Check out the newest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a group of individuals at the Institute for Justice.
Recently, South Carolina implemented a law offering $6,000 education scholarship accounts for low-income families, allowing them to use the funds for various education expenses. However, a state supreme court ruling has restricted the use of these accounts for private school tuition. As a response, IJ has filed a petition in the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that this new policy goes against important U.S. Supreme Court cases like Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters. Learn more here.
Listen to the latest episode of the Short Circuit podcast where Chicago attorney Patrick Eckler discusses a chaotic Seventh Circuit oral argument.
- Concerns about foreign influence lead to the enactment of the “Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024.” The law faces a First Amendment challenge from TikTok and content creators. D.C. Circuit upholds the law under strict scrutiny.
- Felons challenge disenfranchisement under Virginia law, leading to a Fourth Circuit ruling against sovereign immunity claims.
- The Fourth Circuit issues a strong rebuke to a district court for not dismissing state law claims against school officials.
- The Fourth Circuit halts an interlocutory appeal related to a jail suicide case in Baltimore County.
- The Fifth Circuit grants Texas a preliminary injunction to prevent the removal of wire fencing along the border with Mexico.
- The Seventh Circuit addresses a case involving rival car washes and upholds a life sentence.
- The Seventh Circuit rules on a class-action lawsuit regarding prisoners with gender dysphoria in Illinois.
- The Eighth Circuit addresses a case where SWAT was called in without just cause.
- A George Floyd protest case in Kansas City is ruled upon by the Eighth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews Idaho’s law on “abortion trafficking” and doctors assisting with abortions.
AG: I understand that my name was on that letter, but it was actually drafted by my assistant [who is unfortunately unavailable now]. Who cares about my opinion anyway? I’m just a regular guy, you know?
Ninth Circuit: As the state’s chief law enforcement officer, you are bound by the injunction.
When the losing party in a Ninth Circuit decision seeks certiorari, the mandate is issued, and the case goes back to the district court. The parties agree to stay proceedings while waiting for the cert petition to be resolved. However, the district court insists on moving forward with the trial despite the mandate. The parties then request the Ninth Circuit to recall the mandate to help resolve the situation. Ninth Circuit: Recalling the mandate is a last resort and was a foreseeable situation. The district court can still choose to stay the case.
Several members of a Miami-based gang, including an individual known as “The Real Rico,” are convicted of RICO offenses. Was it wrong for the lower court to exclude expert testimony suggesting that the defendants were not part of an organized criminal enterprise but just a group of individuals? Eleventh Circuit (with a partial dissent): Yes, and the government failed to address whether the exclusion was harmless error. The RICO convictions are set aside and remanded.
On the en banc front, the Eighth Circuit will revisit its previous ruling that a Springfield, Mo. school district did not violate the First Amendment by mandating employees to attend “equity training” that contradicted their beliefs. Employees were required to complete quizzes reflecting the district’s views, even if they disagreed, and were told they were wrong for expressing certain opinions. The panel found that the plaintiffs’ self-censorship was based on speculative fears, not raising a First Amendment claim.
In state court news, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has allowed state constitutional claims against a Jacksonville, N.C. ordinance banning food trucks in most of the city to proceed. The court found the ban, which benefits restaurants, violates the North Carolina Constitution’s prohibition on preferential treatment. This ruling supports the right to earn a living, and the case will continue. (This case is from IJ.)
For years, the Pasco County, Fla. sheriff’s office used a flawed algorithm to target individuals deemed likely to commit future crimes, resulting in harassment of families in hopes of driving them out of the county. Deputies conducted intrusive checks, harassed individuals at home and work, and issued unwarranted citations. After three years of litigation, Sheriff Chris Nocco admitted to violating the Constitution and agreed not to repeat such actions. The county has made a court-enforceable commitment to avoid similar practices in the future. Learn more here.
Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
