Keeping track of Trump court cases: updated to 8/1/25

 Tracking the court actions and lawsuits over Trump’s agenda  

6/20/25 I once got into a tangle with a Trumpster regarding the importance of the rule of law. The response was a litany of all of the court rulings against Trump's interest, claiming the anti-Trump decisions, from the 2020 stolen elections to now, were because the judges were all liberal... despite rulings by Reagan and Trump appointees. Yesterday, two court decisions were particularly significant: one upheld the federal government's right to use National Guard troops without the state governor's approval, as seen in the recent California case. The other went against the attempt by the Trump administration to withhold already approved funds for roads and bridges to force states to comply with Trump's mass immigration deportations. What say you, Trumpsters? The only court rulings you respect are those that support Trump's policies?

UPDATES ON TOPIC POST APR 30 

Immigration: special temporary status;  evidence of Trump's racist motivation.   The evidence used by the plaintiff of the racist nature of the Trump regimes order was Trump and Trump offical's own words. crista_ramos_et_al_v._kirstjen_nielsen.pdf

'Huge': Supreme Court hands Florida loss in bid to bar undocumented migrants  ruling says states cannot enforce immigration laws. Florida tried to bar an undocumented person from entering the state from another state.

A district judge ruled against theTrump regime's attempt to arbitrarily, without concern for specific situations on the ground, end special temporary protective status for refugees from anywhere. While this may disappoint those who back Trump's plans to get as many brown people out of the US, note that people caught up in that illegal Trump act were also Ukrainians, whose homeland they would have been faced with returning to, is hardly safer, especially given Russia's drone strikes. Another reason given by the judge is significant...agreeing with the plaintiff's argument that the Trump regime was abusing the law because it was attempting to keep brown people from replacing white people, referring to the infamous ideology held by Nazis and US neo nazis. (Jews will not replace us) The report by Newsweek did not contain what evidence there was of the racist nature of Trump position, but that may be worthwhile digging into . Donald Trump suffers major legal blow over migrant protections

msn.com

Donald Trump suffers major legal blow over migrant protections

Donald Trump suffers quadruple legal blow within hours

immigration'

Pacito v. Trump: Challenging Trump’s suspension of USRAP | International Refugee Assistance Project

Update: 7/2/2025 Trump blocked by federal judges to end asylum granting and to end special temporary status for Haitians.  Judge Blocks Trump's Bid to Deny Migrants Asylum

• The targets of cruel and unconstitutional treatment of migrants are limited to certain races, yet 500,000 of European descent in the US are also undocumented.. Only those of Hispanic or Asian descent receive such treatment and are snatched without warrant from jobs and the street, deprived of due process despite court orders, and sent to gulags without attorneys or recourse to prove they had not committed a crime deserving deportation or disappeared in a foreign gulag (though SCOTUS did rule they needed due process and Trump is accused of defying)), or for just being undocumented, they can be shipped to a foreign country, not the one of their origin., Supreme Court allows third-country deportations for now : NPR   

Trump says he’s ‘not defying the Supreme Court’ amid standoff over wrongly deported man - POLITICO  re the Abrego Garcia case.

Update 6 20 2025 https://www.npr.org/2025/06/19/g-s1-73050/trump-national-guard-california-immigration      Appeals court approves federal use of national guard, even though the governor did not approve. 

In another case, Trump tried to deny transportation funding to force states to abide by Trump's ICE actions. The district court ruled against the Trump administration, but expect appeals. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-blocks-trump-plan-tie-states-transportation-funds-immigration-2025-06-20/#:~:text=June%2019%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20A,their%20government%20subdivisions%2C%20like%20cities.

Supreme Court Lifts Injunction Barring Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act; Brennan Center Reacts | Brennan Center for Justice

Supreme Court allows third-country deportations for now : NPR

Abrego Garcia: Judge stresses due process while rejecting bid to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending trial    however, ICE can still detain him under another law.   6/23/2025

'Lacks any basis in fact': San Francisco warns judge that Trump admin is 'ignoring' injunction by again trying to limit funds  Trump tried to withhold homeless housing funds via HUD to force cities to comply with his immigration policies..  There was an injunction against that...and Trump tried another approach that caused the judge to issue this warning .

birthright citizenship

     Birthright citizenship explained as justices weigh blocks on Trump's order to end it  

     ‘Unprecedented’: Supreme Court Poised to Restrict Anti-Trump Injunctions

      Trump Admin Blames 'Administrative Errors' After ICE Deports Wrong Man - Newsweek  Jordin                   Melgar Salmeron

Deportations of refugess on temporary visas

      https://www.politico.com/.../supreme-court-trump....

The Trump regime can now go ahead. However, whether there is due process, humane treatment, manpower, or always fair and wise are still an issue. Without enough manpower to catch and deport everyone, expect some to go underground, too., taking chances with "catch me if you can".

deportations

       Donald Trump suffers quadruple legal blow within hours    Alien enemies act update 6/5/2025 Federal judge Boasberg:    : due process for El Salvador deportees...required and can sue to get it      (did not demand return) 6/5/2025

      Supreme Court blocks Trump from restarting Alien Enemies Act deportations | CNN Politics  

      https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/16/supreme-court-extends-block-trump-deportations-00355210

SANCTUARY CITIES: Trump lawsuit thrown out that tried to force state to participate in immigration raids

tariffS

    https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/business/us-court-blocks-trumps-tariffs

 DOGE 

    ‘Unlawful’: Trump’s Mass Layoff Plan Suffers Blow  5/30  Appeals court upholds; now onto Supreme Court

     https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-mass-firings-at-several-agencies-will-remain-on-hold-appeals-court-rules/ar-AA1FOBam?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=c6b6073c4cc44df99a95a47122b64a12&ei=18

     'A meaningful burden': Judge gives Trump huge win, says deposing DOGE staff cannot stop government from enacting 'permanent' USAID 'shutdown'

Update 6/5/2025  Jobs corps, Department of Education; Donald Trump suffers quadruple legal blow within hours

VOA

P

ED DPT/ separation church state  academic freedom

   https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/22/supreme-court-religious-charter-school/83788963007/?csp=chromepush

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/22/nx-s1-5407521/trump-education-department-layoffs-injunction#:~:text=Judge%20blocks%20Trump%20administration%20from%20closing%20the%20Education%20Department&text=On%20Thursday%2C%20a%20federal%20judge,Department%20to%20the%20status%20quo.%22

Bills of attainder cited in Harvard suit against Trump targeted orders: bill of attainder | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#:~:text=Bills%20of%20attainder%20were%20sometimes,personal%20rig, personal rights. Also search Google AI.  Laws cannot be enacted that target specific groups or people for political reasons. 

Harvard hits Trump administration with lawsuit after DHS bans international students Judge extendsLive updates: Federal judge extends order blocking Trump ban on foreign students at Harvard | AP News TRO

LAW FIRMS

   Judge smacks down Trump in retribution case

BANNING AP

PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP

UNIVERSITY FUNDING, GRANTS AND LOANS

    Harvard hits Trump administration with lawsuit after DHS bans international students

    Live updates: Federal judge blocks Trump administration from blocking foreign students at Harvard | AP News

     

pROTECTING PRIVATE DATA

TRANSGENDER

DEI   https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-discrimination-lawsuit-ohio-205f07a2d47d7a46cfc96a5fefdf9269     Reverse  discrimination case backed (straight vs LGBTQ)

NEW ONES

Free speech protected from government suppression: National Rifle Association v Vullo: MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Free speech got protection from government retribution in unanimous SCOTUS decision

Federal militarization of state and local law enforcement

    https://apnews.com/.../california-immigration-national...

6/13/25 This is a temporary halt on the lower court ruling that the California National Guard control should be returned to the Governor. It is not a ruling on the substance of the lower court judge's ruling. This is a very important issue to follow since the courts now are the only control of federal government overreach, and their bogus argument that the LA demonstrations were a rebellion or invasion that gives the feds justification for ignoring the objections to the deployment by the California governor. One can imagine in other states or in other administrations whether federal militarization without governors' objections, a federal militarized police state, will be allowed.

‘Unprecedented’: Supreme Court Poised to Restrict Anti-Trump Injunctions

Ending independent agencies and giving Trump more power to fire:Supreme Court allows Trump to fire members of independent agency boards — for now : NPR

States secret actState secrets privilege - Wikipedia

war powers emergency  alien enemies act

  suspension of rights during act of war - Google Search

  https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/16/supreme-court-extends-block-trump-deportations-00355210

VOTING RIGHTS

The value of free speech to a democracy; it disappears in an autocracy

  The value of free speech on campuses and in media. It is key to a democracy and disappears in an autocracy.

The anger of some that opposing views, reports and lectures should not be permitted is a danger to democracy is a hot topic in the wake of the HAMAS invasion of Israel. FYI, we are still a democracy that permits free speech, so long as it does exhort violence or death dashes to a movie theater exit. Separating the wheat of truth from the chaff of spin or mistaking opinion pieces from actual reports, is a difficult practice these days with so many choices of news sources. It is central to democracy and a duty as citizens we have to make the effort to sort it out, as uncomfortable and difficult it has become.This blog is my opinion and conclusions gained from various sources, mixed with some personal experiences. I let you know what media sources and fact reporting influenced my conclusions. .

We should not rely solely on fringe media, social media, single point of ideology cable channels for facts. The more points of view you can get, even learning speculation and theory is a worthwhile practice. Taking assertions by either warring party needs to be taken with a healthy skepticism that demands verification or at least exposure of the source.

That is the value of free speech. In a democracy, that is possible. In an autocracy, it is not,, because the media is under the control of the rulers. Rationale or even knee-jerk judgments and case-making become warped. The result is often an unpleasant surprise . (Didn't see that coming; too late to deal with it; must be the result of some secret cabal)..Imagine the only news you can get is FOX if MAGA becomes the all-powerful government ruler or MNBC is the only source of news since the government is in the autocratic hands of the control of social democrats.".. (In Hungary, the ruler forced out opposition papers and media by regulatory abuse; In Russia, the voice of any opposition is snuffed out by murder or imprisonment or near-death poisoning). In one sense, we are partially there since the version of truth and reality depends upon the algorithms of social media and a human desire to use the remote to hear/see only what the audience member feels is a comfort level. We self-silo ourselves. For that reason, mainstream media that presents "both sides" need to be praised, not damned, and educational institutions should not become one-sided.

Like

Comment

Share

Biden turns the table on rightwing talking points: fund police and secure our borders

 In his State of the Union address, Joe Biden turned GOP talking point phrases back at them.  The GOP has made hay from phrases like "defund the police" and "secure our borders", in an attempt to distort Biden's positions which were more moderate than some in his party had embraced.  The GOP has also invented another distortion in order to turn Jan 6 into what it was not. This bit of talk was hardly credible given the wide distribution of video of the violence that day and many guilty pleas by participating violent rioters charged with crimes. That one "legitimate political discourse" has not made it to the mainstream from the MAGA controlled "conservatives".  The idea that violent riot was protected free speech has been shot down whenever a judge heard the phrase uttered in the courtroom.

At the risk of offending some in his party who had created the "defund the police" slogan in the George Floyd riots, Biden countered with "fund the police" in his State of Union address Tuesday.  That is no change from Biden's position because the day after the "defund police" slogan emerged, he countered and distanced himself from those advocating this. Defund to the BLM folks meant that to punish police for abuses, but for nearly everyone else, cutting police funding was an anathema. The moderates wanted more and better policing, not less, more community-based police, more funding for training, and more support from mental health and social service professionals. This is Biden's meaning, as well.  For the GOP. that was going to be in their attack ad strategy in the 2022 midterms painting all of their Democratic opponents and Biden as fellow defund police advocates. That is dishonest of them, but in spite of Biden's many attempts to differentiate his position, his position never got the attention it deserved. So, in the State of the Union address Biden rephrased the slogan to "fund the police" and he had the backup fact to show what he meant. Funding the police had increased during his first years in office.  Now when some on the right who did not get the memo. expect them to claim their opponents want to "defund police" and the retort to be from the Democrats can be "fund the police".  Biden knew he might get a reaction from the more radical members of his party, and he did, but he persisted.

The very strange response to US aid to Ukraine rose from the MAGA crowd: We need to secure our borders first. Silly, since we can do both at the same time and Ukraine involves military aid. The problem at the southern borders cannot be solved by stingers and javelins.  Strange, because it makes the rest of us wonder, just whose side MAGA folks are the on in the Ukrainian crisis.  Strange, because the bipartisan support for the Ukrainians leaves them isolated and in the dustbin of history like the 1930's American Firsters and isolationists and lovers of dictators (politely called "autocrats" in 2022).  These "take care of our southern borders instead of the Ukrainians" are classic apples and oranges uttered by the head-in-the- sand isolationists and the fearful of more brown skinned immigrants trying to take advantage of the myth of "open borders" they accuse Democrats as advocating.  Biden took their phrase and threw it back at the GOP talkers, using the exact phrase in his State of the Union address of "secure our borders" by his actions and by increasing funding to screen and to streamline and better fund the judicial process to make sure these immigrants were indeed ones who could claim asylum from persecution as permitted and defined by law.   

What will make a difference in 2022 midterms?  There might be a way to keep the House if Democrats go on the offensive against MAGA affiliated GOP candidates.  Cultural issues, racism expressed now in CRT school and parental control battles, fear of brown people invading us from our borders, religious fervor against gays and trans, and anti-choice, will be the currents against which Democrats will be swimming.  However, public policy issues might swing districts to the Democrats and the control of the House will depend on the outcome of races in these swing districts. All politics in  2022 is local and campaigns need to be tailored to each Congressional district. It might make a difference  in contested districts if Democrats can go on the offensive and pin MAGA candidates as un-American, and not caring about democracy and   the wellbeing of their own constituents. The message is, this MAGA candidate is off the deep end and has been (or will be) working against the specific interests of their constituents.

 I can see the Democratic attack ads now, painting specific MAGA candidates as being anti democracy, pro Putin, against US national security interests. and voting against local infrastructure and prescription drug interests of the district.   While the GOP moans and groan over inflation and what have they done or voted or will do to deal with it that Biden has not already done? (This assumes inflation has not come down during the campaign) There is no plan, but obstructing aay Democratic legislative measures regardless of the merit. Why is it that red states districts have the highest murder rates in the country if Democrats are so soft on crime?   Incumbent MAGA candidates have a voting record: Their votes on how they voted on Ukraine matters such as resolutions supporting NATO in the Ukrainian conflict (63 Republicans voted against it because of implied criticism of a Hungarian dictator).  That could be a poster child, an iconic vote, of being against democracy, or still in the thrall of Putin.  How did they vote on specific project  infrastructure funding  that would have benefited their district?

 

Courts have news for 30% of the GOP: Violence is not free speech; interfering with official procedures is a crime

Updated January 14, 2021.  The January 6 rioters had not been charged with sedition because of the difficulty in proving it. That changed when eleven Oath Keepers were indicted by a grand jury and were arrested on January 13.   charged with seditious conspiracy for violent attempts to overthrow the government. and planning it. One element leading to the indictment and charges is that the Oath Keeper'sleaderhsip's encrypted conversations using the ap "Signal" were cracked.  More frightening in the charging documents was not only did they plan for violence on January 6, they also had armed members ringing Washington DC ready to intervene with violence during and after January 6 with the purpose and training to foment not only a violent interference in the government process, including inauguration day but a civil war.. This is a serious game changer and a departure from the prior charges. It extends to those planning and leading the group who were not the ones entering the Capitol themselves.  The burning question is did these Oath Keeper leaders communicate and plan with anyone in the White House or even with the President'sained close advisors with Trump's blessing.   The special threat the Oath Keepers presented was that they claimed 20,000 "members" who were trained ex military, active and former law enforcement, and tr first responders.  What gave them away was their preparation with gear ready for anticipated violence.and training in the midst of an out-of-control mob of middle aged white men following their lead. that was caught on video.  They were prepared for a violent coup, not a stealthy one described by such legal advisers as John Eastman's infamous case for how to overturn the election by manipulating and  distorting the established process under the pretext that the election was stolen.  and  they could make some sort of a legal case to justify their actions.  The charges were not the sole design of the Department of Justice, but in federal criminal prosecution, they need the concurrence of a grand jury to indict and charge, as it was in this indictment of the Oath Keeprers leadership. Takeaways from the landmark sedition indictment against the Oath Keepers and why DOJ acted now - ABC17NEWS

 Before this indictment, the attention had been focused on the actual violent attackers of the Capitol themselves and overcoming the defense that the accused had just been using their first amendment rights of free speech protected by the Constitution to redress grievances.  (They ignored the "peaceful" word in that amendment). Imany prosecutors had attempted to charge a serious enough offense, a felony, with sufficient punishment to deter others from doing the same thing in the future. A series of lower federal court rulings have gone against the January 6 rioters' defenses.  Among their rulings:  violence is not free speech; interfering with official procedures is a felony crime. 

 Several recent federal court decisions have established that felonies were committed by interfering with official procedures and violence is not protected free speech regardless if it was used to make a political statement.  This may come as a shock to 30% of the GOP who feel it is their constitutional right to use violence to overturn an election in the name of protecting democracy. The courts will not have your backs if you act on it and make it your defense argument.

 Among those legal issues is whether violence to make a political point is protected free speech. In a recent case, the Proud Boys argued their violent acts were protected speech and the federal judge rejected their argument mostly on the basis that there were many other actions to protest protected by the First Amendment.  

Why is it important that the crime committed is a felony and not a misdemeanor? Is interfering with an official government procedure a felony that triggers serious jail sentences to deter others in the future? Are those who fomented, encouraged, permitted the violent act also guilty of a felony? Felony convictions are important because misdemeanors do not trigger serious federal investigations and penalties are not much of a deterrent to future wannabe incidents like January 6. Recent court rulings are these are felonies. 

   Does it follow the president and his coup conspirators are guilty of the felonies, too?  There is case law to that effect. That will be the legal case that could trip up Trump and his coup planners and this is the focus of the January 6 committee. The committee hearings will shed public light on the events of January 6 and may lead to legislation. Those charged so far with felonies or referred to the DOJ for criminal charges are the ones who refused to honor the committee's subpoenas and testify. The FBI and the Department of Justice could pursue such felony charges concerning any masterminds behind or directing the January 6 events, but so far have not shown much public enthusiasm to move forward on White House involvement.

The Jan. 6 rioters committed a felony by obstructing an official proceeding per recent rulings. On December 10, a Trump-appointed federal district judge ruled that it was a felony to obstruct an official proceeding. " On Friday, Dec. 10, the government won a key early ruling concerning a legal issue affecting hundreds of Jan. 6 Capitol Riot prosecutions. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich found that a central felony charge in a large subset of the Jan. 6 cases—“corruptly obstructing an official proceeding” —had been properly invoked and was not unconstitutionally vague."  (lawfareblog.com)

Other key federal court rulings have gone against the rioters from the ruling that violence committed on January 6 was indeed felonies, from assaulting police officers and attempting to stop an official procedure. Upheld was a conviction of a New Jersey rioter for assaulting the police on Jan.6 and the judge sentenced him to 44 months in prison:   The judge ruling, in that case, cited both assaulting the police officer and obstructing an official procedure. “It’s such a serious offense under the circumstances, an affront to society and to the law, to have the Capitol overrun and to have this riot stop the whole functioning government, that I just find that it’s such a serious crime that I cannot give a below-guideline sentence.” Scott Kevin Fairlamb is the first person sentenced for assaulting a police officer in the Capitol attack.Scott Fairlamb is the first Jan. 6 Capitol riot - The Washington Post

. Capitol Riot: Proud Boys’ Free-Speech Defense Rejected by Judge - Bloomberg 

Judge Rejects Free Speech Argument, Refuses to Dismiss Indictment Against Four Proud Boys (newsweek.com)

Government Wins Key Ruling on Issue Affecting Hundreds of Capitol Riot Cases - Lawfare (lawfareblog.com)

.  Lead Capitol riot charge is constitutional, judges find - The Washington Post  

 Judge Rejects Free Speech Argument, Refuses to Dismiss Indictment Against Four Proud Boys (newsweek.com)

Almost one in three of Republicans say violence may be necessary to ‘save’ US | Republicans | The Guardian

https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local-news/36001-leader-of-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-in-federal-court-for-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-offenses-related-to-u-s-capitol-breach?tmpl=component

The meaning of freedom for which so many died defending it

Heavily edited, reduced version appeared in the editions of the Sky Hi News, May 31, 2017.

So how are you celebrating Memorial Day? Will it be a long weekend  with friends and families and backyard barbecues? Or did you put up your flag  with a sense that you did your patriotic duty? Or have you reflected a bit  on the meaning of Memorial Day,  to commemorate those who died in defense of our country? I plan all.  Running through my head  is Lee Greenwood’s great lyric which  captures the meaning of Memorial Day the best:

“And I'm proud to be an American

Where at least I know I'm free

And I won't forget the ones who died who gave that right to me

And I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today

Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land, God Bless the USA.”

Those words are ones that both sides of the ideological spectrum can agree upon.  However, in our polarized America, we have differing views of what freedom, the  core value saluted in those lyrics, means.

My grandson, raised in a Colorado household of both  immigrants  and  those who could trace New World ancestors back to the late 1600’s, just returned from a visit with relatives of his nearest and dearest in a southern state.  His comment was, “they live in a different world and now I understand why Donald Trump is popular there”.  To him  profound  political divisions became real.

I  was not surprised. I grew up in Oklahoma, the reddest of any state, but I spent the remainder  of my life in large urban areas both in Europe and in the US and  married  a refugee from eastern Europe.  I have experienced  authoritarianism and  non-free societies  practiced first hand. Not everyone has that perspective, but it has influenced my political thought about what freedom means and what I find disturbing today in this very politically polarized America.

While I respect others’ rights to hold values that differ even from what  I was taught in my  Oklahoma youth,   I see personal freedom as protected  in our Constitution’s  First Amendment : right to free speech, press freedom, religious freedom, and the freedom to peacefully assemble. I see those freedoms under attack  today by some. For them,  free speech is reserved for those who  agree with personal views, but otherwise those opinions are to be minimized, shouted down and physically intimidated. Religious freedom is not only free from government interference to practice it  or to be free of a  religion established, preferred, or enforced by a government,   but now  it  means to some freedom to refuse to serve or give the same rights to those  with different religious beliefs and values.   Freedom of the press means loyalty to one media outlet and to consider all others prejudicial  and “the enemy of the people”  regardless of the merits of the arguments or the sources of  facts. Facts become those presented by the favored news outlet; otherwise there are no such things as facts.  The freedom to assemble in peaceful protest is viewed as motivated and organized  by some sinister force to be disrespected as certainly not arising  from real self interest or values of morality and a sense of fairness.  Our military  defends our freedoms from foreign threats, but the real threat  to our traditional views of freedom lies  within our own country’s hearts and minds.

Celebrating the 4th of July by speaking freely

Celebrating the 4^th of July by speaking freely

One of the most profound outcomes of the 1776  Declaration of Independence was the eventual protection of freedom of speech institutionalized in the first amendment to the 1789 Constitution.  Speaking out against the King was considered treason punished by prison or  hanging.  In spite of that, our founding fathers  took the risk, even signing their “John Hancock’s”  and later writers of the Constitution made sure Congress shall make no laws …abridging freedom of speech”.

 Sometimes what is protected from whom is misunderstood.  My husband, a refugee from Communism, who often speaks his mind, complained that he was not free to say everything he thought because someone might take offense. I even heard a politician on TV be angry at his ability to do likewise. “Whatever happened to freedom of speech?”, he groused.

 Do not confuse being politically correct with your first amendment rights granted by the Constitution. The operative words are "Congress shall pass no  laws" that will abridge your right to speak".  It protects your rights to be even politically incorrect.  That does not mean that your friends, relatives, co-workers, or potential political supporters have to like what you say, or cannot argue against you, or cannot  vote against  you and for the other guy  if you are a candidate. It just means you will not be thrown into a dungeon or hanged if you  speak out against the government or express your opinions.

That  concept of freedom to speak  has been both  limited and expanded since 1789  and the arbiter is the US Supreme Court.  Campaign contributions are considered free speech even if  made  by a corporation,  and now the Supreme Court has agreed  to rule on whether threats made on Facebook to kill a spouse is protected by the constitution. Usually slander against an individual  or a celebrity by a newspaper or some individual has not been Constitutionally protected (though even situation  may yet be expanded to limit  slanderous speech by  individuals ) , but the wrong can be  addressed  by a law suit in civil court. Even  anti abortion demonstrators  standing on sidewalks no longer are held back by a buffer zone per a Supreme Court ruling this June.

 The Supreme Court has been asked time and time again where    limits should be set  to deny the right in some circumstances..  After all, some speech may hurt others, and the Supreme Court has most famously drawn the line with a 1919 decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … … in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger”.

 With Twitter and  Facebook,  new  internet tools are being  used  to  slander, threaten, and cyberbully. This  will keep the Supreme Court for years to draw  lines of whether  such  kinds of speech cross some constitutionally protected  line.

A version of this appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News July 4, 2014 (www.skyhidailynews.com)

Links to more about it, go to

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-facebook-threats-free-speech/10326233/

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-obamacare-challenge-case-143206534.html ruled by the Court today did not address the first amendment rights, though they were raised.  This case is also known as the "Holly Lobby" case regarding the rights of corporations to deny providing birth control under Obamacare provisions.  The ruling was very specifically and narrowly applied to closely held corporations claiming freedom or religion. However, the downside was laid out in a blistering dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and deserves reading to understand the impact of the decision. The summary of her comments are at:    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

Understanding the concept of free speech in the US

I have been asked by some of my European friends, how is it that hate speech against Jews is called anti-Semitic, hate speech against African Americans is called racism, but the hateful film about Mohammed that caused the violence in the Arab world is called by Americans   “free speech”.

They are all hate speech. However, anti Semitic literature and racial slurs are considered free speech, too, in the US, even if  those who utter it are verbally condemned by their fellow citizens.  Most of the world does not understand the US concept of free speech because it is quite different than what the rest of the world assumes it is .

 To understand the US version, our European friends should separate public and political  expression of  personal or official opinion from government action.  The key is: what does the government do when hate is uttered.  In some countries, the speaker is thrown into jail.  In others, students are forbidden to wear any form of religious preference…a head scarf, a star of David, a cross.   In the US, you are not prosecuted by any government for wearing any of these symbols of religious belief.  Such expression is protected by the US Constitution.  Even if you have a swastika on your T shirt, you may get dirty looks, but you will not go to jail for it. What people say when accusing   someone of  uttering hate, such as calling someone anti Semitic  or a gay basher  is  tolerated even if saying so  is offensive to others. 

There is a limit to free speech:  The  US Supreme Court’s ultimate test is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is not free speech.  People panic and get hurt as they rush to the exits. Rallying a group to demonstrate violently…setting cars on fire, smashing windows..etc..will also lead to prosecution by the government.  If police determine a demonstration is violating the law, such as blocking a street without a permit, that is against the law and if the group refuses to obey police orders to stop such actions, they too are subject to arrest and prosecution. Such happened in anti Wall Street demonstrations in Denver this summer.   When the demonstrators failed to move their tents and barriers from the street, they were arrested and spent the night in jail or got a citation and were released.

 Another kind of limit has been placed  into law recently:  if the motivation of a person to commit a crime such as vandalism, arson or assault or even murder is   hate against a religion, sexual preference, or ethnic or racial person or group,  the crime is considered a federal one and penalties are far greater  than just the usual ones for those crimes.   If  a mosque is firebombed,  that is investigated as a hate crime.  If a synagogue is firebombed, it is also investigated as a hate crime. If a gay person is attacked by someone, and that attacker either says something or has indicated somewhere else that they have hate against gays, they will also be subject to investigation for a hate crimes. If they are found guilty, the penalties will be more severe than if they were not motivated by hate.

Here  is why the film that insulted Mohammed, put together by someone who appears to be a Coptic Christian in California, did not result in his arrest.  He was a prior convicted fraudster and might be imprisoned for violating terms of his release from prison time later, but imprisonment  would not be due to the film.  One could say he shouted fire, and someone in the Middle East  resorted to violence against US embassies, but there were those in the Middle East who also translated  and  used the hateful words as a way to incite  violent protests, too.  That the violence resulted because of third party use of the film muddies the water of guilt  and the violence that resulted was not committed in the US or  subject to US laws, so  the US Constitution could not be invoked. In fact, few ever saw the film until someone posted a trailer on the internet.

 Regardless of that, as US officials said, peaceful protests are justified  but violent protests should not be tolerated and the  killers of the US ambassador and 3 other US officials will be brought to justice.  It appears the Libyans are prepared to be the ones to do it.   What US officials, both Hillary Clinton and Pres. Obama  have said firmly is that the film does not represent the US policies and they  roundly condemned the film  as disgusting and hateful.    As an individual, I am invoking my right to  free speech to condemn it, too.