New Mexico governor is sued over gun violence order by gun rights organization

 In a news conference in Santa Fe on September 8th, the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, speaks on the current situation surrounding a lawsuit filed against her by the National Association for Gun Rights. After the shooting deaths of an 11-year-old boy on his way home from a minor league baseball game, a 4-year-old girl in her bed, and a 13-year-old girl in Taos County, as well as two mass shootings, all from July through September, she issued an emergency order declaring gun violence a public emergency. The order suspended open and concealed carry laws. 

The order went into immediate effect, temporarily banning the carrying of guns on public property as well as state property (schools, parks, state buildings). New Mexico's regulation and Licensing division will also be inspecting licensed firearm dealers monthly to ensure that they are following the law. Citizens who have permits are still allowed to carry guns on private property if the weapon is kept in a locked box. 

Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, accused Michelle Lujan Grisham of  "throwing up the middle finger to the constitution and Supreme Court." The National Association for Gun Rights argues in their lawsuit that her order is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, in which the Second Amendment exists, was ratified in 1791, despite critiques by James Madison (among others), in order to help form a more unified nation. It includes the first 10 amendments of the Constitution which guarantees civil liberties and fundamental rights. The National Association for Gun Rights was referring to the Second Amendment, which provides citizens with the right to bear arms. The text itself reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

Gun violence is no news to Americans, as it's something that occurs far too often. In 2021 alone, there were 48,830 gun deaths in America, and the average annual gun death count is 40,000. In 2020, 79% of homicides were caused by firearms. 53% of suicides were caused by firearms. The numbers are crystal clear. With the death toll rising every single day, and more news of mass shootings, school shootings, murders, and suicides coming out regularly, it is clear that action must be taken. Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, says it perfectly: "[If the order] makes it so that people think twice about using a gun to solve a dispute, it makes them think twice that they don't want to go to jail, then it will work."

Abby L

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/10/politics/new-mexico-gun-violence-michelle-lujan-grisham/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/10/new-mexico-gun-restrictions-lawsuit

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/s0510-vs-firearm-deathrates.html

https://www.thoughtco.com/overview-of-the-second-amendment-721395#:~:text=Below%20is%20the%20original%20text%20of%20the%20Second,keep%20and%20bear%20arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/bill-rights-added-united-states-constitution-7069efeb6769cdc8

Young pregnant Black American Ta'Kiya Young fatally shot by police

Recently, a young Black American expectant mother, Ta'Kiya Young, was shot and killed by police outside of a grocery store after being caught shoplifting. After repeated orders to get out of the car from the police, she began slowly driving toward the officer at the hood, after which he shot her through the windshield.

Ta'Kiya was a mother of two and was expecting another child who did not survive the shooting either. Her family, devastated by the news, have called for legal action and urged the indictment of the officer as he exhibited a "gross misuse of power and authority." The police station defended the officer, stating that he was assaulted since she began moving her vehicle towards her, however, when additional body cam footage was released on September 8th, it showed that she was moving her vehicle slow enough that she could have been peacefully coerced out of the car had attempts been made. 

The abuse of power and authority within the police force is no news. It seems to be a frequent issue, and although it's impossible to know the race of every single victim of a fatal police shooting, the available data seems to show a clear disproportion between Black Americans and any other race. Statistics currently point to the fact that Black Americans are twice as likely to get shot by a police officer compared to white Americans, as well as twenty percent more likely to get pulled over. Systematic oppression against Black Americans has been a recurring pattern since even the building of this country, resulting in large movements like Black Lives Matter and the Civil Rights Movement. Still, justice seems to be in short stock when incidents like these keep happening. 

The job given to police officers is the responsibility to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. People’s interpretation of that has become a large political debate in recent years, and many call for reforms within the police force. The divide of opinion seems to be very clear, with conservatives leaning more on the police force’s side and liberals on the victim's side. 

The future of the officer is still unclear, but Ta’Kiya’s family hopes to get justice.

Abby L

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/08/takiya-young-shooting-police-rights/

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2023/09/08/police-share-more-video-takiya-young-shooting/8397375001/

https://www.vox.com/2023/9/8/23864415/takiya-young-police-shooting-ohio-body-camera-footage

Biden Cancels Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska- More Tension and Bipartisanship?

    The Biden Administration recently canceled seven oil and gas leases in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The state of Alaska is rich in oil- it contains 6 of the 100 largest oil fields in the United States. This makes Alaska extremely valuable for oil and gas companies that would love to acquire these leases which would give them the right to extract oil or gas from the area. By canceling these leases, the Biden Administration has made it harder to generate fossil fuel-based energy and also acts as a push for their pro-climate-change policy agenda. Furthermore, these gas leases were introduced by the Trump Administration, an example of the Biden Administration undoing some of the "achievements" that the previous presidency made. 

    This has angered critics, mostly on the other side of the political aisle as well as some democrats, who question Biden's decision and his supposed hypocrisy on issues of climate change. For example, the Republican governor of Alaska condemned Biden's move and even threatened to sue the administration. Moreover, democrats in the area are also frustrated with the decision since it removes job opportunities for indigenous people who don't have as many job opportunities and rely on jobs provided by oil and gas companies. Democrat US Representative Mary Pelota, "I am deeply frustrated by the reversal of these leases in ANWR... this administration is incapable of listening to Alaskans." Biden and others have defended the decision, stating that his actions "meet the urgency of the climate crisis" and also protect the nature and landscape of Alaska. Many also question Biden's decision to approve the Willow Project, an extremely large pro-fossil fuel commission. 

    On March 13, 2023, Biden approved the Willow Project, a massive oil-drilling project on Alaska's North Slope. The area is planned to hold up to 600 million barrels of oil. ConocoPhillips, an energy company based in Houston, proposed the project and was approved by the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration felt constrained that if they declined the proposal, they could get into a legal dilemma with the company, and thus gave it the green light. To this day, individuals, environmentalist groups, and politicians are in disagreement and protesting the decision to approve the Willow Project. Not only is it perplexing for Biden to pass it, but his administration promised more green energy alternatives and less reliance on fossil fuels from the start. 

    The back-and-forth between parties about the oil and gas lease cancellations in Alaska highlights a general theme throughout American politics on the government's power over individuals and corporations. In Biden's point of view, he believes that the government should exert its power to regulate individuals and corporations that would act in their own selfish interest of gaining profit and selling natural gas despite its effects on the environment, whereas others generally on the right do not agree with this sentiment and that the government should stay out of these affairs more often and let the free-market act on their own will as it will bolster economic growth and provide other benefits. However, Biden's approval of the Willow Project, while hypocritical to his policy agenda, also serves as an example of the influence that interest groups have on the government's will, a possible example of hyperpluralism. ConocoPhillips and other fossil fuel companies are a coalition that is interested in furthering the development of fossil fuel energy, and their combined influence had enough sway over Biden's decision to go back on his pro-climate-change agenda that the administration had been pushing.

-Nolan S

Sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-cancels-last-oil-and-gas-leases-in-alaskas-arctic-refuge-overturns-sales-held-by-trump

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-did-the-biden-administration-approve-the-willow-project

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics/willow-project-oil-alaska-explained-climate/index.html#:~:text=An%20exploratory%20drilling%20camp%20at,project%20on%20Alaska's%20North%20Slope.&text=On%20March%2013%2C%20the%20Biden,controversial%20Willow%20Project%20in%20Alaska.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-cancels-anwr-oil-drilling-leases-deb-haaland-energy-russia-24a5c647 

How Have Trump's Indictments Influenced the Current GOP Primaries?

    Almost a month has passed since Trump received his 4th indictment, and about two weeks have passed since the first GOP primary debate. How have Trump’s indictments affected the GOP primaries? 

What was Trump indicted for? 

    In recent news, former president Donald Trump was indicted by the Atlanta Grand Jury for the 4th time due to his attempt to overturn the Georgia election in 2020. In a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump asked him to “find votes” to win him the state, and proceeded to send a letter in September 2021 requesting for the decertification of Georgia’s vote. Charges to defraud the U.S and obstruct official proceedings were placed on Trump. Prior to this indictment, he had previously been faced with 34 felony counts regarding a hush money case, 40 felony counts regarding the classified documents case, and 4 charges in the January 6th case. 

Can Trump still run for president? 

    Recently, democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia stated a legal argument using the 14th amendment, which bans those “engaged in insurrection” from holding any “civil, military, or elected office,” could possibly be used to remove Trump from the ballot. However, this requires two-thirds approval from both the House and Senate. As discussed in class, a downside to the supermajority vote is that passing is difficult and unlikely, meaning Trump is here to stay for the 2024 election. 

How are indictments affecting Trump? 

    In an ideal scenario, Trump’s popularity would be hurt by the controversy and criminal charges he faces, since voters would be appalled at the possibility of a criminal occupying the highest office of government. However, following each indictment, Trump’s popularity is rising, which is shown in media coverage and campaign profits. According to the New York Times, Fox News airs over 3,000 fifteen-second segments about Donald Trump per week following each indictment case. Prior to Trump’s first indictment, it took his campaign 88 days to raise $12M, but after the Manhattan case, it took 7 days to raise an additional $13M. On social media, Trump portrays himself and his supporters as political victims by stating: “They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you.” Currently, he leads the primaries with 62%, and continues on an upward trend. 

How have indictments affected his competitors? 

    Prior to the first indictment, the GOP primaries featured a close race between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, who held 43% and 37% respectively on January 1st. Upon entering the race, DeSantis was expected to be Trump’s main competitor, but since then, Trump has stolen the spotlight from DeSantis’ “war on wokeness” and feuds with Disney, and leads DeSantis by 46% this week. While DeSantis needs to differentiate and establish himself amongst the GOP, criticizing Trump can also alienate him from potential supporters. In a recent interview with NBC, DeSantis confirmed Trump lost the election, but believes it was poorly run due to mail-in ballots and blames Fauci’s lockdown policies. However, he also hinted he would likely pardon Trump if elected president. His indecisive approach towards Trump has proved to be unsuccessful leading to this point. What stance do other candidates take on former president Trump?

    In the first GOP debate, candidates were asked whether they would continue to support Trump if he were convicted in Georgia. Chris Christie did not raise his hand, instead, he labeled Trump’s conduct as “below the office of president,” and defended this statement the following day in an interview with MSNBC. This statement was met with boos, and following the debate, Christie hovers around 2-3% in the polls. Additionally, Mike Pence, who emphasized Trump should never hold office again, has fallen to 4% recently, after previously holding 10% at the start of the year. 

    On the contrary, GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has established himself as the third place runner and closed the gap within 5% between himself and DeSantis. In the GOP debate, Ramaswamy praised Trump as the greatest president of the 21st century, and when faced with a pledge to support the convicted former president, he was first to raise his hand. Being an adamant supporter of Trump has seemingly helped Ramaswamy gain popularity amongst the party. 

So What?

    In conclusion, the MAGA support base is growing amongst the Republican Party, despite exhibiting violence and possibly attempted insurrection on our capitol. Social media in recent years has changed the ability to control political factions, and Madison’s concerns expressed in Federalist 10 remain relevant today. 

-Chris

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/powerful-argument-trump-disqualified-presidency-14th-amendment-kaine/story?id=102886037

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/07/politics/trump-indictments-criminal-cases/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/13/us/politics/trump-indictment-effect.html

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/politics/trump-fourth-indictment-2024-election/index.html

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4153958-desantis-says-recent-trump-indictment-exemplifies-criminalization-of-politics/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/09/03/donald-trump-2024-gop-presidential-primary-indictment-poll/70757672007/

Looming Threat of Auto Worker Strike Continues as Contract Deadline Approaches

The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, an American labor union with 391,000 members, has begun threatening a strike once their contract ends on September 14th, unless their demands for better compensation and working conditions are met. Among these demands are a 46% pay raise and a 32-hour work week with 40 hours pay.

These demands have primarily been levied against companies in the automotive sector, specifically the Big 3 car companies – General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford, all of which are based in Detroit where the heart of the Strike movement lies. In a speech on Labour Day, UAW president Shawn Fain claimed that they would take action by “any means necessary” in order to achieve their goals for better conditions.

The Detroit 3 have reached $164 Billion USD in net income over the past ten years, with $20B this year alone. Ford CEO Jim Farley, who took the position in 2020, makes a net income of $21 Million annually, with the CEOs of GM and Stellantis making $28.9M and $15.7M USD annually. Fain argues that there remains a double standard for CEOs and executives at these companies in comparison to a typical worker: At his labor day speech, he claimed: ““They get out-of-control salaries… They get pensions they don’t even need. They get top-rate health care. They work whatever schedule they want. The majority of our members do not get a pension nowadays. It’s crazy. We get substandard health care. We don’t get to work remotely.”

The full details of the UAW strike remain rather ambiguous; there has been no information as to whether the union would strike one of the Big 3 companies, or if employees at all 3 would go on strike – the latter would deplete all union funds within 3 months. 

That loss in funds, however, pales in comparison to the economic damage even a short strike would wreak upon the Big 3 companies – it is estimated even a 10 day strike would cause almost a billion dollars in losses for the companies. Despite this, all companies thus far have refused to cede to the strikes demands; Ford has neglected nearly all of them, an act Fain deems “insults to the very worth” of automotive workers. 

Big 3 companies cite this lack of flexibility and budgeting as a necessity to remain competitive in an automotive sphere that is facing increasing takeover from Tesla and foreign manufacturers, companies fear that increasing the benefits given to laborers and their wages will cause further vehicle price increase due to dwindling supply in a market that is already unforgivably competitive. 

In a statement this past labor day, President Biden claimed he’s “not worried about a String… [he doesn’t] think it’s going to happen”

Though an eventual settlement between the two groups is more likely than a full fledged strike, I think that this current conflict is indicative of a new, burgeoning labor movement within the United States that has not been seen since the mid 1900s. American workers are becoming increasingly class-conscious, and attempts at unionization and the formation of co-ops is increasingly common. While they are unlikely to occur at this scale often, small-scale strikes and unionizations, like the unionization of Starbucks franchises in Portland and almost 300 other locations, are something I think we will see more and more as more American workers are made aware of the bargaining power they can hold over corporations if they organize effectively. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-he-is-not-worried-about-an-auto-strike-thinks-it-will-not-happen-2023-09-04/

https://apnews.com/article/automakers-cars-strike-pay-uaw-union-detroit-349a6e7281f1b07710cfcad511dcaa05

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2023/03/31/heres-how-much-ford-ceo-jim-farley-made-last-year/70067820007/#:~:text=CEO%20Jim%20Farley%20received%20nearly,nearly%20%242.8%20million%20in%20bonuses.

Justice Thomas Reports Taking Gifts From Texas Billionaire

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

This Thursday, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reported on his annual financial forms that he received various gifts, including private jet flights, luxury vacations, and real-estate transactions with Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, who has been known to donate money to conservative causes. Thomas also edited earlier annual filings with gifts from Crow stating that he had "inadvertently omitted" the gifts in previous years (NYT).

This news comes after investigative journalists at ProPublica discovered that both Thomas and conservative justice Alito had been receiving gifts from wealthy conservatives, and at times even by those who had cases before the court, a serious ethical concern--as it can be easily interpreted as bribery-- for the sanctity of justice opinions. These financial reports have drawn mass attention to democrats, who are pushing for more transparent financial practices among justices, as well as advocating for a formal ethics code for justice's conduct, which does not currently exist (WPO). There have been a plethora of explanations provided by Thomas as to why he received the gifts in question, including that he needed the flights on private jets for protection, or that he simply considered Crow a friend, but in general Thomas' legal team claims all of his dealings with Crow were fully ethical (NYT).

Furthermore, it seems that Thomas, though he has reported some of his financial transactions with Crow, has failed to be fully transparent, with investigations uncovering unreported tuition payments for Thomas' family members, or a $267,230 RV (NYT). 

According to a poll done by Marquette University, less than 35% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court is maintaining high ethical standards (MU), which is relatively low with regard to the past 50 years of public opinion on the Supreme Court. Relating to what we covered in Chapter 2 about self-regulating and self-balanced governments, the role of the Supreme Court, besides carrying out judicial review, is to maintain the power of judging the constitutionality of presidential acts and laws from Congress, placing a check on both other branches of government. If the sanctity of Supreme Court opinions begins to fall apart--in this case via potential bribes--those checks become corrupted, and our federal government may fail to properly self-regulate.

On the conservative side, pundits argue that the idea that Thomas' and Alito's conduct is unethical is a product of liberals blowing the news out of proportion and that in reality, the financial reports should not be of much concern. However, when looking at the evidence, it seems that since trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, from a survey whose respondents were 40% Republican, 42% Democrat, and 18% independent (MU), it is not only liberals who feel that this behavior is not dismissable. Furthermore, receiving "gifts" of such splendor would be considered ethically dubious regardless of political affiliation--conservative, liberal, or otherwise. Within context, public trust in the federal government in general is decreasing, both on the left--with regards to Trump's federal charges--, and on the right. The ultimate effect of this mass distrust in our branches of government remains to be seen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/us/thomas-financial-disclosures-scotus.html

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MLSPSC15Toplines_CourtItems.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/31/clarence-thomas-alito-financial-disclosures/

Proud Boys Leaders Involved in Capitol Riots Face New Prison Sentences

As the prosecution of rioters at the Capitol continues, Ethan Nordean, leader of the far-right, white nationalist organization the Proud Boys, has been sentenced to 18 years in prison. Another proud boys member, Dominic Pezzola, who is known for smashing the first Capitol window and kickstarting the invasion into the building, has received a 10 year sentence.

Pezzola specifically has been charged not only on counts of assault, but also for robbery due to his attempts at stealing a police shield from capitol police. In a testimony from Capitol Policeman Mark Ode, Pezzola was described to have “violently and forcefully” grabbed his shield and pushed him to the ground, as well as trying to spray chemicals into the eyes of police officers and choke them using their helmet straps.

In a statement made to their judge during the trial, Pezzola claimed: “I never should have crossed the barrier at the Capitol that day, the first of many errors that day.. I stand before you with a heart full of regret. I can only acknowledge how reckless my actions were at the Capitol and how much they impacted the country.”

However, after the judge was seen leaving the room and Pezzola was escorted out, he shouted “Trump Won” to the jury. Another proud boys member, also on trial, described the event as a “political charade,” expressing hope that the results would be overturned in time for them to vote for Trump again in the 2024 election. 

These decisions have been part of an ongoing investigation into the proud boys and subsequent sedition trials. Prior to these decisions, other members of the organization received sentences of 17 and 15 years, also on charges of sedition this past may.

The repeated dynamic between clearly unrepentant terrorists and their attempts to undermine the American justice system has made the current position of America’s far right much more clear; in the past, white supremacist/nationalist and anti-democratic organizations were far more discreet about their ideology. Many would euphemistically describe it as an attempt to “return to traditionalist society,” and would feign respect for police officers and the federal government, instead directing their ire towards racial minorities and pointing blame to them for the fall of America. While there is no shortage of racism amongst the Proud Boys, the testimony from these trials makes it clear that they are no longer making an effort to engage with even the most basic principles of law and order; they are trying to kill police officers and tear down all democratic structures within this country. When they are made to confront the inherently anti-american undercurrent of their own actions, they dismiss it and instead blame their behaviors on attempts to combat some mystical, nonexistent deep state that is secretly controlling all aspects of American society. There is no longer any attempt to cover up their fascist tendencies or their uncontrolled hunger for power.

This is almost directly analogous to the idea of the social contract which we discussed in class – any functioning society requires both the administrators and all others residing within it to agree upon a specific set of rules and a guiding ideology; in the case of America, these rules historically dictated we do not undermine our democracy. We do not attempt to kill those serving our country. We do not lead riots on government buildings. These basic principles, which are so key to ensuring we maintain a functioning democracy, were all but ubiquitous for decades even despite America’s historically tumultuous political landscape. The reactionary, radical political culture that has begun to fester within the GOP, however, is rendering our current position untenable; if this consistent, remorseless erosion of the social contract between the government and the American people continues, American society as a whole will steeply decline into chaos.

- Agastya

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/01/1197186891/proud-boys-member-dominic-pezzola-sentenced-to-10-years-in-jan-6-riot-case

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/01/proud-boys-pezzola-nordean-sentencing-jan6/

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4183555-proud-boy-reportedly-claims-trump-won-after-sobbing-for-mercy-at-sentencing/

The State of California v. The Parents: California Sues to Protect the Privacy of Trans Students

California State Attorney Rob Bonta at a press conference.

Amid the current turmoil regarding trans rights in the US, California State Attorney Rob Bonta has filed a lawsuit against a SoCal school district to prevent it from outing trans students to their parents.

In the Chino Valley Unified School District, school policy requires the school administration to inform parents if their child requests to use pronouns, names, facilities, or programs that do not align with their assigned gender. Many school districts in the area have too begun or have been considering adopting similar policies, a direct result of conservative school boards elected since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the state government, currently controlled by the Democrats with a comfortable supermajority in the legislature, have begun pushing back on the so called "Red California" wave of conservatives unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

On August 28, Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against the Chino Valley District, seeking a court order that will immediately block the policy in the district. His suit argues that the policy is in violation of the students' civil and constitutional rights, and California privacy laws. Specifically, Bonta argues that the policy violates California's constitutional right to privacy, the California Education Code, and California's Equal Protection Clause. However legal scholars believe that the issue might turn out to be murkier than it appears to be. 

The California Education Code does specifically ban discrimination based on disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race, or ethnicity and religion. But as Professor John Rogers, a UCLA professor at the Graduate School of Education Studies, and Information Studies notes, the code does not specifically "lay out what to do in this particular instance, where we're talking about student's gender identity." And while it is acknowledged that parents do have a right to information relative to their children, those children also have the right to privacy, and autonomy. It will likely be left up to the courts to determine to what degree those rights override the other. Sarah Perry, a senior legal fellow with the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, a conservative think-tank, believes that this could very well end up in the Supreme Court, "precisely because we're seeing federal courts reach different outcomes as to whether or not it's the parents who have an interest in knowing, or whether or not the child's interest in privacy is superior."

Bonta has cited the case of C.N. v. Wolf as precedent for his suit, where a female high school student sued after being suspended for public displays of affection with another girl that were considered in violation of school policy, saying that her right to privacy had been violated when the school disclosed to her mother that she had been kissing another girl. The courts held that while the student did have the right to privacy regarding her sexual orientation, the principal was also obligated under law to disclose to the student's parents the reasons for why she was being disciplined. Moreover, across the state, other cases have been brought that allege schools of violating parental rights by not informing them of their children's transitioning. In July, a federal court dismissed a case brought against Chino Valley District that accused the district of violating a parent's constitutional rights by failing to disclose that their child had been using different pronouns at school, ruling that the constitution did not mandate such authority for parents.

On a wider scale, this lawsuit is symptomatic of the increasing backlash against trans rights in the US, with many politicians and public figures using anti-trans rhetoric, and states implementing highly restrictive policies geared towards trans children. Already, conservative groups are looking to put legislation further restricting trans children's right on the ballot for next year's elections. These proposals include banning gender affirming care for minors and banning trans students from participating in girls' sports. When the Chino Valley District Board was discussing the policy, they reportedly referred to transgender identity as a "delusion" or "mental illness", which was also cited by Bonta in his argument, saying “the board’s true motivation” was to “manifest and harbor animosity, discrimination and prejudice.” Supporters argue that this is about the rights of parents to be involved in the lives of their children, but critics point out that having schools outing trans children to their parents before they are ready will likely have a detrimental effect on them. The lawsuit was warmly received by several LGBT advocacy groups, with Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, saying that “California must stand up against these policies that fly in the face of the principles of equality and respect for all people.”

As of now, it is unknown whether or not the lawsuit will go anywhere. Considering the vagueness of the law concerning this, it is likely that this may end up in a federal court, where it will be decided if a child's right to privacy really does override their parent's rights to their child. The one thing that is certain, however, is that this will have far reaching implications, both for the rights of parents, and for trans people in the US, especially in this current climate where anti-trans rhetoric is at an all-time high. It remains to be seen how this case will end up impacting trans rights in California, and in the US as a whole.

-Eric Gonzalez Jimenez

Sources: 

Can public schools legally 'out' trans students to their parents? Experts weigh in (msn.com)

California is suing to stop schools from outing trans kids to their parents (msn.com)

California sues district that requires parents be notified if their kids change gender ID - ABC News (go.com)

Both sides dig in over policy to out trans students, with lawsuit and proposed ballot measures (msn.com)

Massachusetts Mobilizes National Guard to Assist in Migrant Emergency

 

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healy at her inaugural address in January

On August 31, in the midst of a migrant crisis that has strained the resources of Massachusetts to its limit, Governor Maura Healy has activated up to 250 National Guard members to assist in distributing food, medical care, and transportation along other basic needs at shelters and hotels.

Recently, Massachusetts has been overwhelmed by an influx of migrants, mainly composed of Haitians, with up to 20,000 people living in state shelters, including infants, pregnant women, and children. In early August, Governor Healy declared a state of emergency as a result of the increasing number of migrants, combined with the state's own housing crisis exacerbating the surge. Due to its status as a right-to-shelter state, Massachusetts is legally obligated to provide shelter to migrants via its emergency shelter services, a status that is now in jeopardy as conservative groups have called to revoke this policy. 

Governor Healy had requested federal assistance for her state in dealing with the migrants, having already received $2 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and had also asked to expedite work authorizations for the migrants in her state, saying "Our new arrivals are most eager to work. The last thing they want is to be dependent."  Now, the National Guard will coordinate the distribution of basic services while the state looks for a more permanent solution.

Locals have also stepped up to fill this gap, with churches like the Woburn United Methodist Church giving out donations such as clothing and toiletries. In the city of Quincy, the Eastern Nazarene College, working with the Bay State Community Services, opened a welcome center on campus for incoming families, with 58 spaces available as of August 22.

The topic of immigrations has become an increasingly hot button issue in the past decade, with many conservative and right-wing organizations and parties calling for higher restrictions on immigration. Republican controlled states, such as Florida and Texas, have even gone as far as to bus or fly immigrants to Democrat controlled states such as California and New York. Just last year Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, stranded 49 Venezuelan migrants in the Massachusetts enclave of Martha's Vineyard, an act that was widely condemned by many as cruel and exploitative. The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a conservative advocacy group, has begun calling on state lawmakers to end its right-to-shelter status, calling the state governor out of touch and unaware of the impact that the migrants have had on the state's cities and towns. 

Many towns and cities have been taking the brunt of the migrant crisis, wishing for statal, or even federal intervention to assist in providing them shelter. Many welcomed the declaration of emergency, hoping for more assistance in the providing of services to the migrants. The state government is still working to secure more federal funding and to streamline the work permit process, with Governor Healy having met last week with US Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in order to make a plea for accelerated work authorizations for the migrants. 

It remains to see how this will turn out for Massachusetts, with the deployment of the National Guard being intended as a temporary measure to ensure the welfare of the migrants. According to State Senator Jaime Eldrige, "It's not only children, and with it getting soon cold, they're going to need winter jackets, things like that, and school supplies. But also many of the women here are pregnant." The one thing that is certain, however, is that this situation is simply a page in the chapter of the increasing issue the US is running into regarding migrants. 

-Eric Gonzalez Jimenez

Sources: 

 Massachusetts governor declares state of emergency amid influx of migrants seeking shelter - ABC News

Mass. welcomes new migrants, but worries about strained resources – NBC Boston

Governor activates Massachusetts National Guard to help with migrant crisis (msn.com)

Massachusetts National Guard activated for emergency shelters amid rise in migrant families (msn.com)

Trump's Former Chief of Staff Testifies

 

Mark Meadows, Former Chief of Staff (NYT)

This Monday, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was put on the stand in Georgia state court; a risky move made in an attempt to get his racketeering case moved to federal court.

In order to move his case to federal court, the defense must prove that the acts carried out by Meadows, regarding threatening officials in the state of Georgia over votes, were done under his express federal duty, and were not in any way a political act. If he succeeds, the defense can then argue in federal court that due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal law trumps state law, his state charges should be dismissed (PBS). This would not only affect his case, but could set an example affecting the cases of the other defendants surrounding Trump's RICO indictment.

Meadows struggled on the stand when state prosecutors pressed him on a phone call he organized between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. When asked about why he organized the phone call, he claimed that he "did not recall" the specific circumstances, and simply followed orders from Trump to set it up. He testified that to his knowledge, the call was regarding alleged election fraud in the state (ABC). In that same call, Trump infamously asked Raffensperger to "find" 12,000 more votes in Georgia, enough for him to win the state, and potentially change the course of the election (WPO), a statement the prosecution interprets as threatening a state official to violate his oath of office, enough to indict Meadows with a racketeering charge. 

His unconvincing attempts to distance himself from Trump's conspiracy via lack of recall were further undermined by Raffensperger's own testimony of the phone call and its surrounding events. Raffensperger, a Georgia Republican, testified that he received earlier calls from Meadows--which he avoided--before picking up the phone call with Donald Trump. He further testified that what he expected to be an investigation into election fraud was indicative of "a campaign call"-- an act that would fall well outside of both Meadows' and Trump's federal duty (WPO). He also recalled threats made to his family and his employees when Trump went public with his unfounded allegations of Georgia voter fraud, further implying that the call was not part of Trump's federal duty, but part of his campaign efforts (NYT).

A courtroom sketch of Meadows on the stand (CNN)

In their motion to move the case to federal court, Meadows' defense attorneys argued that organizing the phone call was solely an act of investigating election fraud (The State of Georgia v. Meadows), and was well within his federal duty. At this point, the phone call itself is seemingly damning evidence that Trump did attempt to subvert the presidential election in Georgia, explaining why Meadows so desperately tried to state he had no knowledge of its true purpose.

Beyond legal implications, Meadows' testimony relates both to our study of the Constitution and of power in government. The purpose of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is to stop state law from subverting the functions of the federal government, something arguably essential to any federation. However, Meadows' defense's attempts to use the Supremacy Clause makes a dangerous claim about the nature of the federal government: that part of the executive branch's express duty is to carry out political acts to keep its own members in power. That claim further implies that even if they break state laws, power exerted by federal officials via the leverage of their office, though not specifically protected by the Constitution, is implicitly protected by the Constitution--an implication many would argue grossly subverts the nature of formal power within our federal government. As we covered in class while studying the 4Ps, there tends to be an overlap between the use of formal power in government and its political implications, with the Meadows case questioning to what extent the two should be intertwined. With regard to what we covered on Hobbesian views of humanity and how it relates to checks and balances, this case could show a prime example of a government official acting in egregious Hobbes-like self-interest, and a state-court system subsequently checking that behavior, with hopes that no one demagogue could take over control of our democracy -- though that outcome remains to be seen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/us/trump-georgia-meadows.html

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.45.0_1.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/29/mark-meadows-struggles-distance-himself-trumps-plot/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/georgia-2020-election-hearing-mark-meadows/meadows-testifies-about-raffensperger-call-102623974?id=102611178

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-meadows-testimony-in-georgia-could-help-shape-case-against-trump

Edit: added clarification to the end of the last paragraph to more explicitly connect it to in-class material.

Shooting at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    

    On August 28, 2023, a graduate student by the name of Tailei Qi shot his faculty advisor, Zije Yan, inside a science building at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. On the 29th, police arrested and charged the student with first-degree murder. Law enforcement is still currently searching for a motive and a weapon. Tailei Qi appeared in an Orange County Superiority Court with his court date scheduled for September 18, 2023. Until further information is revealed about the case, it is extremely vague what Qi's motive for committing such a horrific act to Zije Yan, a respected professor, and scientist whose personality was described to be laidback and reserved. Multiple students and colleagues of Yan mourned his death, with many in panic and fear of the incident that had happened on their campus. The shooting paralyzed the campus with fear, with students and faculty reacting in shock, horror, and anger to the incident of violence. 

    Students who attended the university spoke about how frightening the experience was and that they didn't feel safe on their campus. McMichaels, a student at UNC, said that "You're always in that position where you're like it couldn't be me and then when it is, you're kind of shocked. It's horrifying" (WUNC). Furthermore, another student, Hoos, who was only a quarter mile away from the shooting, shared her experience as well: "Everybody talking about being nervous the entire time, the nervousness of somebody coming in and banging in the door" (WUNC). Other students took the opportunity to organize rallies and protests in light of the shooting, advocating for pro-gun-control legislation to prevent incidents like these from happening more in the future. "Students chanted Yan's name Wednesday and raised signs that read 'learning not lockdowns,' 'this is my reality,' and '1 death by guns is 1 too many" (Washington Post).

    

    Politicians also used the shooting to push for their own agendas about the issue of guns in America, with many on both sides of the aisle shedding light on their perspectives. North Carolina Representative Renee Price's perspective on the matter is one that is pro-gun-control legislation: "Another shooting, another killing... Because we have too many guns, weapons out in the open" (Daily Tar Heel). Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from the same state, says that "we must continue to work together to protect our schools, confront the nation's mental health crisis, and keep firearms out of the wrong hands" (Daily Tar Heel). As seen before, the two perspectives of the opposing parties essentially, in rather simplistic terms, that guns are the problem vs. people are the problem. Democrats in the US generally believe that limiting access to these weapons would prevent such violent and destructive incidents from happening, whereas Republicans generally believe that it is not the availability of guns that is the issue, but it is the situations in which people commit these violent acts like their mental health that should be dealt with. Personally, I believe that there should be more gun-control legislation because while prioritizing mental health is important, people who have mental health issues commit such awful acts because of how easy it is to acquire a firearm in the US. By making it harder to get access to these tools that would inflict harm easier, these people in need of mental help wouldn't be so willing to use a gun to exact their emotional instability and instead resort to other sources of letting out their feelings. 

Nolan S.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2023/08/30/university-shooting-north-carolina-chapel-hill/de58249a-4782-11ee-b76b-0b6e5e92090d_story.html

https://www.wunc.org/news/2023-08-28/its-horrifying-unc-chapel-hill-students-and-faculty-react-to-campus-shooting

https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2023/08/city-political-response-to-shooting-republicans-democrats

https://apnews.com/article/university-north-carolina-chapel-hill-shooting-a5eb7268934f7f416b7cfa2e2e3e24db