DOCSLIB.ORG

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act S. HRG. 102-1076 THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 2969 A BILL TO PROTECT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 Serial No. J-102-82 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65-604 WASHINGTON : 1993 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-040725-7 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PAUL SIMON, Illinois HANK BROWN, Colorado HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CYNTHIA C. HOGAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director THADDEUS E. STROM, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Kennedy, Hon. Edward M 1 Thurmond, Hon. Strom 3 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G 7 Metzenbaum, Hon. Howard M 8 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES William Nouyi Yang, Worcester, MA, accompanied by Robert Peck, legislative counsel, American Civil Liberties Union 5 Panel consisting of: Dallin H. Oaks, quorum of the twelve apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT; Oliver S. Thomas, general counsel, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Washington, DC; Douglas Laycock, professor, University of Texas School of Law; Mark E. Chopko, general counsel, U.S. Catholic Conference, Washington, DC; and Bruce Fein, Great Falls, VA 30 Panel consisting of: Forest D. Montgomery, counsel, office of public affairs, National Association of Evangelicals, Washington, DC; Michael P. Farris, president Home School Legal Defense Association, Paeonian Springs, VA; Nadine Strossen, president, American Civil Liberties Union; and James Bopp, Jr., general counsel, National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Wash­ ington, DC 135 ALPHABETICAL LIST AND SUBMITTED MATERIAL Bopp, James, Jr.: Testimony 203 Prepared statement 206 Chopko, Mark E.: Testimony 99 Prepared statement 101 Farris, Michael P.: Testimony 148 Prepared statement 151 An analysis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by the Coalitions for America 154 Fein, Bruce: Testimony 116 Prepared statement 120 Laycock, Douglas: Testimony 63 Prepared statement 66 Montgomery, Forest D.: Testimony 135 Prepared statement 138 Oaks, Dallin H.: Testimony 30 Prepared statement 33 Peck, Robert: Testimony 6 Text of opinion, Yang v. Sturner 10 Strossen, Nadine: Testimony 171 Prepared statement 174 (III) IV Strossen, Nadine—Continued Page Thomas, Oliver S.: Testimony 41 Prepared statement 44 Yang, William Nouyi: Testimony 5 Prepared statement 14 APPENDIX Prepared statement by a broad coalition of Indian tribes and organizations and religious, civil rights and environmental organizations 243 Text of S. 2969—A bill to protect the free exercise of religion 262 S. 2969—THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-G-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kenne­ dy presiding. Present: Senators Kennedy, Metzenbaum, and Hatch. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY Senator KENNEDY. We will come to order. The brave pioneers who founded America came here in large part to escape religious tyranny and to practice their faiths free from government interference. The persecution they had suffered in the old world convinced them of the need to assure for all Amer­ icans for all time the right to practice their religion unencumbered by the yoke of religious tyranny. That profound principle is embodied in the two great religion clauses of the first amendment, which provide that Congress "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But in 1990, the Supreme Court's deci­ sion in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith produced a serious and unwarranted setback for the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Before the Smith decision, Federal, State, and local governments were prohibited from interfering with people's ability to practice their religion unless the restriction satisfied a difficult two-part test—first, that it was necessary to achieve a compelling govern­ ment interest; and, second, that there was no less burdensome way to accomplish the goal. The compelling interest test has been the legal standard protect­ ing the free exercise of religion for nearly 30 years. Yet, in one fell swoop the Supreme Court overruled that test and declared that no special constitutional protection is available for religious liberty as long as the Federal, State, or local law in question is neutral on its face as to religion and is a law of general application. Under Smith, the Government no longer had to justify burdens on the free exercise of religion as long as these burdens are "merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid pro- vision." (1) 2 The Supreme Court did not have to go that far to reach its result in the Smith case. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote of the majority's ruling in her eloquent and forceful opinion concurring in the result but criticizing the majority's reasoning, Today's holding dramatically departs from well-settled first amendment jurispru­ dence, appears unnecessary to resolve the questions presented, and is incompatible with our Nation's fundamental commitment to individual religious liberty. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the stand­ ards previously, used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to fur­ thering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restric­ tive means of achieving that interest. The act creates no new rights for any religious practice or for any potential litigant. Not every free exercise claim will prevail. It simply restores the long-established standard of review that had worked well for many years and that requires courts to weigh free exercise claims against the compelling State interest standard. Our bill is strongly supported by an extraordinary coalition of or­ ganizations with widely differing views on many other issues. The National Association of Evangelicals, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalitions for America, People for the American Way, just to name a few, support the legislation. They don't often agree on much, but they do agree on the need to pass the Religious Free­ dom Restoration Act because religious freedom in America is dam- aged each day the Smith decision stands. Today, the committee will hear compelling testimony about the destructive impact of the decision. We are fortunate to have a very distinguished group of witnesses and I look forward to their testi­ mony. We have a statement from Senator Thurmond which we will enter in the record at this point. [The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:] 3 STATEMENT BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND (R-S.C.) BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REFERENCE HEARING ON S. 2969, THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1992. 10:00 A.M. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hearing this morning on S. 2969, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, brings into sharp focus the many different views on the advisability and manner of reversing the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith. This opinion, as my colleagues know, concerns the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. As stated by the Court, the respondents in this case, were fired from their jobs with a drug rehabilitation program because of their use of peyote as part of a religious ceremony. At the time, the use of peyote was a crime in Oregon for which no religious exemption existed. Respondents were denied unemployment compensation on the ground that they were dismissed for misconduct. Subsequently, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the denial of unemployment benefits violated respondents free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Of importance to the hearing this morning is that the Court, in reversing the Oregon Supreme Court, declined to apply the compelling governmental interest test, as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, a 1963 decision. S. 2969 would reverse the Court's holding, and would statutorily require the Court to apply the compelling governmental interest test to all challenges based on the Free Exercise Clause. Mr. Chairman, I understand the arguments in support of S. -1- 4 2969, but I am concerned that there are many aspects to this legislation which must be carefully considered before it is enacted. For example, I am concerned, as some of the witnesses suggest, that this legislation may have unintended consequences, especially as to the issue of abortion. I am also concerned that this legislation may deprive the Court of a certain amount of flexibility which is necessary in determining constitutional issues. Given the seriousness of these and many other issues, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the witnesses that I intend to study this legislation, and their recommendations, very carefully. In my view, legislation such as this, which impacts constitutional decision-making, demands our most careful and thorough review. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the witnesses for their time and effort in appearing before the Committee this morning. -2- 5 Senator KENNEDY. Our first witness this morning is Mr. William Yang of Worcester, MA. Mr. Yang, we welcome you here and we are delighted to have you before the committee.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Promoting Accuracy and Fairness in the Use of Government Watch Lists
    STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION TO DEFEND CHECKS AND BALANCES AN INITIATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT The Constitution Project 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW Third Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-580-6920 (phone) 202-580-6929 (fax) [email protected] www.constitutionproject.org STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION TO DEFEND CHECKS AND BALANCES We are members of the Constitution Project’s Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances. We are former government officials and judges, scholars, and other Americans who are deeply concerned about the risk of permanent and unchecked presidential power, and the accompanying failure of Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch of government. We write to express our concerns about certain uses of presidential signing statements that we believe greatly increase this risk. We applaud Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter for calling a hearing to focus attention on an issue that goes to the very heart of our system of government. Presidential signing statements – formal expressions of the views of a President regarding legislation that he has just signed into law – are nearly as old as the Republic. There is nothing inherently troubling about them. The question is how they are used. Throughout history, signing statements have been used to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill, and express satisfaction or, on occasion, displeasure with legislation passed by Congress. More recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have used signing statements as a tool to express constitutional and other objections to legislation, influence judicial interpretation, and otherwise advance policy goals.
    [Show full text]
  • 153682NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. .. .; J , ..~. .;"~ • .' ~ .~ _... '> .' UJ.l.IU.ll Calendar No. 605 102n CONGRESS REPORT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 102-1070 • ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1991 REPORT OF THE • SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SCNAC-102-1-14 N'CJRS ACQUISITKON,; Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control U.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • o WASHINGTON : 1992 :au • SELECI' COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL (102D CoNGRESS) CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman JACK BROOKS, Texas LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK, California BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio CARDISS COLLINS, TIlinois F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., FRANK J. GUARINI, New Jersey Wisconsin DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida ROBERT K. DORNAN, California WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey TOM LEWIS, Florida • MEL LEVINE, California JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma SOWMON P. ORTIZ, Texas WALLY HERGER, California LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut EDOLPHUS "ED" TOWNS, New York BILL PAXON, New York JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania KWEISI MFUME, Maryland HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina NITA M. WWEY, New York PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey COMMI'ITEE STAFF EDWARD H. JURlTH, Staff Director P&'rER J. CoNIGLIO, Minority Staff Director (Ill 153682 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice .
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks Hon.Henryj.Nowak
    March 24, 1982 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 5419 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS PORT USER-FEE PLANS REQUIRE harbor would be 1.7 cents, Duluth-Su­ Kudrna, chairman of the commission, MORE STUDY perior's 1.4 cents, Toledo's 3.2 cents, testified: and New York-New Jersey 2.7 cents. We do not believe that the impacts of the That type of disparity raises serious proposed deepdraft fees have been studied HON.HENRYJ.NOWAK questions about the potential impact in sufficient detail. Without better impact OF NEW YORK on traffic diversion from port to port information it seems to the GLC that we IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES or to other modes of transport. Even are sailing into a storm without a navigation system. Wednesday, March 24, 1982 'more basic is the question of the po­ tential adverse impact any port user e Mr. NOWAK. Mr. Speaker, among Following are 13 areas the GLC sug­ fee would have on ports like Buffalo's, gested for detailed analysis: the administration's proposals for re­ which deal heavily in bulk cargo for ducing Federal expenditures is a plan the hard-pressed auto, steel, and grain THE 13 AREAs SUGGESTED BY GLC to establish a system of user fees that would shift the financial responsibility milling industries. 1. DOUBLE CHARGES FOR DOMUTIC FREIGHT for harbor maintenance and improve­ The seriousness of those questions Application of charges directly by each ments from the Federal Government are compounded when one considers port may cause domestic freight to incur a to the deepwater ports. that the administation is also propos­ double charge-one at the origin and one at ing a separate user-fee plan to recoup the destination ports.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Call to Censure the President
    S. HRG. 109–524 AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALL TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 31, 2006 Serial No. J–109–66 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28–341 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • No. 17-249 John W. Whitehead Counsel
    No. 17-249 IN THE ___________ AMY YOUNG and JOHN SCOTT, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Andrew Lee Scott, deceased, and MIRANDA MAUCK, individually, Petitioners, v. GARY S. BORDERS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County Florida, and RICHARD SYLVESTER, in his individual capacity, Respondents. ___________ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT __________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ John W. Whitehead Counsel of Record Douglas R. McKusick THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE 923 Gardens Boulevard Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] [email protected] Lantagne Legal Printing 801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond VA 23219 (800) 847-0477 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2(b), The Rutherford Institute respectfully moves for leave to file the attached brief as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioners. All parties were provided with time- ly notice of amicus’ intent to file as required by Rule 37.2(a). Counsel of record for the Petitioners grant- ed consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Counsel of record for the Respondents denied con- sent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. The interest of amicus arises from its com- mitment to protecting the civil rights and liberties of all persons and defending advancing the laws and Constitution of the United States as a bulwark against abuses of government power.
    [Show full text]
  • RIGHTS at RISK
    RIGHTS at RISK Time for Action Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2021 RIGHTS AT RISK: TIME FOR ACTION Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2021 Chapter 4: Anti-Rights Actors 4 www.oursplatform.org 72 RIGHTS AT RISK: TIME FOR ACTION Observatory on the Universality of Rights Trends Report 2021 Chapter 4: Anti-Rights Actors Chapter 4: CitizenGo Anti-Rights Actors – Naureen Shameem AWID Mission and History ounded in August 2013 and headquartered Fin Spain,221 CitizenGo is an anti-rights platform active in multiple regions worldwide. It describes itself as a “community of active citizens who work together, using online petitions and action alerts as a resource, to defend and promote life, family and liberty.”222 It also claims that it works to ensure respect for “human dignity and individuals’ rights.”223 United Families Ordo Iuris, International Poland Center for World St. Basil the Istoki Great Family and Endowment Congress of Charitable Fund, Russia Foundation, Human Rights Families Russia (C-Fam) The International Youth Alliance Coalition Russian Defending Orthodox Freedom Church Anti-Rights (ADF) Human Life Actors Across International Heritage Foundation, USA FamilyPolicy, Russia the Globe Group of Friends of the and their vast web Family of connections Organization Family Watch of Islamic International Cooperation Anti-rights actors engage in tactical (OIC) alliance building across lines of nationality, religion, and issue, creating a transnational network of state and non-state actors undermining rights related to gender and sexuality. This El Yunque, Mexico visual represents only a small portion Vox party, The Vatican World Youth Spain of the global anti-rights lobby.
    [Show full text]
  • War Powers for the 21St Century: the Constitutional Perspective
    WAR POWERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 10, 2008 Serial No. 110–164 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41–756PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\IOHRO\041008\41756.000 Hintrel1 PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DIANE E. WATSON, California RON PAUL, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JOE WILSON, South Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikileaks, the First Amendment and the Press by Jonathan Peters1
    WikiLeaks, the First Amendment and the Press By Jonathan Peters1 Using a high-security online drop box and a well-insulated website, WikiLeaks has published 75,000 classified U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan,2 nearly 400,000 classified U.S. documents about the war in Iraq,3 and more than 2,000 U.S. diplomatic cables.4 In doing so, it has collaborated with some of the most powerful newspapers in the world,5 and it has rankled some of the most powerful people in the world.6 President Barack Obama said in July 2010, right after the release of the Afghanistan documents, that he was “concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield.”7 His concern spread quickly through the echelons of power, as WikiLeaks continued in the fall to release caches of classified U.S. documents. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the slow drip of diplomatic cables, saying it was “not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it [was] an attack on the 1 Jonathan Peters is a lawyer and the Frank Martin Fellow at the Missouri School of Journalism, where he is working on his Ph.D. and specializing in the First Amendment. He has written on legal issues for a variety of newspapers and magazines, and now he writes regularly for PBS MediaShift about new media and the law. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Noam N. Levey and Jennifer Martinez, A whistle-blower with global resonance; WikiLeaks publishes documents from around the world in its quest for transparency, L.A.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-720 Reply Brief
    NO. 14-720 In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN DARIANO; DIANNA DARIANO, on behalf of their minor child, M.D.; KURT FAGERSTROM; JULIE ANN FAGERSTROM, on behalf of their minor child, D.M.; KENDALL JONES; JOY JONES, on behalf of their minor child, D.G., Petitioners, v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; NICK BODEN, in his official capacity as Principal, Live Oak High School; MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Principal, Live Oak High School, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS ROBERT JOSEPH MUISE WILLIAM JOSEPH Counsel of Record BECKER, JR. American Freedom Law Center Freedom X P.O. Box 131098 11500 Olympic Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48113 Suite 400 (734) 635-3756 Los Angeles, CA 90064 [email protected] (310) 636-1018 ERIN MERSINO Affiliated Counsel with Thomas More Law Center The Rutherford Institute 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Counsel for Petitioners P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (734) 827-2001 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... ii INTRODUCTION........................... 1 REVIEW OF RELEVANT FACTS .............. 3 ARGUMENT IN REPLY...................... 7 I. The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Tinker and Allowed a Heckler’s Veto to Silence Protected Student Speech .......................... 7 II. This Case Is the Ideal Vehicle for Deciding the Question Presented...................... 11 CONCLUSION ............................ 13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ....................... 3 Bernhardt v. Cnty. of L.A., 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights
    No. 15-118 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR., Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA, THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, AND THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- HOPE METCALF BRENT M. ROSENTHAL Counsel of Record ROSENTHAL WEINER LLP 127 Wall Street 12221 Merit Drive, Suite 1640 New Haven, CT 06511 Dallas, TX 75251 (203) 432-9404 (214) 871-6600 [email protected] [email protected] DIALA SHAMAS 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-1797 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities ............................................. ii Interest of Amici Curiae ...................................... 1 Summary of Argument ........................................ 2 Argument ............................................................. 5 Conclusion ............................................................ 15
    [Show full text]
  • Telephone Justice, Pandering, and Judges Who Speak out of School Randall T
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 29 | Number 3 Article 2 2002 Telephone Justice, Pandering, and Judges Who Speak Out of School Randall T. Shepard Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Randall T. Shepard, Telephone Justice, Pandering, and Judges Who Speak Out of School, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 811 (2002). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol29/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TELEPHONE JUSTICE, PANDERING, AND JUDGES WHO SPEAK OUT OF SCHOOL Randall T. Shepard* As Americans we pride ourselves on the rule of law and its sine qua non, an independent judiciary. In The FederalistNo. 78, Alex- ander Hamilton described judicial independence as "an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."1 In the course of reaffirming the special role of judicial indepen- dence in our own society, we routinely decry the "telephone jus- tice" practiced in some parts of the world. Before the Berlin Wall came down, crimes such as "infringing on the activities of the state" served as "the fig leaves of a system that didn't disguise its real purpose: executing the wishes of the state's Communist Party leadership and their secret police."' 3 Even as the world enters the twenty-first century, there are still nations where a judge can ex- pect to receive a call from a party boss or security officer with or- ders on how to decide a case.4 While most would agree that such overt interference is the an- tithesis of judicial independence, these are the easy cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, V
    No. 19 -292 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANICE MADRID AND RICHARD WILLIAMSON, Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ JOHN W. WHITEHEAD JEFFREY T. GREEN* DOUGLAS R. MCKUSICK JOHN L. GIBBONS THE RUTHERFORD SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP INSTITUTE 1501 K Street NW 109 Deerwood Road Washington, DC 20005 Charlottesville, VA 22911 (202) 736-8000 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] BARBARA E. BERGMAN SARAH O’ROURKE SCHRUP NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NORTHWESTERN SUPREME OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PRACTICUM LAWYERS 375 East Chicago Avenue 1201 East Speedway Chicago, IL 60611 Boulevard (312) 503-0063 Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 621-3984 Counsel for Amici Curiae February 7, 2020 * Counsel of Record ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ..................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 2 I. IF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY HERE, MS. TORRES WILL HAVE NO REMEDY AT ALL ..................... 2 II. THE DECISION BELOW CONTRADICTS THIS COURT’S JURISPRUDENCE ........... 9 III. THE TENTH CIRCUIT’S RULING EX- PANDS THE UNJUSTIFIABLY SIGNIFI- CANT DISPARITY THAT ALREADY EX- ISTS BETWEEN LIABILITY FOR CIVIL- IANS AND FOR POLICE OFFICERS ........ 12 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 17 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Adams v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 347 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) .................................... 14 Ashby v. White (1703) 92 Eng. Rep. 126; 2 Ld. Raym. 938 ........................................... 8 Baker v.
    [Show full text]