Transgender teacher likely to fail in First Amendment challenge to Florida pronouns law, 11th Circuit says

Transgender teacher likely to fail in First Amendment challenge to Florida pronouns law, 11th Circuit says


First Amendment

Transgender teacher likely to fail in First Amendment challenge to Florida pronouns law, 11th Circuit says

A federal appeals court has ruled against a teacher who challenged a Florida law barring K-12 public school employees from communicating their preferred pronouns to students in the classroom if they don’t comport with their sex assigned at birth. (Image from Shutterstock)

A federal appeals court has ruled against a teacher who challenged a Florida law barring K-12 public school employees from communicating their preferred pronouns to students in the classroom if they don’t comport with their sex assigned at birth.

In a 2-1 decision July 2, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta ruled that teacher Katie Wood would likely fail in her free speech challenge under the First Amendment.

Publications with coverage include the Volokh Conspiracy (here and here), the News Service of Florida (in a story published by WUSF and noted on How Appealing), Law & Crime and the Florida Phoenix.

Wood is a transgender woman who uses female pronouns. She teaches algebra at the Lennard High School in Hillsborough County in Ruskin, Florida, the articles report.

The appeals court said Wood was acting as a government employee, rather than a private citizen, when she communicated her personal pronouns verbally, on her whiteboard, on syllabi and on a “she/her” pin that she wore. Teachers are government employees paid to speak on the government’s behalf and convey its intended messages, the 11th Circuit said.

The majority distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which held that a football coach had a First Amendment right to pray on the field after high school football games. The coach was protected because he was not on duty and was acting as a private citizen while praying, the 11th Circuit said.

Wood, however, communicated her personal pronouns to students in the classroom and “was very much on the clock, discharging the very obligation the state had hired her to discharge,” the appeals court said.

11th Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Andrew Brasher. Both are appointees of President Donald Trump during his first term.

The dissent argued that the law amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The law “has nothing to do with curriculum and everything to do with Florida attempting to silence those with whom it disagrees on the matter of transgender identity and status,” wrote Judge Adalberto Jordan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The case is Wood v. Florida Department of Education.





Source link

AG Bondi cited this justification for Trump’s power to ignore TikTok ban

AG Bondi cited this justification for Trump’s power to ignore TikTok ban


Internet Law

AG Bondi cited this justification for Trump’s power to ignore TikTok ban

President Donald Trump, flanked by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in March. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

The U.S. Department of Justice is “irrevocably relinquishing” claims against technology companies that provided services to TikTok in violation of the law banning the Chinese-owned social media app, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in letters released to the New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

Bondi said President Donald Trump had determined that the law would interfere with his “constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States,” and the law “is properly read” not to infringe such duties.

Legal experts told the New York Times that Trump is essentially claiming that he has constitutional power to immunize private parties to commit what would be illegal acts without legal jeopardy. That would constitute Trump’s “starkest power grab,” the newspaper said.

Other presidents have also declined to enforce laws, including former President Barack Obama, who deferred deportation of immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

“But the Obama administration also said such ‘deferred action’ could be revoked and did not claim it made their presence lawful, nor cease to enforce immigration law against others,” the New York Times reported.

The promise to relinquish claims against the tech companies promised them immunity during future presidential administrations, the New York Times said.

“Recent past presidents have been aggressive in exercising law enforcement discretion,” Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, told the New York Times. “But they haven’t suspended the operation of a law entirely or immunized its violation prospectively.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, referred to the take care clause in Article II, which provides that presidents must take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

“There are other things that are more important than TikTok in today’s world,” Rozenshtein said. “But for pure refusal to enforce the law as Article II requires, it’s just breathtaking.”

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act bans TikTok if its Chinese-owned parent company ByteDance isn’t sold. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law Jan. 17.

See also:

Supreme Court will decide whether TikTok ban violates the First Amendment

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban-or-sale law set to start Sunday

Supreme Court considers putting TikTok on the chopping block





Source link

Lawyer accused of hitting rapper Fat Joe’s process server with his car

Lawyer accused of hitting rapper Fat Joe’s process server with his car


Criminal Justice

Lawyer accused of hitting rapper Fat Joe’s process server with his car

Rapper Fat Joe attends an NBA basketball game between the New York Knicks and the Boston Celtics at Madison Square Garden on May 16 in New York City. (Photo by Al Bello/Getty Images)

A lawyer was arrested on an assault charge Wednesday for allegedly hitting a process server with his vehicle May 12 while trying to evade service of legal documents, according to published reports.

The lawyer, Tyrone Blackburn, was allegedly trying to avoid service of a lawsuit filed by rapper Joseph “Fat Joe” Cartagena that accuses the attorney and his client, former Fat Joe hype man Terrance Dixon, of extortion, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Blackburn allegedly put his car in reverse and hit the 66-year-old process server in the leg when he backed up, TMZ reports. The injury was minor.

The Brooklyn district attorney’s office in New York charged Blackburn with assault, harassment, reckless driving and criminal possession of a weapon, Billboard reports.

The suit being served was related to two demand letters sent to Fat Joe, the rapper’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, told NBC News. The first claimed that Dixon was due money for allegedly serving as a ghostwriter and a vocalist on several Fat Joe songs. The second threatened a suit that also included claims of statutory rape, sex trafficking and fraud, according to a June 25 press release by Fat Joe’s legal team.

Tacopina said the demand letter claims are “false and outrageous” and made “with utter disregard for truth or decency.”

Blackburn and Dixon filed a $20 million RICO suit against Fat Joe on the same day that the police issued a warrant for Blackburn’s arrest, Tacopina told NBC News. The suit contained a “trigger warning” at the top warning about depictions of alleged sex trafficking and assault, USA Today reports.

Fat Joe’s legal team said in a June 19 press release Blackburn and Dixon’s “retaliatory” suit is “a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the civil suit we filed first, which exposed their coordinated scheme to extort” the rapper. The suit allegations “are complete fabrications,” the statement said.





Source link

These 4 conservative law firms are thriving under Trump

These 4 conservative law firms are thriving under Trump


Law Firms

These 4 conservative law firms are thriving under Trump

Jones Day played a prominent role in the first presidency of President Donald Trump. But Jones Day “hasn’t had the same prominence in Trump circles this time around.” Now, several smaller, conservative firms are seeing “boom times.” (Photo from Shutterstock)

Jones Day played a prominent role in the first presidency of President Donald Trump. The law firm represented Trump in his first presidential campaign and sent several lawyers to work in the administration, including Don McGahn, who was the White House counsel. But Jones Day “hasn’t had the same prominence in Trump circles this time around,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Now, several smaller, conservative firms are seeing “boom times.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the firms include:

  • Lex Politica, with offices in Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas, and about a dozen lawyers. The firm said it provided advice on the formation of the Department of Government Efficiency. The firm said it has also represented Tesla CEO Elon Musk, personally, as well as GOP politicians, including Vivek Ramaswamy, a 2024 Republican former presidential candidate.

  • Stone Hilton, based in Austin, Texas. Name partners Chris Hilton and Judd Stone formerly worked in the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The firm said it has worked with America First Legal, a conservative legal nonprofit organization founded by Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, and with high-level administration officials. It has also represented X, formerly known as Twitter, in a defamation case.

  • Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers, a 10-lawyer firm based in Ohio. Name partner Benjamin Flowers is a former Ohio solicitor general. The firm is currently representing a professor who said he was fired for opposing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

  • Panza, Maurer & Maynard, the former firm of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The firm said it is getting new legal work because of the connection.

Hat tip to Bloomberg Law’s Wake Up Call.





Source link

Trump administration sues Maryland federal court and its judges over standing order on deportations

Trump administration sues Maryland federal court and its judges over standing order on deportations


Immigration Law

Trump administration sues Maryland federal court and its judges over standing order on deportations

The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit in Maryland federal court against the court itself and its judges in an effort to overturn a standing order that automatically bars the deportation of detained immigrants who file habeas petitions. (Image from Shutterstock)

The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit in Maryland federal court against the court itself and its judges in an effort to overturn a standing order that automatically bars the deportation of detained immigrants who file habeas petitions.

According to a June 25 press release from the Department of Justice, the standing order “is yet another egregious example of unlawful judicial overreach into the executive branch’s ability to enforce and administer federal law.”

Law.com, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and the New York Times covered the unusual June 24 suit.

A separate DOJ motion seeks seeks recusal of the defendant judges. The case should be transferred to another district, or a different judge should be appointed to handle the case, the motion says.

Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III of the District of Maryland signed the initial standing order May 21 and a revised order May 28. The order keeps the injunction in place for nearly two business days unless it is extended by the judge hearing the case.

The “automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien’s claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien’s claims may be,” the suit says. “And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core executive branch powers.”

Bloomberg Law noted the unusual posture of the case.

“The lawsuit is certain to raise questions of judicial immunity, as judges typically can’t be sued over their official acts,” the article says.

In an interview with Reuters, Marin Levy, a professor at the Duke University School of Law, said the suit “is a shocking move by the Justice Department that is simply unprecedented.”

“It seems like part of a strategic attempt to attack the courts, rather than any sort of good faith litigation,” Levy said.

The case is United States v. Russell.





Source link

Law firms consider increasing capital contributions by equity partners

Law firms consider increasing capital contributions by equity partners


Law Firms

Law firms consider increasing capital contributions by equity partners

Some law firms are considering increasing capital contribution levels, according to a report by Law.com. (Image from Shutterstock)

Some law firms are considering increasing capital contribution levels, according to a report by Law.com.

Jon Lindsey, a New York founding partner at recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, thinks some firms are considering increases amid economic uncertainty.

“I think firms want to make sure they can meet that uncertainty with all the tools they have,” he told Law.com.

The article cited 2023 figures from Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group. The average capital requirement in the nation’s 100 top-grossing firms was 23% of compensation that year. For the Second Hundred top-grossing firms, the average was about 19.5%. But the percentages vary widely, with amounts of contributions ranging from 0% to 49%.

The averages haven’t changed much over the last five years or so, according to Owen Burman, a senior consultant for Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group, who spoke with Law.com in an interview.

The article listed these reasons why firms may want to increase capital contributions:

  • To invest in artificial intelligence technologies, cybersecurity systems and other technology

  • To finance expansion into new cities

  • To make up lost funds when firms decrease equity partners

  • To make partners feel invested in the firm, possibly discouraging them from leaving





Source link