DOCSLIB.ORG

LDB and IAC – 8Th Circuit Amicus Brief Filed In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LDB and IAC – 8Th Circuit Amicus Brief Filed In No. 19-01378 _________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _________________________ ARKANSAS TIMES LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARK WALDRIP, et. al., Defendants-Appellees, _________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas The Honorable Brian S. Miller (No. 4:18-00914) _________________________ Brief of Amici Curiae The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Israeli-American Coalition for Action in Support of Defendants-Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc _________________________ NATHAN LEWIN LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP 888 17th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006 (202) 828-1000 [email protected] Attorney for Amici Curiae Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the Israeli- American Coalition for Action certify that they have no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns ten percent or more of their stock. FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) STATEMENT No counsel for any party authored this Brief in whole or in part. No party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund the preparation or suBmission of this Brief. No person other than the Brandeis Center, Inc., the Israeli- American Coalition for Action, or their counsel contriButed money that was intended to fund preparation or suBmission of this brief. Counsel for both parties consented to the filing of this brief. i Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) STATEMENT ............................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ..................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 I. THE PANEL’S DECISION SHOULD BE REVIEWED EN BANC BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH MULTIPLE STATUTORY- CONSTRUCTION DECISIONS IN THIS CIRCUITAND PRESENTS A QUESTION OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE ....................................... 2 II. THE PANEL OPINION DOES NOT VINDICATE ITS VIOLATION OF TWO WELL-ESTABLISHED RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 7 III. THE ARKANSAS LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE STATE’S AUTHORITY TO SET CONDITIONS FOR RECIPIENTS OF GOVERNMENT CONDUCT ...................................................................................................... 8 IV. COMMERCIAL BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL IS CONDUCT, NOT SPEECH, AND IT MAY BE DETERRED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT ............................................................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 14 ii Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arkansas AFL-CIO v. Federal Communications Commission, 11 F.3d 1430 (8th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 4 DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988) ............................................................................................. 4 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) ..................................... 11 Patterson v. Tenet HealtHcare, Inc., 113 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 1997) ........................... 5 Planned ParentHood of Mid-Missouri v. Dempsey, 167 F.3d 458 (8th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 4 Republican Party of Minnesota v. Kelly, 247 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2001) .................... 4 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Security, 738 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 4 United States v. Freeman, 473 F.2d 7 (8th Cir. 1973) .............................................. 5 United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394 (1916) ................................................ 4 United States v. Stanko, 491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007) ................................................ United States v. Walker, 393 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2005) ............................................. 5 Rules Ark. Code Ann. § 25-1-502(1)(A)(i) ........................................................................ 3 Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 1 iii Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (the “Brandeis Center” or the “Center”) is an independent, non-partisan institution for public interest advocacy, research, and education. The Center’s mission is to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and to promote justice for all. The Center’s education, research, and advocacy focus especially, But not exclusively, on the problem of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. In fulfilling its mission, the Brandeis Center emphasizes the importance of clear, comprehensive, and specific anti-discrimination policies for government entities, including puBlic universities. The Center puBlishes guidance documents for organizations seeking to adopt uniform definitions of anti-Semitism, which in some cases manifests in the form of anti-Israel Boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. The Center’s attorneys also advise and represent students in higher education who have Been victims of anti-Semitic conduct in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d(4)(a)) and other laws. The Center believes that the American people must respect and actively safeguard our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Center affirms the statement of its namesake, Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in Whitney v. California: “If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil By the processes of education, the remedy 1 Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). At the same time, the Center Believes that the government has the responsibility and authority to zealously protect the right of all citizens not to Be discriminated against on the Basis of race, national origin, ethnicity, or religion. The Israeli-American Coalition for Action (“IAC for Action”) is a non- profit, non-partisan organization that advocates on behalf of Israeli-American communities throughout the United States. IAC for Action works with policy- makers on puBlic safety, anti-discrimination, and other initiatives of importance to the Israeli-American community, including strengthening ties Between the United States and Israel and opposing the anti-Israel Boycott, divestment, and sanction movement. ARGUMENT I. THE PANEL’S DECISION SHOULD BE REVIEWED EN BANC BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH MULTIPLE STATUTORY-CONSTRUCTION DECISIONS IN THIS CIRCUIT AND PRESENTS A QUESTION OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE Rule 35(B)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes en banc rehearing if a panel’s decision conflicts with another decision in the same Circuit and if it presents a question of “exceptional importance.” The panel’s decision in this case conflicts with two important principles of statutory 2 Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 construction that have been re-affirmed time and again in decisions of the Eighth Circuit rendered By its most distinguished judges. The central issue has “exceptional importance” Because it may prompt vexatious litigation and affect rulings in other Circuits where State legislatures have enacted anti-boycott laws that are similarly worded. The panel’s opinion construed the words “other actions” in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-1-502(1)(A)(i) to “capture constitutional activity” such as “supporting or promoting a boycott of Israel” By posting signs, encouraging others to boycott Israel, or puBlicly criticizing the Arkansas law. On this account the panel held that “the Act imposes a condition on government contractors that implicates their First Amendment rights” and reversed the judgment of the District Court. This construction of the words “other actions” in the statute violated two basic rules of statutory interpretation that the judges of this Circuit have invoked many times: (1) the rule that statutes should be interpreted to avoid constitutional douBts; (2) the rule (ejusdem generis) that general terms in a statute that follow specific terms must Be construed as similar to those specifically described. 3 Appellate Case: 19-1378 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Entry ID: 5020670 A. “Statutes should be interpreted, if possible, to avoid doubts about their constitutionality.” The late Chief Judge Richard S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel and the Alien Tort Statute
    Summer 2014 No.54 JTheUSTICE magazine of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists In this issue The International Court of Justice Adjudicating the Arab-Israel Disputes? Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions and the Law Israel and the Alien Tort Statute Corporations and Human Rights Zivotofsky v. Kerry - A Historical Constitutional Battle Preachers of Hate and Freedom of Expression UNRWA Panel at UN IAJLJ Activities The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Honorary President: Hadassa Ben-Itto, Judge (Ret.) (Israel) Life time Member: Irwin Cotler, Prof. (Canada) Honorary Vice Presidents: Joseph Roubache (France) Oreste Bisazza Terracini, Dr. (Italy) Executive Committee: Board of Governors: President: Irit Kohn (Israel) Irit Kohn (Israel) Haim Klugman (Israel) Avraham (Avi) D. Doron (Israel) Deputy President: Meir Rosenne, Dr. (Israel) Haim Klugman (Israel) Mirella M. Bamberger (Israel) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Vice President and Treasurer: Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Judge (Argentina) Avraham (Avi) D. Doron (Israel) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Alex Hertman (Israel) Vice President and Coordinator with Amos Shapira, Prof. (Israel) International Organizations: Avishai Sapir (Israel) Meir Rosenne, Dr. (Israel) David Pardes (Belgium) Dov Shefi, Brig. (Ret.) (Israel) Vice President and Secretary General: Edna Bekenstein, Judge (Ret.) (Israel) Mirella M. Bamberger (Israel) Edna Kaplan-Hagler, Judge (Ret.) Dr. (Israel) Efraim (Efi) Chalamish, Dr. (USA) Vice Presidents: Ethia Simha (Israel) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Jeremy D. Margolis (USA) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Judge (Argentina) Jimena Bronfman (Chile) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Jonathan Lux (UK) Lipa Meir, Dr. (Israel) Academic Adviser: Mala Tabory, Dr. (Israel) Yaffa Zilbershats, Prof. (Israel) Maria Canals De-Cediel, Dr. (Switzerland) Meir Linzen (Israel) Representatives to the U.N.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL IDENTITY Reflections on "Who Is a Jew"
    ADAR 1-11 5730 I MARCH, 1970 VOLUME VI, NUMBER 6 THE FIFTY CENTS The Case For NATIONAL IDENTITY Reflections on "Who Is a Jew" The I Vanishing\ Yeshiva Teacher .. Is the Yeshiva Movement In Danger? PUBLIC OPINION: A Torah Approach THE JEWISH QBSERVER In this issue .. THE CASE OF NATIONAL IDENTITY, Joseph Elias ······· 3 OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD Punuc OPINION, an essay by the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yitzchok Hutner l 1 THE JEWISH OBSERVER is published monthly, except July and August, THE VANISHING YESHIVA TEACHER-THE YESHIVA MOVE- by the Agudath Israel of America, 5 Beekman Street, New York, MENT IN DANGER 13 New· York 10038. Second class postage paid at New York, N. Y. Subscription: $5.00 per year; Two WHY GOVERNMENT AID FOR NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS--from a years, $8.50; Three years, $ J 2.00; outside of the lTnitcd States, $6.00 brief by Nathan Lewin, Esq. 18 per year. Single copy, fifty cents. Printed in the U.S.A. FROl\1 THE TREASURES OF OUR HERITAGE: WHO SHOULD GUIDE Us?-adapted from "Michtav M'Eliyahu" by Editorial Board Rav Eliezer Dessler '"lt f)R. ERNEST L. BooENHEIMER 19 Chainnan RABBI NATHAN BULMAN BooK REVIEWS, Yaakov Jacobs 21 RABBI JOSEPH ELIAS FROl\1 ASSIMILATION TO GROUP SURVIVAL JOSEPH FRIEDENSON THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF NAHUM GOLDMANN RABBI YAAKOV JACOBS RABBI MOSHE SHERER SECOND LOOKS AT THE JEWISH SCENE: THE STRANGE CASE OF LARRY GOLDBERG 24 THE JEWISH OBSERVER does not assume responsibility for the ARE WE "IN"? Kashrus of any product or service 27 advertised in its pages. HUMAN DESTINY AND SCIENTIFIC PRESUMPTION 27 MARCH, l 970 VoL.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Miracle
    ADAR 1-11 5733 / FEBRUARY 1973 VOLUME IX, NUMBER 1 FIFTY CENTS From Riga to Jerusalem: THE SECOND MIRACLE RUSSIAN IMMIGRANT, KISSING SEFER TORAH UPON ARRIVAL IN ISRAEL also The Akhashverosh Riddle Why Purim? The "Aveirah" Syndrome Letters • Books • Index THE JEWISH QBSERVER in this issue ... FROM RIGA TO JERUSALEM: THE SECOND MIRACLE, Herman Branover, as told to Nissan Wolpin ....... 3 A MODEST PROPOSAL, Aaron Brafman 6 FIGHTING FOR SHABBOS ON THE LEGAL FRONT-ADDENDA, Judah Dick ......................................... ........................................ 8 WHO WAS THE REAL AKHASHVEROSH'?, Shelomoh E. Danziger 12 THE JEWISH OBSERVER is published SOUNDS FROM SILENCE (POEMS), by Aaron Brafman 15 monthly, except July and August, by the Agudath Israel of America, WHY PURIM'?, Elkanah Schwartz ........... 16 5 Beekman Street, New York, New York 10038. Second class THE "AVEIRAH" SYNDROME, Moshe Spero 18 postage paid at New York, N. Y. Subscription: $5.00 per year; Two years, $8 ..~0; Three years, $12.00; BOOKS REVIEWED: outside of the United States, $6.00 per year. Single copy, fifty cents. CHAZON [SH, A BIOGRAPHY ...... 21 Printed in the U.S.A. RELIGIOUS JEWRY AND THE UNITED NATIONS ...... .. RABBI NISSON WOLPIN IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ................. Editor TEN YEARS OF HOPE ............................................................ .. 22 Editorial Board A PRESENT IN MY TREASURE CHEST 23 DR. ERNEST L. BODENHEIMER Chairn1an As DREAMERS WE WERE (A POEM), Aaron Blech ................. 24 RABBI NATHAN BULMAN RABBI JOSEPH ELIAS JOSEPH FRIEDENSON LETTERS TO THE EDITORS ............................................................................ 26 RABBI YAAKOV JACOBS RABBI MOSHE SHERER INDEX TO ARTICLES, VOLUME Vlll: SUBJECTS 30 THE JEWISH OBSERVER does not assume responsibility for the AUTHORS 31 Kashrus of any product or service advertised in its pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Briefs
    No. 12-696 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TOWN OF GREECE, Petitioner, v. SUSAN GALLOWAY AND LINDA STEPHENS, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF NATHAN LEWIN AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Of Counsel NATHAN LEWIN DENNIS RAPPS Counsel of Record 450 Seventh Avenue ALYZA D. LEWIN Suite 1101 LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP New York, NY 10123 1775 Eye Street NW, Suite 850 (718) 715-3124 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 828-1000 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 4 I. HONEST AND AUTHENTIC PRAYER IS NATURALLY SECTARIAN .............................. 4 II. JEWISH LAW AND TRADITION ENCOURAGES MEANINGFUL CHRISTIAN PRAYER ............................................................. 6 III. JEWISH LEGISLATIVE PRAYER IS FREQUENTLY “SECTARIAN” .......................
    [Show full text]
  • A Policy Assessment of the National Court of Appeals William H
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 25 | Issue 6 Article 2 1-1974 A Policy Assessment of the National Court of Appeals William H. Alsup Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William H. Alsup, A Policy Assessment of the National Court of Appeals, 25 Hastings L.J. 1313 (1974). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol25/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. A Policy Assessment of The National Court of Appeals By WILLIAm H. ALsuP* M AJOR legislation to relieve the United States Supreme Court of its "overwork" has not been enacted since the Judges Bill of 1925.1 Nor has such legislation been considered since the defeat of the Presi- dent's Court reorganization plan of 1937.2 Nevertheless, it continues to be suggested that the Supreme Court has too many duties to dis- charge all of them responsibly. For example, in 1959 Professor Hart attempted to demonstrate that the justices had to evaluate so many applications for review that they had little time left to decide the merits of the argued cases. 3 Most prominent among the recent alarms is the Report of the Study Group on the Caseload of the Supreme * B.S., 1967, Mississippi State University; M.P.P., J.D., 1971, Harvard Univer- sity; member of Bars of California and Mississippi.
    [Show full text]
  • 1966 Journal
    OCTOBER TERM, 1966 REFERENCE INDEX CONTENTS: Page Statistics III General III Rules IV Appeals IV Arguments V Attorneys V Briefs VI Certiorari VI Costs and Damages VII Extraordinary Writs VII Judgments VII Original Cases X Parties X Records X Rehearings XI Stays and Bail XI Conclusion XII 271-218—67 Ill STATISTICS Original Appellate Miscella- Total neous xo o, oOO Cases disposed of 5 1, 232 1, 666 2, 903 Remaining on dockets 8 237 208 453 Cases disposed of—Appellate Docket: By written opinions 132 By per curiam opinions or orders . 178 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation (merits cases) 0 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 922 Cases disposed of—Miscellaneous Docket: By written opinions 0 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1, 371 By denial or withdrawal of other applications 188 By granting of other applications 2 By per curiam dismissal of appeals 44 By other per curiam opinions or orders 48 By transfer to Appellate Docket 13 Number of written opinions 100 Number of printed per curiam opinions 15 Number of petitions for certiorari granted (Appellate) 98 Number of appeals in which jurisdiction was noted or postponed (Appellate) 94 Number of admissions to bar 3,279 GENERAL: Court convened October 3, 1966 and adjourned June 12, Page 1967 1,450 Black, J., Remarks of Chief Justice upon completion of thirty years of service (June 12, 1967) 430 Reed, J., Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Claims. 2 Moved admission (Marshal Thomas Perry Lippitt) 164 Clark J., Remarks of Chief Justice announcing retire- ment and response by Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Warrants for Wearing a Wire: Fourth Amendment Privacy and Justice Harlan’S Dissent in United States V
    File: 03_Hancock.doc Created on: 11/25/2009 1:15:00 PM Last Printed: 11/30/2009 9:48:00 AM WARRANTS FOR WEARING A WIRE: FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY AND JUSTICE HARLAN’S DISSENT IN UNITED STATES V. WHITE ∗ CATHERINE HANCOCK A dissent . is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future age.1 INTRODUCTION Justice Harlan’s dissent in United States v. White2 appealed to a future age when all members of society will be allowed to “carry on” their “private discourse freely, openly, and sponta- neously,” without enduring the risk of government “eavesdrop- pers prying into their private affairs” by warrantless monitoring of their conversations through the use of “wired” listeners.3 Jus- tice Harlan’s dissents comprised “nearly half” of the body of his judicial opinions,4 but his White dissent was unusual for several ∗ Geoffrey C. Bible & Murray H. Bring Professor of Constitutional Law, Tulane Law School. I want to thank Tom Clancy for the honor of being invited to present an early draft of this article at the 2009 Fourth Amendment Symposium, sponsored by the National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law. I am grateful for the research assistance provided by Julia Farinas (‘10) and Heather Hendrix (‘09). I want to dedicate this article to my colleague Brooke Overby, who died suddenly on August 5 at the age of 49. Brooke was a wonderful teacher who inspired her students to be excited about contracts and commercial law. She was a dedicated scholar who enjoyed the respect and affection of her colleagues and she contri- buted memorably to the Tulane Law School community.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Jewish Week Coverstory
    PLANNING THE BIG KVELL JERUSALEM BROUHAHA B’nai mitzvah bliss Controversy over housing See BAR & BAT MITZVAH, page B1 See HOUSING, page 14 Vol. 47, No. 43 — Cheshvan 6, 5772 — Candlelighting 5:47 — Havdalah 6:47 — November 3, 2011 — $1.00 COVER STORY S HOU LD I S RAEL B E AN I S S U E I N AM ERICAN ELECTION S? — PAG E 3 ‘Supreme’ Pathfinders Federation advocate unveils blueprint No. 28 for by Phil Jacobs Editor Nat Lewin 1. Adapt to changing realities in the Jewish by Richard Greenberg and philanthropic worlds by enhancing high Senior writer impact programs, implementing new, cutting edge initiatives and services and eliminating du- here are more than 1 million practic- plication Ting attorneys in the U.S., according to 2. Energize, motivate and re-connect with the American Bar Association, and the vast our community through a well articulated vi- majority of them have at least one profes- sion for the future. sional footnote in common: ey have 3. Create personally meaningful connections never argued a case before the U.S. between members of our community, Israel, Supreme Court. Jews around the world and organizations we And then there’s D.C. legalistic legend White October support. Nathan Lewin, 75, who on Monday will Nearly seven inches of snow blanketed Capital Camps in Waynesboro, Pa., the site of 4. Reduce barriers to active participation in stand before the high court for the 28th BBYO’s annual New Member Weekend and Regional Leadership Training Institute Jewish life: financial, geographic, demographic time in six decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Jews and the Culture Wars: Consensus and Dissensus in Jewish Religious Liberty Advocacy
    HELFAND FINAL TO PRINT.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/13/2019 11:12 AM Jews and the Culture Wars: Consensus and Dissensus in Jewish Religious Liberty Advocacy MICHAEL A. HELFAND* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 306 II. JEWS AND THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CONSENSUS ......................................320 III. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DISSENSUS, PHASE I: EMPLOYMENT LAW AND ANTIDISCRIMINATION NORMS ..........................................................328 A. Religious Liberty and Establishment Clause Constraints in Employment Law ....................................................................... 330 B. Religious Liberty and Clashes with Compelling Government Interests ..................................................................... 338 IV. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DISSENSUS, PHASE II: THE CONTEMPORARY CULTURE WARS ....................................................................................... 345 A. RFRA, RLUIPA, and the Origins of the New Jewish Dissensus .....347 B. Culture Wars and the New Jewish Dissensus ................................354 1. Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012) ............................................. 360 2. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and Zubik v. Burwell (2016) ........................................................................ 365 * © 2019 Michael A. Helfand. Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law; Co-Director, Diane and Guilford Glazer Institute for Jewish Studies;
    [Show full text]
  • Rosen V. AIPAC: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points And
    Filed D.C. Superior Court 10 Dec 14 PIO:30 Clerk of Court SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) STEVEN J. ROSEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1256 ) Calendar 12 AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBIC AFFAIRS ) Judge Erik P. Christian COMMITTEE, INC., et aL, ) ) Defendants. ) ---------------) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT} INTRODUCTION Defendants, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Inc. (hereinafter "AlPAC") and Patrick Dorton, AIPAC's public relations consultant and spokesman, have now filed a second motion for summary judgment asking this Court to reverse its prior decision that"The issue ofwhether Defendants AIPAC and/or Dorton acted with malice in the role they allegedly played in the publication of the March 3, 2008 New York Times article should be decided by the jury, and not by the Court, as a matter of law." Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, treating as Motion for Summary Judgment (October 30,2009) (hereinafter "Mem. Op.") at 15. Defendants have offered no new evidence to justify its request for this Court to depart from its earlier ruling. First, Defendants reiterate their arguments that the March 2008 statement 'Plaintiffrespectfully asks that the Court set defendants' instant motion for summary judgment for oral argument. is a republication and therefore time-barred. But, as this Court previously noted the New York Times article states that AIPAC, through Dorton, said "recently" (as of March 3, 2008) that AlPAC still held the view that it terminated Rosen because his behavior did not comport with its standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Amawi V. Attorney General of Texas
    Case: 19-50384 Document: 00515108708 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2019 No. 19-50384 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _________________________ BAHIA AMAWI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Defendants-Appellants, _________________________ JOHN PLUECKER; OBINNA DENNAR; ZACHARY ABDELHADI; GEORGE HALE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM; TRUSTEES OF THE KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; TRUSTEES OF THE LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Defendants-Appellants. _________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division The Honorable Robert Pitman (No. 1:18-CV-1100-RP) _________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS CENTER, INC. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS _________________________ Counsel listed on inside cover Case: 19-50384 Document: 00515108708 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2019 Nathan Lewin Lewin & Lewin, LLP 888 17th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 828-1000 [email protected] Attorney for the Amicus Curiae Case: 19-50384 Document: 00515108708 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/06/2019 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS I certify that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. Defendants-Appellants: Pflugerville Independent School District Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas (in his official capacity) Board of Regents of the University of Houston System Trustees of the Klein Independent School District Trustees of the Lewisville Independent School District Board of Regents of the Texas A&M University System Counsel for State Defendants-Appellants Ken Paxton, Board of Regents of the University of Houston System, and Board of Re-gents of the Texas A&M University System: Ken Paxton Jeffrey C.
    [Show full text]
  • Colpa”) in Support of Petitioners in Nos
    Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DAVID A. ZUBIK, ET AL., Petitioners, v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Courts Of Appeals For The Third, Fifth, Tenth And District Of Columbia Circuits --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL JEWISH COMMISSION ON LAW AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS (“COLPA”) IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN NOS. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191 --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Of Counsel NATHAN LEWIN DENNIS RAPPS Counsel of Record 450 Seventh Avenue ALYZA D. LEWIN 44th Floor LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP New York, NY 10123 888 17th Street NW, 4th Floor (646) 598-7316 Washington, DC 20036 drapps@ (202) 828-1000 dennisrappslaw.com [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... ii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 6 I. INSTITUTIONS AND ENTITIES THAT TEACH RELIGION
    [Show full text]