not a special immunity privilege unavailable to anyone else.

As a scholar of judicial behavior and American politics, I have been closely watching this case. The court’s decision, particularly if the Supreme Court allows it to stand, is likely to have ramifications across the U.S. legal and political systems for decades.

‘Divine right of kings’

Trump is the subject of multiple civil and criminal cases in both state and federal courts. He is currently appealing several of them, including one relating to his appearance on the Colorado ballot, which the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear.

In mid-December 2023, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the immunity dispute as well, but the court declined to do so, at least until the appeal was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

This particular case involves the prosecution of Trump by special counsel Jack Smith. On Aug. 1, 2023, Smith indicted Trump on four counts of violating federal law for his conduct relating to the 2020 election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. The proceeding in the appeals court was not about whether Trump committed these crimes but whether he could be prosecuted for them at all.

Trump’s argument centered on a claim of presidential immunity – the notion that a president cannot be subjected to legal action for official conduct or actions taken as part of the job. While there is no explicit language in the U.S. Constitution about such immunity, the Supreme Court had previously ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents can be protected from civil lawsuits for their “official acts.”

The Nixon decision did not control the outcome here, however, because that case involved a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution. As highlighted during the oral argument in Trump’s appeal, that distinction – of whether it’s a civil or criminal case – makes a world of difference.

Protecting the president from the hassles of civil litigation is one thing; permitting the president, charged in Article 2 of the Constitution with faithful execution of the laws, to be able to break those same laws with impunity is quite another.

That sort of upside-down world is precisely what led District Court Judge Chutkan to issue her sweeping ruling on Dec. 1, 2023, that presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. As she put it, Trump did not have the “divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability.” The court today agreed with that sentiment.

High stakes

The oral argument before the appeals court on Jan. 9, 2024, was similarly dramatic.

The three judges spent over an hour rigorously questioning both sides, and the language was often sweeping.

Trump’s lawyer spoke of a president’s need to take “bold and fearless” executive action, to not have to constantly “look over their shoulder” for fear of prosecution and of the “republic shattering” consequences of ruling against the former president. Judge Florence Y. Pan raised striking hypotheticals about presidents assassinating political opponents or selling national security secrets to foreign governments. The lawyer for the federal government noted the “frightening future” if presidents were free to violate the law while in office.

The court’s opinion addressed Trump’s argument that future presidents would be unable to take decisive action for fear of prosecution. The judges ruled that the risk of “chilling … Presidential action appears to be low” and was outweighed by the public’s interest in accountability.

The appeals court judges included a passage from a Supreme Court opinion in their decision:

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

That principle, the appeals court panel wrote, “applies, of course, to a President.”

The court’s Feb. 6, 2024, decision will have a substantial impact, at least until any final ruling is issued by the Supreme Court.

Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election. Whether the case makes it to trial or results in a conviction, what happens to all the other pending cases involving Trump, and whether the former president is returned to the White House, are unanswered questions so far.

The Supreme Court will surely be asked to provide some of those answers.

---

Claire Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Illinois reproductive-rights organizations protest bans before SCOTUS session

By Lily Bohlke, Public News Service

Photo: Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash

Reproductive-rights advocates took to the streets across Illinois and the U.S. over the weekend to protest the new Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the nation's most restrictive abortion law. It is one of 90 anti-abortion bills that have been passed by state legislatures.

Brigid Leahy, senior director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Illinois, said they already are seeing Texas patients fleeing the ban and traveling long distances to get care.

"It's over 1,000 miles to get to Illinois, but people are doing that," Leahy reported. "And there are people who cannot travel. The barriers are just too much, and they are being forced to continue pregnancies that they do not want to continue."

The events -- 600 total nationwide -- came days before today's start of the U.S. Supreme Court session, during which judges plan to hear a case concerning a 15-week Mississippi abortion law, which, if upheld, could overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Leahy noted when former President Donald Trump took office and promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would be amenable to overturning Roe v. Wade, Illinois lawmakers began working on bills to protect the right to abortion at the state level, such as the Reproductive Health Act of 2019.

She pointed out many states are taking similar steps, but many others are now going the other way, including many Midwestern states.

"It was really important to recognize the full range of those rights and put them in our state law so that when Roe v Wade falls, we are protected in Illinois, not just for the people in Illinois, but the people in the states surrounding us," Leahy contended.

Polls show nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion, and more than 900 state lawmakers from 45 states recently signed a letter urging the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade in their decision on the Mississippi law.

Op-Ed: SCOTUS decision a victory for student free speech

Op-Ed by Jennifer Lauren Hamad

---

---

The F-bombs that a frustrated cheerleader dropped in a Snapchat post after failing to land a spot on the varsity cheerleading team at her school recently detonated in the U.S. Supreme Court into a victory for student free speech and student activist organizations, like the one I led, that collaborated in submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court.

In the historic B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case, the Court ruled that the school’s actions in punishing Levy for her undisruptive off-campus speech were unconstitutional. Although student organizations are overwhelmingly relieved by this ruling, we remain unnerved by the dystopian reality of what could have been had the Courts ruled in favor of Mahanoy.

Social media has become the indispensable virtual voice of youth that has galvanized youth activism by making national and global exchange of views possible. However, if public schools succeeded in punishing off-campus speech, social media would have become synonymous with a virtual school classroom where schools have authority to regulate speech just as they would in a physical classroom. This would blur the metaphorical dividing line that separates speech "in the school context and beyond it" (established by Tinker v. Des Moines), leaving students without clarity on when they are afforded their full constitutional right to free speech. This ambiguity would become oppressive and subject students to the feeling that their speech is regulated 24/7, effectively stifling youth activism and threatening the existence of the student organizations that depend upon it.

Although Tinker’s precedent established that a school could punish students for speech if it disrupts the educational process, Levy’s case quickly revealed that Tinker could be applied to stifle what the late Congressman John Lewis deemed to be "good trouble"- "fearless agitation designed to provoke, challenge, and move the nation forward". Instead of restricting Tinker’s application to off-campus speech that disrupts the educational environment (e.g. threats of violence, harassment, bullying, etc.), schools could turn any off-campus political/social activism or speech they disapprove of into a case of “disruption.” Student speech that criticizes an educational institution, its policies, or the behavior of its personnel would become particularly vulnerable to retaliatory disciplinary action from schools.

Perhaps one of the most concerning assertions made by the Mahanoy Area School District was that a student "targets" or "directs speech at a school" anytime he or she "refers to school affairs or sends speech directed to classmates". This suggests students "target" their school by merely offering their opinion about a school program or policy or discussing school affairs with their peers.

Under this notion, my organization would not have been able to speak at board meetings, lobby for educational legislation, speak out about issues like student mental health, write op-eds, speak to reporters, or merely share stories amongst members without the imminent threat of punishment. This excessive and unwarranted control of speech would inevitably disenfranchise and disempower students.

A school could overextend its disciplinary power to punish any and all speech that concerns the educational process. Such far-reaching censorship would mean the beginning of the end of American democracy, as our public schools would quickly transform from the cradles of democracy into totalitarian enclaves where students become accustomed to an imbalance of power that strips them of their basic freedoms.

As the looming threat of punishment causes students to decline to share their opinions and partake in activism, vital student representation would be lost. This strong push to punish off-campus student expression related to education is alarming and would suppress eyewitness accounts of issues in our American public schools that would otherwise be revealed through the sharing of student experiences through social and political youth activism. Criticism of everything from educational inequities to school safety issues could be hidden from public knowledge if off-campus student speech were regulated and punishable by schools, resulting in the erasure of the student narrative.

Conveying the student narrative is a powerful tool used by students to inform decision-making on policies that directly affect their education. In the absence of student voice, students would be subjected to policies implemented without their input. Before schools know it, students would be crying "NO EDUCATION WITHOUT STUDENT REPRESENTATION!," echoing the sentiments of our American Revolutionary forefathers.

---

Jennifer Lauren Hamad served as Speaker of the Houston Independent School District Student Congress that represents HISD’s 215,000+ students and collaborated with other student voice organizations to submit an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court for the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case. She is also an incoming freshman at Stanford University.

Guest Comment: Judicial overreach is a Pandora’s box of government encroachment

---

by Howard C. Self, President
Right To Believe

---

As 2020 is drawing to a close, we all hope that we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in this year of the pandemic. The advent of vaccines is hopeful, yet the United States and other nations face a third wave of COVID infections. And as municipal and state governments impose new restrictions, there is growing concern about impacts on individual liberty and religious freedom.

In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said, “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020… the COVID crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test. And in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.” Alito went on to cite numerous court cases impacting the free exercise of religion as indicative that “religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.”

Last month, the Supreme Court sided with the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and an Orthodox Jewish congregation. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that New York could not restrict religious gatherings more than others. In the opinion, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “There is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

In a similar case resolved just last week, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., filed a suit in federal court against Mayor Muriel Bowser. The mayor had imposed a numeric limit of 50 on religious gatherings, no matter the size of the facility, whereas businesses were limited to a percentage of capacity. Fortunately, the city reneged and issued an amended order that treats religious congregations the same as other entities. But it took a lawsuit to get there.

The disturbing trends referenced by Alito are all too familiar to religious leaders, many of whom are alarmed by growing bias and overreach by government officials and the courts, and concerned about protecting their rights to the free exercise of their faiths. Another example of this concern is a case before the District of Columbia Superior Court. Earlier this month, Judge Jennifer M. Anderson issued a “remedies judgment” in the controversial Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International et al v. Hyun Jin Moon et al case, which totally disregards the defendants’ First Amendment rights and due process. The case is sure to be continued through the appeals process.

This case before the D.C. Superior Court involves protracted disputes within the Unification Movement founded by the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Though it was initially and properly dismissed on First Amendment grounds because it clearly involved religious disputes in which courts cannot intervene, this complex and extremely costly case has been extended by subsequent rulings for more than nine years.

It is well-established legal precedent that the First Amendment prohibits the courts from interfering in disputes about the teachings and leadership of religious groups. Yet that is precisely what the D.C. court has done in this case. As evident in both summary judgment and remedies rulings, the court disregarded voluminous evidence of an emerging religious movement wrestling with issues of succession and doctrine. It decided that it could sidestep First Amendment prohibitions and evaluate the religious purposes of UCI, a D.C. non-profit corporation established to advance the principles and work of the Unification movement. In doing so, the court in effect took sides in a religious schism.

The onerous actions taken by the D.C. court in its remedies ruling of Dec. 4 are cause for great alarm among religious and nonprofit leaders alike. Based on its unconstitutional evaluation of UCI’s religious purposes, the court found that four directors had breached their fiduciary duty, ordered them removed from the board, and made them personally responsible for crushing financial penalties. This severe judgment was imposed even though in its ruling, the court acknowledged that the four directors had not received any personal benefit.

So why does this matter? The D.C. Superior Court’s rulings in this case have trampled upon First Amendment protections, making determinations about religious teachings and leadership, and thereby taking sides in a schism. Such dangerous precedents make all religious groups more vulnerable to government intrusion. The court took the unprecedented step of removing a majority of the directors of this nonprofit’s board, seriously overstepping its authority and disregarding requirements specifically articulated in D.C. law. Board members of every nonprofit incorporated in the District of Columbia should be alarmed about the details of this case, for there could be dire extralegal ramifications should they face any disputes before the D.C. court.

It should also concern people of all faiths that the courts are often all too ready to use such cases as opportunities to expand their powers and authority. Judicial overreach opens a Pandora’s box of government encroachment into religious expression and free exercise. It can, and often does, lead to protracted legal battles; distracting religious organizations and nonprofits from their primary missions; and forcing them to bear heavy costs to defend themselves.

If judges can decide what aspects of your faith are valid, or what is not in the public interest, the implications for religious freedom are vast. It opens the door for government, not God, to be the final arbiter of the human conscience.

Commenting on such current challenges to religious freedom, Bishop Paul Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Commission of One Way Churches International, noted, "Judicial overreach is a growing concern for faith leaders of all backgrounds. Freedom of religion, belief and conscience is our first and most fundamental right. Rulings like the ones in this case remind us that we must be vigilant and stand together to safeguard the First Amendment rights of all."

---

Howard C. Self is the president of Right To Believe, a not-for-profit organization fighting to protect religious rights from undue governmental interference. He has also held leadership roles at the Family Peace Association and in the Unification Movement, which are affiliated with UCI, the ultimate holding company that owns United Press International. -----------------------------------------------------------

This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers.

-----------------------------------------------------------