Read Civil Rights updates, alerts, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and laws. Providing news and information about Civil Rights Law for legal professionals.
An appeals court judge has upheld a previous ruling that the MTA’s policy of refusing all political and religious ads in the transit system is legal, meaning the agency can continue to reject controversial posters by firebrand Pamela Geller and the anti-Muslim American Freedom law Center– for now.
Geller’s attorney had appealed Manhattan Federal judge John Koeltl’s ruling last June, in which he said “No law requires public transit agencies to accept political advertisements as a matter of course.”
But the appeals court says that, given that the MTA had changed it policy disallowing all political ads in the midst the legal battle, Geller and the AFLC’s initial arguments are now “moot.”
“AFDI is, of course, free to challenge the MTA’s new advertising standards, but it must do so through an amended complaint,” the ruling reads.
The case began in 2014, when Geller’s AFDI filed suit against the MTA for blocking it from purchasing Islam-bashing ads on city buses.
MTA officials said they are happy that the court took the agency’s side.
“The MTA is pleased by the Second Circuit’s decision, which reiterated that we have acted in good faith when balancing enforcement of our advertising regulations with respect for the First Amendment,” said MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg.
Sourced From – http://nypost.com/2016/03/03/mtas-ban-anti-muslim-ads-on-subway-is-legal-court-rules/
WASHINGTON — Facing hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits, the giant biotechnology companyMonsanto last year received a legislative gift from the House of Representatives, a one-paragraph addition to a sweeping chemical safety bill that could help shield it from legal liability for a toxic chemical only it made.
Monsanto insists it did not ask for the addition. House aides deny it is a gift at all. But the provision would benefitthe only manufacturer in the United States of now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known as PCBs, a mainstay of Monsanto sales for decades. The PCB provision is one of several sticking points that negotiators must finesse before Congress can pass a law to revamp the way thousands of chemicals are regulated in the United States.
“Call me a dreamer, but I wish for a Congress that would help cities with their homeless crises instead of protecting multinational corporations that poison our environment,” said Pete Holmes, the city attorney for Seattle, one of six cities suing Monsanto to help cover the costs of reducing PCB discharge from their sewers.
Democrats and Republicans—along with the chemical industry and even some environmentalists—agree that the pending legislation would be a major improvement over existing law.But from legal liability shields to state-based regulatory authority, the House and Senate versions have major differences to resolve. The remaining disputes revolve around the basics of pre-emption: Who gets to sue? Andwho gets to regulate the chemical industry?
A Monsanto spokeswoman said the company had received no special treatment from the House or the Senate.
“Monsanto does not consider either version of the bill, with respect to the effect on preemption, to be a ‘gift,’ ” the spokeswoman, Charla Lord, said.
Already, attorneys general and top environmental regulators from 15 states have written to leaders in Congress demanding changes.
“Our future work depends on striking the right balance to strengthen the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s abilities and funding, without limiting state powers in creating and enforcing needed protections,” said aletter, obtained by The New York Times, sent by the top environmental regulators in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia.
Some of the most vociferous objections relate to the so-called Monsanto Clause. The provision does not mention the company by name, but between the early 1930s and 1977, Monsanto manufactured almost all of the 1.25 billion pounds of PCBs sold in the United States.
The chemicals were initially admired for their ability to prevent fires and explosions in electrical transformers and other equipment. But as the use of PCBs skyrocketed nationwide in products as varied as paints, pesticides and even carbonless copy paper, evidence mounted that they were contaminating the environment and potentially causing health problemsincluding cancer and immune-system complications. The E.P.A. banned their production in 1979.
PCB litigation has surged in the last year as cities and school systems struggle to comply with directives from federal and state regulators to reduce PCB levels in sewer discharge and in caulk once used to construct schools. Separately, a group of individuals who received diagnoses of a form of cancer known as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma sued Monsanto last year, claiming the company should pay damages.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in a June reportaccompanying its version of the legislation, asserted that neither existing toxic chemical law nor any revisions pending in Congress should be seen as a way to “pre-empt, displace or supplant” the right to sue for damages in lawsuits like the ones filed against Monsanto.
The House also voted to preserve the right to sue if individuals or local governments believe they have been harmed by a chemical, regardless of future federal regulations of the substance. But a critical paragraph added to the House bill in late May made sure past regulatory requirements by the E.P.A. would continue to disqualify legal claims, and it specifically referred to the section of the 1976 toxic chemical law governing PCBs, giving Monsanto clearer authority in the future to ask judges to dismiss lawsuits filed against it.
Congressional aides involved in the drafting said the language was inserted at the request of Republican staff members at the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One Republican committee aide disputed any suggestion that this was a gift to Monsanto, but he said he was not allowed to discuss the issue on the record.
And Ms. Lord, the Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company did not ask for the change.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Education have confirmed that its Office for Civil Rights is investigating complaints against Waukegan Public School District 60, including allegations of racial discrimination in both discipline matters and sexual harassment protections.
Local activist Chris “Brotha” Blanks, who founded the Black Abolition Movement for the Mind in Waukegan, reported earlier this month that he filed a set of complaints against the district in October and was informed in December that an investigation would take place.
While an official with the department’s Chicago office said he was not authorized to comment following Blanks’ announcement, a Department of Education spokesman said in a Feb. 17 statement that an investigation was opened on Dec. 14 and no timeline or estimated date of completion could be reported. The spokesman added that “because this is an open investigation, (the Office for Civil Rights) cannot provide further details or case-specific information.”
In general, the statement added, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigates issues of racial discrimination in the administration of discipline and also in differential treatment, denial of benefits, exclusion or retaliation as covered under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Also investigated are alleged sexual violence issues related to Title IX, the federal law that guarantees female students protection from discrimination and sexual harassment.
Information on the complaints released by Blanks accuse the district of subjecting African-American and Hispanic students to exclusionary discipline “more frequently and for less serious offenses than white students.” A separate complaint claims the district fails to “promptly and equitably respond to complaints, reports and/or incidents of sexual harassment, including sexual violence.”
Regarding how such investigations proceed and what penalties might be involved, the Department of Education statement said policy dictates that an investigator serves as “a neutral fact-finder” in gathering information through data requests, interviews and site visits.
“It should be noted that the opening of an investigation by OCR in itself does not indicate that the institution is violating or has violated any federal law or that OCR has reached a conclusion as to whether a violation of any federal law exists,” the statement added. “As part of its investigation process, OCR gathers information through a variety of methods to determine if a school or district is meeting its obligations to comply with the civil rights laws that OCR enforces.
“OCR analyzes all relevant evidence from the parties involved in the case to develop its findings. At the conclusion of the investigation of all issues, OCR will determine if the evidence supports a conclusion of noncompliance or if the evidence is insufficient.”
Districts found to have broken a law and refused to address the problems can lose federal funding or be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for unspecified further action, according to the statement.
“Where the office finds that a violation has occurred, OCR works with the institution to reach a resolution agreement,” the statement added. “All resolutions are case-specific and fact-dependent. Through these agreements with schools, OCR has been able to attain strong remedies without the need to initiate enforcement actions, either through the initiation of an administrative hearing to terminate federal funding or a referral to the Department of Justice for judicial relief.
“However, initiating proceedings to revoke federal funds is a tool that OCR will utilize, if necessary, to achieve compliance.”
District 60 officials acknowledged in a statement released earlier this month that they had begun cooperating with the investigation.
“We are currently working to fulfill the Office of Civil Rights’ request for numerous documents and records, which will be used in the OCR’s investigation,” the Feb. 10 statement read. “As we work to comply with these requests we, unfortunately, cannot comment further.”
Apple may face an uphill climb in its latest fight with the feds over digital privacy.
The company’s CEO, Tim Cook, said in a statement on its website Wednesday that Apple opposes a federal court’s order to write special software so federal investigators can penetrate the passcode for an iPhone once used by Syed Farook.
Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were the perpetrators of a shooting spree in San Bernardino, Calif., on Dec. 2, which killed 14 people and injured 22 others. The shooters were later killed during a gunfight with police.
Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and lawyers from the Justice Department have said Farook’s phone, and iPhone 5C, may contain key evidence about his communications in the weeks before the attack, but they cannot access it without Farook’s passcode.
FBI agents have been unable to access the phone’s contents because of security features built into the device’s software. Those include one that forces users to wait several minutes before entering different passcodes. Another erases a decryption key necessary to access the device’s data if a user enters a wrong passcode too frequently.
The judge’s order instructs Apple to write custom software, called a “Software Image File,” to bypass these security features so the FBI can quickly test an unlimited number of passcodes until it finds the right one. Once that as-yet-uncreated software is installed on the phone, security experts say it would take no more than a day to find the code.
News of the order triggered fierce debate last week as technologists wondered whether Apple can, as a matter of technical ability, comply with the demand, while privacy advocates said engineering such software could have dangerous security implications. Legal experts said it raises constitutional questions about how far the government can go when conscripting private, third parties to assist with law enforcement.
Cook’s statement, which indicated the company planned to fight the order in court, prompted the Justice Department to file a new motion on Friday, asking Pym to compel Apple to comply with her previous order.
A New Jersey town is attempting to protect illegal immigrants from “really unfortunate” arrests by publishing handouts in English and Spanish that encourage immigrants “to remain silent” and “have a plan!” if confronted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
The response from Princeton officials comes following the targeted arrest of two illegal immigrants in the town early Thursday morning, one of whom had a drunken driving conviction, an ICE official told NJ.com.
Councilwoman Heather Howard has been a leading advocate for working with the local immigrant population to prevent detentions and deportations.
raid ice
“These [arrests] are really unfortunate,” she told NJ.com. “They cause fear and panic in the community, and they work to undermine the community’s effort to improve law enforcement relations.”
An ICE spokesperson told FoxNews.com the town’s efforts wouldn’t impede ICE’s duties.
“It’s not gonna hinder our operations,” Alvin Phillips said. “Standard operations are still ongoing and based on priorities.”
He added: “ICE arrests are not unfortunate. In fact to the contrary of previous reports — ICE actions are in keeping with the laws and homeland security priorities: National Security, Public Safety and Border Security. I will also add, arrests in question are afforded an opportunity to meet with legal counsel.”
Several “Know Your Rights” handouts on the town government’s website advise immigrants “if you or someone you love is deportable, have a plan!” Another section of one of the pamphlets tells immigrants to not “answer questions about your immigration status or where you were born. Keep saying you want to call your attorney.”
The publications come complete with cartoons of smiling immigrants flashing cards that say “I want to speak with my lawyer” and shocked immigrants being busted by angry ICE agents, often appearing menacing and wearing dark sunglasses.
The pamphlets even encourage readers not to provide their names to officers: “Remember that providing your name has risks, and that your name can be used to start a deportation process.”
A “Right To Remain Silent Card” is printed near the end of one of the publications with cut-out lines drawn around it for those who wish to detach and carry it.
The card states: “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be informed that I am choosing to exercise my right to remain silent and the right to refuse to answer your questions. If I am detained, I request to contact an attorney immediately. I am also exercising my right to refuse to sign anything until I consult with my attorney.”
Elisa Neira, the executive director of Human Services, said the goal of the literature is to better inform illegal immigrants of their rights.
