Tag: Administrations

  • Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record — First Amendment News 456

    Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record — First Amendment News 456

    To lift a line from the songwriter extraordinaire of our era, “the times they are a- changin’.” Indeed, they are — and this is certainly true in our own corner of the world, the world of free speech. 

    For better and worse, Donald Trump and his agents are rearranging the structure of free expression in America. Only a few weeks into his presidency, things are proceeding at a breakneck speed, with a flurry of executive orders flying out the windows of the White House. Even early on, there is a sense that what will follow may well mark one of those pinpoints in our history when that “experiment” of which Holmes spoke is tested. Whatever else happens, it is important that there is some record of these times and what happened in them. To that end, we will soon launch a new segment within FAN called “Executive Watch” to track it all: the President’s orders, the executive agencies’ actions, the activities of the President’s affiliates, and Mr. Trump’s personal undertakings.

    Enter Professor Timothy Zick, the William and Mary Law School Robert & Elizabeth Scott Research Professor and John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship. 

    Prof. Timothy Zick

    Zick is the author of five books on the subject: “Speech out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places,” “The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties,” “The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Free Speech and its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights,” “The First Amendment in the Trump Era,” and “Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest.” He is also the co-author of a First Amendment casebook, “The First Amendment: Cases and Theory.”

    For all of the above reasons and others, Professor Zick is well suited to undertake the “Executive Watch” bi-monthly feature of First Amendment News. 

    Even at this early stage, this project comes a time when news stories like the following 21 surface with increasing frequency:



    WATCH VIDEO: Trump Calls For Changes To First Amendment, Demands “Mandatory One-Year In Jail” For U.S. Flag Burning.

    By chronicling such information and then analyzing it, the hope is that our readers will have a more informed sense of the state of free speech at a time when so much is in flux. There is the hope that “Executive Watch” will prompt further discussion of that vital freedom that is at the core of constitutional government in America.

    FBI agents file First Amendment class action

    While FBI agents may be at-will employees who can, generally speaking, be fired for “any reason or no reason,” they can’t be fired for an unconstitutional reason, or as punishment for the exercise of their constitutional rights (e.g. he can’t fire all the African-American agents, or all the agents registered as Democrats).

    The Complaint, filed in DC District Court, is posted here. Plaintiffs are “employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future for such activity.” They “intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.”

    Knight Institute on need for fact-checking platform

    [Recently] Meta announced changes . . . to its content moderation policies, including that it’s replacing third-party fact checking with a Community Notes model that allows users to publicly flag content they believe to be incorrect or misleading. 

    The following can be attributed to Katherine Glenn Bass, the Knight Institute’s research director:

    Katy Glenn Bass Research Director Knight Institute

    Katy Glenn Bass

    “Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement today is a stark reminder that many of the biggest platforms we use to communicate about issues of public importance are owned by billionaires who are not accountable to us. Apart from the obvious effort to signal political allegiance, the impact of the announced changes will not be clear for some time. But if we have any hope of measuring or understanding what is happening on these platforms, we need strong protections for the independent researchers and journalists who study them, and better mechanisms for ensuring they can access platform data.”

    In 2019, more than 200 researchers signed an open letter in support of the Knight Institute’s efforts to persuade Facebook to amend its terms of service to establish a “safe harbor” for public-interest journalism and research on the platform. Read more about that effort here.

    Shibley on Harvard’s anti-Semitism settlement

    Robert Shibley

    Robert Shibley

    Just one day after President Trump took office, Harvard agreed to settle two lawsuits brought against it by Jewish students that alleged the university ignored “severe and pervasive anti-Semitism on campus” and created “an unbearable educational environment” in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza.

    While the settlement language itself does not appear to be public, a press release filed on the official docket of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law v. President and Fellows of Harvard College included some details. Most notably, Harvard agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism. FIRE’s worry, shared by many others — including the definition’s primary author — is that, when added to policies used to punish discriminatory harassment on American campuses, the definition is too likely to be used to punish speech that is critical of Israel or its government but that is not motivated in animus against Jews or Israelis.

    FIRE has repeatedly proposed steps to address anti-Semitic discrimination on campus that would safeguard students from harassment while protecting freedom of speech, most recently in our inauguration-day letter to President Trump. Getting this right is important; any proposal that chills or censors protected speech on campus won’t pass constitutional muster at public universities, won’t square with free speech promises at private universities (like Harvard), and won’t effectively address anti-Semitism.

    Nevertheless, attempts to codify the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into laws or regulations are nothing new. FIRE posted a roundup of the widespread civil libertarian opposition to its codification last year, when Congress considered adopting it as federal law. Among those opponents is the definition’s primary author, Kenneth Stern, who spoke at length with FIRE’s Nico Perrino on our So to Speak podcast about why it’s not the right tool for the job of regulating speech. As Stern wrote back in 2016 for The New York Times: “The definition was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never supposed to curtail speech on campus. . . . And Jewish students are protected under the law as it now stands.” (Perhaps “as it is now written” would have been more precise; whether colleges follow the law is a different issue.)

    As Stern predicted in that piece:

    If this bill becomes law it is easy to imagine calls for university administrators to stop pro-Palestinian speech. Even if lawsuits alleging Title VI violations fail, students and faculty members will be scared into silence, and administrators will err on the side of suppressing or censuring speech.

    Stern’s prediction is about to receive ground testing at Harvard, and likely at other universities that may follow its lead.

    Forthcoming book: New edition of Neier’s ‘Defending My Enemy’

    A new edition of the most important free speech book of the past half-century, with a new essay by the author on the ensuing fifty years of First Amendment controversies.

    Cover of the book "Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America" by Aryeh Neier

    When Nazis wanted to express their right to free speech in 1977 by marching through Skokie, Illinois — a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors — Aryeh Neier, then the national director of the ACLU and himself a Holocaust survivor — came to the Nazis’ defense. Explaining what many saw as a despicable bridge too far for the First Amendment, Neier spelled out his thoughts about free speech in his 1977 book Defending My Enemy.

    Now, nearly fifty years later, Neier revisits the topic of free speech in a volume that includes his original essay along with an extended new piece addressing some of the most controversial free speech issues of the past half-century. Touching on hot-button First Amendment topics currently in play, the second half of the book includes First Amendment analysis of the “Unite the Right” march in Charlotteville, campus protest over the Israel/Gaza war, book banning, trigger warnings, right-wing hate speech, the heckler’s veto, and the recent attempts by public figures including Donald Trump to overturn the long-standing Sullivan v. The New York Times precedent shielding the media from libel claims.

    Including an afterword by longtime free speech champion Nadine Strossen, Defending My Enemy offers razor-sharp analysis from the man Muck Rack describes as having “a glittering civil liberties résumé.”

    Praise for Defending My Enemy

    “Aryeh Neier’s Defending My Enemy is as relevant today as it was when it was first published. The book is a powerful reminder of why free speech matters—not just for the voices we agree with, but for the voices we abhor. Neier’s story of defending Nazis’ rights to speak in Skokie underscores a timeless truth: If we want to preserve freedom for ourselves, we must be willing to defend it for others, no matter how deeply we disagree. At a time when censorship is on the rise globally, Defending My Enemy stands as a bold and principled call to action. Every advocate of free expression needs to read this book—and more importantly, live its lessons.” — Greg Lukianoff

    Forthcoming scholarly article: ‘Output of machine learning algorithms isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection’

    Stanford Law Review logo

    Machine learning algorithms increasingly mediate our public discourse – from search engines to social media platforms to artificial intelligence companies. And as their influence on online speech swells, so do questions of whether and how the First Amendment may apply to their output. A growing chorus of scholars has expressed doubt over whether the output of machine learning algorithms is truly speech within the meaning of the First Amendment, but none have suggested a workable way to cleanly draw the line between speech and non-speech.

    This Article proposes a way to successfully draw that line based on a principle that we call “speech certainty” – the basic idea that speech is only speech if the speaker knows what he said when he said it. This idea is rooted in the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment, and built into modern speech doctrines of editorial discretion and expressive conduct. If this bedrock principle has been overlooked, it is because, until now, all speech has been imbued with speech certainty. Articulating its existence was never necessary. But machine learning has changed that. Unlike traditional code, a close look at how machine learning algorithms work reveals that the programmers who create them can never be certain of their output. Because that output lacks speech certainty, it’s not the programmer’s speech.

    Accordingly, this Article contends that the output of machine learning algorithms isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection. With the Supreme Court signaling its intent to address unresolved questions of online speech, we are poised to enter a new era of First Amendment jurisprudence in the coming years. As we do, scholars, practicing attorneys, and judges can no longer ignore how the algorithms underlying online speech actually work – and how they have changed with the advent of machine learning. 

    Without recognizing this paradigm shift in algorithmic speech, we risk sleepwalking into a radical departure from centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence. By failing to distinguish between traditional and machine learning algorithms, current consensus about algorithmic speech suggests that the Constitution should, for the first time in its history, protect speech that a speaker does not know he has said. Speech certainty provides a novel and principled approach to conceptualizing machine learning algorithms under existing First Amendment jurisprudence. 

    Related

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 455: “Eight free expression cases pending on SCOTUS docket”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    by CUPA-HR | January 9, 2025

    On January 9, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky Court vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. The order strikes down the regulations nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2019 Title IX regulations set by the Trump administration.

    Background

    The Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was released in April 2024 and was set to take effect on August 1, 2024. Soon after the rule was published, several states filed legal challenges against it, resulting in preliminary injunctions that blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states that did not challenge the regulations.

    The Biden administration appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts to block only those provisions that related to gender identity. They argued that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students and that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements set forth by the final rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Biden administration’s request, arguing that the gender identity provisions were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    District Court Judge’s Ruling

    In the ruling that vacates the rule nationwide, the federal judge stated that the Biden administration’s Title IX rule is unlawful because Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not include the scope laid out in the regulations, which include expanded protections for pregnancy or related conditions, gender identity and sexual orientation. The order also states that the rule violates the First Amendment and that it is “arbitrary and capricious.”

    Looking Ahead

    The judge’s order almost certainly ends any hopes for the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations to take effect nationwide. The Biden administration may decide to appeal the decision to a higher court, but efforts to reinstate the rule will likely be unsuccessful given the few days they have left in office and the incoming Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend the rule in court. Alternatively, the Trump administration may seek to update their 2019 Title IX regulations, though any urgency to do so may be diminished now that the 2019 regulations are back in place.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised via Washington Insider Alert emails and the blog.



    Source link

  • Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 19, 2024

    On August 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s request to partially overturn preliminary injunctions from lower courts that block the Department of Education from enforcing the administration’s April 2024 Title IX final rule. The decision leaves the preliminary injunctions from the lower district courts in place, preventing the new Title IX rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states.

    Background

    Shortly after the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was published, over two dozen states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the rule. Over the course of the summer, decisions from lower district courts across the country placed preliminary injunctions on the final rule, leading to the blocking of the final rule in 26 states, as well as at hundreds of schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United and Moms for Liberty are in attendance.*

    After several preliminary injunctions were issued, the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court with an emergency request asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts. Specifically, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to only block provisions of the Title IX final rule related to gender identity, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students. The Biden administration had hoped that by limiting the scope of the preliminary injunctions, other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements would be able to take effect on August 1.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s plea to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions, leaving in place the lower courts’ rulings. The majority opinion stated that the Biden administration did not provide a strong enough argument to sway the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, and they argued that the gender identity provisions the Biden administration had hoped to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    Looking Ahead

    With the Supreme Court’s decision, the preliminary injunctions from the lower courts are still in place. Further decisions from the district courts on the legality of the final rule are still pending. The Title IX rule could return to the Supreme Court in the future, however, depending on how lower courts rule on the legality of the final rule and whether those decisions are appealed.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the legal challenges against the Biden administration’s Title IX rule.

    *The 26 states where the rule is blocked from being enforced by the Department of Education are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The final rule is also blocked from taking effect at hundreds of colleges and universities across the country, including in states that did not challenge the Title IX final rule. A list of those schools can be found here.



    Source link

  • Biden Administration’s Vaccine Mandates Face Legal Challenges in Court – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration’s Vaccine Mandates Face Legal Challenges in Court – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 9, 2021

    Over the past several months, the Biden administration announced and implemented several vaccine and testing mandates for federal workers, federal contractors and private employers. States and business stakeholders quickly responded with lawsuits against the administration’s mandates, which continue to be challenged in courts around the country. To keep CUPA-HR members apprised of the legal challenges, we have detailed below the most recent litigation updates for the federal contractor vaccine mandate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) vaccine mandate for healthcare workers — all three of which are on hold pending the various lawsuits’ outcomes.

    Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate

    On September 9, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 (EO), “Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors,” as part of his “Path Out of the Pandemic” plan. The EO tasks the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force with implementing guidance that requires all federal contractors to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their employees. The current effective date is January 4, 2022, meaning all covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated by January 18, 2022. A federal court recently enjoined the government from implementing the EO, however, so it remains unclear when, if ever, the mandate will go into effect.

    Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the mandate arguing that the Biden administration does not have authority to require vaccinations, and two federal courts have already issued decisions. On November 30, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a preliminary injunction against the mandate, stopping enforcement in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee only. On December 7, a federal judge at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted a motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction against the vaccination mandate for federal contractors, halting enforcement for federal contractors in all states. The Biden administration is expected to challenge this decision.

    OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard

    On November 5, OSHA issued its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement vaccination or testing policies for their workers. As it currently stands, the ETS requires covered employers and employees to be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022. A federal court has enjoined OSHA from implementing the ETS, however, and it remains unclear whether the ETS will be in effect on January 4 or anytime thereafter.

    Over three dozen lawsuits were filed against the rule, with at least one in all 12 circuit courts in the country. On November 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted an emergency motion to stay the ETS, and on November 12, it extended the stay while it further reviewed the motion for a permanent injunction, ordering OSHA to stop implementation and enforcement of the ETS until further court order. Due to the high volume of cases at various circuit courts, a lottery was held on November 18 to determine which circuit court would hear the case to make a sweeping decision, which the 6th Circuit won, meaning the stay remains in place until the 6th Circuit makes a decision on the motion. It is likely the stay will remain in place until at least December 10; that said, the 6th Circuit can decide to lift the stay before that if it chooses to do so.

    CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers

    On November 5, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule requiring healthcare workers in facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds be vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 4, 2022. This rule also has been stayed by federal courts.

    Four lawsuits were filed against CMS challenging the agency’s authority to issue the rule. On November 29, the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocked implementation and enforcement in the 10 states that challenged the rule: Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Hampshire. On November 30, the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the mandate nationwide, except in the 10 states impacted by the Missouri ruling. Decisions in the two other lawsuits are still pending.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor the ongoing litigation for all of the vaccine and testing mandates and will keep members apprised of any decisions that will impact institutions’ compliance efforts.



    Source link