Constitutional Law Archives - Page 3 of 11

Is The End Of FINRA Drawing Nigh?

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, aka FINRA, is a non-profit Delaware corporation. It was formed in 2007 by the combination of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the regulatory arm of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that primarily regulates securities broker-dealers.

Professor Benjamin P. Edwards recently reported that a complaint has been filed in Florida challenging the constitutionality of FINRA. The lawsuit filed by two broker-dealers alleges:

However, FINRA’s current structure and operations, particularly in light of the transformation of the organization over the course of the last two decades, contravene the separation of powers, violate the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”) and constitute an impermissible delegation of powers. Because it purports to be a private entity, FINRA is unaccountable to the President of the United States (the “President,” or “POTUS”), lacks transparency, and operates in contravention of the authority under which it was formed. It utilizes its own in-house tribunals in a manner contrary to Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution and deprives entities and individuals of property
without due process of law.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief.

For more Finance Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

The FTC Seemingly Thumbs Its Nose at the Supreme Court

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA that regulatory agencies must have “clear congressional authorization” to make rules pertaining to “major questions” that are of “great political significance” and would affect “a significant portion of the American economy,” and the import of that ruling to the area of noncompete regulation, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced yesterday that they are teaming up to address certain issues affecting the labor market, including the regulation of noncompetes.

In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) issued on July 19, 2022, the FTC and NRLB shared their shared view that:

continued and enhanced coordination and cooperation concerning issues of common regulatory interest will help to protect workers against unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and unfair labor practices. Issues of common regulatory interest include labor market developments relating to the “gig economy” and other alternative work arrangements; claims and disclosures about earnings and costs associated with gig and other work; the imposition of one-sided and restrictive contract provisions, such as noncompete and nondisclosure provisions; the extent and impact of labor market concentration; the impact of algorithmic decision making on workers; the ability of workers to act collectively; and the classification and treatment of workers. (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, the purpose of the MOU is “to facilitate (a) information sharing and cross-agency consultations on an ad hoc basis for official law enforcement purposes, in a manner consistent with and permitted by the laws and regulations that govern the [FTC and NLRB], (b) cross-agency training to educate each [agency] about the laws and regulations enforced by the other [agency], and (c) coordinated outreach and education as appropriate.”

This follows the Biden Administration’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order in which it “encourage[d]” the FTC to “consider” exercising its statutory rulemaking authority under the FTC Act “to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” Nothing concrete has yet come of that Executive Order, although the MOU perhaps represents the next stage of the FTC’s “consider[ation]” of the issue. As we previously reported, FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan recently told the Wall Street Journal that regulating noncompetes “falls squarely in [the FTC’s] wheelhouse,” and she has never been shy about sharing her view that noncompetes should be banned nationwide and that the FTC has the authority to do so. This view does not appear to have changed despite the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA.

Only time will tell what, if any, action the FTC takes with respect to regulating noncompetes, but if it does take steps to ban or otherwise limit noncompetes nationwide under Section 5 of the FTC Act, there will no doubt be litigation challenging those regulations. And you can bet that the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA will be front and center in any such challenge. Indeed, according to Law360, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley said that the MOU shows Chairwoman Khan’s vision for the FTC “goes well beyond what is provided in law and what was envisioned by Congress.” Chairwoman Khan does not seem too perturbed by the prospect of challenges to the FTC’s authority in this regard, however, and seems intent on moving forward despite the Supreme Court’s admonition.

Article By Erik W. Weibust and Stuart M. Gerson of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

Five Administrative Law Takeaways From Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The US Supreme Court’s decisions of late have been consequential. While headline-grabbing decisions deal with religious liberties, privacy, and gun control, the Court’s impact on administrative law will have major consequences as well. Administrative law decisions stemmed from cases involving how the executive shaped policy related to climate change, health care, immigration, and public health. Administrative actions are tied together by procedural rules derived from the constitutional separation of powers and the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Below, we discuss five major trends derived from this term’s decisions related to administrative law and the separation of powers:

The “major questions doctrine,” and how it can limit executive-branch authority;
How spending can be used to shape behavior in situations where executive-branch authority might otherwise be limited;
The fate of “Chevron deference” – i.e., the judiciary’s willingness to defer to the executive branch’s interpretations of statutes agencies are tasked to administer;
What discretion executive agencies have to change policies, and what steps they need to defend such changes; and
When the Supreme Court will intervene in cases that are moot or which otherwise lower court decision-making might simplify the Court’s resolution of involved issues.

Major Questions Doctrine

The facts that would support a “major questions” analysis of executive actions became clearer with this term’s decisions. The doctrine drove decisions in major cases related to climate change and public health – NFIB v. OSHA, dealing with the federal vaccine mandate, and West Virginia v. EPA, which addressed greenhouse gas regulations. In sum, the Court says that administrative actions with significant economic and political impact require a close look at authorizing legislation to determine if Congress has authorized the action taken.

Some background on these cases. NFIB v. OSHA – decided first – grappled with whether OSHA exceeded its authority when it sought to require certain employers and their employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine or be subject to frequent testing requirements. (We discussed this case individually in-depth here.) OSHA based its mandate on its authority to relate workplace hazards. Because the vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees would impact roughly 84 million Americans, the Supreme Court accepted that it was a “major question” that involved “great economic and political significance” and therefore was subject to the major questions doctrine. Accordingly, the executive branch was required to point to specific authority supporting the mandate. Because the executive branch could not point to where Congress gave them the power to enforce a vaccine mandate, the Court overturned it.

This decision either reaffirmed the importance of checks and balances or demonstrated that the “major questions doctrine” could be used to prevent the executive branch from flexibly using “old” public health law to address novel issues associated with an airborne pandemic.

The “major questions doctrine” appeared next in West Virginia v. EPA, which we discussed here. To address the issue of climate change, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Clean Power Plan to address carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that relied on owners shifting from fossil fuels to zero-emitting fuels in 2015. This required closures of fossil fuel generating stations and significant investments from the electric generation sector. After the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan, the Trump Administration proposed a different rule that mandated actions solely at the fossil fuel-fired units and, simultaneously, declared that the Clean Air Act did not authorize the far-reaching legal rationale of the Clean Power Plan.

After addressing some unique procedural issues, which we will discuss below, the Court characterized the Clean Power Plan as effectively remaking the national energy markets. Applying the major questions doctrine, the Court held that such a broad change to the energy sector required a clear congressional mandate, which was not present in the Clean Air Act. In a concurrence, Justice Gorsuch argued that deferring to agencies on matters of great economic or political significance would amount to “Permitting Congress to divest its legislative power to the Executive Branch. . .”

How Spending Can Be Used to Shape Behavior

Whereas the two decisions above illustrate limits on executive power, in Biden v. Missouri, the Supreme Court allowed the executive branch to use spending to compel COVID vaccinations of employees in certain medical establishments. A vaccine mandate in this context was consistent with past policies because Medicare and Medicaid facilities are routinely forced to follow protocols to receive funding.

Clearly, one takeaway from Biden v. Missouri is that the executive is not without power to influence private behavior, so long as spending is involved. The Court found that in the healthcare space, it would be counterintuitive for effective administration of a “facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID-19.”

**The Fate of the Chevron Doctrine**

A third issue worth discussing is the fate of the “Chevron doctrine.” Our takeaway is that the “Chevron” doctrine may have little force at the Supreme Court level, even if parts of its analysis live on. We base this conclusion on the fact that both American Hospital Association v. Becerra and West Virginia v. EPA feature limited deference to the executive vis-à-vis the courts. But, neither case discusses Chevron at all. Why?

The “Chevron doctrine” has been fundamental to modern administrative law while existing in a policy-wonk backwater. The Chevron doctrine was born in the 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. It provides federal agencies with the ability to interpret the statutes they are tasked to administer without heavy-handed court intervention. Under the traditional Chevron analysis, courts will defer to the federal agency when the relevant statute is ambiguous, and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

Two major cases seemed to ignore the doctrine, however:

In Becerra, the Court signaled some unwillingness to find statutes “ambiguous.” Becerra involved the US Department of Health and Human Services’ interpretation of the Medicare statute governing hospital reimbursement rates. While the DC Circuit Court of Appeals below found significant ambiguity in the highly technical statute, a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed and held that the plain language of the statute clearly precluded the agency’s interpretation. The fact that the Supreme Court found clarity where the DC Circuit saw ambiguity suggests that the Court has significantly raised the bar for the level of ambiguity necessary for it to adopt an agency’s interpretation.
Where Becerra limited the impact of Chevron based on the text of the statute, West Virginia v. EPA established an entire class of cases where Chevron will not apply based on the practical impact of the regulation. By embracing the “major questions doctrine” discussed above, the Court signaled that it will not defer to federal agencies on novel issues unless Congress clearly stated an intent to delegate to the agency. The Court focused on the sweeping impact of EPA’s proposed emissions regulations, in stark contrast to the DC Circuit’s textual analysis of the statutes at issue (and also to the Court’s own textual analysis in Becerra).

While it appears that the Chevron doctrine may currently be gathering cobwebs at the Supreme Court level, it remains to be seen what will happen at the district and appellate levels. Maybe the Chevron doctrine will continue to exist as a sorting mechanism below — scholars have noted that Chevron was far more likely to determine outcomes in the lower courts. But at the very least, the Supreme Court has given federal judges powerful tools to avoid deferring to agency interpretations where they are so inclined.

How and When Agencies Can Change Preexisting Policies

A fourth issue worth highlighting may be found in Biden v. Texas, which involves the Biden Administration’s rescission of the Trump Administration’s Remain in Mexico policy.

First, some policy background: Government agencies have broad discretion in setting and changing policies so long as they follow the appropriate procedures. Generally, these procedures are set forth in the APA, a statute that we discuss with great regularity. Under the APA, the executive’s decisions can only be justified or challenged based on the agency’s administrative record. The regulated community can sometimes request that the Court look beyond the administrative record by showing that the agency acted in bad faith or in a procedurally improper manner. The Court’s last significant decision in this area – Department of Commerce v. New York, which we summarized here – evaluated the Commerce Secretary’s attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. In Department of Commerce, extra-record discovery revealed that the Secretary planned to add the question all along and had, in fact, solicited the request for the question from the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The Supreme Court determined that the Voting Rights Act rationale was “contrived” and affirmed the lower court’s decision to bar the US Department of Commerce from asking the question.

Regarding this case: Biden v. Texas, which involved the Biden Administration’s rescission of the Trump Administration’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration program – also called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – evaluated whether the Biden Administration acted appropriately when it rescinded the program. Some background on Biden v. Texas:

In January 2019, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began to implement MPP. Under MPP, certain non-Mexican persons arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their immigration cases. After it took office, the Biden Administration first suspended the program and later terminated it.
Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission on the grounds that it violated federal immigration law as well as the APA. A Texas federal court accepted the states’ arguments on the grounds that immigration law required DHS to either detain arrivals in the US or in contiguous territory – as MPP did – and that DHS lacked the resources necessary to house arrivals in the US, so a program like MPP was required by statute. The district court entered an injunction requiring the government to “enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory detention under [immigration law] without releasing any aliens because of a lack of detention resources.”
On appeal, the Secretary of DHS released a second explanation for terminating MPP and sought to vacate the injunction. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s analysis that the injunction was required and rejected DHS’s second explanation for why the program should be terminated on the grounds that it did not constitute a new or separately reviewable “final agency action,” which triggers APA review.

The Court upheld the rescission of MPP on two grounds: first, because federal immigration law used the word “may” in defining what DHS may do regarding confining persons arriving over land from Mexico. “May” gives the government discretion and establishes contiguous-territory return such as was required by MPP as a tool that the agency “has the authority, but not the duty” to use. Congress could have – but did not – construct the immigration provisions to require MPP.

Additionally, upholding the program required the Court’s consideration of DHS’s during-litigation explanation for why the program should be terminated. The Court accepted the during-litigation explanation because it constituted a wholly new explanation of why the MPP should be terminated. The during-litigation explanation explained that it “superseded” and “rescinded” the earlier termination and then offered “new reasons” that had not been included in the prior rescission. Both the pre-litigation and during-litigation memoranda were separate “final agency actions.”

Finally, because DHS did not rest on its pre-litigation MPP termination, it was permitted to provide additional justifications for its actions, so long as the agency complied with APA-imposed requirements for taking “new” actions. The Court rejected the states’ charge that there was a “significant mismatch between” the rescission and DHS’s explanation for it. DHS’s “ex-ante preference for terminating MPP – like any other feature of an administration’s policy agenda – should not be held against” its actions. Accordingly, DHS’s rescission of MPP was upheld.

An Increase in Procedurally Irregular Case Resolutions?

A final trend we wanted to highlight is that the Supreme Court appears increasingly willing to wade into disputes at earlier procedural phases than would be typical. Historically, nearly every Supreme Court case has made it to the Court having been fully and finally resolved in lower federal courts. (To be sure, there are some exceptions – most notably the limited class of cases for which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, which involve mainly disputes between the states or disputes between ambassadors.) This term, the Court was increasingly willing to wade into disputes which were either arguably moot or have not yet completed their run through lower courts. Three examples:

Mootness. In West Virginia v. EPA, during the pendency of litigation, the Biden Administration indicated it would not enforce the regulations at issue and instead would pursue a new rulemaking. The Court found that EPA’s representation that “voluntary cessation does not moot a case” unless it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not be expected to recur.” For the government to moot the case, it would have to suggest that it would not re-impose limitations based on generation shifting – something that it did not do.
No lower court finding regarding jurisdiction. In Biden v. Texas, four of the nine justices signed a dissent indicating that lower courts should review whether federal courts had “jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of” certain immigration laws in light of the Court’s recent decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, which addressed similar issues. While a majority of the court favored reaching a merits decision, four members of the Court favored remanding the case to lower courts for an evaluation of how Aleman Gonzalez might alter jurisdictional issues in the case.
The Court’s Use of its “Shadow Docket.” In Ardoin v. Robinson, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned order with no explanation, reinstated a district voting map in Louisiana that has previously been deemed discriminatory and harmful to minority voting rights. This case was decided under what has been coined the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” because it refers to cases decided outside normal procedural regularity: off the regular docket, without oral arguments or written briefs, and before lower courts have fully and finally decided the issue. The Court’s use of its “shadow docket” appears to be occurring with increasing frequency. As the Court is likely to remain polarized next term, we may see additional consequential decisions at the “shadow docket” phase then.

This was clearly a major term with significant decisions in many areas, including administrative law. The Court’s next arguments begin in October. We will keep an eye out for new cases relevant to administrative law.

Article By J. Michael Showalter, Samuel A. Rasche, and Rachael A. Bryan of ArentFox Schiff LLP

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

ARTICLE BY Kathryn Evans of 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

ARTICLE BY Lawrence J. Buckfire of Buckfire Law

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 40^th 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.

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.

Category: Constitutional Law

Is The End Of FINRA Drawing Nigh?

Like this:

The FTC Seemingly Thumbs Its Nose at the Supreme Court

Like this: