From the Texas Tribune: Analyzing 2020: The pandemic recession in Texas

A look at how the pandemic will impact the budget for the next biennial period.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas economy was one of the early victims of the coronavirus, as precautions like social distancing and staying close to home made it nearly impossible for many businesses to thrive. And in the interest of public health, a markets-oriented governor found himself stuck between fighting the spread of the coronavirus and keeping Texas businesses open to customers.

As the economy faltered, so did the underpinnings of the Texas state budget that depends on taxes and fees those businesses generate. The Legislature will return on the second Tuesday of January to figure out how to keep providing the services Texans want during a recession. Here are a few of my columns on the economy and the budget from the last year.

A fast drop for the Texas economy — and for the state budget

April 8: The pandemic's impact on the Texas economy is a full-on recession, state Comptroller Glenn Hegar said. And hard financial decisions will mark the next session of the Texas Legislature.

Reopening Texas during a pandemic, cautiously and slowly

April 28: Gov. Greg Abbott wants to reopen the state and to get the economy going. But he also wants to avoid widening the spread of the coronavirus. Texans are about to find out whether it's possible to have it both ways.


Splitting hairs in Texas, for politics and profit

May 8: The governor and other top Texas officials love promoting the rule of law, but they also love good politics. The civil disobedience of a Dallas beautician forced them to choose a favorite — and maybe hurry changes in pandemic policy.

In a few places in Texas, sales tax revenues have risen in the pandemic

June 15: When Texas stores closed and social distancing began at the beginning of the pandemic, sales naturally dropped. So did sales taxes, and local and state government revenues. But not everywhere, it turns out.

Coronavirus spreads to the Texas state budget

July 22: Now that the first official estimate of the coronavirus' effect on the Texas economy is out, the hard work starts. Legislators have to figure out which parts of the state budget to cut and which parts to keep.

Texans might be ready for casinos, but lawmakers aren’t convinced

Dec. 14: Casinos are making a serious run at Texas lawmakers, hoping to open up to five gaming destinations in a state that has resisted them for years. But gaming in Texas hasn't been expanded in almost three decades.

From the Texas Tribune: Supreme Court says challenge to Donald Trump’s plan to not count undocumented people in congressional reapportionment must wait

Texas could lose a seat for the first time ever if Trump's plan is allowed to go forward.

- Click here for the story.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a challenge to President Donald Trump’s authority to exclude undocumented immigrants when deciding the size of each state’s congressional delegation, saying it was premature to decide the question at this point.

The court’s unsigned opinion said the constitutional and legal questions surrounding such action should wait until it is clear whether Trump would be able to make good on his plan. It is unclear whether the Census Bureau can come up with the population figures Trump seeks before he leaves office.

“We express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented,” the opinion said. “We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time.”

The three liberal justices disagreed and said the court should say now that Trump lacks authority.

From the TSHA: Mineral Rights and Royalties

An interesting aspect of land rights. 

- Click here for the article. 

Private title to all land in Texas emanates from a grant by the sovereign of the soil (successively, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the state of Texas). Under the laws of Spain and Mexico, mines and their metals or minerals did not pass by the ordinary grant of the land without express words of designation. In one of the earliest acts of the Congress of the Republic of Texas, this rule was adopted, and it was continued in force after Texas had become a state. A grantee of land before 1866 therefore had no interest in the minerals in the land unless that interest was expressly granted. By a provision of the state Constitution of 1866, which was carried over in substantially the same language into the constitutions of 1869 and 1876, the state released to the owner of the soil all mines and mineral substances therein. This constitutional provision had retrospective effect; the landowner was given complete ownership of the minerals in all lands that passed from the sovereign before the effective date of the Constitution of 1876.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

This is the federal law at the center of the previous story.

For more on it.

- Wikipedia: CARES Act.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, is a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill passed by the 116th U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020 in response to the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The spending primarily includes $300 billion in one-time cash payments to individual Americans (with most single adults receiving $1,200 and families with children receiving more), $260 billion in increased unemployment benefits, the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program that provides forgivable loans to small businesses with an initial $350 billion in funding (later increased to $669 billion by subsequent legislation), $500 billion in aid for large corporations, and $339.8 billion to state and local governments.

The original CARES Act proposal included $500 billion in direct payments to Americans, $208 billion in loans to major industry, and $300 billion in Small Business Administration loans. As a result of bipartisan negotiations, the bill grew to $2 trillion in the version unanimously passed by the Senate on March 25, 2020. It was passed by the House via voice vote the next day, and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 27. It was originally introduced in the U.S. Congress on January 24, 2019, as H.R. 748 (Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019). To comply with the Origination Clause of the Constitution, the Senate then used H.R. 748 as a shell bill for the CARES Act, changing the content of the bill and renaming it before passing it.

Unprecedented in size and scope, the legislation is the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history, amounting to 10% of total U.S. gross domestic product. The bill is larger than the $831 billion stimulus act passed in 2009 as part of the response to the Great Recession. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will add $1.7 trillion to the deficits over the 2020–2030 period, with nearly all the impact in 2020 and 2021.

Lawmakers refer to the bill as "Phase 3" of Congress's coronavirus response. The first phase "was an $8.3 billion bill spurring coronavirus vaccine research and development" (the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020), which was enacted on March 6, 2020. The second phase was "an approximately $104 billion package largely focused on paid sick leave and unemployment benefits for workers and families" (the Families First Coronavirus Response Act), which was enacted on March 18, 2020.

For more detail on the bill, click here.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas has $2 billion in COVID relief funds left to spend. Advocacy groups are anxiously watching.

A great example of cooperative federalism.

A few other items to note in this article: 

- Texas Agriculture Commissioner
- Texas Governor
- US Department of the Treasury
- Department of State Health Services
- Texas Division of Emergency Management
- legislative leaders
- state agencies
- housing advocacy groups
- Texas Housers
- cities

- Click here for the article.

With only two weeks before the funding expires, Texas’ state government still hasn’t spent about a quarter of the $8 billion it received from the federal coronavirus relief bill.

In March, the U.S. Department of the Treasury assigned $11.24 billion to local and state governments in Texas. Almost a third of that went directly to cities and counties with more than 500,000 people, which have been quick to use it for a wide range of measures, from rent assistance programs to temperature checks at city offices. The state distributed $1.85 billion to smaller jurisdictions and has been distributing the remaining $8 billion through its health, education and emergency agencies, among others.

The funds can pay for expenses incurred only until Dec. 30, according to federal guidelines. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office said that it will use the money by that deadline but would not give details on how.

“Governor Abbott has worked closely with legislative leaders and state agencies to allocate $6 billion so far, including an estimated $1.6 billion for [the Department of State Health Services] and [Texas Division of Emergency Management] to fund the state’s response through the end of the year,” said Renae Eze, a spokesperson for Gov. Greg Abbott, in a statement. “With $2 billion remaining of the original funding, the state will spend every dollar by the end of the year to ensure the health and well-being of all Texans.”

Unless the federal government decides to extend the Dec. 30 deadline, unspent funds will have to be returned to the Department of Treasury.

From The Texas Tribune: After voting for Donald Trump, Texas electors ask swing states to reject results that assured victory for Joe Biden

- Click here for the story.

The Electoral College on Monday affirmed former Vice President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, but not before Texas’ 38 electors delivered their votes for Donald Trump and defiantly urged the legislatures of four swing states to overrule the will of their voters and appoint their own electors.

The call from the Texas electors came in the form of a resolution they passed 34-4, but it had no impact on the results. The four states — Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania — had already cast their votes by that time, and soon after, California cast its 55 votes for Biden and pushed him over the 270 number he needed to win the presidency.

Nonetheless, the resolution continued the practice of many Texas Republicans of baselessly questioning Biden’s victory and claiming fraud.

The resolution also “condemn[ed] the lack of action by the U.S. Supreme Court” to overturn the election results. There was a brief debate among electors over whether they should keep language in the resolution denouncing members of the U.S. Supreme Court for “moral cowardice.” On Friday, the high court briskly rejected a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton that sought to overturn the election results and had become a vehicle for Republicans across the country to contest Biden’s victory.

From C-Span: Texas Electoral College Vote

 - Click here for it.

From Texas Election Code: TITLE 11. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

- CHAPTER 191. SELECTION OF DELEGATES TO NATIONAL NOMINATING CONVENTION.

  - CHAPTER 192. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS AND CANDIDATES.

From Wikipedia: Title 3 of the United States Code

All  about the election of the president, on the national level.

- Click here for the page.

§ 1. Time of appointing electors
§ 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
§ 3. Number of electors
§ 4. Vacancies in electoral college
§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
§ 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
§ 7. Meeting and vote of electors
§ 8. Manner of voting
§ 9. Certificates of votes for President and Vice President
§ 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates
§ 11. Disposition of certificates
§ 12. Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate
§ 13. Same; demand on district judge for certificate
§ 14. Forfeiture for messenger's neglect of duty
§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
§ 16. Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting
§ 17. Same; limit of debate in each House
§ 18. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
§ 20. Resignation or refusal of office
§ 21. Definitions

For a look at US Code, click here.

From Wikipedia: Electoral Count Act

 - Click here for the entry.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373 is a United States federal law establishing procedures for the counting of electoral votes by Congress following a presidential election. The law has subsequently been codified, with some modifications, into positive law in Title 3, Chapter 1 of the United States Code, which also contains other provisions related to presidential elections and vacancies. The law was enacted in the aftermath of the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock.

The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible.":643 Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "[i]ts central provisions seem contradictory.":543 For example, one key ambiguity in Section 4 (now 3 U.S.C. § 15) involves a situation where multiple slates of electors are sent from a state, and the House and Senate cannot agree whether the law requires the slate certified by the governor to count, or requires that no slate should be counted.

From the National Conference of State Legislatures: The Electoral College in 2020

 Most of what you need to know.

- Click here for the page.

The following is a summary of how the Electoral College will work in the 2020 presidential election:

Spring and Summer 2020: Nomination of Electors. The political parties in each state nominate their electors. Parties and states have different ways of going about this, but a party's presidential electors are generally loyal or consistent party members. The parties want to be sure they can rely on their electors to cast their votes for the party's nominee for president.

Nov. 3, 2020: Election Day, when voters in each state will select their presidential electors. The names of electors are not on the ballot in most states. Rather, when a voter casts a vote for a presidential candidate, s/he is also casting a vote for the electors already selected by the party of that candidate. If a majority of voters in a state vote for the Republican candidate for president, the Republican slate of electors is elected. If a majority vote for the Democratic candidate, the Democratic slate of electors is chosen.

Dec. 8, 2020: Deadline for Resolving Election Disputes. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results must be completed by this date. (3 U.S.C. § 5). For the majority of states the date of certification is the same as for all contests, but in eight states there is a deadline that either directly references 3 USC §5 or uses similar language, requiring that disputes surrounding the selection of presidential electors be resolved in time to meet the “safe harbor” deadline: Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. For detailed information on state post-election processes, please visit this page.

Dec. 14, 2020: Meeting of the Electors. The electors meet in each state and cast their ballots for president and vice president. Each elector votes on his or her own ballot and signs it. The ballots are immediately transmitted to various people: one copy goes to the president of the U.S. Senate (who is also the vice president of the United States); this is the copy that will be officially counted later. Other copies go to the state's secretary of state, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the presiding judge in the district where the electors meet (this serves as a backup copy that would replace the official copy sent to the president of the Senate if it is lost or destroyed).

Dec. 23, 2020: Deadline for Receipt of Ballots. The electors' ballots from all states must be received by the president of the Senate by this date. There is no penalty for missing this deadline.

Jan. 6, 2021: Counting of the Electoral Ballots. The U.S. Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes.

Jan. 20, 2021: Inauguration Day. The president-elect becomes the president of the United States.

The Common Law Part I: What is Common Law and What Role Did it Play in E...

Understanding the Common Law [No. 86 LECTURE]

From Wikipedia: Siete Partidas

One of the bases of Texas law.

- Click here for the entry.

Example: 

Part IV, Title XI, Law vii: Donations and Dowries, Made in Consideration of Marriage, Should Remain Under Control of the Husband, to Be Kept and Taken Care Of. A husband should place his wife in possession of the gift which he makes her, and the wife should do the same thing with her husband with regard to the dowry she gives; and, although each of them places the other in possession of their respective gifts, nevertheless, the husband should be the master and have control of all the property aforesaid, and be entitled to collect the income of the whole, including what the wife gives, as well as that given by him, for the purpose of supporting himself, his wife, and his family, and to preserve, defend, and protect the marriage well and faithfully. Still, the husband has no right to sell, dispose of, or waste the donation which he gave his wife, or the dowry which he receives from her, as long as the marriage lasts, except where such a gift has been appraised. This should be observed for the following reason, namely: in order that if a separation takes place, the property of each of the parties may be returned to them, free and without encumbrance, to dispose of at their pleasure, or, where the marriage is dissolved by death, that it may descend intact to their heirs.

Part IV, Title XI, Law xvii: Concerning Separate Property Belonging to the Wife, Which is Not Given as Dowry, and Which is Called in Latin, Paraphernalia. (return) All property and possessions, whether personal or real, which women keep separately for themselves, and do not enter in the account of a dowry, are called in Greek parapherna, and this derived its name from para, which means, in Greek, the same as near, and pherna which takes the place of dowry, in Greek, the same as things which are joined to, or connected with a dowry. All the articles called, in Greek, parapherna, when they are given by a wife to her husband with the intention that he shall have control of them as long as the marriage lasts, he has the right to keep, just as those which are given him by way of dowry. Where they are not specifically given to the husband, and it was not the intention of the wife that he should have control of them, she always remains their owner; and the same rule applies whenever any doubt arises whether she gave them to her husband or not.

All these things called parapherna, have the same privilege as a dowry has, for just as a husband is responsible to his wife to the full amount of his property, if he disposes of or wastes her dowry, he is also responsible for the parapherna, no matter what may happen to it. And although an obligation of this kind may not be contracted by words, it is understood to be created solely by the act itself. For as soon as the husband receives the dowry and the other property called parapherna, all his property, for this reason, becomes bound to his wife, not only what he has at the time, but also what he may acquire subsequently.

From the New York Times: Christopher Krebs, a fired Trump official, sues the campaign and the lawyer who said he should be shot.

Lawsuits in the works.

- Click here for the story.

The lawsuits alleges defamation and the infliction of emotional distress. What are they? Does he have a case?

Defamation:

In the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:
- made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
- shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
- if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence - on the part of the defendant; and
caused damages to the plaintiff.

- United States defamation law.

Infliction of emotional distress: 

- From Wikipedia: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form of assault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault, but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form.

Elements: 

- Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
- Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
- Defendant's act is the cause of the distress; and
- Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.

Who is Chris Krebs? What is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency?

Until recently, Krebs directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and got into trouble with Trump for saying the elections were clean.

- Here's his Wikipedia entry. 

Career: 

- focus on cybersecurity and risk management issues.
- Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Infrastructure Protection
- Director for Cybersecurity Policy for Microsoft.
- March 2017, he became Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
- August 2017, he was appointed Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection
- June 15, 2018, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for National Protection and Programs
- November 2018, became director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 

- Here is the entry on the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. 

Formed in 2007, the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) was a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security. NPPD's goal was to advance the Department's national security mission by reducing and eliminating threats to U.S. critical physical and cyber infrastructure.

On November 16, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018, which elevated the mission of the former NPPD within DHS, establishing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). CISA is a successor agency to NPPD, and assists both other government agencies and private sector organizations in addressing cybersecurity issues.

From The Texas Tribune: In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania

A look at the fight between national and state power.

Can the Texas Attorney General do this?

- Click here for the article. 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing four battleground states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — whose election results handed the White House to President-elect Joe Biden.

In the suit, he claims that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law, and asks the U.S. Supreme Court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College.

The last-minute bid, which legal experts have already characterized as a longshot, comes alongside dozens of similar attempts by President Donald Trump and his political allies. The majority of those lawsuits have already failed.

There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, officials in most states and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have said. Biden won in all four states where Paxton is challenging the results.

In a filing to the high court Tuesday, Paxton claims the four battleground states broke the law by instituting pandemic-related changes to election policies, whether “through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.”

Paxton claimed that these changes allowed for voter fraud to occur — a conclusion experts and election officials have rejected — and said the court should push back a Dec. 14 deadline by which states must appoint their presidential electors.

“That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm,” attorneys for Texas wrote.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas enrollment and FAFSA applications down, as education leaders worry pandemic is disrupting college plans

For out look at public policy in Texas. How might the pandemic impact higher education in the state?

- Click here for the article.

The number of Texas high school seniors filling out the federal financial aid application for college, known as FAFSA, is down so far from last year, a sign worrying state higher education leaders that the COVID-19 pandemic is still disrupting many students’ pathway to college.

According to the National College Attainment Network’s FAFSA tracker, just 24% of Texas seniors have filled out the vital Free Application for Federal Student Aid as of Nov. 20, a 14.6% decline compared to the same time last year.

Preliminary enrollment data from the state shows this fall’s college enrollment was down 3%, or more than 47,000 students, primarily among community colleges.

The enrollment and application data was discussed at a Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board press conference, where officials said they are concerned that the pandemic is disproportionately affecting underrepresented students, including low-income students, Hispanic and Black students, and rural students.

Higher education leaders across Texas say high school counselors are struggling to connect with students virtually and students aren’t receiving the same information about college applications and financial aid that they would be if they were in school every day.

“A year ago it was really easy to find a high school senior in the hall at the school, but now the student may not even be in the building,” said John Fitzpatrick, executive director of the nonprofit Educate Texas, on a call with reporters Tuesday.

From the Texas Tribune: Despite staggering pandemic losses, Texas budget forecast better than expected, state comptroller says

For our look at Texas' plural executive

- Click here for the article.

Despite “historic declines,” state lawmakers will have more money to work with in the upcoming legislative session than Comptroller Glenn Hegar expected over the summer, he said Monday. But Hegar did not outline specifics as state coffers continue to suffer from the economic recession spurred by the coronavirus pandemic.

Sales tax revenues, by far the largest part of the state budget, fell by 4.8% in the second half of the 2020 fiscal year compared with the same stretch last year, Hegar said. It was a much softer hit than he anticipated, thanks to Texans staying home and spending money on “staycations instead of vacations.”

Other revenue streams, such as taxes related to alcohol, hotel occupancy, and oil and gas, were down more than 40% in the same period this year compared with last, Hegar told lawmakers Monday during a Legislative Budget Board meeting at the Capitol.

From the Texas Tribune: What went wrong with Texas Democrats' 2020 plans? State party leaders intend to find out.

 For our look at political parties in Texas.

- Click here for the article.

Texas Democrats severely underperformed expectations in the November election after looking to it as their best shot in decades at making inroads. President Donald Trump carried the state by 6 percentage points, U.S. Sen John Cornyn won reelection by 10 points, Democrats picked up zero U.S. House seats despite targeting 10 and their push to flip the state House fizzled as they gained one seat and lost another.

Democrats have since said they were misled by bad polling and lamented their decision to hold off on in-person campaigning during the coronavirus pandemic. Hinojosa cited both those factors in a letter responding to the executive committee members, while saying he agrees that a "complete analysis needs to be done on this to determine what really happened."

"The Party is committed to conducting a 'deep dive' analysis of the election, using outside persons or entities, and partnering with other allied groups to fund it if necessary," Hinojosa wrote.

The Tribune obtained a copy of the letter that was dated Friday. In it, the State Democratic Executive Committee members raise a host of issues related to the governing body's relationship with party staff — which appear to predate this election cycle — as well as the party's role in the November election.

Get our most ambitious reporting delivered straight to your inbox a couple times a wee

From Wikipedia: United States Marshals Service

I'm catching up on these guys. Among other things, they provide muscle for the judiciary. They date back to the Judiciary Act of 1789.

- Click here for the entry.

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States. The USMS is a bureau within the U.S. Department of Justice, operating under the direction of the Attorney General, but serves as the enforcement arm of the United States federal courts to ensure the effective operation of the judiciary and integrity of the Constitution. It is the oldest U.S. federal law enforcement agency created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 during the presidency of George Washington as the "Office of the United States Marshal". The USMS as it stands today was established in 1969 to provide guidance and assistance to U.S. Marshals throughout the federal judicial districts.

The Marshals Service is primarily responsible for the protection of judges and other judicial personnel, the administration of fugitive operations, the management of criminal assets, the operation of the United States Federal Witness Protection Program and the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, the execution of federal arrest warrants, and the protection of senior government officials through the Office of Protective Operations. Throughout its history the Marshals have also provided unique security and enforcement services including protecting African-American students enrolling in the South during the civil rights movement, escort security for United States Air Force LGM-30 Minuteman missile convoys, law enforcement for the United States Antarctic Program, and protection of the Strategic National Stockpile.

From Vox: Religious conservatives have won a revolutionary victory in the Supreme Court

Also a product of a concerted movement.

- Click here for the article. 

For the past six years, the Supreme Court’s right flank has wanted to revolutionize the law governing so-called “religious liberty” cases, in which a plaintiff who objects to following a particular law on religious grounds seeks an exemption from that law.

Late on Thanksgiving eve, in a decision handed down while much of the country was already asleep, the Court made this vision a reality. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a decision allowing some houses of worship to operate in defiance of New York state’s rules seeking to limit the spread of Covid-19, is one of the two most significant religion cases of the past 30 years, and may prove to be one of the most important religion decisions in the Court’s history.

New York state limited attendance at religious services in areas with coronavirus outbreaks to 10 people in areas with the most severe outbreaks, and to 25 people in areas where the state is concerned that a severe outbreak could occur. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that the state may not enforce these restrictions.

Roman Catholic Diocese marks a sea change in the Court’s approach to religious objectors, and it is an early sign of the significance of the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Under the old rules, religious objectors typically could not seek exemptions from the law if granting them an exemption could harm people who do not share their faith. And the old rules were much more concerned with preserving equality between secular and religious individuals than with giving special advantages to people of faith. In the business context, for example, the Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that religious business owners did not obtain legal exemptions that would give them a leg up over their competitors.

From the Texas Comptroller: TAX EXEMPTIONS AND TAX INCIDENCE REPORTS

If you are into the details of public finance, you are in luck.

- Click here.

From The Texas Standard: Report Says State Law Enforcement Commission Lacks Tools To Deal With Bad Cops

For 2306 and our look at the Sunset Advisory Commission.

- Click for the article.

A scathing state government report says the agency providing oversight for Texas law enforcement operations isn’t doing a very good job. 

According to The Houston Chronicle, a recently-released report by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission notes the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, or TCOL’s, inability to adequately train officers and keep so called bad apples out of the law enforcement job pipeline.

St. John Barned-Smith covers public safety for The Houston Chronicle. He told Texas Standard that though more than 600 Texas law enforcement officers received dishonorable discharges for misconduct last year, more than one-quarter were rehired as sworn officers.

Barned-Smith said the report found TCOL doesn’t have the powers it would need to prevent rehiring of fired officers.

“The TCOL is only allowed to revoke officers’ licenses in very rare circumstances,” Barned-Smith said.

For more.

- Sunset Advisory Commission.
- Report on Texas Commission on Law Enforcement.
- Agency website.

Related to the previous post

 All from Wikipedia:

- Lookism. 
- Almshouse.
- Poorhouse.

From Wikipedia: Ugly Laws

Ouch - this is rude.

I suppose this applies to our look at equal protection.

- Click here for the entry.

In the United Kingdom, in 1729 punishment was recommended for people with physical disabilities, whether they were born with disabilities or acquired later in life, who appeared in public.

Ugly laws in the United States arose in the late nineteenth century. During this period, urban spaces underwent an influx of new residents, which placed strain on the existing communities. The new residents were sometimes impoverished. This meant large numbers of people who were strangers to each other now occupied closer quarters than they had in small towns, where such local institutions as schools, families, and churches helped moderate social relations. As a reaction to this influx of people who were impoverished, ministers, charitable organizers, city planners, and city officials across the United States worked to create ugly laws for their community.

The language of the unsightly beggar ordinances pertained to hiding the parts of the person that may appear disabled or diseased. This includes any movements that would indicate a disability or disease, like limping.[3]

The first American ordinance pertaining to preventing people with disabilities from appearing in public was one passed in 1867 in San Francisco, California. This ordinance had to do with the broader topic of begging. It is noted that people who were perhaps in need of money traveled to California to "strike it rich" during the California Gold Rush. When they did not find themselves wealthy, they remained in California. Letters and documents from the period just after the California Gold Rush note the large number of "insane" people wandering the streets. Helper (1948) even refers to the "insane" people as "pitible nuisance" and remarked that they were allowed in public with no one to care for them.

New Orleans, Louisiana had a similar law police were strictly enforcing in 1883. A New Orleans newspaper reported on the City adopting a tough stance on begging as other cities in the United States had.

Portland, Oregon enacted an ugly law in 1881.

The Chicago ordinance of 1881 read as follows:

Any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, or an improper person to be allowed in or on the streets, highways, thoroughfares, or public places in the city, shall not therein or thereon expose himself or herself to public view, under the penalty of a fine of $1 for each offense (Chicago City Code 1881)

The fine of $1 equates to more than $20 in 2018. In most cities, punishments for violating an ugly law ranged from incarceration to fines of up to $50 for each offense.

In May 1881, the unsightly beggar ordinance went into effect in Chicago, Illinois. It was created by Chicago alderman James Peevey. Peevey is quoted in the Chicago Tribune from May 19, 1881 saying of the ordinance, "Its object is to abolish all street obstructions." Ugly laws identified groups of people as disturbing the flow of public life and banned them from public spaces. Such people, deemed "unsightly" or "unseemly," were usually impoverished and often beggars. Thus ugly laws were methods by which lawmakers attempted to remove the poor from sight.

From the Texas Department of Banking: History of the Banking Industry in Texas and the Department

A look at how the Texas Constitution has been amended to allow for banking ot expand in the state.

- Click here for the article.

In 1845, the first Constitution of the State of Texas provided that "[n]o corporate body shall hereafter be created, renewed, or extended, with banking or discounting privileges," and this prohibition against the chartering of banks was carried forward into the Constitutions of 1861 and 1866, deleted in the Constitution of 1869, and added back into the present-day Constitution of 1876 as Article XVI, Section 16. Banking certainly existed during these periods but was dominated by private, unincorporated banks, many of which issued their own currency.

In 1865, the first national bank in Texas was organized in Galveston.

During the period 1869-1876, a number of state-chartered banks were created by special acts of the Legislature. Ten additional state banks were established under a general law passed in 1874. Only a few of these banks ever actually opened for business. From 1876 to 1900, banking in Texas was conducted by private banks, existing state banks, and national banks.

As of 1890, 148 private banks were operating in Texas.

As of 1900, 440 national banks existed in Texas.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas faces a looming $4.6 billion deficit, comptroller projects

 For 2306, and a look at budgeting and the Comptrollers office.

- Click here for the article.

Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar delivered bleak but unsurprising news Monday: Because of the economic fallout triggered by the coronavirus pandemic, the amount of general revenue available for the state’s current two-year budget is projected to be roughly $11.5 billion less than originally estimated. That puts the state on track to end the biennium, which runs through August 2021, with a deficit of nearly $4.6 billion, Hegar said.

Those figures are a significant downward revision from Hegar’s last revenue estimate in October 2019, when the comptroller said the state would have over $121 billion to spend on its current budget and end the biennium with a surplus of nearly $2.9 billion. The state, Hegar said, will now have roughly $110 billion to work with for the current budget.

Hegar’s latest estimate, he stressed in a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott and other state leaders, carries “an unprecedented amount of uncertainty” and could change drastically in the coming months, thanks to the pandemic and, to a lesser extent, a recent drop in oil prices.

“We have had to make assumptions about the economic impact of COVID-19, the duration and effects of which remain largely unknown,” Hegar wrote. “Our forecast assumes restrictions [on businesses and people] will be lifted before the end of this calendar year, but that economic activity will not return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of this biennium.”

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: In a recession, turning to sin might save the Texas budget

 The time might be right for casino gambling and marijuana.

- Click here for it.

It’s the easiest category to tax. In a state that loves to hate taxes, sin taxes are considered voluntary — just a cost of doing things that are considered unnecessary or frivolous, like smoking, drinking or gambling.

This explains why some of the biggest gaming companies in the country have hirelings ready to lobby the Texas Legislature in 2021, in spite of — or because of — the absence of legal casinos, slot machines, sports books or poker tables in the state. The Las Vegas Sands Corp., owned by Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, has signed up a gang of lobbyists that includes former top aides to the governor and the outgoing speaker of the Texas House. Boyd Gaming, a casino operator, has a former top aide to the lieutenant governor on retainer. The lobbyist filings with the Texas Ethics Commission go on and on: Look up the filings under “Gambling,” and the agency’s website spits up a 12-page list of names.

The in-person and online gaming companies are loading up.

They’re hardly alone. A dozen bills that would legalize or decriminalize marijuana for personal or medical use came in during the first week that legislation could be filed. Voters might get a chance to vote on something like this when all is said and done: “Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.”

Who is Antony Blinkin?

Biden's nominee to be Secretary of State.

- Click here for his Wikipedia entry.

A look at his career - his revolving door:

1962: born
until 1971: Attended the Dalton School in New York City
?: attended Harvard University, where he worked on The Harvard Crimson
?: reported for The New Republic.
1988: graduated from Columbia Law School in 1988.
1988: worked with his father Donald in fundraisers for Michael Dukakis.
1988 - 1994: Practiced law in New Tork.
1994 - 2001: served on the United States National Security Council staff at the White House.
1994 - 1998: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Strategic Planning and NSC Senior Director for Speechwriting
1999 - 2001: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Canadian Affairs.
2002 - 2008: Appointed staff director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was also a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
2008: worked for the presidential campaign of Joe Biden, and was a member of the Obama-Biden presidential transition team.
2009 - 2013: Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President.
2014 - 2017: Deputy Secretary of State.
2017: co-founded WestExec Advisors

More on his private connections:

WestExec Advisors LLC is a consulting firm founded in 2017 by Antony Blinken, Michèle Flournoy, Sergio Aguirre, and Nitin Chadda, all former Obama adminstration officials. WestExec's clients have included Google's Jigsaw, Israeli artificial-intelligence company Windward, and "Fortune 100 types".

In an interview with The Intercept, Flournoy explained WestExec seeks to employ "people recently coming out of government" with "current knowledge, expertise, contacts, networks." The firm and its partners avoid becoming registered lobbyists or foreign agents so that they can (re)enter government service without delays. It does not disclose its clients, whose names are restricted from disclosure by non-disclosure agreements. The firm is named after West Executive Avenue, a street near the West Wing.

. . . WestExec's clients have included Google's Jigsaw, Israeli artificial-intelligence company Windward, and "Fortune 100 types"; according to Foreign Policy, the firm's clientele includes "the defense industry, private equity firms, and hedge funds". In an interview with The Intercept, Flournoy described WestExec's role as facilitating relationships between Silicon Valley firms and the Department of Defense and law enforcement; Flournoy and others compared WestExec to Kissinger Associates.

Blinken is also a partner of private equity firm Pine Island Capital Partners. According to the firm's website, Blinken worked on the D.C. partners team, which works "in tandem with the investment team to source deals, conduct analyses, win bids, close transactions, and directly advise" the firm's portfolio companies. Pine Island's chairman is John Thain, the final chairman of Merrill Lynch before its sale to Bank of America. Blinken recused himself from Pine Island Capital Partners in 2020 to serve as a senior foreign policy advisor with the Biden campaign.

Blinken is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a 2016 speech at the CFR, Blinken advocated for internationalist and multilateralist policies

An example of Disparate Impact?

Policy analysis would have  to make sure.

From the Texas Tribune: The devastating toll of COVID-19 on El Paso illustrates the pandemic’s stark inequalities.

A border town, it has been ground zero for asylum seekers from Central America who are in the Migrant Protection Protocols, a program that has forced many asylum seekers and Cubans to wait just across the border from the city for their immigration hearings in American courts. A migrant detention center in El Paso County also drew repeated protests and became a focal point for critics of the Trump administration’s border policies.

And now the coronavirus is devastating the city, its alarming spread a sign of the outbreak’s inequitable impact on Texans. In the nine months that the virus has been confirmed to be in the state, it has ravaged communities of color. Hispanic Texans make up about 40% of the state’s population and accounted for 55% of its known COVID-19 fatalities as of Nov. 13.

El Paso County has reported over 16,000 new cases in the last two weeks — thousands more than the numbers reported for the much larger counties home to Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth. Across the county, more than 900 residents have died of COVID since the pandemic began, placing El Paso far ahead of the state’s other major urban counties in deaths per 1,000 residents.

El Paso is far from the only predominantly Hispanic area that has been hit hard by the virus. Hidalgo and Cameron counties, both along the state’s southern border, have seen death tolls that rival larger and more urban parts of the state like Dallas and San Antonio.

Residents and community leaders say they’re shaken by the number of people who have fallen ill. They have pleaded for help but have been frustrated by the response so far.

“El Paso isn’t a rich city,” Jiminez said. “We aren’t Dallas, Austin, Houston or San Antonio. We’re like the redheaded stepchild of Texas.”

From TSHA: Raymondville Peonage Cases

The use of debt to limit freedom and mobility.

- Click here for the entry.

The Raymondville peonage cases, which were the first of their kind in Texas history, were tried in the Nueces County federal court in January 1927. Residents of Willacy County were arraigned for violation of federal statutes prohibiting peonage. Among the defendants were Sheriff Raymond Teller, Carl Brandt, Frank Brandt, Justice of the Peace Floyd Dodd, L. K. Stockwell, C. S. Stockwell, Roger F. Robinson, Deputy Sheriff William Hargrove, C. A. Johnson, and R. D. Riesdorph. Although the practice was illegal, peonage labor was used during the early twentieth century in some counties of South Texas, where it had become common to force laborers, usually Mexican or African Americans but also whites, to work off debts owed to farmers. During times of labor shortage the practice included charging individuals with vagrancy in order to force them into labor; "friendly farmers" paid off their fines and then had the prisoners work off the debt by picking cotton, often under armed guard. The government investigation found more than 400 such vagrancy cases filed in the Raymondville court.

From Wikipedia: Sharecropping

What came after slavery ...

- Click here for the entry.

Croppers were assigned a plot of land to work, and in exchange owed the owner a share of the crop at the end of the season, usually one half. The owner provided the tools and farm animals. Farmers who owned their own mule and plow were at a higher stage, and were called tenant farmers: They paid the landowner less, usually only a third of each crop. In both cases, the farmer kept the produce of gardens.

The sharecropper purchased seed, tools, and fertilizer, as well as food and clothing, on credit from a local merchant, or sometimes from a plantation store. At harvest time, the cropper would harvest the whole crop and sell it to the merchant who had extended credit. Purchases and the landowner's share were deducted and the cropper kept the difference—or added to his debt.

Though the arrangement protected sharecroppers from the negative effects of a bad crop, many sharecroppers (both black and white) remained quite poor. Arrangements typically left a third of the crop to the sharecropper.

By the early 1930s, there were 5.5 million white tenants, sharecroppers, and mixed cropping/laborers in the United States; and 3 million blacks. In Tennessee, whites made up two thirds or more of the sharecroppers. In Mississippi, by 1900, 36% of all white farmers were tenants or sharecroppers, while 85% of black farmers were. In Georgia, fewer than 16,000 farms were operated by black owners in 1910, while, at the same time, African Americans managed 106,738 farms as tenants.

From Black Past: (1866) TEXAS BLACK CODES

Added to the Texas Code of Criminal  Procedure after the end of the Civil War to retain as much of slavery as possible.

- Click here for the link.

An Act to amend an Act entitled an Act to establish a Code of Criminal Procedure for the State of Texas, approved August 26th, 1866, and to repeal certain portions thereof.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That Article 143 of the above named Code, be so amended as to hereafter read as follows :
. . . 3rd. Persons of color shall not testify, except where the prosecution is against a person who is a person of color ; or where the offence is charged to have been committed against the person or property of a person of color. . . .

SEC. 3. That this Act take effect and be in force fro and after its passage.
Approved October 26th, 1866.

CHAPTER LXXX.
An Act regulating Contracts for Labor.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That all persons desirous of engaging as laborers for a period of one year or less, may do so under the following regulations :
All contracts for labor for a longer period than one month shall be made in writing, and in the presence of a Justice of the peace, County Judge, County Clerk, Notary Public, or two disinterested witnesses, in whose presence the contract shall be read to the laborers, and, when assented to, shall be signed in triplicate b both parties, and shall then be considered binding, for the time therein prescribed.

SEC. 2. Every laborer shall have full and perfect liberty to choose his or her employer, but when once chosen, they shall be allowed to leave their place of employment, until the fulfillment of their contract, unless by consent of their employer, or on account of harsh treatment or breach of contract on the part of the employer, and if they do so leave without cause or permission, they shall forfeit all wages earned to the time of abandonment.

etc.....

From NPR: Young Activist Pushes To Lower Voting Age To 16 As 'The Logical Next Step' For Gen Z

 Activism and civil rights - two peas in a pod.

- Click here for the article.

Over the past few months, Gen Z activists have been a driving force in causes such as climate change, the Black Lives Matter movement and LGBTQ rights. A new poll from Power California shows that 18- to 29-year-old voters in the state put "stopping police brutality against Black Americans" as their most important political issue. That came out ahead of the need for coronavirus aid, even though more than one-third of those surveyed said they are struggling to pay rent or buy basic needs.

San Francisco narrowly voted down a proposal to lower the voting age for local elections.

- Click here for details.

For more info: Vote16USA.

From Texas Family Code: Sec. 263.008. FOSTER CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

 - Click here for it.

Or just read it here: 

It is the policy of this state that each child in foster care be informed of the child's rights provided by state or federal law or policy that relate to:

(1) abuse, neglect, exploitation, discrimination, and harassment;

(2) food, clothing, shelter, and education;

(3) medical, dental, vision, and mental health services, including the right of the child to consent to treatment;

(4) emergency behavioral intervention, including what methods are permitted, the conditions under which it may be used, and the precautions that must be taken when administering it;

(5) placement with the child's siblings and contact with members of the child's family;

(6) privacy and searches, including the use of storage space, mail, and the telephone;

(7) participation in school-related extracurricular or community activities;

(8) interaction with persons outside the foster care system, including teachers, church members, mentors, and friends;

(9) contact and communication with caseworkers, attorneys ad litem, guardians ad litem, and court-appointed special advocates;

(10) religious services and activities;

(11) confidentiality of the child's records;

(12) job skills, personal finances, and preparation for adulthood;

(13) participation in a court hearing that involves the child;

(14) participation in the development of service and treatment plans;

(15) if the child has a disability, the advocacy and protection of the rights of a person with that disability; and

(16) any other matter affecting the child's ability to receive care and treatment in the least restrictive environment that is most like a family setting, consistent with the best interests and needs of the child.

From the National Conference of State Legislators: TABLE OF CONTENTS Foster Children's Bill of Rights Foster Parent's Bill of Rights

Many states have them

- Click here for the article. 

Foster Children Bill of Rights and Foster Parent Bill of Rights are designed to inform foster children and foster parents of their rights within the child welfare system. Many children's bill of rights provide that they must be posted in a place where children will see them and include provisions requiring foster children to be informed about why they are in foster care and how the process will proceed. In addition, participation in extracurricular or community activities, efforts to maintain educational stability, access to guardians ad litem, access to mental, behavioral and physical health care, access to or communication with siblings and family members are major features of the foster children's bill of rights. Included in statute in 14 states is the requirement that foster parents use a reasonable and prudent parenting standard, particularly when making decisions regarding foster children's participation in extracurricular or other activities.

Foster Children's Bill of Rights have been enacted in 15 states and Puerto Rico and Foster Parent Bill of Rights have been enacted in 17 states. Also, during the 2014 legislative session, ten states introduced fifteen bills (six enacted) either seeking to enact a bill of rights or otherwise extending or defining the rights of foster children and parents including independent living services for older youth, educational consistency and enrollment, foster child input into evaluations of out-of-home care placements, and extracurricular activities.

New federal legislation, Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 (H.R. 4980), now requires state child welfare agencies to:

Ensure that children in foster care age 14 or older participate in the development of, or revision to, his or her case plan which must describe the foster child’s rights.

From Equality Now: 5 Things You Should Know about Child Marriage and The Law In the United States

An  area of increasing concern 

- Click here for the article.

It’s Legal In the Vast Majority Of States

Only four states, New Jersey, Delaware, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, have laws in place that prohibit marriage under age 18, with no exceptions. The remaining states have no prohibition against marriage for children under 18, or have bills that limit, but still permit, child marriage. 20 states have no required minimum age for marriage, while other states set different minimum legal ages for marriage for girls and for boys. Massachusetts, for example, sets the minimum age of marriage for boys at 14, while the minimum age for girls is 12.

Exceptions Make It Easier For Children To Be Married

The consent of a parent or guardian is among the most common exceptions that allow children under 18 to be married, while judicial approval is often needed for a child under age 16 to be married. Exceptions like these are not as rare as you might think, and have seen children as young as 11 issued a marriage license.

How these exceptions are enforced not only varies depending on the state but, in several states, can also vary depending on a child’s gender, according to the Tahirih Justice Center. In Mississippi, judicial approval is required for boys under age 17, but only for girls under age 15.

Some states have lenient residency requirements, while others have no residency requirement for minors coming from out of state to be married. In one instance, a father from Idaho, where judicial approval is required for children 16 and younger, drove his pregnant 14 year-old daughter to Missouri so she could be married to her 24 year-old rapist. Because at the time Missouri required judicial consent for children 14 and younger and had no residency requirement, the marriage was able to take place.

Federal and State Law Allows For a “Marriage Exception” To Statutory Rape

Statutory rape occurs when one of the parties is below the age of consent. A minor cannot legally give their consent to sexual activity, and so that activity does not have to take place by force in order to be considered rape. Marriage is a valid defense against statutory rape with 12-15 year olds at the federal level, as well as within a majority of U.S. states. These laws vary by state, but all make it legal for an adult to have sex and sexual contact with a child who is below the age of consent in that state if they are married to that child at the time (or, in one state, Indiana, if an adult and a child have ever been married to each other). Several states also have specific exceptions for cases involving pregnancy, enabling a marriage between a pregnant child and her rapist, providing sexual predators with an incentive to force a child to marry them.

Civil Rights for Kids! (?)

It's weird being between 16 and 18.

Right?

- What are the Legal Rights of Children?

Although children grow and mature at different rates, there are some rights that every child is born with. For instance, children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs.

Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government.

Children with disabilities also have rights under the federal Disabilities Education Act. The Disabilities Education Act provides children in need of special education with special accommodations to ensure they receive the same education as their peers.

From the Texas Tribune: Many Texas families say remote learning isn’t working and they want it fixed

Policy evaluation in action.

- Click  here for the article.

Almost midway through the school year, it has become increasingly clear that virtual learning is failing a sizable number of Texas public school students whose parents decided to keep them home as COVID-19 grips the state.

The disturbing number of students posting failing grades while trying to learn in front of computer screens has also brought into sharper focus the failure of state education and political leaders to prepare for an academic year they knew would be like no other.

Over the last month, The Texas Tribune has interviewed more than 30 educators, students, parents and experts across the state about their experiences with remote learning. Parents and students describe a system in which kids are failing, not necessarily because they don’t understand the material, but because the process of teaching them is so broken that it’s difficult to succeed.

Teachers say they are scrambling to retool education, creating new videos and online lessons from scratch and struggling with new demands and limited time. They blame state leaders for squandering valuable months over the summer by delaying key decisions, frequently reversing course and sending conflicting messages to educators on the ground.

From Oyez: Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

A look at intermediate scrutiny.

- Click here for the article.

In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that Section 1409(a) comports with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. "For a gender-based classification to withstand equal protection scrutiny, it must be established 'at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,'" wrote Justice Kennedy. Although the law imposes different requirements on unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers, it does so on the basis of the difference between their relationships to the potential citizen at the time of birth and is justified by two important governmental interests.

From Wikipedia: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

 -  Click here for it.

From Wikipedia: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

 - Click here for the entry.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is a lawsuit concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The lawsuit was filed by the organization Students for Fair Admissions and other plaintiffs, in the U.S. federal district court in Massachusetts in 2014, against Harvard University, claiming that Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants in its undergraduate admissions process.

On October 1, 2019, judge Allison D. Burroughs rejected the plaintiffs' claims, ruling that Harvard's admissions practices meet constitutional requirements and do not discriminate against Asian Americans. SFFA filed an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral argument scheduled for September 2020. Some commentators expect the case to eventually reach the United States Supreme Court.

. . . Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Harvard University on November 17, 2014, representing a group of anonymous Asian-American plaintiffs rejected from Harvard. SFFA was founded by Edward Blum, who also founded the Project on Fair Representation, with a goal to end racial classifications in education, voting procedures, legislative redistricting, and employment. Blum participated in cases such as Bush v. Vera, Shelby County v. Holder, and Fisher v. University of Texas. The SFFA case is the first high-profile case on behalf of plaintiffs who were not white, and who had academic credentials that were "much harder to criticize." The lawyers of SFFA stated that the lawsuit is focused on the issue of discrimination against Asian-American applicants, instead of trying to challenge affirmative action in general.

Certain Asian American advocacy groups filed amicus briefs in support of SFFA, believing that they or their children are discriminated against in college admission processes. Other Asian American advocacy groups filed amicus briefs in support of Harvard.

From The Washington Post: Federal judge rules Harvard does not discriminate against Asian Americans in admissions

- Click here for the article. 

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Harvard University does not discriminate against Asian Americans in undergraduate admissions, handing the school a victory in a lawsuit that marks one of the latest chapters in the affirmative action debate.

U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs rejected a plaintiff’s claims that Harvard violates the law as it considers race in selecting an incoming freshman class. While Harvard’s “admissions process may be imperfect,” Burroughs wrote, the judge concluded that statistical disparities among racial groups of applicants “are not the result of any racial animus or conscious prejudice.”

The judge also found that Harvard “narrowly tailored” its use of race in admissions to achieve the benefits of a diverse class.

“The use of race benefits certain racial and ethnic groups that would otherwise be underrepresented at Harvard and is therefore neither an illegitimate use of race or reflective of racial prejudice,” Burroughs wrote.

Harvard could improve its process, through implicit bias training and other steps, the judge added. “That being said, the Court will not dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better,” she wrote.

The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, a group that said it represents the interests of rejected Asian American applicants, vowed an appeal of a case that could reach the Supreme Court.

From Wikipedia: Worcester v. Georgia

The case which established the status of native tribes under the US Constitution 

- Click here for the entry.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.

The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which laid out the relationship between tribes and the state and federal governments. It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States.

. . . Chief Justice John Marshall laid out in this opinion that the relationship between the Indian Nations and the United States is that of nations. He reasoned that the United States, in the character of the federal government, inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation. Those rights, he stated, include the sole right to deal with the Indian nations in North America, to the exclusion of any other European power. This did not include the rights of possession to their land or political dominion over their laws. He acknowledged that the exercise of conquest and purchase can give political dominion, but those are in the hands of the federal government, and individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs. Georgia's statute was therefore invalid.

Marshall's language in Worcester may have been motivated by his regret that his earlier opinions in Fletcher v. Peck and Johnson v. M'Intosh had been used as a justification for Georgia's actions. Joseph Story considered it similarly, writing in a letter to his wife dated March 4, 1832: "Thanks be to God, the Court can wash their hands clean of the iniquity of oppressing the Indians and disregarding their rights."

Title 42 of the United States Code

The United States Code dealing with public health, social welfare, and civil rights.

- Click here for it.

From Wikipedia: The Americans with Disabilities Act

- Click here for the entry.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

What is a reasonable accommodation? 

- Click here for a description  (its in your syllabus): 

"any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions. Reasonable accommodation also includes adjustments to assure that a qualified individual with a disability has rights and privileges in employment equal to those of employees without disabilities."

- Click here for a timeline of disability rights in the US.

From the Justice Department: A Guide to Disability Rights Laws

The table of contents includes language from a variety of laws

- Click here for the article.

Here's the list provided: 

- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Telecommunications Act
- Fair Housing Act
- Air Carrier Access Act
- Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
- National Voter Registration Act
- Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
- Rehabilitation Act
- Architectural Barriers Act

From the Texas Municipal League: City-Related Bills Filed

 At least so far.

- Click here for the file.

Introduced in the Texas Legislature: Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.

 - Click here for HJR 13.

From the Texas Municipal League: Legislative Updates

 - Click here for it.

From Harris County: Notice of a special meeting

To get an idea of what the county is up to.

- Click here for it.

From the Texas Association of Counties: ​County Legislative Issues

The intergovernmental lobby outlines issues impacting counties to county officials.

- Click here for the link.

From Texas Society of Professional Surveyors: HISTORY OF THE TEXAS PUBLIC DOMAIN

For you Texas history junkies.

- Click here for it.

From Clarence Thomas: KIM DAVIS v. DAVID ERMOLD, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

When rights and liberties collide.

- Click here for the opinion.

Kim Davis, a former county clerk in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, was responsible for authorizing marriage licenses. Davis is also a devout Christian. When she began her tenure as clerk, Davis’ sincerely held religious beliefs— that marriage exists between one man and one woman— corresponded with the definition of marriage under Kentucky law. See Ky. Rev. Stat. §402.005 (1998); Ky. Const. §233A (2004). Within weeks of this Court granting certiorari in Obergefell, Davis began lobbying for amendments to Kentucky law that would protect the free exercise rights of those who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. But those efforts were cut short by this Court’s decision in Obergefell.

As a result of this Court’s alteration of the Constitution, Davis found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job. When she chose to follow her faith, and without any statutory protection of her religious beliefs, she was sued almost immediately for violating the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.* But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.