COURTS3

---

estb 320

SEE FOUR 10 24

merri ok bak fail

see jan 6

see fani willis

see district appeal

SEE WIN HOPE

see stack

see disbar

see moderation

see defam as correction smartmatic fox 200 mules salem

~ gerry / voter suppress}:

see climate lawsuits juliana v epa

aha one of few remaining accountability functions // mod? jones bankruptcy tossed, defam mixed but mostly good record eg smartmatic?

---

===

mma 10 24 no twt

A federal court issued an order blocking Florida state officials and in particular Gov. Ron DeSantis' health secretary Joseph Ladapo, from threatening TV stations over ads in support of Amendment 4, the constitutional ballot referendum that seeks to repeal Florida's near-total abortion ban, reported constitutional attorney Adam Steinbaugh.

DeSantis' administration sent letters to TV stations threatening to prosecute their employees for airing the ad, citing an obscure "sanitary nuisance" law intended to apply to physical health hazards like improperly sealed septic tanks. Specifically, they argued that the law might falsely persuade women who are eligible for abortion under health exceptions from seeking care.

The court didn't buy the argument and called out the state for violating the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

"While Defendant Ladapo refuses to even agree with this simple fact, Plaintiff's political advertisement is political speech — speech at the core of the First Amendment," said the ruling. "The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech 'false.'"

The ruling cited the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the 1945 case *Thomas v. Collins*: "The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion."

"To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it's the First Amendment, stupid," the ruling continued.

This comes after a tough day of oral argument, in which U.S. District Judge Mark Walker appeared visibly exasperated with Florida attorneys' arguments that the prosecution threats against TV stations were legitimate.

---

AN 10 24

The acolytes of former President Donald Trump sitting on the Georgia State Election Board just suffered a stinging defeat at the hands of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney.

ABC News reported Tuesday that McBurney's decision still requires all county election officials to certify election results by the statutory deadline even if they feel the need to investigate the conduct of elections. The decision slams the door on a previous ruling by the state election board aimed at making it easier for members of county election boards to refuse certification if they suspect fraud.

"No election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance," McBurney wrote in the decision.

McBurney's ruling was celebrated by various legal experts on X (formerly Twitter) after Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias announced McBurney's decision on his website, Democracy Docket. Elias, who helped Democrats argue the case in court, called it "a big defeat for election deniers in Georgia."

"Huge victory for democracy," tweeted Tristan Snell, a former prosecutor with the New York Attorney General's Office. "Huge defeat for Trump's attempts to scuttle the election."

TV producer Morgan J. Freeman (not the actor) praised the ruling as "HUGE" and celebrated that "Georgia is NOT allowing Donald Trump to CHEAT." Bestselling author Nicole Perlroth observed that while it was "absurd this had to be fought in court," McBurney's decision was a "victory for democracy nonetheless."

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance also noted the significance of McBurney's decision, mentioning that Trump has for years attempted to throw a wrench into the gears of the certification process. She noted that the January 6, 2021 insurrection was, at its core, an attempt to interrupt certification of an election whose result was unfavorable for Trump.

"Trump tried to get his VP to interfere with certifying the vote on Jan 6 2021," she wrote. "Since that didn't work, there's now a move to interfere with certification at the state/county level. A Fulton County judge just ruled that can't be done. Certifying vote counts is purely ministerial."

On the social media platform Bluesky, Darin Self — an assistant political science professor at Brigham Young University — took a different tone. He lamented that American democracy was in such a perilous state that "a judge has to tell officials, yes, you do actually have to count the votes."

The decision was notably handed down on the same day that early voting began in the Peach State. Former New York Daily News and Boston Herald journalist Helen Kennedy reminded her Bluesky followers that former President Jimmy Carter — who recently turned 100 years old — achieved his goal of hanging on long enough to cast his Georgia ballot for Vice President Kamala Harris.

===

08/26/24

Media Matters statement on winning injunction against Missouri AG Andrew Bailey in federal court

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published 08/26/24

Media Matters President and CEO Angelo Carusone issued the following statement after Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

“A federal judge has clearly seen this coordinated effort by state attorneys general for what it is – sucking up to Elon Musk and abusing the power of their offices to intimidate researchers and stifle accurate reporting by Musk's critics. Andrew Bailey was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated.

“The judge’s decision is a victory for free speech and a warning to other AGs and like-minded bad actors that the constitution does not allow for this type of meritless, retaliatory, harassing effort to suppress free speech.”

Key takeaways from the order:

As Judge Mehta noted, Media Matters was the target of politically motivated “retaliation” by law enforcement that “chilled” our “protected expression” and First Amendment rights.

* The U.S. District Court also affirmed that Media Matters’ reporting is “protected speech” and has been corroborated by other media outlets and even X Corp.

According to Judge Mehta “‘the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.’ … That apparently is what has occurred here.”

* The U.S. District Court affirmed that AG Bailey’s own “public statements are direct evidence of retaliatory intent” against Media Matters, and “retaliation for protected expression was likely his true motive for investigating Media Matters.”

The same day that X Corp. filed a meritless lawsuit against Media Matters for America for an accurate report on the platform’s extremism, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a similarly specious investigation into MMFA under Texas’ deceptive trade practices act. Paxton subsequently issued an overbroad and invasive civil investigative demand – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Texas. On April 12, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Weeks after Paxton issued his demand, Missouri AG Andrew Bailey claimed to open his own investigation into Media Matters. Bailey ultimately filed a Civil Investigative Demand against the organization on March 25, 2024 – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Missouri. According to Bailey himself, he is coordinating with Paxton in his “war” against Media Matters and his Missouri Demand is “virtually identical” to Paxton’s Texas Demand. On April 24, 2024, Judge Mehta permitted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to be a defendant in Media Matters’ suit against Paxton.

The nonpartisan U.S. Press Freedom Tracker which catalogs press freedom violations in the United States recently recorded incident reports related to the Texas attorney general's investigation and the Missouri attorney general’s investigation in their database.

===}:

court blocks Tennessee GOP’s 'unprecedent disenfranchisement' of Nashville voters

https://www.alternet.org/tennessee-court-hb-48/)

an 7 24

---

exxon loss city lawsuits texas aplleas yet

===

JUNE 2020 CCI

Exxon can’t depose California communities suing them, Texas Court of Appeals rules

On the heels of a major victory for California communities that can now advance their lawsuits to hold Exxon and other Big Oil companies accountable for their share of the billions of dollars in climate change costs, a Texas appeals court last week handed the world’s largest oil company yet another defeat in its efforts to escape accountability.

Exxon’s request, that it be allowed to leaf through documents from officials of the California cities and counties taking the company to court, was reviewed by a court on its home turf in Texas, where the company says its constitutional rights were violated.

Three justices of the Second Appellate District of Texas concluded that despite their personal inclinations, the law was clear and Texas courts do not have jurisdiction over the California communities: "We confess to an impulse to safeguard an industry that is vital to Texas's economic well-being … [but] our reading of the law simply does not permit us to agree with Exxon’s contention.”

The justices overturned a lower court’s decision that would have given Exxon the green light to demand records and files from municipalities it claims have targeted them in a “conspiracy” to scapegoat them for climate change. The only real conspiracy, of course, is found in the hundreds of internal industry documents that clearly demonstrate a multi-billion dollar campaign to deceive the public on climate change — the basis upon which communities across the country have sued the industry to recover immense climate damages.

This defeat of Exxon’s latest ploy to stall, intimidate and harass those who seek to bring it to justice is not the first, and it certainly won’t be the last. In 2016, the company attempted to depose Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey after she launched an investigation into whether the company had defrauded consumers and investors; that deposition was nixed by a Texas federal judge after Healey filed an appeal.

It is especially telling that even judges who are politically aligned with Big Oil can be a bulwark against the industry’s overreach. The message is clear: not even Exxon is above the law — and soon, it will have to reckon with the cost of its misdeeds.

===

chiquita Brands International Inc. bananas are arranged at Union Street Produce Co. in San Francisco, California.

Banana giant Chiquita Brands will need to pay $38.3 million to family members of those killed during Colombia’s bloody Civil War after the company was found liable for funding a right-wing paramilitary group.

The verdict was handed down on Monday by a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida. The landmark ruling is the first time a major U.S. company has been found guilty of human rights abuses in another country.

“The verdict sends a powerful message to corporations everywhere: profiting from human rights abuses will not go unpunished. These families, victimized by armed groups and corporations, asserted their power and prevailed in the judicial process,” said Marco Simons, general counsel at EarthRights International, a nonprofit representing victims in the case, in a statement.

The trial included testimony from families of the nine victims, including expert reports, and key documentary evidence.

Chiquita, which is headquartered in Florida, said in statement following the verdict that “the situation in Colombia was tragic for so many,” adding, “however, it does not change our belief that there is no legal basis for these claims.”

According to court documents, Chiquita agreed to pay a $25 million fine to the the U.S. government in 2007 after it admitted that it had paid about $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC). The AUC was labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 2001.

Chiquita has faced similar suits filed in U.S. courts from families of other victims that were killed by the paramilitary group, which the company also paid.

The court’s latest verdict follows a weeks-long trial, including a jury selection period that began in April, EarthRights said, adding that its case was originally filed in July 2007 and was later combined with several other cases.

“It’s a triumph of a process that has been going on for almost 17 years, for all of us who have suffered so much during these years,” one of the victims said in EarthRights’ press release. “We’re not in this process because we want to be; it was Chiquita, with its actions, that dragged us into it. We have a responsibility to our families, and we must fight for them.”

Chiquita jury verdict in Colombia paramilitary killings case awards millions : NPR

===

---

an 6 24

an appellate court yet again declared that Democrat Katie Hobbs is the rightful governor of Arizona as it rejected Republican Kari Lake’s latest challenge to her 2022 election loss, unanimously backing the lower court's decisions.

In Judge Sean Brearcliffe's 23-page opinion, he surgically explained the various reasons why Lake's appeal efforts came up short.

"The court did not ignore the evidence Lake offered; Lake’s expert’s methodology was contradicted at trial by election officials put forward by Hobbs," the papers say. "In the court’s ruling, it specifically weighed Lake’s evidence against testimony offered by election officials ,and found that the election officials’ testimony―that meaningful verification had occurred―was more credible."

He concluded that the "substantial evidence" secured the favorable result to Hobbs because "we cannot say the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous."

One of the arguments that Lake and her supporters have tried to peddle is blaming Maricopa County Co-Elections Director Scott Jarrett for being untruthful about the printer issues that affected some of the 2022 Voting Centers on Election Day, according to AZ Law.

ALSO READ:'Most powerful thing': Witness details Trump's last moments before 'shocking' verdict

The Court of Appeals analyzed it and determined: "At best, this is a misunderstanding between an attorney and a witness that was ironed-out during a trial."

Lake, a MAGA loyal Republican who is campaigning to win a U.S. Senate seat, filed her initial election challenge in December 2022 after she was bested in the governor’s race by Democrat Katie Hobbs by more than 17,000 votes.

The candidate never conceded to Hobbs and protested that the election was stolen, despite her claims failing to convince judges in December 2022 and May 2023 trials, as well as multiple appeals in between the two.

And yet whatever setback legally, Lake has stayed defiant, and continue to preach that the election was somehow compromised.

“Everything I’ve ever said about the elections is true and I stand by it,” Lake said in March.

Lake's critics on Twitter were quick to relish her latest defeat.

"Waste of tax payers money," writes @resist_xrp_user.

One created a composite of Lake up in age with grey hair, circa 2050 and still fighting to overturn the 2020 election. Another mockup of a Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor called "Kari Lake Lost" featuring "salty MAGA tears" and "big chunks of election denial."

"When Kari Lake loses either in her primary or in the general will she pursue a claim to be the 'real' senator from Arizona," asks @marysjogren1.

Debby Williams appeared to indulge on the defeat in court for Lake. "Another loss for Kari Lake!"

"How many times has Hobbs won the election now," reads a post by @gatesisthedevil. "I’ve lost count."

---

mma 6 24

the widely debunked documentary was mentioned in dozens of articles on The Gateway Pundit and pushed by conservative media figures including Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk

WRITTEN BY AUDREY MCCABE

PUBLISHED 06/05/24 10:51 AM EDT

Right-wing media conglomerate Salem Media has retracted and apologized for Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote’s conspiracy theory-laden “documentary” 2000 Mules after settling a lawsuit with a Georgia voter falsely accused by the film of committing fraud in the 2020 election.

Before halting distribution of the film and removing it from its platforms, Salem Media provided a platform to widely circulate its election integrity misinformation throughout the right-wing media ecosystem. Salem Media’s Charlie Kirk was featured in the documentary, and a search for the film name on The Gateway Pundit’s website yielded dozens of articles.

In May 2022, filmmaker D’Souza released 2000 Mules in partnership with “election integrity” group True the Vote and Salem Media. The film relies heavily on the use of cellphone geotracking, a faulty approach that reportedly fails to prove claims of ballot trafficking. (D’Souza also published a book version of 2000 Mules, which was recalled by the publisher soon after it hit bookstores and altered to retract certain allegations before its re-release. True the Vote claimed to have “had no participation in” the book.)

The documentary has been repeatedly debunked by law enforcement and the media, but right-wing media heavily promoted the film as supposed evidence of widespread voter fraud aimed at stopping former President Donald Trump from winning the 2020 presidential election.

Mark Andrews, a Georgia man falsely depicted as committing voter fraud in the film, sued D’Souza and his company, Salem Media, True the Vote and its founders Catherine Engelbrecht and Greg Phillips, and the book publisher. In a separate legal proceeding, a Fulton County Superior Court judge ordered True the Vote to provide evidence of voter fraud in Georgia, which the film asserted. True the Vote admitted in court that it did not have evidence substantiating its claims.

Salem Media recently settled in the suit, paying Andrews an undisclosed “significant” amount and issuing a formal apology. The outlet also claimed that it “relied on representations made to us by Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote.” Engelbrecht claimed in a livestream that Salem retracted 2000 Mules only because of pressure from shareholders and advertisers, and True the Vote posted on X that it “stands by its processes and methodologies” and Salem’s settlement “does not change our [True the Vote’s] position.” D’Souza reposted the statement.

IFrame Content

Right-wing media figures and outlets have pushed the film, using it to fuel claims that the 2020 election was stolen

One America News regularly promoted the film around the 2022 midterm elections, devoting 58 hours of airtime to the film between October 15 and November 1. One America News figures also attended the Mar-a-Lago premiere, bizarrely weaved the film into unrelated segments about crime, and called it the “film of the century.” Host Dan Ball stated, “After watching this movie, I will say this: There’s not one doubt in my mind that this election was rigged, period.” Media Matters, [11/3/22, 5/11/22]
The Daily Signal, The Published Reporter, and several GOP politicians ran ads on Meta promoting 2000 Mules, further spreading the film’s false claims.The Daily Signal’s ad features a quote from Phillips claiming that there was an “organized effort to subvert” the 2020 election. Meta prohibits ads that have been debunked by third-party fact-checkers, but Media Matters found 36 ads promoting the film. Media Matters, [5/6/22]
Right-wing podcaster and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon invited Engelbrecht and Phillips onto War Room to promote the film, even after the group failed to provide evidence before the court. Bannon claimed that True the Vote was being targeted in an “organized media hit.” Media Matters, [2/20/24]
Salem Media host and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk appeared in 2000 Mules and brought D’Souza, Engelbrecht, and Phillips on his show to promote the film. Kirk also partnered with D’Souza to host exclusive showings of the documentary. Media Matters, [5/4/22; CharlieKirk.com, 4/9/22]
A search for “2000 Mules” on The Gateway Pundit’s website returned dozens of articles.The outlet claimed that the film “irrefutably confirms the widespread belief that Democrats stole the election in 2020.” The Gateway Pundit, [6/2/22]
Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump attempted to make attorney general, has repeatedly praised 2000 Mules on X (formerly known as Twitter) and claimed that it revealed a “massive multi-State operation.” He promoted a Gateway Pundit article on Kirk’s interview with Engelbrecht and Phillips. Media Matters, [6/23/22]

---

May 2, 2024 rww

Evan Vorpahl @ True North: True North Issues New Research Report Detailing Who Is Targeting State Courts to Limit Freedoms

True North is issuing a new research report shining a light on those men–Leonard Leo, Dick Uihlein, Charles Koch, and Jeff Yass–and right-wing groups targeting state courts and other levers of power to change the rules and limit our freedoms. This new report also documents how Leo used the Federalist Society to target state supreme courts and the judicial selection process in order to advance his agenda, and more.

---

SO MUCH FOR FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTISM

OMFG

mma 4 24

media Matters President and CEO Angelo Carusone issued the following statement after Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Elon Musk encouraged Republican state attorneys general to use their power to harass their critics and stifle reporting about X. Ken Paxton was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated. Today's decision is a victory for free speech.

Key takeaways from the order:

As Judge Mehta noted, Media Matters’ investigative journalism and reporting “are core First Amendment activities,” and any “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Judge Mehta prohibited Paxton from taking any steps to enforce his unlawful demand to rifle through Media Matters’ confidential documents.

The same day that X Corp. filed a meritless lawsuit against Media Matters for America for an accurate report on the platform’s extremism, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a similarly specious investigation into MMFA under Texas’ deceptive trade practices act. Paxton subsequently issued an overbroad and invasive civil investigative demand – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Texas. The nonpartisan U.S. Press Freedom Tracker which catalogs press freedom violations in the United States recently recorded an incident report related to the Texas attorney general's investigation in their database.

---

===

an 3 24

Earlier this week, CNN reported that the Judicial Conference of the United States announced a new rule that would that would shut down "judge shopping" — a tactic conservative attorneys general and conservative litigants have used to file challenges against liberal policies and laws.

The new policy requires federal district courts to "randomly assign a judge to a lawsuit if the suit aims to block any federal or state law, executive order or regulation," the Hill reports.

"I’m really proud that we did this," 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton said in response to the announcement.

However, according to the Associated Press, two days later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) condemned the move "on the Senate floor and joined with two other GOP senators to send letters to a dozen chief judges around the country suggesting they" ignore it.

In a Sunday, March 17 op-ed published by MSNBC, University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck points out the hypocrisy in not only McConnell's — but US Senator John Cornyn's (R-TX) and Thom Tillis' (R-NC) — opposition to the rule, too.

"So why are these three Republican senators so upset by the proposed reform?" Vladeck asks. "The answer is obvious: because it will make it harder to guarantee that specific judges will hear specific lawsuits — whether individual Republican appointees hearing challenges to Democratic policies, or vice versa."

Vladeck writes:

Plaintiffs have increasingly taken advantage of these 'single-judge' divisions to steer nationwide federal policy challenges to specific, ideologically sympathetic judges. For example, the nationwide challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone (one of two drugs used in the most common and safest abortion procedure) was filed in Amarillo, Texas — not a courthouse with any specific connection to mifepristone, but one in which it had a 100% chance of being assigned to a certain Trump-appointed district judge, former anti-abortion advocate Matthew Kacsmaryk. Kacsmaryk remarkably, if predictably, ruled against the FDA’s approval of the drug — an approval that occurred 23 years ago.

Another example the Just Security blog co-founder notes:

A nationwide challenge to Biden administration efforts to combat social media disinformation was filed in Monroe, Louisiana — where it had a 100% chance of being assigned to Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty. And the state of Texas, which has filed 37 different lawsuits in Texas district courts challenging Biden administration policies*, has filed a majority of them in single-judge divisions — and none in Austin (where the Texas government is actually located) or Houston or Dallas or … you get the point.

Vladeck emphasizes, "The charge from McConnell, Cornyn and Tillis that the Judicial Conference is engaged in 'partisan' behavior rings more than a little hypocritical. The whole point of the proposal is to reduce the appearance of partisanship on the part of the federal courts."

READ MORE:[GOP represents 'most significant threat to basic constitutionalism since Civil War': historian

*Vladeck's full op-ed is available [at this link.]

===

---

ron-desantis-fails-again-appeals-court-stops-stop-woke-act-calls-it-the-greatest-first-amendment-sin

---

True The Vote's claims collapsed in court. In MAGA media, they're still going strong. | Media Matters for America

---

an 11 23

a Florida county commissioner ousted by governor and 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, was exonerated Thursday after being sentenced to three years of probation and community service, and serving 75 days in jail, The Intercept reports.

"He lost everything," Oren Miller's wife Angie Fox said, according to the report. "They took his job away. He had to go to jail. He had to pay for all the expenses and everything. Where we go from here, I don't know. Right now we're just trying to settle down from the news."

The Sumter County commissioner, along with "fellow commissioner, Gary Search, who was similarly prosecuted," but took a plea deal, The Intercept reports, "ran for office pledging to roll back a property tax increase that had been foisted on residents to fund future development in The Villages. They argued that if the developer, which also owned the local newspaper and radio station, wanted to expand the size of the retirement community, they should do so with their own money."

The news outlet adds, "Shortly after Miller and Search were sworn in, the local prosecutor launched an investigation into whether they had violated Florida 'sunshine laws' around transparency and open government. They were never charged with doing so, but as part of the investigation, the state's attorney interrogated both Miller and Search about phone calls they had after the election."

The report notes that "Commissioners are barred from talking about commission business outside of open meetings, and the investigators wanted to know about calls between the two that had happened earlier in the year."

Miller's "repeatedly hazy" reply to questions about when his calls with Search stopped is what resulted in his perjury charge and jailtime.

A panel of judges pointed out "the absurdity" of Miller's charge, and furthermore, The Intercept notes, "The case is shot through with ironies, principally that the prosecutors used an anti-corruption law to prosecute a commissioner who was challenging corruption. In a further irony, the prosecution made obviously false statements while accusing Miller of perjury."

The ruling read: "Reviewing the entirety of the sworn statement made by Miller to investigating authorities, it cannot be said he in fact definitively claimed that there were no phone calls with Commissioner Search after January 2021. Indeed, quite the contrary."

According to the report, "The court took the unusual step of not just vacating the previous conviction, but also instructing the lower court to insert a new verdict of 'not guilty.'"

*The Intercept's full report is availableat this link.

---

an 10 23

republicans in North Carolina appear poised to pass one of the most extreme redistricting maps in the US, with little in the way of opposition.

Last week, WUNC reported that Republicans' proposed new maps are much more favorable to the GOP than the court-drawn maps used in 2022, which split representation evenly with both Democrats and Republicans having seven House seats apiece. The new proposed maps would instead give Republicans 10 safe seats, carve out three safe seats for Democrats, and give Republicans the advantage in a red-leaning district. Cook Political Report senior editor Dave Wasserman posted on X that the new maps would effectively eliminate four Democratic districts.

In addition to the advantages the new proposed maps would give Republicans in Congress, the maps would also lock in Republicans' majorities in the North Carolina legislature, likely for the remainder of the decade. Democratic state representative Lindsey Prather responded to the new proposed maps by calling for an independent redistricting process.

"I want to take a second & acknowledge the sheer insanity that is #ncpol," Rep. Prather posted, using the hashtag for North Carolina politics. "We need nonpartisan, independent redistricting. We shouldn't be waiting w/bated breath for maps that were drawn in secret. This shouldn't be exciting. It should be a boring thing that happens every 10 years."

While Democratic Governor Roy Cooper is expected to veto the maps, Republicans have a large enough legislative majority to override him, meaning the federal judiciary is the only remaining hurdle the maps need to clear in order to go into effect.

Even though conservatives in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has a 6-3 majority, the Court struck down a gerrymandered Congressional map in Alabama, forcing Republicans to have at least two House districts for residents of predominantly Black counties. Republicans initially attempted to resist the Court's order, but SCOTUS had a special master draw a map with two districts for its Black residents, who make up roughly 1/4 of the state's population.

---

Pro-Trump influencer Douglass Mackey is now headed to federal prison to serve a seven-month sentence after being convicted by a federal jury in March. Prosecutors asked for Mackey, who was arrested in 2021, to serve between six months and a year behind bars.

Mackey, a West Palm Beach, Florida resident who went by the name "Ricky Vaughn," was found guilty on one count of conspiracy against rights for trying to defraud Hillary Clinton supporters in the 2016 election. According to the New York Times, Judge Ann M. Donnelly, of the Eastern District of New York, said while sentencing Mackey that he was "one of the leading members" of the conspiracy to prevent Clinton supporters from voting, adding that it was "nothing short of an assault on our democracy."

The conspiracy in question stemmed from a series of posts, meant to look like they were from the former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, encouraging Black and Latino supporters to vote by text message or through social media, knowing that those votes would not actually be counted. One of those posts showed a Black woman holding a sign, and another post was in Spanish, and included the Clinton campaign logo with fine print attached that read "Hillary for President."

One of the fake Clinton ads created by Douglass Mackey a.k.a. "Ricky Vaughn." Screenshot: Twitter via BuzzFeed News

At the time of the conspiracy, Mackey's "Ricky Vaughn" Twitter account had approximately 58,000 followers, and was labeled by the M.I.T. Media Lab in February of 2016 as the 107th most powerful influencer of the then-upcoming presidential election. While Mackey's attorney argued during the trial that his client's actions accounted to just a few clicks on a computer, prosecutors countered that Mackey's "true power was his ability to spread messages to convert his clicks into tens of thousands more."

Notably, former President Donald Trump is also facing the same charge of of conspiracy against rights that Mackey was just sentenced under. Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on that charge, among several others, in his August indictment pertaining to Trump's role in the January 6 insurrection. Trump is scheduled to stand trial on those charges on March 4, 2024, just before the pivotal Super Tuesday primaries.

---

intercept 8 23

hacked Records Corroborate Claims in Hydroxychloroquine Wrongful Death Suit

Micah Lee

Jeremy Parker died soon after taking the drug, which was prescribed to him by a physician with the anti-vaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors.

---

no lnx 7 23

a federal judge on Monday blocked a provision of a recently enacted Florida law that the ACLU characterized as a "clear and brazen attack on civic participation in our democracy."

S.B. 7050, which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law in May, would have imposed $50,000 fines on community organizations for every noncitizen individual who collected or handled voter registration forms for the groups—even if the people were legally authorized to work in the United States.

In a scathing 58-page order granting rights groups' request for a preliminary injunction, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida called the law "Florida's latest assault on the right to vote" and agreed that the voter registration provision would have "substantially interrupted" community groups' outreach efforts.

"Tomorrow, Floridians across the state will commemorate our nation's birthday," Walker wrote. "They will endure the heat of the Florida summer to celebrate the Fourth of July with family and friends at barbecues and picnics. They will gather with their communities at public parks for music and fireworks. They will cheer and sweat at parades and block parties. And amid these patriotic festivities, some may feel moved, for the first time, to embrace their solemn privilege as citizens by registering to vote."

"That's where plaintiffs come in," the judge continued, pointing to the testimony of Veronica Herrera-Lucha, a lawful permanent resident who works as the Florida state field director for Mi Vecino, a nonprofit voter registration group.

"Absent the challenged provisions at issue in these cases, individuals like Ms. Herrera-Lucha and [third-party voter registration organizations] like the Florida NAACP and Hispanic Federation would be engaging with their communities and registering new voters," Walker wrote. "Ms. Herrera-Lucha, a noncitizen who, herself, lacks the right to vote, has spent years registering and encouraging citizens to exercise that solemn right. She may, at least for now, continue to do so andadd more voices to the millions of others singing a more perfect union into existence."

Frankie Miranda, president and CEO of the Hispanic Federation, celebrated Walker's ruling as confirmation of "what we knew from the very beginning: Florida's latest voter registration law was unconstitutional and served no other purpose than to silence our communities."

"This ruling is a win for all Floridians—especially for underrepresented communities who rely on nonpartisan organizations like us to help make their voices heard," said Miranda. "We applaud this ruling, and will not rest until everyone's right to participate in our democracy is protected."

The Hispanic Federation was one of several groups that sued the state of Florida over the provision targeting noncitizen voter registration advocates, part of a broader voter suppression effort by the state's governor and dominant Republican Party.

In addition to its sweeping attack on voter registration groups and restrictions on mail-in voting, S.B. 7050 includes a provision that allowed DeSantis to run for president without resigning as Florida's governor.

Walker wrote in his order Monday that Florida's political leaders in recent years have struggled to govern "within the bounds set by the United States Constitution."

"When state government power threatens to spread beyond constitutional bounds and reduce individual rights to ashes, the federal judiciary stands as a firewall," Walker added. "The Free State of Florida is simply not free to exceed the bounds of the United States Constitution."

Daniel Tilley, legal director at the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement that Walker's ruling "fortifies the idea that all Floridians have a right to participate in building a stronger democracy through civic engagement."

"While this is a step in the right direction, our work is not finished," said Tilley. "People in our communities, including noncitizens, work tirelessly to assist in voter registration efforts to empower Floridians to vote on issues that impact their daily lives. We applaud the court's decision, but we must ensure this harmful law is struck down altogether."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Unequal Justice: The Supreme Court’s voting rights ruling is not as good as it seems ›

Fringe GOP presidential candidate wants to unconstitutionally raise voting age to 25 ›

Republicans have declared all-out war on younger voters: voting rights organizer ›

---

neglected but trump loses bigly repeatedly

it's called the rule of law': Legal experts laud judge's ruling allowing deposition of Donald Trump

David Badash The New Civil Rights Movement

February 23, 2023

A federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump, the ex-president, and FBI Director Chris Wray can both be deposed in sworn testimony in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former senior FBI official Peter Strzok...

---

kraken disbarred? 821 rudy?

---

no bankrupt prot

https://www.alternet.org/alex-jones-2658986679/

---

an 11 22

Chief Judge Timothy M. Kenny of the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed in October by Kristina Karamo, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, that sought to disqualify more than 60,000 mail-in ballots in the Democratic stronghold of Detroit ahead of Tuesday's midterms.

Karamo – a proponent of former President Donald Trump's baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen – and her co-complainants argued that mail-in voting was a hotbed for voter fraud.But they never submitted any evidence of that, nor did they explain what harm was caused by allowing people to vote by mail.

"During the November 3, 2022 evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs did not testify nor introduce any substantive exhibits into evidence. In this case, Plaintiffs' hearing witnesses consisted solely of Christopher Thomas, former Michigan State Elections Director for over 30 years and Daniel Baxter, Director of Absentee Voting Operations for the Detroit City Clerk," Kenny wrote in a 24-page order.

Kenny's opinion reflected his remarks during last week's hearing, when he expressed bewilderment over Karamo's failure to provide any proof of voter fraud through absentee ballots or that drop boxes were not secure.

“As a judge for 26 years,” Kenny said, “this is the first time I have ever had a circumstance where the party instigating a lawsuit, when asked by the judge what’s the relief you’re asking for, I don’t get an answer.”

Kenny also blasted the petitioners for waiting until the last minute to attempt to disenfranchise Michigan residents without just cause.

"Plaintiffs sat on their hands for months before bringing a complaint claiming violations of Michigan statutory election law in the August, 2022 primary and the relief sought would create the potential harm of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Detroiters in the November 8, 2022 general election. This is unacceptable and cannot be permitted," he said.

Kenny's closing statements were no less brutal.

"While it is easy to hurl accusations of violations of law and corruption, it is another matter to come forward and produce the evidence our Constitution and laws require. Plaintiffs failed, in a full day evidentiary hearing, to produce any shred of evidence. No exhibits, no testimony from any of the Plaintiffs, no evidence from Mr. Thomas or Mr. Baxter indicate the procedures for the November 8, 2022 election violate Michigan election laws. Plaintiffs have raised a false flag of election law violations and corruption concerning Detroit's procedures for the November 8th election. This Court's ruling takes down that flag," Kenny declared.

"Plaintiffs' failure to produce any evidence that the procedures for this November 8th election violate state or federal election lawdemonizes the Detroit City Clerk, her office staff, and the 1,200 volunteers working this election. These claims are unjustified, devoid of any evidentiary basis and cannot be allowed to stand. Plaintiffs' motions for mandamus, preliminary injunction, and declaratory judgment are DENIED. For the reasons stated in this Court's opinion, Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED," he concluded. "This is a final order and closes the case."

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/mike-lindell-dominion-false-narrative/

defam ct loss

---

an 6 22

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is facing an ethics charge as a result of a case brought against him by the District of Columbia office that regulates attorneys.

According to Business Insider, the District of Columbia bar is alleges that Giuliani —who was also an ally and personal attorney to former President Donald Trump— "pushed baseless claims about fraud in the 2020 presidential election in a Pennsylvania court and accused him of violating two professional conduct rules in the state."

The court documents filed on Friday, June 10, also highlight Giuliani's support of a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by the Trump campaign seeking to overturn the results of the state's election. The latest debacle with the D.C. bar comes one year after Giuliani's one-year suspension from practicing law in the state of New York. Now, his law career is in jeopardy in the District of Columbia as he may also be forced to refrain from practicing law in that district.

Following Trump's election loss in 2020, the Pennsylvania lawsuit argued that more than 1.5 million mail-in ballots were invalid because they were not in compliance with state election law. [// scott perry BS?] The filing notes that Giuliani was the attorney to seek an emergency ruling in hopes of blocking the certification of the presidential election. He also had a hand in filing other orders to have the Pennsylvania assembly select its own electors and deem Trump the winner of the state's election.

According to the court filing, Giuliani "brought a proceeding and asserted issues therein without a non-frivolous basis in law and fact for doing so" and "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

The lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania was dismissed.

The D.C. Bar argues that the affidavits were "(a) unsupported, (b) unrelated to Trump voters (c) involve conduct outside the seven Defendant Counties, and (d) by their own terms were isolated incidents that could not have affected the presidential election's results by offsetting the Biden majority of over 80,000 votes."

A hearing will now be scheduled and Giuliani will have an opportunity to respond.

---

https://www.alternet.org/**2022/05/**massachusetts-court-exxon-trial-climate/

The Massachusetts high court on Tuesday rejected ExxonMobil's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state, meaning the biggest oil giant in the U.S. must stand trial for allegations that it lied to the public about the climate emergency and the fossil fuel industry's role in driving it.

The lawsuit filed in 2019 by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey accuses Exxon of violating the state's consumer protection laws through a decades-long effort to conceal what it knew about the negative environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels.

In particular, the complaint says, Exxon deceived investors about the risks that global warming poses to its business and misled consumers by downplaying the dangerous effects of its products and overstating what the company is doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As The Guardian reported, GUK"Exxon claimed the lawsuit was in breach of legislation against what are known asstrategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPS, used by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence critics."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, however, ruled unanimously that the state's "anti-SLAPP" law is not applicable to government enforcement actions, affirming a lower court's decision to deny Exxon's special motion to dismiss the case.

"Once again, Exxon's attacks on my office and our case have been rejected by the courts," Healey said in a statement.

Tuesday's ruling, said the Massachusetts AG, "is a resounding victory in our work to stop Exxon from lying to investors and consumers in our state."

"Exxon's repeated attempts to stonewall our lawsuit have been baseless, and this effort was no different," added Healey. "We look forward to proceeding with our case and having our day in court to show how Exxon is breaking the law and to put an end to the deception once and for all."

During a congressional hearing in October, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told lawmakers that the company's public statements on climate "are and have always been truthful" and that it has "long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change" and "devoted significant resources to addressing those risks."

In reality, however, Exxon is one of several fossil fuel corporations that have spent years spreading disinformation to delay climate action and prolong coal, oil, and gas extraction even as the consequences of doing so grow increasingly deadly.

To take just one example, several U.S. government scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were replaced or forced into retirement following an intervention by Exxon lobbyists in the early days of former President George W. Bush's administration, as detailed in Frontline's new three-part docuseries, "The Power of Big Oil."

The Massachusetts lawsuit states that Exxon undertook a "sophisticated, multi-million dollar campaign" to sow doubt about the links between fossil fuels and the climate crisis, which is "reminiscent of the tobacco industry's long denial campaign about the dangerous effects of cigarettes."

According to Healey's office, Exxon also engaged in greenwashing by marketing and selling its products as pollution-reducing and "falsely promoting itself as an environmentally responsible clean energy leader working to address climate change."

"Rather than honestly disclose and mitigate climate change risks," the lawsuit states, "ExxonMobil's misrepresentations about and failures to disclose those risks have delayed the needed transition to clean energy around the world and make these existential climate-driven threats to the global economy more likely to occur."

Since 2017, the AGs of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington have filed lawsuits to hold oil, gas, and coal companies accountable for lying to the public about how they are fueling the planetary emergency.

---

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2022/04/19/ninth-circuit-deals-latest-blow-big-oil-ruling-california-climate-lawsuits

for Immediate Release

Tuesday April 19, 2022,

Center for Climate Integrity

Contact

Mike Meno, Center for Climate Integrity, mike@climateintegrity.org

PRESS RELEASE

Ninth Circuit Deals Latest Blow to Big Oil, Ruling that California Climate Lawsuits Belong in State Court

Three Federal Appeals Courts Have Now Handed Major Losses to Fossil Fuel Companies After the U.S. Supreme Court Ordered Expanded Review of Big Oil’s Arguments for Federal Jurisdiction

WASHINGTON -

Lawsuits from six California cities and counties seeking to hold major oil and gas companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell — accountable for the cost of climate damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, and the cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz are now one key step closer to putting oil majors on trial for deceiving the public about their role in climate change.

The Ninth Circuit decision marks the third time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected arguments from the oil industry to move climate liability lawsuits filed in state court to federal courtfollowing a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

At least ten federal district courts have similarly ruled that climate accountability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court — “a batting average of .000” for the fossil fuel industry, in the words of one judge.

In response, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“This is another big, but not surprising, loss for the oil and gas majors. Three federal appeals courts have now agreed that their arguments to escape accountability in state court do not pass muster. This ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products’ role in fueling the climate crisis.”

Background:

Earlier this year, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit issued similar rulings in climate accountability lawsuits from communities in Colorado and Maryland, respectively.

Four other federal circuit courts across the country are considering similar arguments from Exxon and other oil and gas companies, which have repeatedly lost efforts to move climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.

Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change.

---

biden 40 judge 1st yr is record? trump apptees routine rule against rt? late but important corrective/moderation? eg

https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/pro-trump-conspiracy-theorists/

tom b raw

according to an analysis by the Washington Post's Aaron Blake, ongoing lawsuits and investigations into members of Donald Trump's inner circle -- as well as conspiracy-mongering conservatives -- are bringing them down to earth as the legal system takes a look at their claims and they lose court case after court case and, in some cases,face financial ruin.

Noting that the Donald Trump years coincided with the rise "... of the kind of extremist purveyors of conspiracy theories who were once given the cold shoulder in polite society," Blake claimed what was once on the fringes is now part of the mainstream where it receives greater scrutiny.

Writing, "Increasingly, though, a bit of a reckoning is taking place. Trump allies spouting wild, baseless theories and otherwise taking our political discourse down misinformation rabbit holes are confronting consequences in court or otherwise facing bona fide legal penalties for their actions," Blake used conservative provocateur Alex Jones as a prime example of a conservative pushing the envelope so far that it ends up in the courts with devastating results.

As the WaPo reported on Friday, " ....a judge ruled Jones was liable for all damages in lawsuits over his claims that the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six others at Sandy Hook Elementary was a 'false flag" and a 'giant hoax.' The conspiracy theory has led to the harassment of the victims' families," adding, "Jones and his Infowars website's parent company were found to have 'intentionally disobeyed' the court by not turning over documents in such lawsuits. The ruling is what's known as a 'death penalty sanction,' which is highly unusual. The penalty is expected to be determined either by a hearing or a jury."

Add to that, is the parade of pro-Trump lawyers who attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election with unfounded claims that it was "stolen."

"Penalties have also increased in recent months for pro-Trump lawyers who launched ill-fated and specious claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. Two pro-Trump lawyers in Colorado were ordered to pay the court costs for those they sued, with a judge labeling their case 'the stuff of which violent insurrections are made,'" Blake explained. "Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and other lawyers were also ordered to pay the other side's legal fees by a federal judge in Michigan — the requested amount is $204,000 — and could face other disciplinary measures too. The judge said the lawsuit they brought never bothered with the facts but instead "was about undermining the people's faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.'"

Adding, "Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and by the D.C. Court of Appeals for making similar allegations," he suggested, "Giuliani has shown few signs of slowing his roll on voter fraud allegations — despite his personal financial and legal problems. Jones too has continued to flood the Internet with his very distinct brand of entertainment even as the Sandy Hook lawsuits have dragged out over the years."

"The legal fees that the likes of Powell et al have been or will be forced to fork over will probably be relative drops in the bucket for them," he conceded before admitting, "...even as Powell has yet to make good on any of her promises and has effectively admitted in court to being a fabulist, there's still a media ecosystem and a constituency eager to lap up whatever she has to say. You might think at some point it would be sore about being sold a bill of goods; you'd be wrong."

You can read more here.

---

25 million $

https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/charlottesville-verdict/

Returning a verdict against dozens of white supremacist leaders and organizations who organized Unite the Right, a Virginia jury has awarded millions in damages to nine plaintiffs who were injured in the violence during the chaotic rally that ended with a car attack by James Fields.

The defendants were found liable in four of six counts, including a Virginia state conspiracy claim that they subjected the plaintiffs to racial, religious or ethnic harassment or violence. But the mixed-race jury deadlocked on a major claim in the civil case against the organizers, whether they engaged in a conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence.

The plaintiffs presented evidence over the course of the four-week trial showing that the defendants meticulously planned the Unite the Right rally on the digital chat platform Discord. While the ostensible reason for the rally was to support two Confederate monuments slated for removal in Charlottesville, the organizers' private communications revealed that their true inspiration was a violent rally four months earlierin Berkeley, Calif. and that they hoped to bait left-wing opponents into the streets, and as primary organizer Jason Kessler put it, "fight this shit out."

The evidence showed that Kessler quickly reached out to Matthew Heimbach, an avowed fascist and antisemite who led the Traditionalist Worker Party and had already organized a coalition of "hard right" white supremacist groups that included League of the South, the National Socialist Movement and Vanguard America. All the organizations sent members to Charlottesville, and the leader of Vanguard America wound up providing a shield to Fields before he drove his car into counter-protesters.

After securing a commitment from Spencer — then the most famous figure in the alt-right movement that emerged on the coattails of Donald Trump's 2016 election — for the headlining speaker slot, Kessler wrote in a phone text: "We are raising an army, my liege, for free speech but the cracking of skulls, if it comes to it."

The plaintiffs also presented evidence that Elliot Kline, both a lieutenant to Spencer and a leader of Identity Evropa, organized Unite the Right alongside Kessler. Kline's former girlfriend, Samantha Froelich, testified that he was obsessed with exterminating Jews, saying he would "gas the kikes forever." Robert "Azzmador" Ray, a contributing writer for the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, mentioned in a Discord chat in the month prior to Unite the Right that had "just got done with an hourlong chat with some of the organizers and I feel better about the thing. The plan is the same: Gas the kikes." After macing counter-protesters at the Aug. 11 torch march, Ray reported to his fellow neo-Nazis: "I personally literally gassed half a dozen kikes."

Counsel for the defendants argued that Fields car attack was not reasonably foreseeable or intended by the defendants, who anticipated only pushing and shoving, or, at most, fist fights, but the jury evidently didn't buy it. The defendants all testified that they did not know Fields and had not seen him prior to his appearance at the Aug. 12, 2017 rally.

Plaintiff Natalie Romero was injured in Fields' car attack, which left her with a fractured skull, a cleft lip, persistent headaches and trouble maintaining balance. Romero and co-plaintiff Devin Willis were among a small group of University of Virginia students who linked arms around a statue of Thomas Jefferson during a torch march in which white nationalists made monkey noises at them and threw lit torches at their feet while macing, punching and kicking others. All the plaintiffs, who include a pastor, a landscaper, a paralegal who recently passed the bar exam, testified that they have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of physical injuries or emotional distress.

As she and a dozen or so counter-protesters linked arms around statue, Romero described the sound of the approaching torch marchers as "almost like thunder, like the earth was growling." She recalled that they chanted "Blood and soil" and "White power."

"There's another that I hate repeating," Romero testified. "I like, hear it in my nightmares. If my phone buzzes, I hear the same cadence, the 'You will not replace us.' That one is just so terrifying to hear the whole time."

---

kyle verdict fail? 2m$ def OJ jury expert vs arbery?

---

colo?

READ:Federal judge orders pro-Trump lawyers to pay almost $187,000 for their 'abuse of the legal system'

---

no lnx an 11 21

'Pro-death cult strikes back': Right-wing judges block Biden’s vaccine rule for big companies

Kenny Stancil and Common Dreams November 08, 2021

Progressives concerned about workplace safety and public health responded with dismay after a federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily blocked the Biden administration's attempt to require workers at companies with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or tested weekly.

Citing "grave statutory and constitutional" problems with the rule, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued the stay in response to a joint petition filed Friday by a coalition of businesses, conservative advocacy groups, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah.

That legal challenge, and separate lawsuits from Republican-led states, came just one day after President Joe Biden announced that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would begin enforcing its newly unveiled Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) in the coming weeks. Companies with at least 100 employees have until December 5 to require unvaccinated workers to wear masks indoors, and by January 4, they must require vaccinations or administer weekly tests.

Decrying the decision of the "right-wing Fifth Circuit," labor journalist Steven Greenhouse said on social media that "it's terrible for worker safety and public health that three conservative activist judges have suspended Biden's... new rule requiring workers at companies with more than 100 workers to get vaccinated or tested."

"OSHA's mission is to protect workers' health," Greenhouse continued, "but the appellate judges seem to forget that Covid has killed thousands of meatpacking, retail, and other workers."

More than 750,000 people in the U.S. have died from Covid-19 since the pandemic started last March, and the disease continues to kill nearly 1,100 people per day, most of them unvaccinated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Recent studies confirm that vaccines save lives.Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services analyzed the relationship between county-level inoculation rates and Covid-19 outcomes among U.S. seniors and found that vaccines helped ward off 265,000 infections, 107,000 hospitalizations, and 39,000 deaths during the first five months of 2021.

And in September, CDC researchers found that individuals in the U.S. who were not fully vaccinated last spring and summer were 11 times more likely to die after being infected with the coronavirus—and over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized—than those who were fully inoculated.

Greenhouse said that "the judges evidently sympathize with [Texas Republican Gov.] Greg Abbott's let-people-die stance—that it'soverreachfor OSHA to act strongly to protect workers from Covid."

David Michaels, a leader of OSHA during the Obama administration, also rebuked the federal appeals court, describing its decision as legally dubious and politically motivated.

"The same activist court that refused to stay Texas' law that permits bounty hunters to sue anyone who aids an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy has stayed an OSHA rule that is clearly within OSHA's authority, will save lives, and make workplaces safe," he told the New York Times.

According to the Times, "At the core of the legal challenge is the question of whether OSHA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule and whether such a mandate would need to be passed by Congress."

The newspaper reported:

The suit against the mandate stated that President Biden "set the legislative policy" of substantially increasing the number of Americans covered by vaccination requirements, and "then set binding rules enforced with the threat of large fines."

"That is a quintessential legislative act—and one wholly unrelated to the purpose of OSHA itself, which is protecting workplace safety," the suit said. "Nowhere in OSHA's enabling legislation does Congress confer upon it the power to end pandemics."

Corporate executives asked, and the Biden administration agreed, to delay implementation of OSHA's new ETS "until after the New Year, citing concerns about worker shortages during the important holiday season," Reuters noted.

Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda, meanwhile, said in a statement that the Labor Department, home to OSHA, is "confident in its legal authority" to issue vaccine requirements.

The vaccine rule for companies with 100 or more employees "applies to 84.2 million workers at 1.9 million private-sector employers," Reuters reported. "OSHA estimates that 31.7 million of [those] workers are unvaccinated and 60% of employers will require vaccinations, up from 25% today, resulting in another 22.7 million employees getting vaccinated."

Several million additional workers are covered by the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for employees of the executive branch, federal contractors, and staff at healthcare facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid funding. OSHA officials say they are considering expanding the jab-or-test rule to include companies with fewer than 100 workers.

"The Occupational Safety and Health Act explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them," Nanda said. "We are fully prepared to defend this standard in court."

The Fifth Circuit panel's two-page order directs the Biden administration to respond to the request for a permanent injunction against the rule by 5 p.m. ET Monday.

As the Times noted, it remains unclear whether the court's stay "would be a procedural blip for the Biden administration or the first step in the unwinding of the mandate."

The newspaper explained that "after both sides have filed briefs, the court will decide whether to lift the temporary injunction, allowing the rule to proceed as planned, or whether to grant a permanent injunction. OSHA could then take the case to the Supreme Court."

While some legal experts argue that the Labor Department has the regulatory authority to compel private employers to protect the health of workers and the broader public through mandatory vaccination amid a deadly global pandemic,Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told Reuters that "there will be so much litigation it will never see the light of day."

Twenty-four attorneys general threatened to sue the Biden administration over the rule back in September, and several followed through immediately after it was published in the federal register on Friday.

In addition to the petition filed with the Fifth Circuit, attorneys general in 11 states—Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

And in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia sued, with Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis saying at a press conference that "the federal government can't just unilaterally impose medical policy under the guise of workplace regulation."

Roughly 70% of U.S. adults are fully inoculated against Covid-19, and about 80% have received at least one shot, according to the CDC. Recent polling shows that a majority of U.S. adults favor Covid-19 vaccination requirements, with only about one-fifth to one-quarter of respondents opposed.

OSHA, Reuters pointed out, is "fighting history. The agency has issued 10 ETS over its 50 years. Of the six that were challenged in court, only one survived entirely intact."

Donald Verrilli, U.S. solicitor general during former President Barack Obama's administration, however, told the news outlet that the Biden administration "wouldn't move forward unless they thought that they could defend it legally... I think the constitutional challenges are all going to fail."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Here's why Noam Chomsky is surprised by Joe Biden's presidency ... ›

New report shows Biden actually has lots of good news to brag ... ›

Biden is making a critical mistake about Democrats' loss in Virginia ... ›

pesticide linked to brain damage in children could finally be banned

Reynard Loki Independent Media Institute

A federal appeals court has ruled that unless the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can prove that the pesticide chlorpyrifos is safe, it must be banned. The chemi...

---

https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/rachel-maddow/

Far-right One America News must pay $258,391.50 in legal fees to MSNBC.

"A federal judge in California has ordered Herring Networks, the parent company of far-right conservative media organization One America News Network (OAN), to pay MSNBC and host Rachel Maddow $250,000 in attorney's fees stemming from a defamation lawsuit that was dismissed last year," Law & Crime reported Saturday.

"Herring in July 2019 filed a lawsuit against Maddow which claimed the liberal host had defamed OAN when she discussed reports that one of the network's contributors also worked for the Russia state news organization Sputnik. Maddow went on to state that OAN 'literally is paid Russian propaganda,' which OAN's parent company claimed was false and defamatory. Herring, the parent company, then filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $10 million,"Law & Crime explained. "Attorneys representing Maddow and MSNBC responded by filing a special motion to strike the case under California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) law."

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant sided with MSNBC, entitling the network to expenses under California law.

"The court calculated that Maddow's team of high-priced attorneys from the law firm Gibson Dunn—including famed First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous, Jr.—were entitled to collect on 363.1 hours of work totaling $247,667.50, plus an additional $10,724 for hours billed by paralegals," Law & Crime reported.

Read the full report.

---

not sure about how much of a deterent to disinfo this is but i notice some orgs correct/retract eg sinclair on stop steal BS? hurt jones?

cumulus 180'd?

---

fox News demanded Seth Rich family keep court settlement over bogus story quiet until after the election: NYT

Sarah K. Burris Raw Story

January 18, 2021

Fox News settled a lawsuit with Seth Rich's family in the fall that was large enough that they weren't required to apologize publicly for lying about the family's son for years. But one provision that New York Times reporter Ben Smith discovered, was that they asked that the settlement news not be announced until after the November election.

"Why did Fox care about keeping the Rich settlement...

---

dingdong?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/nra/

"Thoughts and prayers."

"The NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt."

—NY Attorney General Letitia James

That is what many opponents of theNational Rifle Association wryly stated in response to news that the pro-gun lobby group had officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday in the United States.

In a statement on its website, the NRA—which promotes the interests of the gun industry and gun owners unbothered by the unparalleled level of gun violence seen in the country—said it was leaving New York state, where it is currently registered, to restructure in Texas as part of a "new strategic plan" it is implementing.

"Thoughts and prayers to the NRA fanatical fiends who bear the blood of tens of thousands on their paws," said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) in response. "The world will be a better place when the NRA is finally destroyed. Looks like that day is closer."

While the NRA claims in the statement that it is "in its strongest financial condition in years," it said the strategic plan "involves utilizing the protection of the bankruptcy court" and "dumping New York" so that it can reincorporate in Texas to continue its activities without such a "corrupt political and regulatory environment."

Brady United, which has called for the NRA's dissolution for decades, said Friday that "news of the NRA filing for bankruptcy is just the latest proof that the NRA has cheated its members and American taxpayers in pursuit of an extremist agenda that has made our country markedly less safe."

They told us the @NRA was too powerful, that the politics were too difficult. They were wrong. Today, the @NRA fi… https://t.co/DirmJAZAay

— Peter Ambler (@Peter Ambler)1610746222.0

David Hogg—one of the survivors of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida who later became a vocal gun control advocate—was among those who welcomed the news late Friday afternoon and thanked all the tireless activism over the years focused on the NRA's deadly brand of influence peddling.

Thoughts and prayers https://t.co/bEkZ29n3WU

— David Hogg (@David Hogg )1610745956.0

"Don't read this as the NRA is going away," Hogg added. "They are not yet," he said, "but this is one step closer."

NRA fleeing New York, filing for bankruptcy, due to NY AG lawsuit (via @KLBKNews) https://t.co/xKtFWMVspi

— Violence Policy Center (@Violence Policy Center)1610749230.0

In August, as Common Dreams reported at the time, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the NRA which sought to dissolve the organization based on widespread evidence of corruption and financial self-dealing that violated the state's requirements for nonprofit status.

In a tweet on Friday responding to the NRA's move to divorce itself from New York, James said: "The NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt."

"While we review its bankruptcy filing," she added, "we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office's oversight."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

---

an 1220

trump appointee:

At this point is it news that Donald Trump has lost yet another case in court? Eh, probably not. But somehow the taste of Donald Trump, big loser, just never gets old. And in this case, that losing sauce is extra spicy—because the epic smackdown came from a Trump-appointed conservative judge.

District Court Judge Brett Ludwig dismissed Trump's case in Wisconsin "with prejudice," meaning that it is pretty much dead, dead, and also dead. But Judge Ludwig didn't stop there. His ruling makes it clear that he's … "aghast" seems like the proper term. In addition to calling this "an extraordinary case" (emphasis his), where Trump hopes "to secure federal court help in undoing his defeat," Ludwig makes it extremely clear that such help is not coming.

From the ruling:

"This is an extraordinary case. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump is the current president of the United States, having narrowly won the state of Wisconsin's electoral votes four years ago, with a margin of just over 22,700 votes. In this lawsuit he seeks to set aside the results of the November 3, 2020 popular vote in Wisconsin, an election in which the recently certified results show he was defeated by a similarly narrow margin of just over 20,600 votes. Hoping to secure federal court help in undoing his defeat, plaintiff asserts that the defendants, a group of some 20 Wisconsin officials, violated his rights under the "Electors Clause" in Article II, Section I of the Constitution."

Trump's claim is that the state elections commission made rules about … state elections, which is the exact reason that the state legislature created the commission and authorized it to make such rules. However, Trump asserts that because the commission did issue such rules, it means the whole election "failed," and the state's electors should be left up to the GOP-dominated state legislature.

In response, Ludwig showed that a single use of the word "extraordinary" was insufficient to measure the level of gall that Trump was asserting.

"This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in sitting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This court has allowed plaintiff to make his case and he has lost on the merits.

In his reply, plaintiff asks that 'the rule of law be followed.' It has been."

It's not your standing, loser. It's your case.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

---

an 1120 win-loss 33-3? 60-0?

pennsylvania judge halts further certification of election results — Gov. Wolf vows to appeal

---

an 1120

federal judge rules Trump's DHS secretary was illegally appointed — so his anti-immigrant moves are invalid

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/federal-judge-orders-us-postal-service-to-sweep-their-facilities-for-unsent-voting-ballots-and-send-them-immediately/

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/federal-judge-invokes-extraordinary-measures-to-ensure-on-time-delivery-counting-of-ballots/

ct/scotus record mixed?

---

see poll watcher (Roberts scotus ~ NJ law? MI wolverine kindnap murder gov Whitmer, SoS had to put in a rule no guns closer than 100 ft (?!) ct struck down?! of polls, 2 states legis taken over by armed goons w/ assault rifles? kty? some reps wear armour.

---

Disturbingly Kafkaesque': Judge slams Betsy DeVos for denying 94% of student debt forgiveness claims

Igor Derysh Salon

October 22, 2020

Arguing that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos had undermined the agreement, a federal judge on Tuesday denied approval for a class action settlement over the Trump administration's handling of a student debt forgiveness program.

---

an 1020 in middle of covid crisis, when mcconn/trump cut off $

judge strikes down Trump effort to slash food stamps for 700,000 Americans: Victory for 'basic human decency'

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/texas-counties-can-offer-only-one-drop-off-ballot-location-federal-appeals-court-rules-upholding-gov-greg-abbotts-order/

Emma Platoff, The Texas Tribune Oct. 13, 2020

"Texas counties can offer only one drop-off ballot location, federal appeals court rules, upholding Gov. Greg Abbott's order"was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Texas counties may collect mail-in ballots at only one location, a federal appeals court ruled late Monday, once again upholding an order from Gov. Greg Abbott that restricts voting options.

Abbott in July acted to lengthen the early voting period and allow voters to deliver completed absentee ballots in person for longer than the normal period. But after large Democratic counties including Harris and Travis established several sites where voters could deliver their ballots, Abbott ordered Oct. 1 that they would be limited to one.

A number of civil rights groups sued in at least four lawsuits, calling the order an act of voter suppression that would disproportionately impact low-income voters, voters with disabilities, older voters and voters of color in Democratic counties. A federal judge on Friday sided with those groups, blocking Texas from enforcing the ruling.

But a three-judge panel on the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted that ruling on Saturday and on Monday gave a more formal word on the matter in a written opinion.

“Leaving the Governor's October 1 Proclamation in place still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election. These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-COVID world," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan for the panel of three judges all appointed by President Donald Trump. “The October 1 Proclamation abridges no one's right to vote."

Travis County had designated four locations and Harris County — home to 2.4 million registered voters and spanning a greater distance than the entire state of Rhode Island — had designated a dozen before Abbott's order forced them to close most sites. Fort Bend and Galveston counties also planned to use multiple locations, according to court documents.

Voting rights advocates and local election administrators said the extra sites were critical for helping voters cast their ballots safely during the coronavirus pandemic. Texas is set to receive an unprecedented number of absentee ballots this year, and amid concerns over U.S. Postal Service delays, advocates say, in-person drop-off locations are critical.

Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins has not hesitated to say the governor's decision amounts to voter suppression.

“To force hundreds of thousands of seniors and voters with disabilities to use a single drop-off location in a county that stretches over nearly 2,000 square miles is prejudicial and dangerous," Hollins said earlier this month.

In some states, voters can simply leave their ballots in boxes outside town halls or local churches. Not in Texas, where voters must show an election worker an approved form of identification and can only bring their own ballot.

Abbott had argued that the measure was necessary to ensure election integrity, but he did not provide any evidence and his office did not answer questions about how limiting the highly regulated drop-off locations would do so. In court filings, lawyers for the Texas Attorney General's Office wrote that some counties wouldn't provide “adequate election security, including poll watchers" — “inconsistencies" that the state argued “introduced a risk to ballot integrity."

Abbott said that poll watchers must be allowed at the drop-off sites, as they are at in-person voting sites. Experts say voter fraud is rare, but Republican officials in Texas and nationally have sought to cast doubt on the security of absentee ballots even as their political party calls on its own voters to use them.

The appeals court ruled Monday that Texas did not need to show evidence of voter fraud to justify its decision to limit counties to one location.

“Such evidence has never been required to justify a state's prophylactic measures to decrease occasions for vote fraud or to increase the uniformity and predictability of election administration," Duncan wrote for the court.

One voter who sued the state over the order, 82-year-old Ralph Edelbach, said in court documents that closing the site nearest his Cypress home will mean he adds an extra 20 miles each way to his trip to deliver his ballot, forcing him to spend nearly 90 minutes round trip.

That inconvenience will only be greater, advocates say, for voters with disabilities or those without reliable access to transportation.

The groups that sued the governor include the Texas and National Leagues of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters of Texas, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Legislative Black Caucus.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/13/texas-election-ballot-drop-off/.

The Texas Tribune is proud to celebrate 10 years of exceptional journalism for an exceptional state. Explore the next 10 years with us.

---

1020 an

trump-appointed judge smacks down campaign's efforts to suppress the vote in Pennsylvania

Laura Clawson Daily Kos

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Convention's efforts to steal the election in Pennsylvania were handed a setback on Saturday by a Trump-appointed judge.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/debt-collectors-have-made-a-fortune-this-year-now-theyre-coming-for-more/

Earlier this year, the pandemic swept across the country, killing 100,000 Americans by the spring, shuttering businesses and schools, and forcing people into their homes. It was a great time to be a debt collector.

In August, Encore Capital, the largest debt buyer in the country, announced that it had doubled its previous record for earnings in a quarter. It primarily had the CARES Act to thank: The bill delivered hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stimulus checks and bulked-up unemployment benefits to Americans, while easing pressures on them by halting foreclosures, evictions and student loan payments. There was no ban on collections of old credit card bills, Encore's specialty.

At the same time, the pandemic compelled households to cut spending. Finding themselves with enough money to settle old debts, people responded to collectors' calls and letters. Debt-buying executives couldn't help marveling at their good fortune. All this created “a perfect storm from a cash perspective," the CEO of Portfolio Recovery Associates, Encore's main competitor, told Wall Street analysts.

After its record second quarter, analysts expect Encore to blow past $200 million in profit this year and reward stockholders with 40% earnings growth compared with last year. Portfolio Recovery is set for similar growth. The share prices of both have soared off their early April lows.

:{Investors didn't even show much concern when, in early September, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Encore,**saying that it had broken the terms of a consent agreement struck in 2015.:(style="background-color:#ffcc66ff"):}:**The agency had previously charged the company with “pressuring consumers with false statements and churning out lawsuits using robo-signed court documents," as it said at the time. (Ina statement, Encore said the :{CFPB}:'s recent suit was unnecessary because it had fixed the alleged problems “years ago.")

In recent months, the only real bad news for debt buyers was that local courts across the country temporarily shut down. Debt collection lawsuits provide a key source of revenue for the companies, a way to extract payment from consumers, typically low-income, who don't offer it up.

But now even that hiccup is over. After a bit of a lull in the spring, Encore and other debt buyers are back at it, filing suits by the thousands every week, according to ProPublica's analysis of state court filings.

In August alone, Encore filed about 1,000 suits in Indiana and over 2,000 suits in the metro Atlanta area.Other debt buyers jumped back in as well. In Chicago, Portfolio Recovery filed over 3,000 suits in July, while LVNV, a major debt buyer privately owned by Sherman Financial Group, filed over 2,700 suits in Maryland in August. For all these companies, ProPublica found, thevolume was well above the number they'd filed before the coronavirus arrived, in January or February of this year. No national numbers on suits exist.

In statements, the companies said they have been actively working with consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic and only sue as a last resort on a small portion of accounts.

Elizabeth A. Kersey, a spokesperson for Portfolio Recovery, said the company's hardship program “allows for the suspension of collection efforts for ninety (90) days upon notification of a hardship event." The company is currently not seeking new orders to seize debtors' wages or bank account funds, she said.

Ryan Bell, an Encore executive, said, “We have consistently and proactively communicated to consumers the various relief options we've put in place in response to COVID-19, including temporarily stopping collections." The company said it had stopped seeking orders to garnish bank accounts. It is, however, seizing wages.

Sherman Financial did not respond to requests for comment.

If Congress is unable to pass any further stimulus , unemployment is likely to remain high. In that scenario, debt buying companies and the banks that sell defaulted accounts to them expect more Americans to fall behind on their credit card bills over the coming months.

Even that scenario turns out to be rosy for the debt buyers. While good times can mean that Encore collects on more debt than it expected, bad times typically bring a glut of people suffering under loans they cannot repay. The result is that Encore can scoop up the raw materials for its profit machine — defaulted accounts — more cheaply. Or as Encore CEO Ashish Masih put it to Wall Street: The company is “particularly excited about the prospects for increased supply in the future."

“The same giant debt buyers known for fighting consumer protection laws at every turn have been raking in cash during this pandemic," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, told ProPublica. “They are now licking their chops in anticipation of profiting even more off families who have their hours further cut or can't find a job, and can't keep up with their bills or their mortgage. This is disgraceful and reinforces the need for Congress to protect consumers and small businesses from this predatory behavior."

In recent years, Encore has bought around 2 million to 3 million U.S. accounts per year, according to public filings. Last year, on average, the company paid 8.6 cents on the dollar for each account. For a typical debt of $3,142, Encore paid $271.

To earn a profit on that investment, Encore and other debt buyers pursue debtors in near perpetuity. Encore is still collecting tens of millions of dollars each year from debts it bought in 2009 or earlier. The key to that persistence is the courts.

Since the early 2000s, debt buyers have flooded local courts nationwide with suits. The companies regularly account for more than a quarter of all debt collection cases in a given jurisdiction, according to ProPublica's review of collection filings over several states.

That disproportionate presence has been particularly apparent in recent months, as the banks themselves have mostly opted to suspend filing new suits. In normal times, Capital One files far more lawsuits than other banks, in numbers similar to those filed by Encore and Portfolio Recovery. But since March, although Capital One continued to seize pay via garnishments secured before COVID-19 struck, it has largely stopped filing new suits.

ProPublica did find one exception among the major banks that commonly file a significant number of suits: Citigroup, which resumed filing suits at its normal levels in July. The bank, for instance, filed over 200 suits in Oklahoma in August, more than it had filed there in January and February combined.

In a statement, Citi spokesperson Jennifer Bombardier said the bank has a special assistance program for customers impacted by COVID-19 and that it is not seeking to garnish the bank accounts of customers it has sued. The bank also did not sell charged-off accounts to debt buyers “for up to 120 days" in the states “most impacted by COVID-19," she said....

---

trying to move up /close census tho covid means it wd take LONGER

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/trumps-commerce-secretary-might-be-facing-contempt-charges-for-violating-judges-us-census-order-reporters/

---

upping fees for immig struck down by ct in part b/c gig not official

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/adam-schiff-accuses-trump-administration-of-obstruction-in-probe-of-dhs-whistleblower/

---

federal judge delivers blow to AG Barr in battle against former FBI deputy director

Alex Henderson September 25, 2020

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has insisted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, now a CNN contributor, was not fired for political reasons, but McCabe has maintained that the…

---

trump’s abysmal federal court record is the worst of any recent president

Sarah Okeson / DC Report September 23, 2020

Donald Trump is the biggest loser. While he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may get a chance to ram through another justice on the Supreme Court before the November…

---

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/18/headlines/court_halts_drastic_operational_changes_at_usps_warning_of_widespread_disenfranchisement

---

OMFG

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/mcconnell-quietly-rams-through-more-lifetime-trump-judges-while-blocking-19-relief-everyone-in-america-should-be-outraged/

no lnx twt ari berman jake j

as Covid-19 relief for jobless and hungry Americans, collapsing small businesses, and state and local governments languishes in the Senate GOP’s legislative graveyard, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday further advanced his years-long project of dragging U.S. federal courts to the right by ramming through three more of President Donald Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees and teed up votes on several others.

Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted on Twitter that the latest confirmations came four months to the day after the Democrat-controlled House passed the Heroes Act, a $3 trillion coronavirus relief package that McConnell dismissed as an “unserious liberal wish list” and blocked from receiving a vote in the Senate.

“Everyone in America should be outraged that this is how Mitch McConnell is spending the Senate’s time amid a pandemic,” tweeted Gupta.

In a separate tweet Wednesday morning, Gupta urged the U.S. public to “pay attention” as McConnell and Trump’s court takeover proceeds apace amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis and resulting economic collapse—to which Senate Republicans have responded by putting forth legislation decried as piecemeal and wholly inadequate.

"As McConnell blocks the Heroes Act, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, election funding, and dozens of civil rights bills, his priority today (amid the pandemic) will be confirming three more Trump judges after confirming three yesterday,” said Gupta. “It’s an outrage.”

While Senate Democrats don’t have the numbers to block Trump’s judicial nominees, few even bothered to object Wednesday to the confirmations of John Holcomb, Stanley Blumenfeld, and Mark Scarsi to lifetime positions on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Just 12 Democratic senators voted against Holcomb and Scarsi, and only four voted against Blumenfeld.

The confirmations came days after major court decisions laid bare the real-world consequences of Trump and McConnell’s takeover of the U.S. judiciary, which will impact key areas of American society—from climate policy to voting rights—for decades to come.

Last Friday, as Common Dreams reported, the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida requirement that state residents with past felony convictions pay off all court fines and fees before they are allowed to register to vote—a ruling made possible by Trump’s appointees.

:{:{}:

“The only reason it was upheld was because Donald Trump flipped the 11th Circuit with five Trump judges,” Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman told Democracy Now! on Tuesday. “And this is why Mitch McConnell in the Republican Senate is so intent on confirming judges and doing nothing else. This week, McConnell is going to confirmeight more judges to the federal bench, but they’re not doing anything else to help the American people.”

Late Sunday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which Trump also flipped with right-wing judges—upheld the White House’s push to end “temporary protected status” (TPS)for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan.

“Without Congressional action, this will lead to devastating moral and economic consequences not just for TPS holders but for their families, communities, and for the entire country,” Peniel Ibe, policy engagement coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, warned in response to the ruling.

---

DN 9/15/20 McConn flip 11th district so vote down felony re-enfranchise (fees = poll tax); 8 more judges this week

---

not 1st ct rule on mail in ballots?

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/federal-judge-orders-usps-to-stop-sending-patently-false-mailers-to-voters-that-will-sow-confusion/

no lnx twt pix

Jake Johnson / Common Dreams September 13, 2020

A federal judge late Saturday ordered the U.S. Postal Service to immediately stop sending mailers containing false voting information to Colorado residents, saying he is “deeply troubled” by the decision to distribute the misleading postcards to households across the nation.

“As a result of false information contained in the notice, some Colorado voters may not vote because they erroneously believe that: (1) they must request a ballot at least 15 days before the election; (2) they must mail their ballot at least seven days prior to the election; or (3) they may not vote if they lose their ballot,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge William Martínez in a 10-page ruling (pdf) granting Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s request for a temporary restraining order.

“In reality, Colorado voters do not need to request a ballot at any time. Voters who receive a ballot do not need to mail the ballot back at least seven days before the election; they may alternatively deposit that ballot at a drop-box or may choose to vote in person up to and including on Election Day,” Martínez continued, describing some of the information on the mailer “patently false.”

“The notice, if distributed, will sow confusion amongst voters by delivering a contradictory message,” the judge said.

The ruling came hours after Griswold sued Postmaster General Louis DeJoy—a Republican megadonor to President Donald Trump—and other top USPS officials over the mailers, which have already arrived at households in Colorado and other states just weeks ahead of the November election.

While acknowledging the postcards “may have started off as a well-intentioned effort” to inform voters ahead of the election, Griswold tweeted late Friday that “confusing voters about mail ballots in the middle of a pandemic is unacceptable.”

As Common Dreams reported Saturday, election officials in California, Washington state, and Maryland have also publicly raised alarm about the postcards, which contain both broad advice on how to vote by mail as well as specific timelines that could mislead residents of states with different rules.

In an emailed statement Saturday as at least five additional states considered suing over the postcards, the USPS said the mailers are intended to provide “general, all-purpose guidance on the use of the mail, and not guidance on state election rules.”

“The mail-piece—which has already been delivered to most households and will reach every American residential mailing and P.O. Box address in the coming week—contains a single set of simple recommendations for voters throughout the nation, regardless of where they live and where they vote,” the Postal Service said. “At the same time, we are aware that each state has its own specific rules, deadlines and requirements, and the mail-piece acknowledges that fact.”

Griswold said Saturday that she urged the Postal Service not to send out the mailers in Colorado due to the misleading information, but her request was denied.

“As the chief election official of the state of Colorado, it’s my job to try to stop misinformation and any unnecessary election confusion,” said Griswold. “The importance of this election, combined with the fact it is being held amidst a national pandemic, further heightens the need to provide correct voting information to Coloradans.”

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/donald-trump-says-ted-cruz-yes-that-ted-cruz-is-on-his-list-of-potential-second-term-supreme-court-picks

Patrick Svitek, The Texas Tribune

Sept. 9, 2020

“Donald Trump says Ted Cruz is on his list of potential second-term Supreme Court picks” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

p Donald Trump on Wednesday named U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as a potential nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump included Cruz among 20 possible picks for the high court if Trump wins a second term in November and a seat later becomes open. The 20 new names come in addition to a group of prospective justices that Trump named during the 2016 campaign — and has since drawn from to fill two vacancies on the court.

Cruz’s name has come up before as a potential Supreme Court appointee, and he has said he isn’t interested. In a statement released moments after Trump’s announcement, Cruz was noncommittal and seemed to suggest he was satisfied with serving in the Senate.

“It’s humbling and an immense honor to be considered for the Supreme Court,” Cruz said. “In the Senate, I have been blessed to lead the fight to preserve our constitutional liberties —every day, to defend the rights of 29 million Texans — and I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come.”

Trump also added a second Texan, James Ho, to his list of potential Supreme Court picks. Ho is a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and former Texas solicitor general.

Since Trump locked down the GOP nomination in 2016, Cruz has occasionally fielded questions about the possibility of serving on the Supreme Court, given his background in constitutional law. He usually denies interest and says he is more interested in shaping the court as a U.S. senator and politician.

Four years ago, Trump’s commitment to naming the justices he could appoint to the court was one of the reasons that Cruz endorsed him after their bitter primary battle.

Ho, who succeeded Cruz as Texas solicitor general, has earned a reputation as one of Trump’s most hard-line picks for the federal appellate courts.

Ho has been pivotal in inching the 5th Circuit, already one of the country’s most conservative federal appellate courts, further right. He wrote that the Second Amendment has been treated as a “‘second-class’ right.”

In his very first writing for the court, Ho panned campaign donation limits, writing, “if there is too much money in politics, it’s because there’s too much government.” He suggested a long-serving federal judge had shown bias in allowing a subpoena of a religious group in a lawsuit over the handling fetal remains, decrying “the moral tragedy of abortion.” In March 2019, he misgendered a transgender plaintiff.

Another 5th Circuit judge with Texas ties, Kyle Duncan, is also on the list. Duncan, who is from Louisiana, is a former assistant Texas solicitor general.

Emma Platoff contributed reporting.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/09/ted-cruz-supreme-court-donald-trump/.

---

Earth-shattering’ decision: Court rules House cannot enforce subpoena against former White House counsel

Travis Gettys / Raw StoryAugust 31, 2020

An appeals court ruled the House of Representatives cannot enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Donald McGahn. The District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled 2-1 the House cannot…

8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos

Asbestos is a highly toxic, naturally occurring chemical linked to a particularly deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma.An estimated 40,000 Americans die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Although the toxicity of asbestos is well understood, the EPA has never actually banned most uses. The EPA attempted a ban in 1989, but most of the rule was overturned by the:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}::{ Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.

After Congress reformed TSCA in 2016, the EPA announced that asbestos would be one of the first 10 chemicals reviewed under the new law. Many hoped that this time, the EPA would finally ban asbestos.

Instead, when the EPA released its draft risk evaluation in May, it found that several uses of asbestos, including import of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and distribution of asbestos-containing products, did not pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA made its risk determinations by ignoring exposure from "legacy" uses of asbestos, such as old insulation and building tiles. Although in November the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to fix this error, it has yet to do so.

Instead of banning asbestos, in April 2019 the EPA published a rule requiring notice and approval before manufacturers could resume using it in some applications the agency considered abandoned. However, leaked documents show that more than a dozen EPA staffers urged an outright ban on asbestos instead.

---

an 820

A judge asked Trump to prove claims about mail-in votes and fraud — it didn’t go well Alex H

---

3 wins, also XL and atlantic gas

Judge rules that Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down and emptied Matthew Rozsa / Salonan 720

---

720

desmog

Louisiana state appeals court has ruled that the Bayou Bridge Pipeline Company illegally “trampled” on the rights of landowners by starting pipeline construction without the landowners’ permission. The pipeline company must pay the landowners $10,000 each plus attorneys fees.

“This is a victory not only for us but for all landowners,” said Theda Larson Wright, one of the three Louisiana landowners who sued Bayou Bridge Pipeline Company (BBP) in September 2018. “All over the country, pipeline companies have destroyed people's land, often without even attempting to get permission, and dared the landowners to speak up. Well, we did. I hope this victory will encourage many others to as well.”

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/federal-court-urged-to-hold-rogue-trump-epa-head-in-contempt-for-blatant-defiance-of-ban-on-toxic-weed-killer/

common dreams

a coalition of farming and conservation groups is calling on a federal appeals court to hold EPA chief Andrew Wheeler in contempt for defying an order to immediately suspend use of dicamba, a poisonous weed-killer that is notorious for its tendency to drift and destroy nearby crops.

“Trump’s EPA is so rogue it thinks it can blow off a federal court ruling that stops the damaging dicamba spraying in an administrative order,” George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety, lead counsel in the case, said in a statement late Thursday night. “EPA needs a lesson in separation of powers and we’re asking the court to give it to them.”

On Monday, the EPA issued guidance greenlighting the use of dicamba through July 31 despite a June 3 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the agency’s approval of XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan—dicamba-based herbicides sold by chemical giants Bayer (formerly Monsanto), BASF, and Corteva, respectively.

In its 56-page ruling (pdf), the Ninth Circuit said the EPA “entirely failed to recognize the enormous social cost to farming communities where use of dicamba herbicides had turned farmer against farmer, and neighbor against neighbor.”

...

---

a bunch of recent ag-gag wins but wonder if cd be possible in near future w/ mcconn stacking

https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/judges-strike-down-ag-gag-laws-for-violating-the-first-amendment/

---

ew 620

federal court overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of dicamba Wednesday, meaning the controversial herbicide can no longer be sprayed in the U.S.

---

Setback to Industry, the Ninth Circuit Sends California Climate Liability Cases Back to State Courts

BY DAVID HASEMYER

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052020/ninth-circuit-ruling-california-climate-change-oil-industry

---

federal judge demolishes Florida law barring felons from voting — rules it a ‘poll tax’

Hunter / Daily KosMay 25, 2020

In a Sunday order, a federal judge has struck down in large part the Florida state law passed by Republicans that denied felons the restoration of their voting rights if they had…

victory for ‘basic democracy’ as judge orders New York to reinstate Sanders, Yang and others to 2020 primary ballot

Jake Johnson / Common Dreams

A federal judge late Tuesday ordered New York election officials to restore Sen. Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and other Democratic candidates to the state’s 2020 presidential primary ballot, a decision…

---

not sure how to score all below

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/voting-rights-roundup-court-upholds-ruling-blocking-kansas-voting-restriction-backed-by-kris-kobach/

Kansas: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that blocked Kansas from enforcing a requirement in violation of federal law that voters provide documents proving they are citizens when registering to vote, dealing a blow to notorious voter suppression crusader Kris Kobach. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, best known as the Motor Voter law, bars states from requiring such documents for registering to vote in federal elections. Instead, it only requires voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens and therefore eligible to vote.

Kobach, who is running in the GOP primary for Senate this year, had championed Kansas’ law while serving as secretary of state in the 2010s. The measure had led to one in seven new voter registrations being suspended for lack of documentation, affecting 30,000 would-be registrants in total—a group that was disproportionately young and Latino. The requirement also made it impossible to conduct voter registration drives because few citizens carry around documents like a passport day-to-day.

A federal court had suspended the law for the 2016 elections ahead of trial, which took place in 2018 and saw Kobach’s case completely fall to shambles and thoroughly discredit his voter fraud zealotry after his embarrassing attempt to represent himself in court. The presiding judge ended up reprimanding Kobach for failing to follow basic procedures, ordering him to complete six hours of legal education courses and holding him in contempt of court for refusing to stop enforcing the documentation requirement.

Kobach said in 2018 that he would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, but it’s unclear whether his successor as secretary of state, Republican Scott Schwab, shares that position. Schwab and GOP Attorney General Derek Schmidt have said they are considering their next move.

VOTER SUPPRESSION

● North Dakota: A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging North Dakota Republicans’ voter ID law has approved a settlement between Republican Secretary of State Al Jaeger and Native American voting rights advocates. The agreement will help protect voting access for Native voters who don’t have a residential street address to ensure that they can still vote.

At issue was the law’s requirement that voters have a home address on their ID in order for it to be valid. But because many Native Americans living on remote rural reservations lack postal service and therefore don’t have a traditional address, a large number of IDs issued by the tribes would have been disqualified. Since many reservation residents also don’t drive, they don’t have driver’s licenses, either.

As part of the settlement, Jaeger’s office has agreed to work with the state Department of Transportation to help voters on reservations obtain a free non-driver ID within 30 days of future statewide elections. Native voters will also be able to mark their residence on a map and therefore shift the burden of verifying their address to the state. Officials will further be required to work to educate the public and train poll workers properly.

● Wisconsin: As he had signaled earlier in April, conservative state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly has reversed his recusal in a lawsuit seeking to require Wisconsin to promptly purge more than 200,000 voter registrations, a case that Kelly had previously withdrawn from because he was up for election on April 7.

That election was marred by Republican efforts to suppress the vote by making voters choose between protecting their health and casting a ballot. That effort failed badly, as Kelly went down to a double-digit loss, but he’s nonetheless repaying his party the favor before his lame-duck tenure ends this summer.

Thanks to Kelly’s earlier recusal, the state Supreme Court had rejected plaintiffs’ request for an expedited review after one of the four other conservative justices sided with the court’s two liberals, resulting in a deadlock. Now, though, Kelly is likely to give conservatives a majority in the case.

At issue in this litigation is a GOP-backed law that requires voters to be removed from the rolls if anyone suspected of moving fails to respond within 30 days to a single mailing. Opponents have argued that the mailing was inadequate, that new notices should be sent to instruct those voters how to stay registered, and that no purge should take place until after November.

BALLOT MEASURES

● Michigan: A Republican appeal of a state appellate court ruling blocking the restrictions on ballot initiatives that the GOP approved during a 2018 lame-duck session remains pending after the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in March. After voters used initiatives in 2018 to ban gerrymandering and expand voting rights, Republicans passed the law in question to make it harder for progressives to put initiatives on the ballot but not conservatives.

The invalidated law would have required those gathering petition signatures to disclose whether they were paid or volunteers in both an affidavit and on the petition itself. Another provision that was also struck down would have prevented any group seeking to get on the ballot from gathering more than 15% of petition signatures from any of the state’s 14 congressional districts. Because Republicans gerrymandered the map by packing Democrats into a few lopsided districts, the law would have made it disproportionately harder to put progressive measures on the ballot than conservative ones.

Republicans hold a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court, but Republican Justice Elizabeth Clement has broken with her fellow conservatives on high-profile issues such as allowing the redistricting reform measure to appear on the ballot in the first place. Her vote is therefore likely to decide the outcome of the case.

● North Dakota: Republican Secretary of State Al Jaeger has approved a ballot initiative petition for circulation that would reform legislative redistricting and change North Dakota’s electoral system to a “top-four” primary with an instant-runoff general election. Supporters now have the green light to begin gathering the necessary 27,000 signatures to put their constitutional amendment on the November ballot, but it’s unclear how feasible that will be given the disruption of in-person canvassing due to the coronavirus pandemic.

As we’ve previously explained, this amendment would transfer control over redistricting from North Dakota’s heavily Republican legislature to its bipartisan Ethics Commission, giving Democratic lawmakers a say in who draws the lines, and it would also implement several nonpartisan criteria for how any new maps must be drawn. The electoral prong, meanwhile, seeks to give voters more choices than the existing two-party system and also avoid the “spoiler” problem of minor candidates splitting the vote and affecting election outcomes.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

● Florida: One important measure that failed to pass before Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature adjourned in March was a constitutional amendmentto repeal the state’s public financing system for statewide elections. Republicans and most Democratsvoted for the amendment in the state House, but lawmakers failed to advance it out of committee in the state Senate.

Consequently, the current law remains in effect. Candidates for state office who raise qualifying contributions (at least $150,000 for governor and $100,000 for other offices) in increments of up to $250 receive public funding at a two-to-one matching rate. In return, they must agree to abide by expenditure limits of $2 per registered voter for governor or $1 per voter in other races, which in 2018 came out to $27 million and $13.5 million, respectively. Multiple candidates took advantage of this system in 2018, including both parties’ candidates for governor.

BALLOT ACCESS

● Florida: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a district court ruling that struck down a decades-old Florida law that gives the governor’s party the first-listed spot on the ballot for all partisan races. The appellate court heldthat the Democratic Party organizations lacked standing to bring their case because they didn’t demonstrate that they had been harmed by the law. The district court had found that the first-listed party enjoyed a modest but meaningful boost in support, something that likely matters most in lower-profile downballot races.

Lawmakers passed this law in 1951, and it has favored Republicans for the past two decades because they have held the governor’s office since 1999. Democrats have yet to say whether they will appeal the ruling. It’s also possible that a different plaintiff could sue in the hopes of overcoming the standing issue that led to the court rejecting Democrats’ case.

ELECTION SECURITY

● Delaware, New Jersey: Both Delaware and New Jersey will let voters with disabilities vote via the internet beginning with their primaries this year. While both states have implemented this approach to make voting more accessible for voters with disabilities,, election security experts have repeatedly warned that any voting method that relies on the internet is vulnerable to hacking.

● Pennsylvania: A federal court has rejected a lawsuit backed by 2016 Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein to decertify Philadelphia’s new voting machines ahead of the June primary over her claim that they present security vulnerabilities that threaten voters’ rights. In a sharply worded opinion, Judge Paul Diamond concluded that Stein presented “no credible evidence” and called her arguments were “daft” and “ill-considered.” Diamond ruled that granting her request would have disenfranchised voters.

Stein had previously sued the state over its laws that prevented her from being able to request a recount of the 2016 election, and she contended that the certification of these machines violated the settlement reached with state officials in 2018 in that suit. Stein in her latest case had argued that the new machines were insecure because they print out a barcode paper ballot that counts as the official record instead of a human-readable record that voters themselves can verify.

However, the court was unconvinced by Stein’s arguments, and Diamond berated her for seeking “to promote only herself” instead of election integrity. Stein has not said whether or not she will appeal.

ELECTION CHANGES

The following states have recently postponed elections:

South Carolina: from May 5 and May 12 to an undetermined future date (local)

Virginia: from May 5 local elections to May 19 (local)

You can stay on top of all changes to statewide primary dates by bookmarking our 2020 calendar.

● California: The Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles County, which is the largest county in the nation, has voted to mail a ballot to every voter for the November general election. The county is home to more than 10 million people and has more than 5.5 million registered voters. While voting by mail is very popular in California, it’s been less so in Los Angeles: 45% of L.A. voters cast ballots by mail in 2018, compared to 72% in the rest of the state.

This move comes after California’s March primary saw long voting lines because new voting equipment failed to work properly. Democratic lawmakers had also previously signaled support for legislation to require a full vote-by-mail system be used for November. California as a whole is in the process of transitioning to mail voting statewide over the next few years, but only some counties have made the switch so far.

Meanwhile, the state GOP has filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to block third-party collection of mail ballots where voters can give their ballots to a community member or campaign worker to turn in for them, a practice Republicans such as Donald Trump have derided as “ballot harvesting” even though California Republicans had been preparing their own ballot-collection campaign operation for 2020 until now. Republicans argue that practice violates the statewide shelter-in-place order and shouldn’t be allowed for the 25th Congressional District special election on May 12.

● Connecticut: Democratic Secretary of State Denise Merrill says she’s considering sending absentee ballot applications to all registered Democrats and Republicans ahead of Connecticut’s Aug. 11 primaries (the state only allows party members to vote in primaries). Merrill had previously planned to send ballot applications to voters for the state’s presidential primary, but that election was postponed from June 2 to Aug. 11 and consolidated with Connecticut’s downballot primaries.

Because the state currently requires voters to present an excuse to request an absentee ballot, Merrill has encouraged Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont to issue an executive order allowing all voters to cite the coronavirus pandemic as an acceptable excuse. On Friday, Lamont refused to say whether he would sign such an order, saying only, “We’re working on that right now as we speak.” Three weeks ago, Lamont’s top counsel said the governor’s office was researching whether the excuse requirement could be relaxed.

● Georgia: A federal judge has rejected a request by voting rights advocates that Georgia officials be required to provide pre-paid postage for absentee ballots and ballot applications. However, the judge emphasized that her ruling only pertained to the state’s June 9 primary and held out the possibility that she could reach a different conclusion regarding the Aug. 11 runoff or the November general elections.

● Indiana: A group of Indiana voters and a local voting rights organization have filed a federal lawsuit asking that all voters be allowed to cast absentee ballots in the November general election. Last month, officials waived the state’s requirement that voters present an excuse to vote absentee for the state’s June 2 primaries but did not include the November elections in that order.

Meanwhile, Republican Secretary of State Connie Lawson has unveiled a new online portal for applying for absentee mail ballots in the primary, further easing the process for that election only.

● Kentucky: Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams have issued new regulations expanding voting access for the June 23 primary, including prepaid postage for absentee mail ballots along with other changes we detailed in last week’s Roundup.

● Louisiana: Both chambers of Louisiana’s Republican-run legislature have approved modest expansions to mail voting for the state’s July 11 primaries and Aug. 15 runoffs for local elections. The measure now goes to Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, who has said he supports the legislation. The bill allows the following groups of people to request absentee ballots:

those at “higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions”;
those under a “a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19”;
those “advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns”;
those “experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis”; and
those “caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine.”

Voters who may be asymptomatic or who are concerned about contracting or spreading the coronavirus are not permitted to ask for an absentee ballot. Lawmakers voted on the bill remotely, via ballots they received and returned by email.

● Massachusetts: The state Supreme Court has issued a judgment agreed to by Democratic Secretary of State Bill Galvin to allow ballot initiative campaigns to gather signatures electronically. That should make it much easier for initiatives to get onto the November ballot, including one to adopt instant-runoff voting in congressional and state elections

Supporters of that measure already turned in more enough valid signatures late last year for the initiative to go before the Democratic-run state legislature, which has the power to pass it into law in lieu of it appearing on the ballot. However, if legislators don’t pass it by May 6 as appears likely, initiative supporters need to obtain another 13,000 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the November ballot.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Galvin says that if lawmakers want to conduct the state’s Sept. 1 primaries by mail, they will need to pass a bill by June 2, which is the deadline by which candidates must file with state officials and when the secretary’s office begins preparations for printing ballots. Galvin previously said he would release his own proposal for an all-mail primary in May. At least one vote-by-mail bill is already pending before the legislature.

● Michigan: Blind voters have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Michigan’s absentee voting procedures for being inaccessible to them and infringing upon their right to vote safely. The plaintiffs are asking the court to adopt a method for accessible absentee voting ahead of May 5 local elections, pointing out that other states such as Ohio enable blind people to vote from home using screen-reading software. Normally, blind voters would have access to voting machines that can be used by people with visual impairments, but those machines are typically only available at polling places.

● Missouri: Republican State House Speaker Elijah Haahr says he supports relaxing Missouri’s excuse requirement to vote absentee and says that the legislature will hold a hearing on election-related issues sometime during its session over the next three weeks. Many county clerks have advocated for waiving the requirement, but Republican Gov. Mike Parson has opposed the idea. A lawsuit seeking to allow voters to cite the coronavirus pandemic as a valid excuse is pending in state court.

● Nevada: A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit brought by a conservative group that sought to prevent Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske from conducting Nevada’s June 9 primary by mail. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show they would be harmed by Cegavske’s plan, but even had they been able to, he concluded that their worries about voter fraud were “without any factual basis.”

● New Jersey: Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is reportedly considering implementing a plan for the July 7 primary to automatically send out mail ballots to all registered Democrats and Republicans while offering a limited number of in-person polling places for unaffiliated voters or major-party voters who prefer voting that way. However, Phil Murphy says publicly that he still has not made a decision.

● New York: New York’s Board of Elections, a bipartisan panel whose members are all appointed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has canceled the state’s June 23 presidential primary, prompting former presidential candidate Andrew Yang to file a lawsuitin federal court asking that the presidential primary be reinstated. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had asked that the Democratic primary go forward, but a Democratic board member, Douglas Kellner, said, “What the Sanders campaign wanted is essentially a beauty contest that, given the situation with the public health emergency, seems to be unnecessary and, indeed, frivolous.”

However, the state’s downballot primaries, which are taking place the same day, will proceed as planned, meaning the only way public safety might be enhanced is if turnout is lower as a result. According to the New York Times, about one third of New York counties have no other races on the ballot and therefore will not hold an election. However, it is not clear what proportion of the state’s actual electorate would be affected, since New York’s population is heavily concentrated in just a handful of its 62 counties.

For the primaries that remain scheduled for June, the New York City Board of Elections has launched an online portal letting voters request an absentee mail ballot. Cuomo recently issued a pair of executive orders that will mail absentee ballot applications to all voters and waive the excuse requirement, but state officials have yet to provide all voters with an online request option.

● Ohio: A state judge has rejected a request to issue a preliminary injunction allowing ballot initiative supporters to gather signatures electronically. The plaintiffs had also sought to extend the deadline to submit signatures and lower the number of signatures required. However, Judge David Young, a Democrat, ruled that the Ohio constitution precluded him from altering the established process.

This ruling could doom an effort to put a constitutional amendment to expand voting rights on the November ballot. The proposed measure would enact automatic and same-day voter registration, protect access to early voting, bar future restrictions on acceptable voter ID, and require routine audits of election results. Plaintiffs have said they are assessing their options about whether to appeal or potentially file a federal lawsuit instead.

● Pennsylvania: Voting rights advocates have filed a second lawsuit asking that absentee ballots be counted in Pennsylvania’s June 2 primaries and November general election, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days. Under current law, ballots must be received by Election Day. The suit was filed directly with the state Supreme Court. A separate case filed last week by different plaintiffs was brought in an intermediate appellate court; it also seeks an extension to the absentee receipt deadline as well as several other measures that would make mail voting easier.

● Rhode Island: Democratic Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea says every voter will be sent an absentee ballot application for Rhode Island’s June 2 presidential primary. The effort does not appear to apply to the state’s downballot primaries, which will not take place until Sept. 8.

● Texas: A group of Texas voters, supported by the National Redistricting Foundation, have filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the state’s practice of allowing all voters 65 or older to cast absentee ballots without an excuse while requiring an excuse for anyone younger violates the Constitution. Specifically, the suit charges that the law in question violates the 26th Amendment, which guarantees that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” Six other conservative states have similar provisions in place, all but one of which is also located in the South.

Two other cases on the issue of Texas’ excuse requirement are still pending. In one, filed in state court, a judge ruled that all voters can cite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic to request an absentee ballot, though Republicans have said they will appeal. A second similar case in federal court awaits a ruling.

Separately, commissioners in Harris County have allocated $12 million in new election funds, which would allow the county to mail ballots to every voter for the November general election. Harris is home to Houston and is the largest county in the state, with more than 2.3 million registered voters.

● Virginia: The Virginia Republican Party has filed to intervene in a federal lawsuit over absentee mail voting requirements. Republicans are trying to stop Democratic state Attorney General Mark Herring from implementing an agreement with the plaintiffs announced on Tuesday to waive the requirement that absentee voters have a witness sign their ballot envelope, which is more burdensome than usual due to social distancing precautions.

---

https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/05/03/keystone-xl-future-pipeline-permits

On April 15, Judge Brian Morris nullified water-crossing permits in Montana that were granted for the Keystone XL, a major setback for the long-embattled tar sands oil pipeline. The ruling came just days after Keystone XL owner TC Energy, formerly known as TransCanada, obtained billions of dollars in subsidies from the Alberta government as global oil prices plummeted.

The oil and gas industry has taken notice. Seemingly just a ruling on Keystone XL — the subject of opposition by the climate movement for the past decade — the ruling could have far broader implications for the future of building water-crossing pipelines and utility lines.

In his decision, Judge Morris cited a potential violation of the Endangered Species Act when he ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do a deeper analysis of potential impacts to protected species. Morris required the Corps to demonstrate whether or not it could construct the pipeline without harming endangered species, such as the Pallid Sturgeon or the American burying beetle. Instead, the Army Corps “failed to consider relevant expert analysis and failed to articulate a rational connection between the facts it found and the choice it made,” Morris ruled, when the Corps gave Keystone XL the initial green light.

The original July 2019 complaintin that case — filed by Northern Plains Resource Council, Bold Alliance, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Biological Diversity — also argued that the Army Corps had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in using an obscure regulatory lever to fast-track the review process.

Known as Nationwide Permit 12, the permit only requires a short environmental analysis compared to the more robust environmental impact statement required under NEPA for other major infrastructure projects. But Morris also wrote that the decision applied not just to Keystone XL, but to all major federal projects aiming to utilize Nationwide Permit 12, calling for it to be “vacated pending completion of the consultation process and compliance with all environmental statutes and regulations.”

Just two days after this decision, Army Corps regulatory program Chief Jennifer Moyer wrote in an email obtained by the Associated Press that the agency should suspend the program indefinitely “out of an abundance of caution” until the issue is resolved legally.

The Trump administration has already requested a procedural halt on implementing Morris’ decision until its potential appeal weaves its way through the legal system.

“The Court has eliminated Nationwide Permit 12 for use by any utility line project anywhere in the country, which has extraordinary and immediate implications for numerous projects,” the U.S. Department of Justice attorneys wrote on behalf of the Army Corps.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the lobbying and advocacy voice of the oil and gas industry, has also filed an affidavit in favor of putting a procedural halt to Morris’ ruling.

“The ability to provide reliable energy is even more important now during this sensitive and challenging time brought on by COVID-19,” Robin Rorick, Vice President of Midstream and Industry Operations for API, wrote in the affidavit. “The Court’s Order could threaten API’s members’ ability to continue numerous energy and infrastructure projects, affecting the health of numerous companies and job security in an already-strained economy.”

API also joined North America’s Building Trades Unions and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America in denouncing the ruling along similar lines.

'Single and Complete'

Nationwide Permit 12 historically was used for small “single and complete” projects crossing water parcels half an acre in size or smaller.

But in the aftermath of protests and civil disobedience actions taken against Keystone XL, the Obama administration began using that permitting process to split pipelines into hundreds or thousands of half-acre pieces. The process was a way around the more robust and democratic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulatory process, which involves both a public commenting and public hearing phase. Nationwide Permit 12 was also used to push through the Dakota Access pipeline, as well as the southern leg of the Keystone XL, both greenlighted by President Barack Obama.

During the Obama era, environmental groups decried this as a form of “segmentation” and a way out of complying with NEPA, which they routinely challeneged in court with some success—though not enough to undo the legal lever. The bedrock environmental law is now under further attack by President Donald Trump, with the administration trying to remove climate change contribution as a factor analyzed under the law for major projects and aiming to narrow the scope of and time it takes to complete these environmental impact reviews.

[vid]

Since March 2017, the Trump administration has utilized Nationwide Permit 12 over 37,000 times, the AP reported. As it stands today, the Army Corps’ decision to halt use of the Nationwide Permit 12 fast-track tool has put 360 permit applications on hold.

“The reason that matters is that the public and the communities and everybody that lives there has the chance to get involved in the process,” Eric Huber, Senior Managing Attorney with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program, told DeSmog. “Otherwise, these special permits just allow a pipeline company to go out and start construction without notice to anybody or to take private property and just proceed and blast this through regardless of how the local community thinks of it.”

External corporate attorneys, too, have taken notice and expressed their own concerns about the ruling.

“The decision puts in limbo thousands of infrastructure projects nationwide that rely on [Nationwide Permit] 12 for the construction, maintenance, or repair of utility lines and poses particularly acute problems for the oil and gas industry, which relies on the permit to facilitate projects ranging from large interstate pipelines to smaller gathering lines at exploration and production sites,” wrote attorneys fromBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a firm with close ties to the Trump administration, in one such reaction to the ruling.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s fossil fuel industry lobbying clients include the American Petroleum Institute, American Public Power Association, Freeport LNG, Talos Energy, Jordan Cove LNG, WPX Energy, and the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

Another firm heavily involved in fossil fuel industry litigation and lobbying, Steptoe & Johnson, also weighed in on the ruling and wrote that it could have the impact of “extending permitting time frames for these types of projects” going forward. The firm’s fossil fuel industry lobbying clients include American Gas Association, Gas Technology Institute, and Peabody Energy.

Permian Highway Pipeline in Texas

The legal precedent set in the Keystone XL case is already playing out in federal courts.

On April 30, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuitin the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against the Army Corps of Engineers over another controversial pipeline. The complaint says the Army Corps did not comply with NEPA in issuing a Nationwide Permit 12 to the 428-mile Permian Highway gas pipeline. It also argues the agency is not currently in compliance with the order in the Keystone XL case because it has continued to allow pipeline construction under the contested Nationwide Permit 12 program.

“It is outrageous that the Corps approved this project without public notice or opportunity to comment on their permits,” Rebecca McCreary, a Sierra Club attorney, said of the Permian Highway pipeline in a press release. “Nationwide Permit 12 allows for no public hearings or participation by the local communities before the Corps permits construction to start, nor is there public notice or comment on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits allowing harm to the endangered species along the route. The Corps should stop this project immediately.”

Owned by Kinder Morgan, Permian Highway is a pipeline slated to carry gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in Texas’ Permian Basin east across the state. Kinder Morgan told DeSmog it was aware of the lawsuit, but declined to comment on it and the broader Nationwide Permit 12 issue.

Permian Highway has already seen issues with spills into water systems, with one late March incident spilling 36,000 gallons of drilling slurry — including a carcinogenic additive — into groundwater.

[twt]

Responding, the Hays County Commissioners Court voted on April 22 to rescind road permits given by the Texas county to allow Kinder Morgan to drill underneath county roads as it builds the pipeline. And Kinder Morgan, too, has suspended construction on this portion of the pipeline as it “determines the best path forward” in the aftermath of the spill, the company told Houston Chronicle.

The City of Austin, City of San Marcos, Hays County, Travis County, and others also filed their own Endangered Species Act lawsuit in February,arguing that the pipeline could threaten protected Golden Cheeked Warblers, two salamander species, and their habitats.

Keystone XL Decision Looms

In the Keystone XL case in Montana, Morris recently deniedthe Army Corps a procedural stay in the case. TC Energy, for its part, wants the decision struck down as it applies both to its own pipeline and for the permitting program at large.

“If TC Energy does not receive authorization from the Army Corps by early July, its construction plans will be significantly impacted,” Gary Salsman, a TC Energy vice president for the Keystone XL project, wrote in his April 29 affidavit. “Currently, TC Energy is evaluating potential options that would be available to it in that circumstance, each of which have significant adverse consequences.”

Those “potential options,” Salsman wrote, include a potential construction delay across Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska; a change in construction plans this year to avoid the waters it is currently slated to cross that are impacted by the vacating of Nationwide Permit 12; or ending construction all together. He added that if construction does not begin in 2020, it could cost the company $750 million to $1.3 billion.

Morris could make a decision on how broadly his Nationwide Permit 12 decision applies as soon as May 8. Regardless of the outcome, Morris' next move will likely face an appeal from either side.

TAGS:

Permian Highway Pipeline

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Kinder Morgan

Army Corps of Engineers

American Petroleum Institute

National Environmental Policy Act

Clean Water Act

endangered species act

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-water-act--2645821708.html

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration Thursday in a case Earthjustice called "the clean water case of the century."

:{:{}:

The case concerned a Maui, Hawaii wastewater treatment plant that pumped around four million gallons of sewage a day into groundwater, where some of it reached the Pacific Ocean, The New York Times reported. Maui County and the Trump administration argued that the plant did not need a Clean Water Act permit if the waste was passing through groundwater before entering protected waters, but the court rejected that narrow interpretation of the landmark environmental law six to three.

"We do not see how Congress could have intended to create such a large and obvious loophole in one of the key regulatory innovations of the Clean Water Act," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, as Earthjustice reported

[twt?]

Earthjustice brought the case on behalf of Maui environmental groups Hawaiʻi Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club-Maui Group, Surfrider Foundation and West Maui Preservation Association. Both the Hawaiʻi District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the county, but the Supreme Court case was high stakes.

"If the Supreme Court endorses the county's position, it would open a massive loophole for every polluter in the country to avoid regulation of their discharges by the law that protects the nation's waterways," arguing Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said in November 2019.

By backing up the county's case, the Trump Environmental Protection Agency was also reversing the agency's historic position, The Associated Press reported. This is in keeping with other Trump administration attempts to weaken water protections, such as its rollback of the Clean Water Rule rule granting protection to small streams and wetlands.

"This decision is a huge victory for clean water," Henkin said. "The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's effort to blow a big hole in the Clean Water Act's protections for rivers, lakes and oceans."

Henkin said it was likely the lower court would now order the Maui plant to get a permit for its activities and ensure they do not damage the ocean. They have already been found to have harmed a coral reef.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh joined Breyer in the majority opinion, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, though Alito wrote his own dissent, The New York Times reported.

"Based on the statutory text and structure, I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters," Thomas wrote, according to The Associated Press.

In the majority ruling, the court did not go as far as the environmental advocates, who argued a permit was needed for any pollutants that "actually and foreseeably reach navigable surface waters," The New York Times reported.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled entirely in favor of the environmental groups, but Breyer said that standard was too all-encompassing and would include things like "pollutants carried to navigable waters on a bird's feathers."

Instead, he argued that discharges into groundwater had to be regulated if they were the "functional equivalent" of a direct discharge.

But Earthjustice still touted the decision as a win, and CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck said it would boost water-protection efforts.

"Compared to the argument that it does not require permits for any groundwater pollution, which the county and the three dissenting justices all argued, this result will both empower the federal government to more aggressively regulate such pollution and allow private parties to sue when that regulation fails," Vladeck told CNN.

water clean water act trump administration epa oceans

---

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/resolute-to-pay-almost-1-million-dollars-to-greenpeace/

San Francisco, April 23, 2020 — Logging Giant Resolute Forest Products, which has waged meritless lawsuits against multiple Greenpeace offices and individual staff members since 2013, was ordered yesterday to reimburse defendants a total of about $816,000 USD to cover attorneys’ fees and costs [1] related to dismissed legal claims that were intended to silence critics of the company’s controversial environmental record.

This is the latest favorable decision for Greenpeace in the U.S. federal lawsuit that started over four years ago. Resolute’s lawsuits are clear examples of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) [2]. The goal of a SLAPP suit is not to win in court, but instead to intimidate defendants into silence and exhaust them of their resources. In addition to Resolute undoubtedly spending vast sums on its own lawyers, it now must cover a large portion of the attorneys’ fees incurred by those it sued. Despite almost the entirety of the lawsuit already being dismissed in January 2019, Resolute continues to pursue this SLAPP tactic in an attempt to drain Greenpeace resources and distract the organization from other valuable work. But, in this case, the bully is left to foot the bill. The two Greenpeace entities in the United States [3] that Resolute sued requested the payment of their attorneys’ fees and costs as allowed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, most of which were granted in the court’s order. This historical award is one of the highest monetary figures ever under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer said in response to the decision:

“This decision shows that Resolute made a very expensive mistake coming after Greenpeace for our work protecting Canada’s boreal forest. The judge’s decisions both to dismiss the majority of the claims in this case and now awarding substantial attorneys’ fees affirm that Resolute’s divisive and bullying tactics are a waste of time and resources. The court’s decision should be a warning to other corporations and powerful interests that legal attacks on free speech and public advocacy are bad business decisions.”

420 ew

https://www.ecowatch.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-permit-2645731994.html

420 icn

US. Appeals Court in D.C. Restores Limitations on Super-Polluting HFCs

BY PHIL MCKENNA

https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/why-judges-will-likely-play-a-crucial-role-deciding-how-2020-elections-are-run-during-the-pandemic/

why judges will likely play a crucial role deciding how 2020 elections are run during the pandemic

Steven Rosenfeld / Independent Media InstituteApril 3, 2020

no lnx

Why judges will likely play a crucial role deciding how 2020 elections are run during the pandemic

Written by Steven Rosenfeld / Independent Media Institute April 3, 2020

The jaw-dropping conclusion of a federal court hearing on April 1 about Wisconsin’s statewide elections on April 7 was no April Fools’ joke. U.S. District Judge William Conley said the state’s Democratic governor and Republican-led legislature had failed to put their citizenry’s health first by not postponing the statewide election in a pandemic.

“There’s a hurricane coming!” Conley fumed from the bench, interrupting Douglas M. Poland, a lawyer representing the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and four citizens who sued the state. “You can’t even give me a case where a federal judge stopped a state from stupidly holding an election when most of the voters were not going to go to the polls because there’s a hurricane coming!”

“You expect the state of Wisconsin to realize that this is a hurricane and for them to stop it for public health reasons,” Conley continued. “But you don’t get to go to a federal judge and say it is contingent on voting rights, so you get to stop a statewide election. The reason you can’t cite me a case is because it’s not appropriate. I’m sorry that that’s what the situation is. But this is a public health crisis that the state legislature and the governor have refused to accept as severe enough to stop this statewide election.”

It is not very often that a federal judge slams a state’s executive and legislative branches from the bench before issuing a ruling. But below theheadline-grabbing pronouncement are equally serious concerns that will resurface in federal and state courts between now and the 2020 general election. Those concerns are how far can a court go—federal or state—to change the means and rules of voting.

Wisconsin was the only state of 11 slated to hold statewide elections in April that did not change its plans. That decision, in part due to Republican legislators wanting to boost the GOP’s odds of winning a state Supreme Court race, sparked three lawsuits. One sought to postpone the election. A second sought to ensure that all absentee ballots that were postmarked by April 7, but arrived in the mail days later, would be counted. The third sought to suspend a state law requiring all absentee voters to have a witness sign their ballot.

Judge Conley’s eruption from the bench concerned Wisconsin political leadership’s irresponsibility for not postponing an election in an unforeseen public health crisis, where the first wave of coronavirus cases is cresting on Election Day and its aftermath—where more than 1.1 million paper absentee ballots have to be authenticated, duplicates removed and counted.

But the other two lawsuits before the court are more relevant for the rest of the 2020 election cycle, as the issues they raise dig into the fine print of policies that state legislatures have adopted and voting procedures that government election bureaucracies subsequently have issued concerning voters and voting by mail.

“What is emerging is a hodgepodge of rules and procedures that will almost guarantee different levels of voter participation depending upon how easy states make it to vote by mail,” said Chris Sautter, an election attorney specializing in recounts and an adjunct professor of government at American University.

Wisconsin’s next election, which is poised to become 2020’s latest problem-plagued exercise, ironically comes in a state that has a reputation for well-run elections. It was the only state of three in 2016 to complete a presidential recount. In 2018, only 6 percent of its 3.44 million registered voters cast absentee ballots. On April 7, nearly six times that volume may vote by absentee ballot. Two of the lawsuits before Judge Conley concerned state policies and rules: what technicalities must be followed for those absentee ballots to count.

During the April 1 hearing, Judge Conley pointedly asked the attorneys representing national and state Democratic Party organizations, voting rights groups, senior citizens and Wisconsin voters what he could do to fix concrete problems that were emerging now—as opposed to speculation about what would implode on Election Day. If problems arose, Conley said he would deal with those issues then. For example, could he issue an order to people who could not find a witness, such as seniors living alone, to have their ballot count? Could he extend the day by which mail-in ballots would still be accepted and be counted, as local officials were still mailing them out and postal delivery was known to be slow?

This posture—respecting a state legislature’s laws and state election bureaucracy’s rules—is the heart of federalism and required by the U.S. Constitution, the judge said from the bench, as he rejected arguments to postpone the April 7 election but struggled to identify remedies that he could order to facilitate voting.

Why these frames matter in 2020 is that there is a spectrum of unevenlaws and rules that currently surround absentee voters, voting by mail and counting those ballots in state after state. These include: how registered voters are notified about voting by mail—or not; how voters apply to vote absentee; ID requirements to get a mail-in ballot; whether additional affidavits or witnesses are required to submit an absentee ballot; whether helping someone to fill out and return a ballot is a crime; whether the state will pay for the postage to return ballots; what voter signatures on file with the state are used to verify or reject the signatures on ballot envelopes; the signature verification standards used; when absentee ballots must be received to count; how long local boards have to do all the processing; and more.

Many of these issues are the subject of pending and possible litigation in state after state, where judges—not legislatures—will decide how 2020’s elections are run during a pandemic. Why not legislatures? Because most 2020 legislative sessions have been suspended, postponed or adjourneddue to the pandemic, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Meanwhile, what has emerged are varying and evolving responses. Lawyers for Democratic Party organizations and voting rights groups are seeking the most sweeping changes to boost participation. Some state election regulators and some governors are taking steps to open up the process, but generally are not going as far as Democrats and voting rights activists would like. And Republicans—especially in states where they hold legislative majorities, like Wisconsin—have been rejecting those efforts, leaving newly identified barriers in place.

The politics behind these decisions and actions are clear. Voting by mail tends to have a higher turnout among middle- and upper-income voters, which favors the GOP. Lower-income people and students often have less reliable and accessible mailboxes. Thus Democrats are seeking to expand participation and remove any barriers. This reality was affirmed by President Trump criticizing the election reforms in the House’s latest relief bill on Fox News on March 31, when he said, “The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

...

3/25

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25032020/dakota-access-pipeline-under-review-federal-court

In a major victory for opponents of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that prior environmental assessments failed to fully consider the impact of the project. The Army Corps of Engineers will now have to undertake a more thorough review.

The pipeline crosses the Missouri River just upstream from the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota. The tribe gained international attention starting in the summer of 2016, as thousands flocked to the reservation in support of the tribe's opposition to the pipeline. The project was approved by the Trump administration and completed in June 2017.

It remains unclear however, whether the 1,200-mile pipeline, which ships crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, will have to be shut down during the new assessment by the Corps, a process that could take years....

---

https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-september/tongass-national-forest-victory-old-growth-climate

Major Victory for Alaska’s Majestic Trees and for the Climate

Protecting trees, particularly old-growth trees in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, is a win for local communities and for the climate.

By Jessica A. Knoblauch | March 12, 2020

A recent court victory halted a timber sale on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska.

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html

A federal judge in Alaska ruled late Wednesday against a Trump administration plan to open 1.8 million acres of America's largest national forest to logging.

The Forest Service plan targeted part of the Tongass National Forest on Prince of Wales Island. It would have been the largest sale of national forest timber in 30 years, Earthjustice pointed out, permitting 164 miles of new roads and clearing an area of forest three times the size of Manhattan, more than half of it old growth. But U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the plan violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the agency did not take all of its potential impacts into account, The Hill reported.

"The magnificent, ancient forests of the Tongass just got a reprieve from the chain saws," Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), said in the Earthjustice press release. "We're thrilled the court agreed that the Trump administration broke the law when it approved cutting thousands of acres of old-growth trees. It's critical to protect our remaining old-growth forests to have any chance of stopping the extinction crisis and slowing climate change."

CBD was one of eight conservation groups that challenged the plan with representation from Earthjustice, according to fellow plaintiff the National Audubon Society. The groups, also including Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League and the Natural Resources Defense Council, argued that it violated NEPA, which allows people to weigh in on major infrastructure projects that will impact their community. Prince of Wales Island is an important location for subsistence hunting and fishing, but the Forest Service did not say in its plans where logging would take place, which meant it was impossible for the local community to meaningfully respond to the plans.

Judge Gleason agreedwith this assessment of the project, arguing that the service did not state where logging and road building would occur, according to Courthouse News Service.

"By not developing actual site-specific information, the Forest Service limited its ability to make informed decisions regarding impacts to subsistence uses and presented local communities with vague, hypothetical, and over-inclusive representations of the project's effects over a 15-year period," Gleason wrote.

Gleason also ruled that the plan violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which requires federal agencies to determine how projects on public lands will impact those who use the lands for subsistence, according to The Audubon Society.

The ruling comes as the Trump administration is proposing changes to NEPA that would drastically weaken the landmark environmental law by, among other things, limiting the length of the review process, exempting certain projects from any review and allowing federal agencies to ignore a project's climate impacts.

Alaska Wilderness League conservation director Kristen Miller said that Wednesday's ruling showed the importance of NEPA.

"The Prince of Wales project would've been the largest logging project that we have seen anywhere in our national forests in decades, and it would have destroyed thousands of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forest in the Tongass National Forest," Miller said in the Earthjustice release. "Today's ruling is a win for Southeast Alaska's billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries, and a reminder as the Trump administration tries to significantly weaken the National Environmental Policy Act of the critical role NEPA plays in allowing the public to meaningfully weigh in on issues impacting their public lands."

The ultimate fate of the Forest Service project is not yet known, as Judge Gleason did not yet decide on a legal remedy for the plaintiffs' suit. The service did not respond to requests for comment from either Courthouse News Service or The Hill.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/federal-judge-calls-out-right-wing-bias-and-accuses-chief-justice-roberts-of-undermining-american-democracy

no lnx

Federal judge calls out right-wing bias — and accuses Chief Justice Roberts of ‘undermining American democracy’

Written by Alex Henderson March 11, 2020

In the right-wing media, the term “activist judges” is often used to criticize judges who make decisions that the far right doesn’t like — although far-right pundits never use that term to criticize judges who make decisions that are favorable to large corporations or anti-abortion groups. Even some progressive judges are afraid of being accused of liberal bias, butU.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman obviously isn’t one of them. In an article for the Harvard Law Review, Adelman calls out right-wing biases in the judiciary — and one of Adelman’s targets is U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

“The Court’s hard-right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy,” Adelman asserts in the Harvard Law Review. “Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.”

:{:{}:

In the article, Adelman slams the High Court’s right wing for striking down part of the Voting Rights Act and for being hostile to unions and favorable to large corporations. And the judge notes how the Supreme Court, in 2020, is so much more right-leaning than it was in the days of the late Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren was a Republican. But many of his rulings did a lot to advance the cause of liberalism in the United States, and the Christian Right has been vehemently critical of him.

Adelman notes that in recent years, the Supreme Court’s right-wing justices have done a lot to undermine the progressive rulings that the Warren Court made in the 1950s and 1960s.

“Democracy is inherently fragile, and it is even more so when government eschews policies that benefit all classes of Americans,” Adelman asserts. “We desperately need public officials who will work to revitalize our democratic republic. Unfortunately, the conservative justices on the Roberts Court are not among them.”

Adelman’s article has received a rave review from journalists Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern. In a March 10 article for Slate, they applaud Adelman for a “willingness to really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary.” And the Slate journalists note the double standards that exist among far-right pundits.

“When Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case,” Lithwick and Stern write, “it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the High Court seems to be privileging the Trump Administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled — by the president himself — unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine.”

But Adelman, the Slate journalists stress, refuses to be manipulated by that “conservative outrage machine.” And they love the fact that Adelman outlines how far the High Court has moved since its Earl Warren era.

“The article ultimately portrays the slow movement of the Supreme Court to the right — and then the far right — through a long line of cases that reversed the Warren Court’s protections for minority groups and poor and working-class Americans,” Lithwick and Stern explain. “It shows how the Court has undermined unions and boosted corporate interests.”

320

https://www.ecowatch.com/oil-gas-leases-public-lands-2645367415.html

A federal judge threw out oil and gas leases on nearly one million acres of public lands that are important habitat for the greater sage grouse, arguing that a Trump administration policy that curtailed public input on the leases was "arbitrary and capricious."

:{:{}:

At the start of 2018, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had issued a memo shortening the period for public comment and protest on oil and gas leases from 30 days to 10, Huffpost reported. But U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush ruled in Idaho Thursday that around $125 million worth of leases issued under the new policy be tossed out and the full 30-day comment period restored. In his decision, Bush argued that BLM could not only consider the economic needs of fossil fuel industries at the expense of all other concerns.

"If the words 'justice so requires' are to mean anything, they must satisfy the fundamental understanding of justice: that it requires an impartial look at the balance struck between the two sides of the scale, as the iconic statue of the blindfolded goddess of justice holding the scales aloft depicts," he wrote. "Merely to look at only one side of the scales, whether solely the costs or solely the benefits, flunks this basic requirement."

The lawsuit was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Western Watersheds Project in a bid to protect greater sage grouse habitat, The Washington Post explained. The sage grouse, whose numbers have fallen from around 16 million to fewer than 500,000 because of disease and development, reflects the overall health of the Western sagebrush habitat that also houses hundreds of other species.

Bush's ruling tossed out five leases on more than 1,300 square miles — or more than 800,000 acres — of public lands in Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, according to HuffPost and The Hill. However, it could have implications for around 67 million acres of sage grouse habitat in 11 Western states.

"This is an enormous victory for greater sage grouse and hundreds of other animals and plants that depend on this dwindling habitat," CBD senior campaigner Taylor McKinnon said in a press release. "The judge confirmed that it's illegal to silence the public to expand fossil-fuel extraction. It's a win for millions of acres of our beautiful public lands and a major blow to the Trump administration's corrupt efforts to serve corporate polluters."

The BLM said it was considering whether or not to appeal the ruling, according to The Washington Post. However, spokesperson Derrick Henry told The Washington Post that the agency remained committed to streamlining the leasing process.

"To do this, we have been working within our legal authorities to alleviate or eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations, while at the same time upholding public health and environmental protections, including sage-grouse conservation," Henry said.

However, environmental advocates have complained that, under the Trump administration, streamlining often comes at the expense of public participation. In one particularly ironic example last week, Democratic Congresspeople, activists and former government workers said that the White House's Council on Environmental Quality is making it harder to comment on its plans to restrict the National Environmental Policy Act, itself a law designed to give communities a say in projects that might impact their local ecosystems. However, Earthjustice attorney Drew Caputo told The Washington Post that the administration's attempts to work around public input also often ended up flouting the law, leading to court defeats like Thursday's.

"This administration has been relentless in its efforts to cut the public out of public lands decision-making, starting in 2018," Western Watersheds Project staff attorney Talasi Brooks said in a press release. "The court wasn't fooled by the agency's efforts to disguise its intention to provide greater influence to extractive energies, and the sage grouse and 350 other sagebrush-dependent species will benefit from today's win."

Correction. An earlier version of this article stated that a judge had banned oil and gas leases on nearly one million acres of public land. It has been updated to reflect the fact that he threw out existing leases rather than banning leasing generally.

:{:{}:

public lands greater sage grouse animals trump administration oil and gas positive news conservation

Baltimore Climate Case Passes Another Hurdle

The city of Baltimore is one step closer to holding fossil fuel companies liable for localized climate impacts. A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the companies’ appeal to move the suit to federal court; it will proceed in Maryland state court. It's big news for the handful of other cases awaiting decisions on jurisdiction, and comes on the heels of similar decisions in Colorado and Rhode Island. Climate liability cases have traditionally been easier to dismiss in federal court, which is why oil companies want to argue them there.

who does Maryland’s Republican governor really work for?

Eric Cortellessa / Washington MonthlyJanuary 6, 2020

Larry Hogan has more in common with Donald Trump than his reputation suggests.

https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/20/baltimore-climate-damages-liability-lawsuit/

Baltimore became the second East Coast city to file a climate liability lawsuit against fossil fuel companies. Its suit, announced Friday, becomes the 12th suit filed across the country aiming to hold the industry accountable for flooding and other harms caused by climate change.

The mayor and city council of Baltimore filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and 23 other fossil fuel producers and distributors violated Maryland laws, including its consumer protection law.

“These oil and gas companies knew for decades that their products would harm communities like ours, and we’re going to hold them accountable,” Baltimore City Solicitor Andre M. Davis said. “Baltimore’s residents, workers, and businesses shouldn’t have to pay for the damage knowingly caused by these companies.”

Baltimore, the largest city in Maryland and the fifth-largest on the East Coast, is already experiencing the effects of sea level rise and extreme weather driven by climate change. The city absorbed a 7 ½-foot storm surge from Hurricane Isabel in 2003, causing a devastating flood, and had Superstorm Sandy’s track changed slightly, a 20-foot storm surge could have inundated the city in 2012. The city’s Inner Harbor, a tourist hub and a key economic driver for Baltimore, faces frequent flooding even without storms of that size. Nearby Ellicott City, 12 miles to the west, has been devastated by flash flooding twice in the last three years, with 1,000-year floods striking that community after extreme downpours in 2016 and earlier this year.

Baltimore needs to upgrade infrastructure to be ready for future flooding, although city officials are not yet certain what that will cost. “The City is in the final stages of its latest Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project, which be out for public comment in August and will have more details about the kinds of projects that Baltimore will have to undertake to address rising seas and other consequences of climate change,” Suzanne Sangree, chief of the Baltimore City Law Department’s public safety practice group, wrote in an email.

“All cities are behind in this kind of preparation, in large part because the fossil fuel industry has been burying information and preventing meaningful regulation and preparation,” Sangree said.

The city filed its suit in state court, where most legal experts say it has a better chance for success. New York City, the first East Coast city to sue the oil industry for climate damages, had its case dismissed by a federal judge on Thursday. San Francisco and Oakland also had their cases thrown out of U.S. District Court. All are expected to appeal those decisions, but have not yet done so.

Those roadblocks have not deterred other communities from joining the wave of suits, however. Rhode Island recently became the first state to file a suit. And now Baltimore joins the list of cities that believe the industry should pay for the damages it says have been overwhelmingly driven by its products.

...

3/20

Federal judge rules Bill Barr can’t be trusted — and concludes he ‘distorted’ Mueller’s findings

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled in a scathing decision…

---

COURTS3

Media Matters statement on winning injunction against Missouri AG Andrew Bailey in federal court

Right-wing media figures and outlets have pushed the film, using it to fuel claims that the 2020 election was stolen

Key takeaways from the order:

hacked Records Corroborate Claims in Hydroxychloroquine Wrongful Death Suit

it's called the rule of law': Legal experts laud judge's ruling allowing deposition of Donald Trump

Ninth Circuit Deals Latest Blow to Big Oil, Ruling that California Climate Lawsuits Belong in State Court

pennsylvania judge halts further certification of election results — Gov. Wolf vows to appeal

judge strikes down Trump effort to slash food stamps for 700,000 Americans: Victory for 'basic human decency'

trump-appointed judge smacks down campaign's efforts to suppress the vote in Pennsylvania

federal judge delivers blow to AG Barr in battle against former FBI deputy director

trump’s abysmal federal court record is the worst of any recent president

8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos

Judge rules that Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down and emptiedMatthew Rozsa / Salonan 720

VOTER SUPPRESSION

BALLOT MEASURES

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

BALLOT ACCESS

ELECTION SECURITY

ELECTION CHANGES

'Single and Complete'

Permian Highway Pipeline in Texas

Keystone XL Decision Looms

why judges will likely play a crucial role deciding how 2020 elections are run during the pandemic

who does Maryland’s Republican governor really work for?

Judge rules that Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down and emptied Matthew Rozsa / Salonan 720