First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net

First Amendment

Relist Watch - May 23, 2019 - John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Congress is fighting with the executive branch to try to obtain information this week. But here at Relist Watch, we’re just giving the stuff away. A lot of throughput this week, as the Supreme Court disposed of five relists. Most puzzling is City of Newport Beach, California v. Vos, 18-672, which asked whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law-enforcement officers to provide accommodations to armed, violent and mentally ill suspects as they bring them into custody. The Supreme Court took a case raising a similar question in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, but dismissed it as improvidently granted, and many thought the court was looking to finally resolve the question. Newport Beach had been relisted four times, suggesting that one of the justices at least had been exploring a dissent; perhaps he or she was talked out of it. The Court decided that one-time relist Shabo v. Barr, 18-827, was…
by Michael C. DorfOn Monday, in Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the Crow tribe and the US entitled a tribe member to hunt elk in violation of state law. The case divided the Court on mostly ideological grounds, with Justice Gorsuch breaking ranks to join the liberal wing in a 5-4 majority opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor. However, the actual substance of the disagreement was not ideological.Justice Alito and the remaining conservatives dissented on the ground that a 1995 Tenth Circuit case involving the Crow had definitively resolved the issue, so that Herrera was bound under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Other than an aside deeming the majority's construction of the treaty "debatable," the dissent did not address the core issue. Meanwhile, the majority opinion is curious in a number of respects and raises an important question about general rules and exceptions.Herrera, who lives on a Crow reservation in…
- May 22, 2019 - Jon Sands
US v. Singh, No. 17-50337 (5-16-19)(M. Smith w/Watford & Hurwitz). Back in 2012, defendants sought to influence the San Diego mayoral election via contributions.  One defendant was a Mexican citizen who sought to develop Chula Vista into the Miami Beach of the West Coast (Query: is that by itself criminal?).  The problem was that the influence was through contributions by a foreign national. This violated various statutes, including the actual contributions and many reporting requirements.  The defendants raised a host of challenges: jurisdictional (Congress can reach to a mayoral race), constitutional (first amendment), intent (general or specific), and sufficiency of the evidence. The 9thexamined the use of “willfully” in 52 U.S.C. § 30121, and held that it was a general intent offense.  As for falsifying information, the 9thheld there was sufficient evidence. It did vacate one conviction (count 37) for insufficient evidence.  The…
“Bel-Nor ban on multiple yard signs likely unconstitutional, appeals court says”: Robert Patrick of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report. And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Restriction on Signs on Residential Property Violates First Amendment.” Circuit Judge Duane Benton wrote Monday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.
Edward Zelinsky on Nonprofit Political Speech - May 22, 2019 - Nonprofit Blogger
Zelinsky recently posted "Applying the First Amendment to the Internal Revenue Code: Minnesota Voters Alliance and the Tax Law's Regulation of Nonprofit Organizations' Political Speech." Here is the abstract: On its face, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is about which...
The separation of church and state is a principle that dates back to the early days of the United States and is often mistakenly believed to be part of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The concept stands for the proposition that government should not be intertwined with religion by […] The post Michigan Court Enforces Muslim Mahr Agreement in Divorce Case appeared first on Kraayeveld Law Offices, P.C..

Anti-SLAPP

Significant changes to the Texas Citizens Participation Act, or TCPA, are on the horizon. Among other things, if signed into law by the governor, the amendments to the TCPA found in House Bill 2730 may provide some new statutory construction arguments to parties who believe the statute should be more narrowly construed to focus on the protection of freedom of speech and association that involve matters of public concern, akin to similar laws in other jurisdictions.
Earlier this year, a critical free speech law in Texas came under attack. Texas bill H.B. 2730, as introduced, would have gutted the Texas Citizens Protection Act, or TCPA. The TCPA has been one of the strongest laws in the nation protecting citizens against SLAPPs. SLAPP is a shorthand way of referring to lawsuits in which the legal claims are just a pretext for silencing or punishing individuals who use their First Amendment rights to speak up on public matters. At EFF, we have supported so-called “anti-SLAPP” laws, like the TCPA, which allow speakers to quickly dismiss frivolous cases against them and often obtain attorney’s fees.  The original bill, H.B. 2730, would have severely limited the average Texan's ability to use the TCPA and allowed litigious businesses to once again use courts to intimidate their critics. But a broad coalition of groups spoke out against the bill, including journalism associations, environmental groups, and hundreds of…
An April 3, 2019 decision from Texas’ Third District Court of Appeals should give pause to many lawyers filing website accessibility lawsuits under the ADA. In Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Rosales, Case No. 03-18-00147-CV (April 3, 2019)* the Court of Appeals wrote this about an ADA website demand letter: “And regardless of whether Rosales “believes” that the ADA applies and that the WCAG guidelines establish ADA standards, the question of whether the ADA applies to websites is, as Rosales admits in his briefing to this Court, an unsettled issue that courts across the country disagree on. To that extent, his statement that “the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to websites” is, at best, a misrepresentation and, at worst, dishonest and deceitful.” Businesses tagged with surf-by lawsuits under the ADA will immediately see that Mr. Rosales claimed no more than every ADA website lawsuit claims; that is, that the ADA…
In case you missed it, Issue # 39 of our ‘Community Association Update’ newsletter is available now! Topics covered in this issue include: Workplace harassment in a HOA environment Voter apathy is not a required showing in a petition to reduce CC&R amendment approval requirements Architectural variances binding on future owners Courts will defer to good faith decisions of HOA Boards Recent ruling limits anti-SLAPP protection for HOA Board actions A link to the newsletter is here. Need to be added to our mailing list? Click here to sign up. Links to previous editions of our newsletter can be found here. The post New ‘Community Association Update’ Newsletter – Issue 39 appeared first on HOA Lawyer Blog.
Attack on Consumer Free Speech in Texas - May 8, 2019 - Paul Levy
by Paul Alan Levy The spring, an unusual coalition of forces made a serious run at gutting the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, the Texas version of state anti-SLAPP suits that protects consumers and citizen activists from baseless lawsuits intended to stop them from voicing criticisms of businesses and powerful political figure in their communities. A significant battle remains – enduring that the law continues to protect the ability of consumer critics of business to obtain afforable legal representation to fight SLAPP suits. The Need for Anti-SLAPP Laws Well-written anti-SLAPP laws protect individuals who have been targeted by baseless litigation over things they say to government officials or during government proceedings, or more generally their speech on issues of public interest.  Such speakers can get the suit thrown out at an early stage, without having to run up the expense of paying a lawyer to bear the burdens of litigation including discovery, by…
April 2019 Law Faculty Publications & News - May 8, 2019 - Matthew Scott Johnson
Throughout the month of April, the Law Library received alerts for full-time TTU Law Faculty publications and news. Below is a compilation of those daily alerts for April 1st to April 30th, 2019. Books & Treatises 1. GERRY W.BEYER, 13-15 WEST’S TEXAS FORMS – REAL PROPERTY (2019 Supps.). Articles 1. Brie Sherwin, After the Storm: The Importance of Acknowledging Environmental Justice in Sustainable Development and Disaster Preparedness, 29-2 DUKE ENV. L. & POL’Y F. 273 (2019). Op-Ed 1. Arnold Loewy & Charles Moster, It’s debatable: How should Supreme Court rule on large cross in public traffic circle?, LUBBOCK AVALANCHE-J. (April 14, 2019 at 1:01 a.m.), https://www.lubbockonline.com/news/20190414/its-debatable-how-should-supreme-court-rule-on-large-cross-in-public-traffic-circle. Quotes 1. Prof. Camp is quoted in the following article: Vidya Kauri, Row Over Trump’s Tax Returns May Hinge On Dems’ Intent, 2019 LAW360 115-174 (2019).…

California Constitution

Who, Exactly, Is Subject to the CCPA? - May 17, 2019 - Odia Kagan
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a broad-based law protecting information that identifies California residents, was passed in June 2018 and will take effect in 2020. Dubbed “GDPR Lite,” to denote its similarities to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is expected to be a game-changer for U.S.-based companies that process sensitive data. With detailed disclosure requirements, a grant of extensive rights to individuals to control how their personal information is used, statutory fines and a private right of action, the law requires companies to rethink their data processing practices. But does the CCPA apply to you? CCPA applies to you if you fall within either A or B, below: A.    (1) You are a for-profit business. (2) You collect California consumers’ personal information (or such information is collected on your behalf) and determine the purposes and means of processing California consumers’ personal information.…
Supreme Court will hear Prop. 57 parole case - May 16, 2019 - David Ettinger
At its Wednesday conference, in addition to denying a petition for review by anti-abortion activists, the Supreme Court actions of note included: The court granted review in In re Gadlin, where the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal’s published opinion struck down regulations enacted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to implement Proposition 57, a 2016 initiative sponsored by then-Governor Jerry Brown.  The appellate court found that the regulations improperly exclude the petitioning prisoner from relief provided by the part of the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to state, “Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.” The court granted-and-held in Sealutions, LLC v. Schwab, deferring action until a decision in K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,…
The title of this post may have you wondering, especially the part about how a regulation that invites others to physically enter private property, is analyzed by a court as a Penn Central taking and not a physical taking.  At issue in the Ninth Circuit's 2-1 opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, No. 16-16321 (May 8, 2019) was a regulation adopted by California's Agricultural Labor Relations Board which requires agricultural employees to open their land to labor union organizers. The regulation is framed as protecting the rights of ag employees to "access by union organizers to the premises of an agricultural employer for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees and soliciting their support." The regulation, as the Ninth Circuit majority pointed out, "is not unlimited," and regulates the "time, place, number of organizers, purpose, and conduct" of the union organizers. Slip op. at 7-8. The union is required to submit a…
Paula Lehman-Ewing reports in the Daily Journal about a motion filed yesterday by the First Amendment Coalition to unseal records that Governor Gavin Newsom submitted confidentially to the Supreme Court in support of his first request for approval of a clemency grant.  The Coalition successfully filed a similar motion regarding one of then-Governor Jerry Brown’s clemency recommendation requests.  Other motions have been pending for several months.  (Here, here, here, here, and here.) The court’s default position on clemency recommendation request files is secrecy, at least until a motion is filed.  Section XIV (A) of the court’s Internal Operating Practices and Procedures (see here) provides (links added): An application for a recommendation for executive clemency comes before this court pursuant to article V, section 8, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 4851. When such applications are received by the…
On Wednesday, May 8, I’ll be joining a pair of California Supreme Court experts for a panel discussion, “What to Expect from the Brown Court” at the Bar Association of San Francisco’s Conference Center, 301 Battery Street, 3rd Floor in San Francisco (the discussion will also be available through a webcast). Justice Joshua P. Groban, the newest Justice appointed by former Governor Brown, will speak.  He will be followed by a panel discussion, with Benjamin G. Shatz of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and David A. Carrillo of the California Constitution Center, UC Berkeley joining me.  The Honorable Danny Y. Chou of the San Mateo Superior Court will moderate our discussion. From the BASF Release: The California Supreme Court – now with seven justices! Justice Groban has joined the program. The program’s first half features a conversation with the justice. In the second half the experts and court watchers will analyze the California…
Social Justice Organizations Challenging Policy that Infringes the Privacy of Hundreds of Thousands of PeopleSan Francisco – At 9:30 am on Wednesday, May 1, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Law Office of Michael T. Risher will argue against the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging law enforcement retention of DNA profiles of hundreds of thousands of innocent Californians. EFF and Risher represent two social justice organizations—the Center for Genetics and Society and the Equal Justice Society—and an individual plaintiff, Pete Shanks. They filed the suit against the state of California to challenge its retention of genetic profiles from people arrested but never convicted of any crime. California has long collected DNA from people convicted of serious felony offenses, but ten years ago the state mandated DNA collection for every single felony arrestee. Once these samples are collected, the DNA is…