Category: Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Expands State Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

In a 5-4 opinion issued Wednesday in Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta, No. 21-429, the Supreme Court expanded the authority of States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives in Indian country without tribal consent or congressional authorization, upending a long-standing basic principle of Federal Indian Law and striking a blow to tribal sovereignty. Under federal law, “Indian country” has been interpreted as including Indian reservations, dependent Indian communities, Indian allotments, In Lieu sites (land outside reservation boundaries meant to replace lost Indian lands), and tribal trust lands. The majority opinion in Castro-Huerta, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that States presumptively have “inherent” jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country and “do not need a permission slip from Congress to exercise their sovereign authority,” dismissing the Court’s prior statements to the contrary as non-binding dicta. After concluding States presumptively have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, the majority found that the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1152, did not preempt that jurisdiction for crimes committed by non-Natives against Natives in Indian country. As a result, States now have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute crimes committed by non-Natives against Natives in Indian country.

Castro-Huerta involved the prosecution of Defendant Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, who was convicted in an Oklahoma State court of a crime against a Native child. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), in which the Court concluded much of Oklahoma is Indian country, Castro-Huerta successfully argued that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he committed his crime in Indian country. The State appellate court’s decision in Castro-Huerta’s favor followed the interpretation of the General Crimes Act that has prevailed since the statute’s 1948 reenactment. Under that interpretation, only the federal government has authority to prosecute non-Native individuals who commit crimes against Native individuals in Indian country.

Arguing before the Supreme Court, Oklahoma claimed that the prevailing interpretation is incorrect, and the majority agreed. The Court began its analysis by describing the details of Castro-Huerta’s crime and noting that of the 2 million people who live in Oklahoma, “the vast majority are not Indians.” Op. at 2. The Court also noted that Castro-Huerta had accepted a plea agreement with the federal government for a 7-year sentence followed by removal from the United States (he was in the United States unlawfully), receiving, in effect, a 28-year reduction in his sentence. Op. at 3. The majority stated that his case “exemplifies a now-familiar pattern in Oklahoma in the wake of McGirt” in which non-Indian criminals have received “lighter sentences in plea deals negotiated with the Federal Government” or have “simply gone free.” Op. at 3-4.

Citing the United States Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions for the proposition that Indian reservations are “part of the surrounding State” and subject to State jurisdiction except as forbidden by federal law, the majority concluded that an “overarching jurisdictional principle dating back to the 1800s” is that “States have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country unless preempted.” Op. at 5-6.

The majority then considered whether the State’s authority to prosecute non-Native v. Native crimes in Indian country had been preempted under the “ordinary principles of federal preemption” or because “the exercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government.” Op. at 7. The majority found that the plain text of the General Crimes Act did not expressly provide for exclusive federal jurisdiction. Op. at 7-14. It then rejected Castro-Huerta’s argument that Public-Law 83-280 and similar statutes through which Congress authorized certain States to exercise jurisdiction in Indian country demonstrated Congress’s understanding that States presumptively lack such authority. The majority reasoned that, despite what Congress might have assumed, the question had not yet been decided and the statutes in question lacked language preempting State jurisdiction. Op. at 16-18. The statutes also provided for civil jurisdiction and State jurisdiction over Natives, in addition to criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives, so they were not entirely redundant.

Turning next to whether the exercise of State jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government, the majority applied the “Bracker balancing test,” which weighs tribal, federal, and state interests, and is generally used to determine whether a state tax is preempted when assessed against a non-Native on tribal land. The majority concluded that the Bracker factors supported State jurisdiction, dismissing any tribal preference for federal jurisdiction as irrelevant to the Court’s analysis, Op. 19 n.6, Op. 20 n. 7. Concluding the State’s inherent jurisdiction had not been preempted, the majority noted in its holding that, “Unless preempted, States may exercise jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country,” and this “applies throughout the United States,” including on Indian allotments. Op. 24 n.9.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, pushed back against the majority’s opinion, suggesting any future analysis would need to consider the specific context of each tribe, its treaties, and relevant laws. Dissent at 40-41 n.10. The dissent, appealing for a legislative fix, accused the majority of ignoring history, congressional action, precedent, and tribal sovereignty, and usurping “congressional decisions about the appropriate balance between federal, tribal, and state interests.” Dissent at 38.

Article By Charlene Koski of Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more tribal law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Van Ness Feldman LLP

Abortion-Related Travel Benefits Post-Dobbs

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson returning the power to regulate abortion to the states, a number of large employers announced that they would offer out-of-state travel benefits for employees living in states where abortion-related medical care is unavailable. Employers considering offering abortion-related travel benefits have several key considerations to keep in mind. The law currently allows health plans to provide reimbursement for travel primarily for and essential to medical care. Although this area of the law is evolving, employers with self-funded medical plans may amend their existing medical plans to provide abortion-related travel benefits while those with fully insured medical plans may face more obstacles in providing such benefits.

In Dobbs v. Jackson, an abortion clinic challenged a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. In establishing the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court restricted states in their ability to limit or ban abortions before viability of the fetus, or 24 weeks from the time of conception. In upholding the Mississippi law, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and held that the protection or regulation of abortion is a decision for each state.

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have already banned or made abortion illegal pursuant to trigger laws which went into effect as of the Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022.  Also, a number of additional states are expected to soon have similar legislation in effect, either by virtue of expected legislative action or trigger laws with slightly delayed effective dates.  In response, a number of employers have announced that they will reimburse all or a portion of abortion-related travel expenses for employees in states where abortions are banned or otherwise not available.

Under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “medical care” includes transportation that is both “primarily for and essential to” the medical care sought by an individual. These types of travel benefits have historically been utilized in connection with certain specialized medical treatments, such as organ transplants.  However, Section 213(d) is not limited to particular types of procedures, and thus forms the framework for providing abortion-related travel benefits through existing medical plans.

Although Code Section 213(d) applies to both self-insured and insured medical plans, the substantive coverage provisions of insured medical plans will generally be governed by the state insurance code of the state in which the insurance policy is issued.  Coverage for abortion services or any related travel benefits may not be permitted under the insurance code of the state in which the policy is issued, or an insurer may not offer a travel benefit for such services even if permitted to do so.  Self-insured plans, by contrast, provide employers more flexibility in plan design, including control, consistent with existing federal requirements, over the types and levels of benefits covered under the plan. As noted above, existing plans may already cover travel-related benefits for certain types of medical procedures.

Employers with high-deductible health plans tied to health savings accounts (HSAs) will need to consider the impact of adding abortion-related travel benefits to such plans.  Travel-related benefits of any type would not appear to be eligible for first dollar coverage, and thus may be of minimal benefit to participants enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Employers with fully insured medical plans that do not cover abortion-related travel benefits may be able to offer a medical travel reimbursement program through an integrated health reimbursement arrangement (HRA).  An integrated HRA is an employer-funded group health plan from which employees enrolled in the employer’s traditional group medical insurance plan are reimbursed for qualifying expenses not paid by the traditional plan.

Another potential option for employers with fully insured medical plans may be to offer a stipend entirely outside of any established group health plan. Such reimbursement programs may result in taxable compensation for employees who receive such reimbursements. Also, employers would need to be sensitive to privacy and confidentiality considerations of such a policy, which should generally be minimized if offered in accordance with the existing protections of HIPAA through a medical plan and under which claims are processed by an insurer or third-party administrator rather than by the employer itself.

Additionally, some state laws may attempt to criminalize or otherwise sanction so-called aiding and abetting actions related to the procurement of abortion services in another state.  This is an untested area of the law, and it is unclear whether any actions brought under such statutes would be legally viable.  In this regard, Justice Kavanaugh stated as follows in his concurring opinion in Dobbs:  “For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” (Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion, page 10.)  This is an area that will require continual monitoring by employers who offer abortion-related travel benefits.

Article By Thomas G. Hancuch, Philip L. Mowery, and Amal Rafiq of Vedder Price

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Vedder Price

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Public High School Coach in Free Speech/Freedom of Religion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which will have wide-ranging effects on the ability of governmental entities to react to religious and other speech of public employees. In Kennedy v. Bremerton Schools, the Court ruled that a public high school could not discipline or disfavor a football coach for his practice of kneeling on the 50-yard line and praying at the conclusion of each game, eventually growing to include most of the football team and opposing players as well. The school district had attempted to accommodate the coach’s desire for prayer, but concerns mounted when one parent complained that her son felt compelled to participate despite being an atheist. The coach was eventually placed on administrative leave and not extended an offer to return to coaching the next school year. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the coach’s First Amendment challenges.

With a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court reversed. In doing so, the Court first found a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.  The Court discounted the school district’s stated concerns that the coach’s practice could violate the Establishment Clause or interfere with students’ right of free exercise. The Court held that absent evidence of “direct” coercion the Establishment Clause was not implicated and then concluded that the coach’s position of authority over the players was insufficient to constitute direct coercion.  The Court distinguished earlier cases involving prayers at football games and civic meetings, by emphasizing that the speech for which the coach was disciplined was not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience. Additionally, students were not required or formally expected to participate.

With respect to the Free Speech issue, the Court concluded that the coach’s prayers were not unprotected “government speech,” and in doing so applied a restrictive view of what could be considered “government speech.”  The Court held that because the coach’s job duties did not include leading prayers, the fact that the speech occurred on the field immediately after the game was insufficient to transform it from private speech to government speech.  “To hold differently,” the Court stated, “would be to treat religious expression as second-class speech and eviscerate this Court’s repeated promise that teachers do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’”

The decision, together with Shurtleff v. Boston decided earlier this Term, suggests a sharp break with past Court jurisprudence on the balance between the dictates of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.  Government entities should review their policies on religious activity on government property or by employees in connection with their positions in light of these two decisions.

Article By Ahmad Chehab, Scott R. Eldridge, and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield

For more civil rights legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Constitutionality of FTC’s Structure and Procedures Under SCOTUS Review

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have authority to enforce Section 7 of the Clayton Act by investigating and challenging mergers where the effect of such transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

However, the enforcement paths of these two federal agencies differ markedly. DOJ pursues all aspects of its enforcement actions in the federal court system. The FTC, on the other hand, only uses the federal district courts to seek injunctive relief, but otherwise follows its own internal administrative process that combines the investigatory, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and appellate functions within a single agency.

Whether a transaction is subjected to DOJ or FTC review is determined by a “clearance” process with no public visibility. To many, including entities in the health care industry—and, in particular, parties to hospital mergers that are now routinely “cleared” to the FTC (exemplified by two recently filed enforcement actions against hospitals in New Jersey and Utah)—this process appears to be arbitrary. It is also particularly daunting because the FTC has not lost an administrative action in over a quarter-century. Because of the one-sided nature and duration of these administrative proceedings, most enforcement actions brought against merging hospitals rise or fall at the injunctive relief stage. This process also appears to embolden the FTC into taking unprecedented actions, including the pursuit of enforcement remedies against parties to abandoned transactions.

However, this may soon change. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that raises a forceful constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure and procedures. The Supreme Court recently agreed to combine the briefing schedule of this case with a similar case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the administrative process of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The outcome of these cases may fundamentally alter the FTC’s enforcement process.

Article By E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust and trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Considers Religious Exemptions to Nondiscrimination Laws

On November 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the most recent case to address how the First Amendment’s Religious Free Exercise Clause interacts with antidiscrimination laws as applied to religious entities. The case centers on foster care and certification of couples to be foster parents, but the case could have wide-ranging impacts on public accommodation and employment law, especially in the field of government contracts.

When the City of Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services removes children from their parents’ homes, it seeks to place those children temporarily with foster parents. But the city does not find those foster parents itself. Rather, it contracts with private agencies like Catholic Social Services to find suitable foster parents. The private organizations are responsible for doing home visits and the other steps necessary to approve individuals and couples as foster parents, and the city pays them for these services. In 2018, Catholic Social Services admitted to the City that it would not consider any same-sex couples as potential foster parents, which the City concluded was a violation of both its Fair Practices Ordinance and the terms of the contract between the City and Catholic Social Services. Thus, the City stated that it would only renew Catholic Social Services’ contract for certifying foster parents if the organization agreed to consider same-sex couples on the same grounds as opposite-sex couples. Catholic Social Services refused and sued the City, claiming that the City infringed on its right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

The City won in both the federal district and appeals courts, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer three questions relating to what a free exercise plaintiff must prove to win a discrimination case, whether the Supreme Court should overturn its prior case Employment Division v. Smith, and what conditions a government agency can place on its contracts with private agencies.

Employment Division v. Smith and the Current State of Free Exercise Law

Employment Division v. Smith, decided in 1990, dealt with two men who were fired from their jobs at a drug rehabilitation center because they had used peyote, which was against state law, and were then denied unemployment benefits since they had been fired for misconduct. But the men had used peyote as part of a religious ceremony, and claimed that the state violated the First Amendment when it denied them unemployment benefits based on their religious use of peyote. In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibited governments from singling out religious conduct for regulation, but did not require governments to create religious exemptions from all of its laws. As long as the law was generally applicable to all religious and non-religious individuals alike, and neutral toward religion, meaning not intended to interfere with religious practice, the law met the requirements of the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, as long as Oregon’s peyote ban applied to all citizens, not just members of a certain religious group, and as long as that law was written for a neutral reason like promoting health and safety as opposed to a legislative desire to stop a religious practice, the law was constitutional and could be applied to both religious and non-religious individuals. The fact that the law incidentally infringed on religious practice did not make it invalid.

Congress responded to Employment Division v. Smith by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or RFRA. This bill stated that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” It introduced a requirement that a person with a religious objection to a law must be exempted from that law unless the government had a compelling interest in passing the law, and the law was the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. This test is known as strict scrutiny, and is very difficult to meet, although religious employers do not always win when they invoke RFRA. For example in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, where the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, one of the employers had made a RFRA claim which failed in the lower court because Title VII did not substantially burden the employer’s religious exercise and met strict scrutiny regardless. Additionally, many federal circuits only apply RFRA to cases in which the federal government is a party, such as when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brings the action to enforce Title VII, but not when a private employee files the lawsuit.

While RFRA originally applied to both state and federal laws, the Supreme Court later said that it could only apply to federal laws. This meant that while federal laws would have to either meet RFRA’s strict scrutiny test or create religious exemptions, state laws only had to meet Employment Division v. Smith’s test that they be neutral toward religion and generally applicable to everyone—or whatever higher standard the state sets for its own laws.

Revisiting Employment Division v. Smith

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, both sides argue that they can win under Employment Division v. Smith. The City of Philadelphia argues that its requirements that foster care agencies not discriminate against potential parents based on sexual orientation, as contained in its Fair Practices Ordinance and the service contracts, are generally applicable to all foster care agencies, and have the neutral goal of stopping discrimination as opposed to infringing on religious practice. Catholic Social Services claims that the nondiscrimination provisions are intended to infringe on religious practices, and that they are not generally applied by the city, which allows foster care agencies to consider other protected categories like race and disability in narrow circumstances, but do not provide an exception to the sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy for religious objectors.

But in the event that argument fails, Catholic Social Services also asked the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and to replace that precedent with the strict scrutiny standard established by RFRA. A decision by the Supreme Court that the First Amendment requires religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability unless the law is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling governmental interest would not only extend the strict scrutiny test to state and local laws like the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, it would elevate it from a legislative mandate that any future Congress can overturn to a constitutional holding that only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment could undo. It would also go against legislative and judicial history tracing back to our country’s founding, which traditionally indicates that the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from neutral and generally applicable laws, as First Amendment scholars argued in an amicus brief, and as Justice Scalia noted in Employment Division v. Smith itself.

Control over Government Contracts

Another dimension of the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case is that the City is acting not only as a regulator enforcing its Fair Practices Ordinance, but also as a market participant paying—or not paying—Catholic Social Services to perform a vital function on behalf of the city government. And the Supreme Court has stated in various cases that a government has the power to decide how it wants its work to be carried out by private contractors, even if there is some conflict with religious exercise. So, if that principle is followed, even if the Fair Practices Ordinance were required to include an exemption for those who religiously oppose same-sex marriage, the City could still grant contracts for its foster care program only to those organizations that agree not to discriminate against same-sex couples. Catholic Social Services argues that this too would violate the First Amendment, and that governments must grant exceptions to contractors based on honestly held religious beliefs.

Possible Impacts of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia on Employment Law

With a six to three conservative majority on the high Court, it is likely that Catholic Social Services will win this case, although it is far from clear on what ground the Court will base its decision. At oral argument the Justices spent little time asking about whether they should overrule Employment Division v. Smith, which indicates that they may take a more moderate approach such as narrowing the situations in which Smith applies or introducing some sort of balancing test for courts to apply when religious beliefs conflict with nondiscrimination laws. But whatever ground it rules on, the decision is likely to chip away at employment protections for workers in at least some contexts, as the decision will apply not only to organizations discriminating against clients, but also against employers discriminating against employees, based on their religious beliefs.

A full overruling of Smith would mean that all state, local, and federal employment nondiscrimination laws must include exemptions for religious employers based on their firmly held religious beliefs. A ruling that governments must provide such exceptions in their contracts with private entities would allow greater discrimination in a huge portion of the economy. In fiscal year 2019 the federal government entered into nearly six million contracts for services from private entities, spending almost $600 billion on those contracts. The federal, state, and local governments contract with private entities for a huge range of things, from production of military supplies and energy to provision of day care through Head Start and running private prisons. As a group of businesses ranging from tech giants Apple and Google to retailers Macy’s and Levi Strauss argued in an amicus brief, a ruling for Catholic Social Services could create unfair competition for government contracts where employers with religious objections—ranging from entities like Catholic Social Services, which is run by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, to corporations like Hobby Lobby that are owned by a small number of religious adherents—are not required to comply with all neutral laws, and could make it difficult to recruit employees to locations where those employees might be denied public services by the only government contractor in town. And as 160 members of Congress argued, an expansion of religious exemptions would greatly infringe on Congress’s ability to eradicate discrimination, especially in the contracts it funds through taxpayer money.

And as the City of Philadelphia stressed at oral argument, these exemptions for religious employers and service providers would not only pertain to sexual orientation discrimination. Rather, religious entities would be allowed to discriminate against employees and clients based on any sincerely held religious belief, including beliefs about the superiority of certain religions, genders, or races. And while everyone was in agreement that the government has a compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination, meaning that a ban on race discrimination would pass strict scrutiny against religious objections, the attorneys representing Catholic Social Services would not state whether the government had a compelling interest in eradicating other forms of discrimination, a question that is less clear from prior Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court’s decisions on the “Ministerial Exception” already allow religious employers to discriminate on any grounds against those employees they consider ministers, such as teachers in a Catholic school who play a role in spreading the faith, but this decision could expand the license to discriminate beyond those who qualify as “ministers.” The Supreme Court explicitly declined to address the employer’s religious objections to Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, but a ruling in Fulton could fill in that gap now that the question of religious objections to neutral laws is properly before the Court.

Decisions from the Supreme Court involving LGBTQ rights typically come out at the end of the term in June, but the Court’s decision could be published any time between now and then.

Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP
For more articles on SCOTUS, visit the National Law Review Litigation / Trial Practice section

Lawsuits for Illegal Strip Searches

DETROIT — Strip searches are routinely performed by law enforcement officers of all types. This ranges from police to prison guards, as well as to TSA agents at airports in the United States.

Private security guards also perform strip searches, including in malls and retail stores.

While some strip searches are legal, others violate the person’s constitutional rights. In general, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A public officer or private guard cannot simply conduct a strip search without a proper legal basis. When an illegal strip search occurs, the victim can file a lawsuit seeking compensation for the violation of protected rights.

The basis for most illegal strip search lawsuits is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The text of the Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The key words in the Fourth Amendment as it relates to an unlawful search are “unreasonable” and “probable cause.” Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. An officer does not have the right to search a person simply because there was a basis for stopping that person. In fact, most illegal strip searches are performed on people who are legitimately stopped or apprehended, but there is no legal basis to perform a subsequent search.

The main requirement is if the person being searched had a reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy. Probable cause is required only when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. When a search is disputed, what is “reasonable” is often determined by a judge or jury.

There are often even disputes as to what constitutes a strip search in the first place.

Different parties often have varying definitions of what constitutes a strip search. And, the context of each type of search may vary from one person to another.

For example, a prison guard performing a strip search may have one definition in mind that involves a physical search of the inmate’s body.  Others may have broader definitions as to what they define as a strip search.  Case law, both state and federal, have examined a variety of situations and fact patterns and their decisions form the basis of what is legal and what is not.

Some case law holds that complete nudity is required to be constituted as a strip search. Other cases hold that it is a lesser degree, and that a strip search can be illegal without the person being totally naked. There are many cases that also address the degree of the search itself and how invasive it is on the person being searched. This can vary on the type of crime suspected and the urgency to perform the search to preserve potential evidence against the person.

There have been many illegal strip search lawsuits filed throughout the United States. Most are based upon violations of the Fourth Amendment when asserted against a governmental agency, or person acting on behalf of the government. Other claims are brought under an invasion of privacy theory, and this theory is frequently used in cases against private individuals and entities.

In addition, there have been several class action lawsuits filed by prisoners and inmates at correctional facilities.   These cases allege that a large number of inmates were illegal searched by prison staff and correction officers. Several of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial class action settlements, including a $ 53 million settlement against Los Angeles County for illegal strip searches of thousands of women by law enforcement personnel.

Individual lawsuits seek compensatory damages for the harm suffered by the victim.  This includes both physical pain and suffering as well as mental anguish. The damages inflicted upon the victim often cause serious and permanent psychological harm.

Lawsuits hold the wrongdoers accountable for violating a person’s constitutional rights.  They also serve as a deterrence to future unlawful actions.  This helps to protect every person’s right to be free from an unlawful search and curbs systematic illegal actions of law enforcement.

Sources:

https://www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/margoschlanger/Documents/Publications/Jail_Strip-Search_Cases.pdf

https://buckfirelaw.com/case-types/sexual-abuse/illegal-strip-search/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-says-jails-can-strip-search-you-even-traffic

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2013_vol_39/may_2013_n2_privacy/upending_human_dignity_fourth_amendment/

Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. 2020
For more articles on the Fourth Amendment, visit the National Law Review Constitutional Law section.

The Intersection of Libel Law and Politics

Libel Commentary

Since its beginning, the American Republic has debated sedition, free speech, and protection of reputation. After we cut our British roots we ensured our right to criticize our leaders, the politicians who control our government. The British crown demanded loyalty of its printers, but American courts would not tolerate such prosecutions as the notion of a truly free press emerged.

Today, we are witnessing an intense intersection of politics and libel law unlike anything we’ve seen since the 1960s. Politicians are suing for libel damages and being sued. The current overlap of politics and libel includes a push by the president of the United States to change libel law. Those who seek change, including President Trump, say they want to make it easier for plaintiffs to prevail and collect damages. Careful what you wish for, though, because such change would ease the path for plaintiffs seeking to collect damages from public officials such as Donald Trump.

Heading into the 2020 election, the Trump campaign filed three lawsuits in a 10-day period against mainstream media.

Legal scholars and pundits have opined that Trump’s pending libel complaints against The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN are weak or even dead on arrival. These analysts point out that Trump’s campaign is seeking damages due to political opinions, which are protected speech under the First Amendment.

As a life-long public figure and now public official, Trump (his re-election campaign is the plaintiff) must prove that the media defendants acted with actual malice, that is, reckless disregard for the truth or that they published information knowing it was false. The actual malice standard is well established through the First Amendment by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964.

Win or lose in court, the president’s libel lawsuits also are political messaging, dramatic actions that complement his anti-press rhetoric. The stories about the libel suits are arguably more effective than the libel suits themselves in the president’s battles to discredit the mainstream press. In addition to political messaging, libel claims – even when they fail in court — can be a form of punishment.

Historical Context

Presidential involvement in libel litigation is rare, but not unprecedented. President Theodore Roosevelt was irritated by published allegations of corruption in the sale of the Panama Canal. He pushed the Justice Department to prosecute publisher Joseph Pulitzer and other newspapermen for criminal libel. Courts later quashed indictments.

After his presidency, Roosevelt was sued for libel by a New York political figure (William Barnes) who objected to being called corrupt by Roosevelt. The jury trial, in Syracuse in 1915, was grist for Dan Abrams’ book “Theodore Roosevelt for the Defense.” The jury ruled in Roosevelt’s favor; he seemed to thrive in legal combat, the book says.

Fifteen years ago, there was speculation about the prospect of President George W. Bush suing the National Enquirer. The Enquirer published a report based on unnamed sources who claimed that pressures of the job led Bush to drink, even though he said he gave up alcohol on his 40th birthday.

“The president would be exceptionally ill-advised to file suit over this story, even if he knows . . . it’s false,” wrote First Amendment lawyer Julie Hilden in 2005.

She suggested such a suit would likely fail because its “actual malice” claim appeared to be weak. Plus, she warned, the suit would expose the president to civil discovery. Bush did not sue.

After the 1964 election, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater successfully sued Fact Magazine and its publisher for an article questioning Goldwater’s mental fitness to hold office (Goldwater v. Ginzburg). Federal courts found that Goldwater’s complaint met the actual malice standard, awarding $75,000. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1970, declined to hear the case.

Trump’s Track Record

In seven earlier speech-related cases filed by Donald Trump or his companies before he became president, four were dismissed on the merits, two were voluntarily withdrawn, and one was an arbitration won by Trump by default. These findings were compiled by Susan E. Seager, a First Amendment attorney who teaches media law at University of Southern California. Indeed, this appears to be a way of life for the highly litigious Trump, who has been involved in approximately 4,000 legal battles over the past 30 years, both as a plaintiff and defendant. An exhaustive analysis by USA Today detailed those seven libel cases where he initiated the lawsuits and seven more where he was named defendant. These don’t even include the threats of suits, the so-called “I’ll sue you” effect that can too often chill speech.

A common thread of these cases is the pursuit of jumbo damages. Trump alleged $5 billion in damages (in New Jersey state court) because author Timothy O’Brien and his book publishers cast doubt on the size of the real estate mogul’s wealth. Trump lost after five years of litigation but assessed the outcome this way to The Washington Post: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees but they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make [O’Brien’s] life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

Judicial Nominations

Judicial appointments are a priority for the Trump Administration. Interestingly, a judge nominated by the president in 2018 dismissed (with prejudice) a case filed by a Republican congressman.

On August 5, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge C.J. Williams of the Northern District of Iowa dismissed Congressman Devin Nunes’ defamation complaint against Esquire writer Ryan Lizza and its publisher. The judge said published criticism of Nunes (R-CA) was not actionable (Devin G. Nunes v. Ryan Lizza and Hearst Magazine Media, Inc).

Interestingly, part of this recent case deals directly with President Trump and his tweets. I’ll quote Judge Willliams’ opinion regarding Trump’s tweet that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower:”

First, to the extent defendants assert President Trump “made up” the tweet,

the statement is not of an concerning plaintiff (Nunes). Second, plaintiff has

not alleged that the statement is false. Third, even if the statement is factually inaccurate, the statement that plaintiff’s theory about surveillance of the Trump campaign “began” with President Trump’s tweet is not defamatory.

Other Political Cases

Sarah Palin, John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate in 2008, sued The New York Times for defamation, claiming that a 2017 editorial maliciously associated her with a mass shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). A federal judge dismissed her case, but a 3-0 panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, thus reviving the case (Sarah Palin v. The New York Times).

Besides the characters involved – and the reversal in federal court – this case is interesting because The New York Times published a correction: “An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.”

To prevail, Palin – a public figure — must show that the newspaper acted with actual malice.

Meanwhile, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” Summer Zervos sued President Trump in 2017 claiming she was defamed because candidate Trump said her allegations of his sexual misconduct in 2007 were lies. In 2019, a 3-2 majority of a New York State appeals court rejected the argument from Trump’s counsel that a sitting president cannot be sued in state court (Zervos v. Trump).

In addition to its spotlight on the Supremacy Clause, the Zervos lawsuit also examines the boundaries of opinion-as-defense in defamation disputes. Trump’s lawyers argue that his campaign rhetoric and opinions are protected by the First Amendment.

Nicholas Sandmann, a student at Covington Catholic High School in northern Kentucky, alleged that he was defamed by news coverage and social media sharing of accounts of his encounter near the Lincoln Memorial with a Native American activist in early 2019. Sandmann sued The Washington Post for $250 million; NBC and CNN for $275 million each.  CNN and The Washington Post settled for undisclosed terms.

Are media rattled by all this litigation? Yes, I think that’s pretty apparent. How could they not be in this anti-press environment? Libel claims are part of a general, overarching criticism of press, reporting the news, and media prerogatives.

From a bottom-line standpoint, media must pay for legal defense. Newspaper publisher McClatchy — a defendant in one of Congressman Devin Nunes’ myriad libel suits — filed for bankruptcy in February. The Poynter Institute for journalism published commentary in 2019 that McClatchy could hire 10 reporters for the money it would spend on the Nunes lawsuit.

A small newspaper in Iowa (Carroll Times Herald) won a libel case but created a GoFundMe appeal in 2019 because the legal defense drained its resources. Response to the solicitation — mainly small donations, from across the country — was impressive.

Most certainly the Sandmann cases have drained considerable resources from some of the most noted media companies in the country as those out-of-court settlements show.

Non-political Cases

We also see a flurry of high-dollar claims not directly related to political speech.

On August 14, the unanimous North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a jury’s libel decision against the Raleigh newspaper (Beth Desmond v. The News & Observer Publishing Company). The Ohio private liberal arts Oberlin College is appealing the whopping $44 million in damages awarded to a local bakery stemming from an alleged shoplifting attempt by three African American students (Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College). Rolling Stone paid dearly for its flawed article about a campus rape at the University of Virginia.

Is libel law likely to change?

Fundamental change is not likely in the near future. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested it’s time for the Supreme Court to examine/roll back the New York Times v. Sullivan standard created in 1964. The premise is that current strict standards intended to protect free speech and free press make it nearly impossible for public figures and public officials to prevail in libel cases.

Justice Thomas’ colleagues on the Court have not publicly joined him in urging review of Sullivan.

Libel cases are percolating in federal and state courts that eventually could ripen for Supreme Court review. The Roberts Court has been protective of speech, including commercial and political speech, such as:

  • Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 (political contributions)
  • Snyder v. Phelps, 2010 (picketing at funerals)
  • Sorrell v. IMS Health, 2011 (data mining, drug marketing)
  • Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 2015 (sign regulations cannot be based on content)
  • Matal v. Tam, 2017 (trademarks)​

We all can be grateful that American libel law does not mirror British libel law, where the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Surely by now we have all seen the clickbait coverage of actor Johnny Depp’s libel case against The Sun (Johnny Depp v. News Group Newspapers) for its 2018 reportage of his contentious divorce, which included a headline calling him a “wife beater.”

American libel law is not British libel law. And we need to keep it that way.

© Aimee Edmondson, PhD

Article by Aimee Edmondson, PhD E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University and National Law Review Guest Contributor.
For more on free speech, see the National Law Review Constitutional Law section.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Has the Supreme Court Tamed or Empowered the CFPB?

On June 26, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,1 finally resolving the question that has dogged the new agency since its inception:  Is the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) constitutional?  Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the CFPB structure—“an independent agency that wields significant executive power and is run by a single individual who cannot be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met”—violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.2  

For financial services companies regulated by the CFPB, the most important aspect of Seila Law is not the headline constitutional defect, but the remedy.  Choosing “a scalpel rather than a bulldozer,”3 the Court did not invalidate the CFPB.  The Court held 7-2 that the Director’s constitutionally offensive removal protection could be severed from the CFPB’s other authorities, thus bringing the Director (and with her, the CFPB) under Presidential control, while leaving the CFPB’s other powers in place.4

While Seila Law  is an important case in the evolving doctrine of separation of powers as applied to independent agencies, the case has three immediate consequences for financial services companies.  First, the CFPB is here to stay, and its broad authorities and other controversial aspects (such as its insulation from Congressional appropriations) remain intact.  Second, the CFPB’s Director is now directly accountable to the President, significantly raising the stakes in the 2020 election for the agency’s regulatory and enforcement agenda.  Third, the Court left one important question unanswered:  it declined to address the effect of its ruling on prior CFPB rules and enforcement actions.  While we believe the agency will attempt to cure the constitutional defect, we expect continued litigation—and uncertainty—on this issue.

Background

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), creating the CFPB as an independent financial regulator within the Federal Reserve System.5  The CFPB has expansive authority to “implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law,” which includes 19 enumerated federal consumer-protection statutes and the Dodd-Frank Act’s broad prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices.6  The CFPB’s authority over consumer financial products and services includes rulemaking authority with respect to the enumerated statutes, the ability to issue orders, including orders prohibiting products and services which it concludes are “abusive” or substantively unfair, as well as the power to impose significant financial penalties on financial services companies.  The CFPB is funded through the Federal Reserve System, and thus is not subject to Congressional constraint through the appropriations process.  Although technically housed within the Federal Reserve System, the CFPB also is not subject to oversight or control by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  As a result, the CFPB was created to be an independent agency, largely unconstrained by Congress or the Federal Reserve System.  The CFPB is headed by a single Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a five-year term.7  The Director may be removed by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”8  

In 2017, the CFPB issued a civil investigative demand to Seila Law LLC, a California-based law firm that provides debt-related legal services to consumers.  Seila Law refused to comply, objecting that concentrating the CFPB’s authority in a single Director with for-cause removal protection violated the separation of powers doctrine.  The CFPB filed a petition to enforce its demand in federal district court.  The district court rejected Seila Law’s constitutional objection and ordered the law firm to comply with the demand.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.9

Case Analysis: Seila Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-Director structure.  That decision was telling in and of itself, given that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was in accord with PHH Corporation v. CFPB, the D.C. Circuit’s en banc opinion upholding the Director’s removal protection.10  As many had expected, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Congress’s restriction on the President’s power to remove the CFPB’s Director violated the separation of powers doctrine. 

The Court began its analysis from the premise that Article II of the Constitution gives the entire executive power to the President alone, “who must ‘take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”11  Lesser officers who aid the President in his or her duties “must remain accountable to the President, whose authority they wield.”12  The President’s power to remove these lesser officers at will is foundational to the President’s executive function and “has long been confirmed by history and precedent.”13  The Court held that “[w]hile we have previously upheld limits on the President’s removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power.”14  The Court found that the CFPB’s Director fit that bill.  In creating the CFPB, Congress “vest[ed] significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one.”15  Such an agency “has no basis in history and no place in our constitutional structure.”16 

Next, the Court turned to the remedy.  Seila Law argued that the Director’s unconstitutional removal protection rendered the “entire agency … unconstitutional and powerless to act.”17  The Court disagreed.  Relying on the Dodd-Frank Act’s severability clause, the Court’s severability precedent, and the proposition that “Congress would have preferred a dependent CFPB to no agency at all,” the Court ruled that the Director’s removal protection is severable from the CFPB’s other statutory authorities.18  “The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will.”19  

Finally, the Court expressly declined to address how its holding affects prior CFPB regulatory and enforcement actions.  The government had argued that the Court need not reach the constitutional question because the CFPB’s demand to Seila Law had since been ratified by an Acting Director accountable to the President.20  The Court remanded the question of ratification to the lower courts, noting that it “turns on case-specific factual and legal questions not addressed below and not briefed here.”21

Implications

Seila Law is an important case for the canons of administrative law and the separation of powers doctrine.  But for financial services companies regulated by the CFPB, it has meaningful (and immediate) practical consequences.

First, the CFPB has escaped Supreme Court review with its authorities basically untouched.  Absent Congressional action, the CFPB will (i) continue to be run by a single Director, (ii) continue to wield expansive rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over the multi-trillion dollar market for consumer financial products and services, and (iii) continue to be insulated from Congressional control via the appropriations process.

Second, the CFPB’s Director is now directly accountable to the President—whoever that person may be.  Typically, financial regulators have a measure of insulation from the political process to provide consistency and certainty to financial markets.  With this decision, the election of the next President—and the prospect of a Democratic administration—could result in significant and immediate changes to the CFPB’s regulatory and enforcement agenda.

Third, while Seila Law secured the CFPB’s future, the Court left in place significant uncertainty as to its past.  This past includes major enforcement actions and rulemakings that have reshaped the market for consumer financial products and services over the last nine years.  Of course, it remains to be seen what appetite financial services companies have to challenge the CFPB’s prior rules and enforcement orders.  And, we expect the CFPB will attempt to remedy the constitutional defect by ratifying the agency’s past actions or perhaps invoking the de facto officer doctrine.22  Yet, the availability of either remedy is an open question.  Ratification in particular is a live dispute in both Seila Law and a pending en banc appeal before the Fifth Circuit, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. All American Check Cashing.23  Ratification of prior agency actions was also left unresolved in another thread of the Supreme Court’s recent separation of powers jurisprudence.  In Lucia v. SEC, the Court found that the SEC hired administrative law judges (ALJs) in violation of the Appointments Clause, but offered limited remedial guidance aside from instructions that Lucia was entitled to a “new hearing before a properly appointed” ALJ.24  While litigating Lucia’s challenge, the SEC issued an order purporting to ratify its past ALJ appointments by approval of the Commission itself.  The Court acknowledged that order, but declined to address its validity.25

1   Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (2020) (June 26, 2020).

2   Id., Slip Op. at 2–3.

3   Id., at 35.

4   Id.,  at 3. 

5   Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq., created the CFPB and defines its authorities. 

6   12 U.S.C. § 5511 (defining CFPB’s purpose); 12 U.S.C. § 5481(14) (defining “Federal consumer financial law”). 

7   Id. § 5491(b)(2), (c).

8   Id. § 5491(c)(3).  For a detailed discussion of the CFPB and its powers, see our Clients & Friends Memo, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The New, Powerful Regulator of Financial Products and Services (March 06, 2012).

9   Seila Law, Slip Op. at 6–8 (discussing procedural history).

10 PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 881 F. 3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (en banc).  Tellingly, then-Judge Kavanaugh wrote the D.C. Circuit panel decision holding that the CFPB’s structure violated the separation of powers doctrine.  839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The en banc court vacated that decision, but now-Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority in Seila, reiterating his separation of powers analysis from the D.C. Circuit.    For further analysis of the PHH decision, see our Client & Friends Memo Federal Appeals Court Rules That CFPB Structure is Constitutional  (Jan. 31, 2018) (discussing the en banc decision); D.C. Circuit Brings CFPB under Presidential Control  (Oct. 13, 2016) (discussing the initial panel decision of the D.C. Circuit).

11 Seila Law, Slip Op. at 11 (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1).

12 Id. at 12.

13 Id.

14 Id. at 36.  Specifically, the Court wrote that it has recognized two limited exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power.  Seila Law, Slip Op. at 15–16.  First, in Humphrey’s Executor, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), the Court upheld removal restrictions for Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, which Roberts characterized as “a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.”  Seila Law, Slip Op. at 15.  Second, in United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), the Court permitted removal protections for certain inferior officers with narrow duties, such as an independent counsel appointed to investigate and prosecute specific crimes.

15 Seila Law, Slip Op. at 23.

16 Id. at 18.

17 Id. at 31.

18 Id. at 32–36 (emphasis in original).

19 Id. at 3.

20 Id. at 30.

21 Id. at 31. Justice Thomas viewed this theory as irrelevant, since the Acting Director could not have ratified the continuance of the action by Director Kraninger. Justice Kagan did not address this theory specifically.

22 See Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995) (the de facto officer doctrine “confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.”).

23 No. 18-60302 (5th Cir.).

24 Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018).

25 Id. at 2055 n.6.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

ARTICLE BY Rachel Rodman and Scott A. Cammarn and Nihal S. Patel at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.

For more on the CPFB, see the National Law Review Consumer Protection law section.

Youtube May Be an Enormous Town Square, But It’s Still Not Subject to the First Amendment

In Prager University v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 18-15712 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit against YouTube late last week, holding that the video hosting giant is a private forum that is free to foster particular viewpoints – and need not be content-neutral.  The victory is a significant message to other online content hosts, aggregators and service providers that they need not feel threatened by censorship claims for selecting and curating content on their systems.

The lawsuit began in 2017, when conservative media company PragerU sued YouTube for imposing restrictions on some of PragerU’s short animated educational videos.  YouTube tagged several dozen videos for age-restrictions and disabled third party advertisements on others.  PragerU claimed the restrictions constituted censorship because they muted conservative political viewpoints.

Traditionally, the First Amendment regulates only U.S. and state government actors when it comes to censoring speech; it does not touch the actions of private parties.  The Ninth Circuit noted that these principles have not “lost their vitality in the digital age.”  While this threshold question is not new, PragerU’s approach to this legal hurdle has drawn fresh interest in how courts’ conception of state action might one day shift in order to accommodate the digital re-imagining of a marketplace of ideas.

PragerU argued that YouTube should be treated as something akin to a government where it operates a “public forum for speech.”  The theory follows that because YouTube has an overwhelming share of the video sharing and streaming space, it essentially performs a “public function.”  The Ninth Circuit affirmed that public use of private resources, even on a large scale, is simply not governmental.  Just because YouTube generally invites the public to use its private property (in this case, its platform) for a specific or designated purpose, does not mean that property should lose its private character.  Similarly, the Ninth Circuit ruled almost twenty years ago that internet service provider America Online was not a government actor even though it broadly opened its networks to the public to send and receive speech.

PragerU’s theory does enjoy some support.  As the Ninth Circuit acknowledged, a private actor is a state or government entity for First Amendment purposes when it performs a public function that is “traditionally and exclusively governmental.”  In other words, the First Amendment may well still apply to private companies tasked with operating public elections or even local governmental administrative duties (for example, the proverbial “company town”).  But the Ninth Circuit simply did not accept the argument that YouTube’s function of “hosting speech on a private platform” bore any resemblance to “an activity that only governmental entities” traditionally and exclusively perform.  After all, noted the Court, even “grocery stores and comedy clubs have opened their property for speech.”  Neither was the Court persuaded that the sheer scale of YouTube’s operation – equal to perhaps many millions of grocery stores and comedy clubs – should alter the analysis.

Had the Ninth Circuit adopted PragerU’s approach, it would have been the first major judicial endorsement of the view that a private entity can convert into a public one solely where its property is opened up to significant public discourse.  Instead, the Ninth Circuit imposed and upheld a more traditional delineation between public and private actors in First Amendment jurisprudence.

© 2020 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP

See the National Law Review for more on constitutional law questions.

Sticks and Stones May Break Bones, But Words May Constitute Unlawful Discrimination

In recent months, there have been several news stories about the legal implications of inappropriate and/or offensive language in our society, generating discussion about whether such language is, or should be, unlawful in certain circumstances.  This past fall, the Massachusetts Legislature held a committee hearing on a widely-publicized bill which sought to penalize the use of “bitch,” by imposing a fine of up to $200 for any person who “uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean” another person.

While this proposed legislation, fraught with Constitutional issues involving the exercise of free speech, was largely decried and gained no traction, it does highlight an important question: In what circumstances may offensive and demeaning comments constitute unlawful discrimination?  In fact, in January, Chief Justice John Roberts, during oral arguments in Babbe v. Wilkie, asked the hypothetical question whether the phrase “OK Boomer” would qualify as age discrimination.

The answer to Chief Justice Robert’s question is not a bright-line “yes” or “no.” Context matters. For example, in connection with a hostile work environment claim, one of the central legal issues is whether the conduct in question was severe or pervasive. As a general rule, a single, isolated comment will not be actionable as creating a hostile work environment, but in some instances, it may. See Augis Corp. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 398, 408-409 (2009) (noting that a supervisor who calls a black subordinate a f***ing n***** “has engaged in conduct so powerfully offensive that the MCAD can properly base liability on a single instance”).

Courts do not impose a numerosity test. Rather, the legal analysis is focused on whether the discriminatory comments “intimidated, humiliated, and stigmatized” the employee in such a way as to pose a “formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.” See Thomas O’Connor Constructors, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 549, 560–61(2008); Chery v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 98 F. Supp. 3d 179, 193 (D. Mass. 2015) (noting that, in the context of a hostile work environment based upon race, “[i]t is beyond question that the use of the [“N” word] is highly offensive and demeaning, evoking a history of racial violence, brutality, and subordination”).

Similarly, in the context of a disparate treatment claim (e.g., allegations that employee was terminated based on unlawful age bias), evidence that the decision-maker referred to the employee as a “Boomer” should not be evaluated in a legal vacuum. Rather, this evidence may be presented to the jury as just one piece of a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” from which a fact-finder could properly determine that the termination decision was driven by discriminatory animus based upon age. See Burns v. Johnson, 829 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2016).

So, while sticks and stones may break bones, words also do harm and depending upon the circumstances, may result in legal claims and liability.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

For more on Free Speech, see the National Law Review Constitutional Law section.