John Doe
@fedjudges

11th Circuit: the ARPA ban on state tax cuts is unconstitutional.

Corrected link: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210168.pdf

N.C. legislative leaders want the state Supreme Court to take another look at a case involving state election maps. Lawmakers filed a petition Friday for the court to rehear the Harper v. Hall case.

The newly configured court, with a 5-2 Republican majority, could reverse a 4-3 decision handed down last month. At that time, the court’s four Democrats overruled three Republican colleagues and threw out the state Senate election map. High court Democrats also endorsed an earlier decision to strike down legislators’ map for congressional elections.

“The Constitution of North Carolina vests redistricting authority with ‘the General Assembly,’” wrote Phillip Strach, an attorney representing Republican legislative leaders. “That power is subject to textually explicit limitations, including that electoral districts be of substantially equal
population and that county lines not be crossed except where necessary to achieve that voting equality.

“But, ‘because redistricting is quintessentially a political process[,]’ these provisions can only be read to delegate the many political choices inherent in redistricting to the General Assembly,” Strach wrote. “Accordingly, this Court in 2015 concluded that so-called ‘political’ or ‘partisan’ gerrymandering claims are ‘not based upon a justiciable standard[.]’ The U.S. Supreme Court reached the same conclusion under the federal Constitution four years later.”

“In Harper v. Hall, a majority of this Court changed course, holding that political redistricting ‘violate[s] every individual voter’s fundamental right to vote on equal terms.’ This was the least plausible case in State history to announce that rule,” according to legislators’ petition.

Iowa Republicans are proposing sweeping changes to the state's food assistance program — including banning beneficiaries from buying grocery staples like meat, American cheese, or flour.

A bill co-sponsored by 39 Republican state legislators would limit those getting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to buying food on a more restrictive list from a separate program intended for pregnant women and children.

SNAP recipients wouldn't be able to buy a variety of foods, including white grain bread, buns with added nuts or seeds, white rice, pasta sauce, canned fruits or soups, baked beans, cheese slices, butter, or flour.

They would instead be limited to foods approved for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

The foods people can purchase in the WIC program are much more restrictive than those allowed in SNAP. That's because WIC is designed to complement SNAP, and is meant to provide necessary nutrition specifically for — as the name suggests — pregnant women, new mothers, and infants, according to Michelle Book, the president and CEO of Food Bank of Iowa.

Despite concluding that Gov. Ron DeSantis violated the Florida Constitution and the First Amendment when he suspended Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren last year, a federal judge ruled Friday that he didn’t have the power to restore Warren to office.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle found that DeSantis suspended Warren based on the allegation that the state attorney had blanket policies not to prosecute certain kinds of cases.

”The allegation was false,” Hinkle wrote in a ruling issued Friday morning. “Mr. Warren’s well-established policy, followed in every case by every prosecutor in the office, was to exercise prosecutorial discretion at every stage of every case. Any reasonable investigation would have confirmed this.”

Yet Hinkle concluded that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a federal court from awarding the kind of relief Warren seeks, namely to be restored to office.

Warren and his attorneys are expected to comment on the ruling later Friday. Susan Lopez, who was appointed by DeSantis to replace Warren, was reviewing the ruling Friday morning and will comment later, said her chief of staff Gary Weisman. Prosecutors and other employees of the state attorney’s office have been advised of the judge’s decision, he said.

Despite concluding that Gov. Ron DeSantis violated the Florida Constitution and the First Amendment when he suspended Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren last year, a federal judge ruled Friday that he didn’t have the power to restore Warren to office.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle found that DeSantis suspended Warren based on the allegation that the state attorney had blanket policies not to prosecute certain kinds of cases.

”The allegation was false,” Hinkle wrote in a ruling issued Friday morning. “Mr. Warren’s well-established policy, followed in every case by every prosecutor in the office, was to exercise prosecutorial discretion at every stage of every case. Any reasonable investigation would have confirmed this.”

Yet Hinkle concluded that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a federal court from awarding the kind of relief Warren seeks, namely to be restored to office.

Warren and his attorneys are expected to comment on the ruling later Friday. Susan Lopez, who was appointed by DeSantis to replace Warren, was reviewing the ruling Friday morning and will comment later, said her chief of staff Gary Weisman. Prosecutors and other employees of the state attorney’s office have been advised of the judge’s decision, he said.

The Georgia Supreme Court is preparing to take up a lawsuit challenging the state’s six-week abortion ban in March. After the law known as House Bill 481 took effect last fall, clinics that provide abortion have had to adjust to the restrictions.

The Georgia Supreme Court is preparing to take up a lawsuit challenging the state’s six-week abortion ban in March. After the law known as House Bill 481 took effect last fall, clinics that provide abortion have had to adjust to the restrictions. 

Since the law has been in effect, front office supervisor Antoinette, who doesn’t want to give her last name out of concern for her safety, said they turn away an average of five to seven patients every day. 

“We can’t care for people who are over six weeks. Most women don’t know that they’re six weeks and or pregnant in the first place,” she said. “And sometimes patients aren’t aware of the law.”

Those who are too far along get counseling and information about abortion access in nearby states.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida lawmakers can fine local government officials who attempt to restrict gun and ammunition sales under a state law upheld by the state Supreme Court on Thursday.

Former Democratic Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried and some municipalities sued the state over a law that preempts local governments from enacting gun sale restrictions, saying it goes too far because it also calls for fines against elected officials who voted for restrictions.

But justices on the conservative court disagreed in a 4-1 decision, saying local officials don't have exemption from the fines.

“It is not a core municipal function to occupy an area that the Legislature has preempted, and local governments have no lawful discretion or authority to enact ordinances that violate state preemption,” the court wrote.

In the spring of 1971, Robert Kras was going through some shit. An insurance agent at MetLife in New York City, he’d been fired two years earlier after burglars broke into his home and stole the premiums he’d collected from his clients, which he was unable to repay out of his own pocket. He’d been unable to find steady work since, largely because his former employer gave a bad reference every time a prospective employer called them to ask. His wife had continued working until 1970, when her pregnancy forced her to stay home.

As a result, other than a few hundred dollars earned from odd jobs, Robert had spent some two years relying on $366 per month in public assistance to support his family: his wife, their two young children, and his mother and her young daughter, all crammed together in a small apartment. Monthly rent was $102. His only assets were the clothes on his back, a handful of household necessities worth $50, and a couch of “negligible value” that was in storage, presumably because there was no room for it anywhere else. His youngest child, an 8-month-old boy, was in a Brooklyn hospital undergoing treatment for cystic fibrosis. 

With no prospect of relief in sight, Robert made the hard decision to file for bankruptcy. “I earnestly seek a discharge in bankruptcy…in order to relieve myself and my family of the distress of financial insolvency and creditor harassment and in order to make a new start in life,” he said. “When I do get a job, I want to be able to spend my wages for the support of myself and my family and for the medical care of my son, instead of paying them to my creditors and forcing my family to remain dependent on welfare.”

When Robert went to the courthouse to file, however, he hit another wall: The clerk wanted $50 in fees—about $360 today. Federal law allowed him to pay those fees in installments of a few dollars per month. But, Robert said, he couldn’t guarantee he could do so in his financial condition. (He was, after all, bankrupt.) He’d tried to borrow more from his family and friends, to no avail; he’d already borrowed from his wife’s grandmother, whom he could not pay back. And his infant son was set to be released from the hospital soon—a joyous occasion, and also another person to care for in a household stretched to its breaking out.

So Robert sued, arguing that the mandatory filing fees violated his constitutional right to due process. Because the legal system had a monopoly on the only mechanism by which he could get his life back, he argued, his presence in bankruptcy court was no more “voluntary” than that of a criminal defendant hauled before a jury to face years in prison. A federal district court agreed, reasoning that the government’s interest in collecting $50 was not compelling enough to force broke, desperate people to pay it. 

Adam Schiff
@RepAdamSchiff

BREAKING: We've introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and the irresponsible SCOTUS decisions that came before it.

Unrestricted dark money has no place in our elections or democracy. We need to return power to people. Once and for all.