This means that Wisconsin’s law, which is substantially similar, is struck down too.
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Texas abortion law imposing strict regulations on doctors and facilities in the strongest endorsement of abortion rights in America in more than two decades.
The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 Texas law placed an undue burden on women exercising their right under the U.S. Constitution to end a pregnancy, established in the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
The state Department of Corrections is force feeding at least three inmates as a hunger strike aimed at ending a form of solitary confinement that can go on for years — even decades — continues for a third week.
To summarize, first, we hold that Wis. Stat. § 66.0502 precludes the City from enforcing its residency requirement. The Legislature has the power to legislate on matters of local affairs when its enactment uniformly affects every city or every village, notwithstanding the home rule amendment.
The finalists are 2nd District Appeals Court Judge Mark Gundrum, 3rd District Appeals Court Judge Thomas Hruz and attorney Dan Kelly. Gundrum is a former Republican state lawmaker who served with Walker in the Assembly.
Walker named Hruz to the appeals court in 2014.
Kelly is an attorney who defended Republicans’ 2011 redistricting plan.
Two other semifinalists who did not make Walker’s final list were Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick and Marinette County Circuit Judge James Morrison.
While the court held that the initial stop was unconstitutional, due to lack of reasonable suspicion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that overturned the Utah Supreme Court and held that because the arrest warrant was valid, the evidence was admissible.
Thomas portrayed the incident as the result of a couple “at most negligent” mistakes on the part of the officer, and downplayed its broader significance.
“There is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct,” he wrote. “To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house.”
But Sotomayor said the case was anything but minor.
“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong,” she wrote.
This is BS. These are public records and there is absolutely no reason to NOT release them in their entirety unless there is information in there the release of which would damage an ongoing investigation.
The Justice Department says the FBI and Orlando authorities, in coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s office, are expected on Monday to release a limited transcript of conversations Mateen had with authorities during the shooting as well as a timeline.
“He talked about his pledges of allegiance to a terrorist group. He talked about his motivations for why he was claiming at that time he was committing this horrific act. He talked about American policy in some ways,” Lynch said. In one of the call he pledged allegiance to ISIS, authorities have said.
“The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid re-victimizing those people that went through this horror. But it will contain the substance of his conversations,” she said.
Republican Donald Trump has said he would like people on terror watch lists to be prevented from buying guns, in the wake of the Orlando shootings.
Do you know how you get on a watch list? Me either. I suspect it happens when someone in some government agency thinks that you might be up to no good, so they put you on a list to keep an eye on you. Do you know how to get off of the list? You can’t. If you believe that you are on a watch list by mistake, you can go through a lengthy and laborious process where you have to prove your own innocence to get a redress number, but the ultimate decision of whether or not you stay on that list is up to the government agency.
In America, we have a long-standing principle that the government is not permitted to curtail a citizen’s Constitutionally protected rights without being afforded due process. We do not permit our rights to be taken away based on the arbitrary decision of an unelected bureaucrat. We must adhere to our principles here, but I do recognize that Trump is devoid of principles.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against the Obama administration in a case regarding water pollution permits.
The nation’s highest court ruled unanimously that a landowner can appeal through the federal court system a determination from the Army Corps of Engineers that a water body is subject to federal jurisdiction and permit requirements under the Clean Water Act.
The court’s eight justices agreed in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. that the Corps’s final “jurisdictional determination” regarding a peat mining company’s wetlands is a “final agency action,” so the company can challenge it like any regulation.
The case is likely to have consequences for the federal government’s entire enforcement of the Clean Water Act, the main law regarding pollution control.
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Hopefully it’s an issue upon which there should be omnipartisan agreement. Here it is:
The Internal Revenue Service has been in the news a lot lately for targeting conservative organizations in an effort to silence them. What has gone largely unnoticed, however, is how the IRS is also ruining the lives of average Americans by aggressively seizing their money for dubious reasons. It is something that can, and should, be stopped immediately.
For years, the IRS has had the power to seize assets involved with a crime. For example, the IRS can seize the money in the bank accounts of convicted drug dealers. But the IRS can also seize the assets of people who are only suspected of committing a crime through federal civil forfeiture laws. This is where the real problem comes in by putting innocent citizens in the position of having to prove their innocence in order to get their money back from the federal government.
With the federal civil forfeiture laws, the IRS can seize assets based only on the suspicion that a crime has taken place. There is no burden for the IRS to prove they have probable cause to a judge or charge the targeted person with anything. All that needs to happen is a few IRS bureaucrats decide something illegal might be going on and they can seize every dollar from the targeted person. Once the assets are seized, the IRS initiates a civil forfeiture procedure where the victim must defend themself. Unlike a criminal case, the IRS has a much lower burden of proof. They must only prove a crime was committed by a “preponderance of the evidence,” not by a “reasonable doubt,” which is the standard for criminal cases. Also, the defendant is not afforded all the same rights and protections in a civil proceeding as they would in a criminal prosecution.
These civil forfeiture proceedings are no small matter. The process often takes well over a year and the defendant must spend thousands of dollars and countless hours battling the IRS. Meanwhile, the IRS continues to hold the defendant’s assets, leaving the defendant bereft of the funds needed for his or her defense. And unlike criminal cases, defendants are not afforded a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one. When it is all said and done, the defendant may recover his or her seized funds, but only after a tremendous amount of time, effort and money.
One particular area of growth in civil forfeitures is in targeting so-called “structuring.” Under federal law, banks must report all transactions of more than $10,000 to the IRS. Criminals know this, so they will often “structure” their banking practices in a way to avoid that requirement by making many transactions for $9,000 or $9,500 instead of one big transaction. The IRS looks for this kind of behavior as an indication of criminal activity and will move to seize the funds through civil forfeiture laws without even knowing what kind of criminal activity might be happening.
You see, there is absolutely nothing illegal about conducting a bunch of banking transactions for $9,000. It may be a sign of illegal activity, or it may just be people doing nothing untoward at all. Many small businesses that use cash, for example, make daily deposits for several thousand dollars, but less than $10,000. These are some of the people being swept up in the IRS’ aggressive use of civil forfeitures.
According to a study last year by the Institute for Justice, the IRS initiated 500 percent more seizures for structuring in 2012 than it did in 2005, and 80 percent of those seizures were civil instead of criminal. At least a third of those seizures arose out of nothing more than a few banking transactions of less than $10,000 with no criminal activity even being alleged by the government. And the gap between what the IRS has seized and what was eventually forfeited after the process was complete is growing. Less than half the money seized in 2012 was actually finally forfeited.
All of these facts point to an increasing attitude of the IRS to seize first and ask questions later. This puts an intolerable burden on citizens who have not done anything wrong.
The solution is simple: end civil forfeitures. If someone has engaged in a crime, then the government should charge them and they should be afforded all the due process protections required by our conscience and the Constitution. We should not permit our government to seize the property of citizens on the mere suspicion of criminal activity by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
Wow. If you thought there was tension in the West Bend School District, check out Antigo! This story caught my eye while browsing the Shawano newspaper this weekend.
The village of Mattoon is seeking a court injunction to stop the Unified School District of Antigo from closing Mattoon Elementary School at the end of the current school year.
The complaint filed in Shawano-Menominee County Circuit Court Monday maintains the village and parents of elementary school students in Mattoon were blindsided by the decision, which the complaint also alleges was retribution for the lack of support for the school district’s failed April 5 referendum.
The $25.9 million plan would have closed down five of its district’s seven elementary schools, renovated the remaining two, and built a brand-new, centralized school in the city.
Mattoon and Crestwood schools would have stayed open under that plan.
The referendum failed by a vote of 3,787 to 2,615.
[…]
The Antigo School Board voted April 25 to close the elementary school at the end of this school year, which ends June 3.
Most parents were notified on April 27-28, less than 48 hours before the general deadline for open enrollment, according to the complaint. Some parents had also already enrolled their children in the school’s 4-year-old kindergarten program for next school year.
The village has also filed a separate complaint with the Langlade District Attorney’s Office, alleging the school board violated open meetings laws by not giving sufficient notice that the April 25 meeting would include any action regarding Mattoon Elementary School.
During discussion of an agenda item covering “next steps” for district facilities, board member Patrick McKenna made a motion to close the Mattoon school, according to the complaint. The motion passed by a 5-4 vote.
There had been no previous notice of any imminent closing, according to the injunction complaint.
The complaint also alleges that school board members “conspired to surprise the public with the action to close Mattoon Elementary School without proper notice and out of spite and retaliation against the residents of Mattoon for the board members’ perception that residents of Mattoon did not show sufficient support for the board’s proposed referendum.”
I’d like to hear the School Board’s side of the story. If the allegations in the complaint are accurate, they appear to be acting wildly inappropriately and possibly illegally. In any case, to completely close a school on a motion under the “next steps” agenda item – without notice, public input, or discussion – is electoral malpractice. That’s a big decision that should be deliberated.
It could be that the School Board had already laid out the Plan B if the referendum failed and that included closing the Mattoon school. I don’t know and the story doesn’t say. That’s why I would like to hear the School Board’s side, but even so, it should have been done as its own agenda item at the very least. I’m sure that nobody reading the agenda ahead of time thought for a second that the Board would close a school that day.
MADISON – Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel joined attorneys general and school districts from across the United States today in challenging the Obama Administration’s new Title IX policy. In the latest example of the Obama Administration’s unlawful executive overreach, which re-interprets the word “sex” to include “gender identity,” Wisconsin’s sovereignty and independence have once again been undermined by the federal government.
“President Obama’s attempts to re-write the laws of our country without congressional consent and approval are not going to be tolerated by the State of Wisconsin,” said Attorney General Schimel. “After discussing with Governor Walker, I have decided to join my colleagues from across the country in challenging the Obama Administration’s latest power grab, which will have a significant impact on Wisconsin, particularly at the University of Wisconsin and Department of Public Instruction.”
Earlier this month, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) issued a “significant guidance letter,” which forces all recipients of Title IX funding to treat an individual according to their “internal sense of gender.” According to the guidance, “gender identity [is] the [individual’s] sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations.” USDOJ argues that Title IX requires those government agencies receiving federal funds under Title IX to treat an individual according to their “internal sense of gender.” While this policy most notably applies to bathrooms and locker rooms at educational institutions, it would also apply to athletics, single-sex classes, and single-sex housing (i.e. dorms).
On the merits, this new policy conflicts with the plain language of Title IX, and is therefore an unlawful interpretation. Title IX does not prohibit “gender identity” discrimination, but sex discrimination.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted a stay of a Dane County Circuit judge’s decision to strike down the state’s Right to Work law, reinstating the law for now while an appeal is pending.
The order by the state District 3 Court of Appeals, based in Wausau, overrules a decision made earlier by Dane County Circuit Judge William Foust to not issue a stay of his own ruling throwing out the law on the grounds that the law unconstitutionally takes property from unions without compensation.
In issuing the stay, presiding judge Lisa Stark said “we conclude the State has established there is sufficient likelihood of success on appeal to warrant the grant of the stay” and that the lower court erred in concluding unions would suffer harm if a stay was issued.
Justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser split with their fellow conservative colleagues, siding with the courts two liberal justices to render a 4-3 decision upholding a ruling from 20 years ago that had solidified the state superintendent’s independence as head of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI).
Gov. Walker signed a law in 2011 that would have given his administration greater power in writing administrative rules on education, a function solely preserved for DPI under this ruling.
Ultimately, the court rejected arguments made by Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel to overturn the decision.
While I dislike the concept of a DPI as a Constitutional position in general, it is in our state’s constitution. If we want to change it, we need to revise our Constitution.
Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell and Milwaukee County Clerk Joe Czarnezki announced on Friday that they would immediately start issuing domestic partnership declarations to opposite-sex couples along with same-sex couples.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, McDonell said, clerks aren’t allowed to discriminate based on gender when granting marriage licenses. The same logic applies to domestic partnership declarations, he said.
“A same-sex couple can choose between a domestic partnership and marriage, but an opposite-gender couple can’t,” McDonell said. “That’s not equal protection under the law.”
But while Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt, R-Fond du Lac, has been critical of the state’s domestic partnership registry for not being open to heterosexual couples, he argued McDonell and Czarnezki are acting “lawlessly.”
Both Thiesfeldt and Wisconsin Family Action president Julaine Appling on Monday called for Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel to seek an injunction against McDonell and Czarnezki.
Remember that Doyle pushed through the domestic registries after Wisconsinite voted to ban gay marriages back in 2006 or so. They were a workaround to give gay folks an option short of marriage. Now that the Supreme Court have overruled the will of the people and allows gay marriage, the original purpose of domestic registries have evaporated. Yet, as with any government program, they continue to exist.
Thiesfeldt is right. These clerks have no authority to change the parameters for domestic registries. They are not a lawmaking entity. They are charged with executing the existing law. So until the legislature changes the law or a court invalidates the law, these clerks are acting well beyond their legal authority.
The simplest solution would be for the legislature to just rescind the domestic registries completely. As I said, the reason for their creation no longer exists. Just end them and the clerks’ actions are moot.
Boom. It seems that Abrahamson has become even more bitter and vindictive since being removed as Chief Justice.
Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote opinions suggesting that Bradley’s decision to participate or not in the decisions without new oral arguments was not a best practice.
She did so again in Thursday’s parental rights case, and that finally triggered a reaction from both Bradley and Chief Justice Patience Roggensack in separate concurring opinions.
“Because Justice Abrahamson has omitted important facts from her separate writings that were well known to her when she personally attacked Justice Rebecca Bradley and because her attacks immediately preceded the election of a justice to our court, it appears that Justice Abrahamson is using the prestige of her judicial office to further private interests,” Roggensack wrote.
She noted that Bradley watched video of the oral argument in tied cases, just like Crooks had when he wasn’t feeling well. And, she said, despite Abrahamson’s repeated suggestion, there is no specific rule about when a new justice can help decide cases, a fact Bradley researched extensively and explained to the court before she helped decide the tied cases.
Washington (CNN)A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the “cost sharing” provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one,” she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
At issue is a fundamental separation of powers issue. If the president can spend billions of tax dollars without Congress having appropriated the money to do so, then there ceases to be a reason for a Congress at all. We’ve vested the power of the purse in the Executive.
A Washington County judge sentenced a 43-yearold Hartford woman who stole thousands of dollars from two nonprofit organizations to three times the amount of jail time recommended by the prosecution. Jennifer L. Horner was sentenced to 90 days in the Washington County Jail on Thursday and five years probation by Judge Todd Martens after she pleaded guilty to one count of theft in a business setting of $10,000 or more, a felony.
Martens told Horner that he wanted to send a message that such crimes will not be tolerated.
“There are a lot of people who are in positions like yours in nonprofits and may be tempted to do what you did,” Martens said. “They need to take their positions of stewardship of donated money seriously and if they don’t, there will be serious consequences.” Horner stole about $45,000 from the Erin School Parent Teacher Council and almost $20,000 from the Erin Baseball Club over a period of several years while serving as volunteer treasurer for both organizations.
Horner faced a second theft charge in relation to the embezzlement from the baseball club but it was dropped as part of a plea agreement. She has paid back the money she took from that group.
She was punished with 90 days in jail and five years on probation. She also now has a felony conviction that will affect the rest of her life and has already started paying restitution. Is that enough for stealing $45k without violence?
I think it’s about right. It serves the purpose of both punishment and deterrence.
This is a good reminder that even those little volunteer organizations can handle a lot of money. It is important to have appropriate financial safeguards in place.
“The name initially announced — the Antonin Scalia School of Law — has caused some acronym controversy on social media,” Mr. Butler wrote, without repeating any of the offending acronyms. “The Antonin Scalia Law School is a logical substitute.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Army captain sued President Barack Obama on Wednesday, alleging that he doesn’t have the proper congressional authority to wage war against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.
Capt. Nathan Michael Smith filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Washington as the president is deploying more special operations forces to the region — and a day after a Navy SEAL was killed in combat in Iraq, the third since a U.S.-led coalition launched its campaign against the Islamic State in the summer of 2014.
Smith supports the war on military and moral grounds and considers the Islamic State an “army of butchers.” But he wants the court to tell Obama that he needs to ask Congress for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
The White House did not comment on the lawsuit.
To fight IS, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations given to President George W. Bush for the war on al-Qaida and the invasion of Iraq. Critics say the White House’s use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations is a legal stretch at best.
I suspect that the courts will be very reluctant to intervene in this separation of powers issue.
There was a bomb threat at the West Bend High Schools yesterday. Here’s what the police reported today:
BOMB SCARE
1305 E. Decorah Rd. West Bend High Schools
On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 at 9:15 a.m. investigators from the West Bend Police Department took a 15 year old female student into custody for a bomb threat that was made at the High School on Monday, May 2, 2016. The 15 year old girl is being detained, and charges of Bomb Scare and Disorderly Conduct are being referred to juvenile authorities.
We would like to thank administrators and staff from the high schools and school district for their quick response to this incident, and for their help in quickly clearing this crime.
Assuming all of that is true, it’s hard to not feel compassion for the kid and her parents. It looks like the kid is struggling and made a bonehead decision – the kind of bonehead decision that is common in 15-year-olds. At the same time, it looks like the parents are solid folks and undoubtedly instilled a sense of right and wrong in their daughter. The kid was smart enough to know that making a bomb threat was wrong and that it was a big deal.
As sad as it might be, the girl must be treated severely. She might be a bit too young to charge as an adult, but it should be considered. Either way, she should serve some jail time for her actions. The only way we are going to prevent kids from making bomb threats to disrupt school is to treat them severely when they do. The consequences must be designed to not only punish the kid who made the threat, but deter all of the other kids who might think of doing the same thing.
On the bright side, it looks like the kid who made the threat is going to have a very bad year, but with the loving support of her family and friends, she has a good chance of coming out of it a better-adjusted adult. Sometimes a lesson learned the hard way while young helps mold some pretty spectacular adults.
