Supreme Court Decides to Continue Policy to Stop Illegal Immigration

   The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that expedited expulsions of illegal immigrants can continue despite the fact the Title 42 policy that authorized the deportations is expiring.

   More than 22,000 immigrants had gathered along the Mexican border in anticipation of Title 42 expiring this week.

   If they entered the United States – legally or illegally – after the expiration, they could be deported only after a court hearing. Immigration courts report backlogs that can stretch for years.

   Title 42, which the Trump administration instituted in March 2020 to slow the spread of COVID-19, allows immediate deportations without hearings.

   The Biden administration planned to allow Title 42 to expire without renewal. However, Republicans in 19 states sued to keep it, warning of a “catastrophe” without it.

   They argued they would suffer irreparable harm that includes increases in human and drug smuggling if the lapsing of Title 42 leads to a spike in illegal border crossings.

   The Department of Homeland Security estimated daily illegal crossings would more than double to as many as 15,000 migrants a day if Title 42 ends.

   The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the states, saying the policy should be allowed to expire Dec. 21. The Supreme Court granted the state attorneys general an emergency stay of execution.

   The 5-to-4 ruling with Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas in the majority said the Supreme Court would hear arguments in the case in February.

   Until then, the stay does not "prevent the federal government from taking any action with respect to that [Title 42] policy," the ruling said.

   The dissenting justices said the policy should be allowed to expire because it was intended to prevent the spread of disease, not to control all illegal immigration problems. The Supreme Court’s intervention puts the judicial branch of government into a position of making policies that are supposed to be reserved to Congress and the president, they said.

   "And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency," the dissent said. "We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort."

   The Biden administration said it would comply with the court’s order.

   The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

   The case is Arizona et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al., case number 22A544, in the Supreme Court.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Council Votes for Expungement

Of Pre-2015 Marijuana Convictions

   The District of Columbia Council approved a criminal justice reform bill last week that automatically expunges marijuana possession records for convictions before the District’s limited cannabis legalization law took effect.

   The Second Chance Amendment Act would grant expungements for a variety of criminal offenses but is targeted most specifically at marijuana.

   It says criminal records for possession of “any quantity of marijuana” before the legalization law took effect in February 2015 will be expunged.

   The expungements section of the law says, “The Court shall order automatic expungement of all criminal records and court proceedings related only to citations, arrests, charges, or convictions for the commission of a criminal offense that has subsequently been decriminalized, legalized, or held to be unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the Supreme Court of the United States, or records related only to simple possession for any quantity of marijuana in violation of D.C. Code § 48-904.01(d)(1) before February 15, 2015…”

   The D.C. Council approved the bill on the same day council members passed a separate bill that makes broad changes to a medical marijuana program. It eliminates cannabis business licensing caps and offers tax relief to the businesses.

   It also establishes new regulated categories for the businesses. Some categories would allow on-site consumption while others allow cannabis cooking classes.

   On one level the bill makes marijuana more accessible to consumers, such as by authorizing the business operators to offer free cannabis products as part of their marketing. In addition, adults could self-certify their need for medical marijuana rather than needing a doctor’s prescription.

   On another level, the bill would give more authority to police to crack down on illegal cannabis sales.

   Although the bill passed the D.C. Council, it faces additional challenges from federal laws that are more restrictive.

   Federal law does not legalize marijuana use or sales or grant authority to the District to set up a commercial cannabis market.

   The failure of Congress to legalize marijuana prompted a coalition of advocacy organizations to recently ask the U.S. attorney general for the District of Columbia to adopt a non-enforcement policy that would allow the District to legalize the sales.

   Eleanor Holmes-Norton, D.C.’s congressional delegate, called Congress’ refusal to authorize marijuana sales in Washington a “shocking violation of D.C. home rule by a Democratic administration.”

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Attorneys General File Amicus Brief

Opposing Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Law

   The attorneys general for Washington, D.C., and Maryland are joining in opposition to a Florida law that bans most elementary school education about sexual orientation.

   An amicus brief they filed last week in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida calls the state’s “Don’t Say Gay” law “a radical outlier.”

   “No other state educational law sweeps as broadly as Florida’s or targets the LGBTQ community in the same way,” the brief says. “That undermines any genuine assertion that the Act furthers educational goals. Said another way, the Act’s ‘unusual character’ provides an additional indication that the Act is constitutionally suspect.”

   The law signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in March bans all education about sexual orientation before Fourth Grade and only with ill-defined state Board of Education restrictions afterward through high school. The official name of the law, H.B. 1557, is the "Parental Rights in Education" law.

   "But the law does not define many of its key terms, like ‘classroom instruction,’ so Florida teachers are already censoring themselves out of fear of the law," the brief says. "Indeed, the law allows a parent to bring a civil claim against a school district to enforce its vague prohibitions."

   After the law was enacted, some Florida teachers and school administrators reportedly removed LGBTQ references from their curriculum and no longer allowed classroom discussions that touched on sexual orientation.

   Outgoing D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said in a statement, “My office has a strong track record of fighting for LGBTQ+ rights in the District and across the country to make sure that everyone can simply be who they are and love who they love. Florida’s law offers no benefit to anyone and in fact puts children and families in harm’s way.”

   The other attorneys general joining the coalition come from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington.

   The 19 attorneys general submitted their brief in a lawsuit filed days after the Florida law took effect by a group of local and national advocates for gay rights. They included the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality Florida and Family Equality, as well as students, parents, and a teacher.

   A motion from the state of Florida to dismiss the lawsuit is pending.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Maryland College Savings Plan Investors

Threaten Lawsuit Over Accounting Error

   Investors in a pre-pay college savings program are planning to sue the state of Maryland after they were denied access to money in their accounts by an accounting error.

   About 31,000 investors in the Maryland 529 Plan say a miscalculation in their fund amounts is forcing them to draw money from other sources to pay their children’s tuition. Some are taking out loans, drawing from retirement funds or racking up credit card debt.

   Maryland’s 529 Plan board of directors met by Zoom teleconference last week but the meeting turned chaotic when hundreds of angry investors entered the call.

   They demanded answers about when the accounting error would be corrected. The board could give them no firm assurances, which prompted some of them to begin planning a class action lawsuit.

   “Hit them now. Put the pressure on them now,” one participant in the Zoom call said. “We spread the news out far and wide (and) get the class action suit…”

   A second participant said, “I’m an attorney in Maryland and we do class action [work].”

   Anthony Savia, the program’s executive director, has told the investors outside consultants are trying to correct “data translation issues” that resulted in a miscalculation of interest earned on their accounts.

   The investors’ complaints continue on a Facebook group one of them organized called “Free our interest now, Maryland 529!”

   The 529 Plan is named for a section of the federal tax code that authorizes states to run college savings plans. Investors put tax deductible money into the fund before college. It gains value through interest and can be transferred directly into college tuition payments.

   The Facebook page users seemed skeptical that a simple accounting error could be blamed for shorting them on their investments. Most suspected foul play, such as someone in authority improperly transferring 529 Plan money somewhere it was not supposed to go.

   “I don't trust them,” one commenter wrote.

   Another said he suspected a “Ponzi scheme.”

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Sikh Recruits to Marine Corp Win Variance

From Military Grooming and Dress Policy

   Sikh recruits to the U.S. Marine Corps won a right to keep their beards and to wear turbans in a Washington, D.C., appellate court ruling last week.

   The ruling said a Marine requirement of cutting hair, shaving beards and wearing only approved garments would violate Sikh rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

   The Marine Corps had argued that deviations from its grooming and uniform policies created a national security threat by disrupting the uniformity needed to maintain discipline and to forge a common bond among recruits.

   However, in granting a preliminary injunction against the grooming policy, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, “Since [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], Congress and multiple Presidents have doubled down on their commitment to accommodating religion within military life. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Congress specifically instructed the military to accommodate the ‘conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs’ of service members and forbade any disciplinary action based on such beliefs to the extent ‘practicable.’”

   The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless it advances a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive means possible.

   The lawsuit against the Marines was filed in April by three Sikhs who were barred from the 13-week basic training unless they cut their hair and removed their turbans.

   For Sikhs, the world’s fifth largest religion with more than 25 million adherents, grooming and dress are integral parts of their religious beliefs.

   “The Marine Corps, though, has refused in this case to make a religious exception to its uniform and grooming requirements for Plaintiffs during boot camp,” says the ruling written by Judge Patricia A. Millett.

   “Plaintiffs are lifelong Sikhs for whom the failure to comply with those faith obligations would be intolerable. Cutting one’s hair, for example, is as reprehensible as adultery,” says the decision by the three-judge panel. “Throughout history, Sikhs have chosen death over cutting their hair.”

   Considering their special religious needs, the plaintiffs argued the Marine Corp policy was arbitrary and discriminatory. They also said they would suffer irreparable harm by denial of an opportunity to advance their military careers.

   The court’s ruling largely agreed, saying the Sikh recruits “not only have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, it is difficult to imagine them losing.” 

   The Sikhs were represented by Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

   The case is Singh et al. v. Berger et al., case number 22-5234, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.