Supreme Court
Daily Business Review: US Supreme Court Arguments Set in Riviera Beach First Amendment Case
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Feb. 27 in a First Amendment case stemming from the arrest of a frequent government critic as he spoke during a city council meeting.
The Supreme Court this week issued an oral-argument schedule that includes the case filed by Fane Lozman against the city of Riviera Beach. Justices agreed last month to consider the case, which stems from Lozman’s arrest in 2006.
He accused the city of violating his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his outspoken criticism and for another lawsuit alleging Sunshine Law violations.
Lower courts sided with the city, which argued a police officer had probable cause to arrest Lozman after he refused to comply with directions from a council member. The case focuses on whether probable cause defeats the First Amendment retaliation claim, according to documents filed by both sides.
This is Lozman’s second case to reach the high court. Both cases stem from his clashes with the city over its use of eminent domain for redevelopment.
The Courts
Reason: First Batch of Inauguration Day Protesters Acquitted In Key First Amendment Case
By C.J. Ciaramella
Prosecutors for the government argued that, while there was no physical evidence linking the six defendants-who included a journalist and two street medics-to property destruction, they were part of a criminal conspiracy to aid or support rioters. Defense lawyers responded that the charges were nothing more than an overreaching attempt to punish political speech.
D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz acquitted the defendants of felony charges of inciting a riot before sending the rest of the charges to a jury. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all the remaining counts of felony property destruction, misdemeanor rioting, and misdemeanor conspiracy to riot.
Scott Michelman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a press statement that today’s verdict “reaffirms two central constitutional principles of our democracy: first, that dissent is not a crime, and second, that our justice system does not permit guilt by association.
“We hope today’s verdict begins the important work of teaching police and prosecutors to respect the line between lawbreaking and constitutionally protected protest,” he continued. “We hope that the U.S. Attorney’s Office gets the message and moves quickly to drop all remaining changes against peaceful demonstrators.”
Lexology: Lanham Act’s Bar On Immoral And Scandalous Matter Found Unconstitutional
By Jonathan Uffelman
On December 15, 2017, following hot on the heels of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause (Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017)), the Federal Circuit ruled that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on immoral and scandalous matter similarly violates the First Amendment.
At issue in the recent Federal Circuit appeal was the registrability of the mark FUCT for clothing. Following more a decade of use of the FUCT brand, Applicant Erik Brunetti applied to the USPTO to register the apparel brand. During examination, the PTO refused registration concluding that the mark was vulgar, and therefore scandalous and unregistrable under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. Following affirmation of the denial by the TTAB, Mr. Brunetti appealed to the Federal Circuit.
While rejecting Mr. Brunetti’s argument that FUCT was not vulgar, the Federal Circuit agreed with his contention that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on marks which “consist of or comprise immoral … or scandalous matter” was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.
Wisconsin John Doe
MacIver Institute: Senate Committee Asks DOJ To Expand Probe Into John Doe Investigators
By M.D. Kittle
On Thursday, the Committee On Senate Organization voted 3-2, along party lines, to authorize the DOJ to dig deeper into the conduct of the state bureaucrats and prosecutors who led the infamous secret probe into dozens of conservative groups and the campaign of Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The vote follows this month’s bombshell report by state Attorney General Brad Schimel that found agents of the former Government Accountability Board led a parallel investigation using secretly seized documents, some of which ended up in folders labeled “Opposition Research.” Schimel’s report also found that GAB attorneys continued to cull John Doe-related documents long after a judge ordered them to stop, and they held on to court records long after the state Supreme Court ruled that the materials must be turned over to the court.
Political Parties
American Prospect: New Year’s Resolutions for Democrats
By Eliza Newlin Carney
Don’t Embrace Secret Money: In the Alabama Senate race, a mysterious super PAC dubbed Highway 31 spent $5.1 million to help elect Democrat Doug Jones. Most of that money was spent “on credit” by three Democratic consulting firms, a maneuver that shielded donors’ identities until after the election. While technically legal, the arrangement violated the spirit of campaign-finance laws that require super PACs to fully disclose their donors. In early December, Politico reported that two leading Democratic super PACs-Senate Majority PAC and Priorities USA Action-were behind Highway 31. Democrats must have wanted to avert a backlash in deep red Alabama. But the ploy went against Democrats’ claim to support transparency in elections.
Even more secretive are several new anti-Trump groups, including the Indivisible Project, Our Revolution, and Majority Forward, that have been set up as tax-exempt organizations instead of as PACs…
Don’t Get Cozy with Billionaires: Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches and high-dollar joint fundraising with the Democratic National Committee colored voters’ perceptions of her as untrustworthy. She also failed to articulate a clear political reform message, despite a platform that included sweeping democracy reforms. Democrats who have been busy launching a new “advisory firm” for big donors may invite similar critiques.
The States
Boston.com: 6 more Massachusetts ballot questions just cleared a hurdle for 2018
By Nik DeCosta-Klipa
Law Relative to Establishing a Citizens Commission Concerning a Constitutional Amendment to Secure Government of the People: 86,199 signatures
As Boston.com recently reported, the proposal would establish a state commission to research and push an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which critics say has contributed to the further entrenchment of money in politics.
Gotham Gazette: Cuomo Unveils ‘Democracy Agenda’ of Ad Transparency, Election Security and Voting Reforms
By Rachel Silberstein
Cuomo’s democracy platform, as presented in a press release, focuses on the proliferation of “fake news” and political ad campaigns on social media platforms, which are not regulated in the same way as advertisements on traditional media platforms. Citing the influence of “unscrupulous and disruptive actors” on the 2016 presidential election, Cuomo’s proposal would codify state regulations as introduced by United States Senate and House members to regulate online advertising for federal elections. The governor vowed to ensure that all social media platforms, and other states, adopt similar policies…
To ensure the fairness and transparency of New York elections, Cuomo has put forth a three-pronged strategy to: expand New York State’s definition of political communication to include paid internet and digital advertisements; require digital platforms to maintain a public file of all political advertisements purchased by a person or group for publication on the platform; and require online platforms to make reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements in order to influence the American electorate.
CT Mirror: CT Dems on hook for consultants’ legal bills in federal probe
By Mark Pazniokas
Essentially, campaigns operate under two sets of contradictory campaign financing rules: one provides public financing to candidates who agree to accept donations of no more than $100 and abide by spending limits that vary by office; the other allows state parties to accept maximum donations of $10,000 a year and spend unlimited amounts supporting their candidates.
Malloy benefitted from both systems.
The federal inquiry began after Charles Urso, a retired elections investigator and FBI agent, publicly pressed for a deeper look at the propriety of Malloy accepting $6.5 million in public financing while also benefitting from the unlimited spending of the state party.
