Monday, July 29, 2024

The Nonintercourse Act, Aboriginal Title, and Indian Agents

A central concern of the national government was regulating the relationships that existed between Americans and the indigenous populations.


- The Nonintercourse Act.

The Nonintercourse Act (also known as the Indian Intercourse Act or the Indian Nonintercourse Act) is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set boundaries of American Indian reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between White Americans and citizens of Indigenous nations. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.


- Aboriginal title in the United States.

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title (also known as "original Indian title" or "Indian right of occupancy"). Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

The power of Congress to extinguish aboriginal title—by "purchase or conquest," or with a clear statement—is plenary and exclusive. Such extinguishment is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment, although various statutes provide for compensation.


- Indian Agents.

The federal regulation of Indian affairs in the United States first included development of the position of Indian agent in the Nonintercourse Act of 1793, a revision of the original 1790 law. This required land sales by or from Indians to be federally licensed and permitted. The legislation also authorized the President to "appoint such persons, from time to time, as temporary agents to reside among the Indians," and guide them into acculturation of American society by changing their agricultural practices and domestic activities.  Eventually, the U.S. government ceased using the word "temporary" in the Indian agent's job title.

Sunday, July 28, 2024

Behind Closed Doors: The REAL Reason Biden Stepped Down

A great analysis of political power in the current environment.

An example of oversight from the House Judiciary Committee: Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

- Click here for the hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, July 24, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET. The hearing, "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," will examine the FBI’s investigation into the assassination attempt against President Trump and the ongoing politicization of the nation's preeminent law enforcement agency under the direction of FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

WITNESS: The Honorable Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation - testimony


Key Terms: 

- Congressional Oversight.

- Checks and Balances.

- Standing Committees.

- House Judiciary Committee.

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Department of Justice.

- Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thursday, July 25, 2024

Soft and Hard Infrasctucture

On the first day of the constitutional convention Edmund Randolph explained that the purpose of the new constitutional system was, first, to secure against external invasion and, second, to secure against internal insurrection. The third was to provide mutually beneficial services, which means infrastructure. 

There are two general types.

- Hard Infrastructure

Hard infrastructure, also known as tangible or built infrastructure, is the physical infrastructure of roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, ports, and harbors, among others, as opposed to the soft infrastructure or "intangible infrastructure of human capital in the form of education, research, health and social services and "institutional infrastructure" in the form of legal, economic and social systems.

This article delineates both the capital goods, or fixed assets, and the control systems, software required to operate, manage and monitor the systems, as well as any accessory buildings, plants, or vehicles that are an essential part of the system. Also included are fleets of vehicles operating according to schedules such as public transit buses and garbage collection, as well as basic energy or communications facilities that are not usually part of a physical network, such as oil refineries, radio, and television broadcasting facilities.


- Soft Infrastructure

Soft infrastructure is all the services that are required to maintain the economic, health, cultural and social standards of a population, as opposed to the hard infrastructure, which is the physical infrastructure of roads, bridges etc. It includes both physical assets such as highly specialised buildings and equipment, as well as non-physical assets, such as communication, the body of rules and regulations governing the various systems, the financing of these systems, the systems and organisations by which professionals are trained, advance in their careers by acquiring experience, and are disciplined if required by professional associations. It includes institutions such as the financial and economic systems, the education system, the health care system, the system of government, and law enforcement, and emergency services.

The essence of soft infrastructure is the delivery of specialized services to people. Unlike much of the service sector of the economy, the delivery of those services depends on highly developed systems and large specialized facilities, fleets of specialized vehicles or institutions.

These are the topics raised by Ken Paxton in highlighted press releases

My GOVT 2306 2IN01 students are looking into conflict between the state of Texas and the national government. I reasoned that a good place to start would be the actions the Texas Attorney General has taken recently against the national government. These have been highlighted in recent press releases. I linked to them separately.

- Click here for that.

This is a list of the subject matter, it helps identify key areas of disagreement between Texas and the United States: 

Energy
- Liqui­fied Nat­ur­al Gas Exports.

The Environment
- ​Green Ener­gy Tran­si­tion.
- Emis­sions Rule.
- Cli­mate Pol­i­cy Expansion.
- Trans­porta­tion Emis­sions Rule.
- The Role that States Play in Reg­u­lat­ing Their Own Environment.

Poverty Programs
- Guar­an­teed Income.
- Med­ic­aid.

Guns
- Pri­vate Firearms Sales.
- ATF Rule.

Immigration
- For­eign Labor­er Rights than Amer­i­can Workers.
- Bor­der.
- Con­certi­na Wire Law­suit.
- Bor­der Wall Construction.
- Ille­gal Aliens.

Transgender Policies
- Trans­gen­der Poli­cies Into Schools.
- Gen­der Tran­si­tion Procedures.
- Gen­der Iden­ti­ty Accom­mo­da­tions in the Workplace.

First Amendment Rights
- Cen­sor­ship.
- Con­sti­tu­tion­al Rights of Reli­gious Institutions.
- First Amend­ment Pro­tec­tions for Reli­gious Stu­dent Orga­ni­za­tions in High­er Education.
- Pro­tect Reli­gious Orga­ni­za­tions from Inva­sive Gov­ern­ment Interference.

Federalism
- States’ Sov­er­eign Immunity.

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

The Petitioners and Respondents in the Supreme Court Cases


The names and institutions below apply to much of what we will cover both in both 2305 and 2306. I'll add detail later.

What is a Petitioner

The petitioner is the party who presents a petition or motion to the court. The term is frequently used to describe the appellant in an appeal, where the petitioner is usually the party who lost in the lower court. This can be either the plaintiff or defendant from the court below, as either of the parties can present the case to a higher court for further proceedings. The opposite of the petitioner is the respondent, against whom a petition or motion is filed.

What is a Respondent

The respondent is the party against whom a petition is filed, especially one on appeal. The respondent can be either the plaintiff or the defendant from the court below, as either party can appeal the decision thereby making themselves the petitioner and their adversary the respondent. Formerly, in the equity courts of common law, the defendant was always called the respondent.


Acheson Hotels, LLC
Deborah Laufer
Thomas C. Alexander, in His Official Capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate
South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Justin Rashaad Brown
United States
Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Alex Cantero, et al.
Bank of America, N.A.
Robin Carnahan
Carolyn Maloney, et al.
Jascha Chiaverini, et al.
City of Napoleon, Ohio, et al.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al.
Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, et al.
Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service
Reginald Kirtz
Richard Devillier
State of Texas
Joseph W. Fischer
Food and Drug Administration, et al.
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al.
Michael Cargill
Sylvia Gonzalez
Edward Trevino, II, et al.
Kevin Lindke
James R. Freed
Loper Bright Enterprises, et al.
Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
Damian McElrath
Georgia
Attorney General, State of Florida, et al.
NetChoice, LLC, et al.
Charles G. Moore and Kathleen F. Moore
Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow
City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al.
Vivek H. Murthy, U.S. Surgeon General, et al.
Missouri, et al.
National Rifle Association of America
Maria T. Vullo
NetChoice, LLC, et al.
Ken Paxton, In His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas
Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff, et al.
Christopher Garnier, et ux.
Ohio, et al.
Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Mark E. Pulsifer
Relentless, Inc., et al.
Department of Commerce, et al.
Securities and Exchange Commission
George R. Jarkesy, Jr., et al.
George Sheetz
County of El Dorado, California
Jason Smith
State of Arizona
James E.Snyder
Ryan Thornell, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
Danny Lee Jones
Donald J. Trump
Norma Anderson, et al.
Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Steve Elster

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

A list of one term presidents

Biden joins the list below. I pulled these from the Wikipedia entry titled: List of presidents of the United States by time in office.


John Adams - 2nd • March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

John Quincy Adams - 6th • March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829

Martin Van Buren - 8th • March 4, 1837 – March 4, 1841

James K. Polk - 11th • March 4, 1845 – March 4, 1849

Franklin Pierce - 14th • March 4, 1853 – March 4, 1857

James Buchanan - 15th • March 4, 1857 – March 4, 1861

Rutherford B. Hayes - 19th • March 4, 1877 – March 4, 1881

Benjamin Harrison - 23rd • March 4, 1889 – March 4, 1893

William Howard Taft - 27th • March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913

Herbert Hoover - 31st • March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933

Jimmy Carter - 39th • January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981

George H. W. Bush - 41st • January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

Donald Trump - 45th • January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

From the Texas Comptrollers Office: Texas Broadband Development Office Newsletter - July 2024

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts is one of the members of the state's plural executive.

- Click here for Wikipedia's entry on the position. 

The comptroller is popularly elected every four years, and is primarily tasked with collecting all state tax revenue and estimating the amount of revenue that the Texas Legislature can spend each biennium.

In 2021 the Texas Broadband Development Office was created to provide guidance to the BDO regarding the expansion, adoption, affordability and use of broadband service and the programs administered by the office.

The Board of Advisors is composed of 10 members, is chaired by the Texas Comptroller and includes a representative of the BDO as a non-voting member. The other appointees come from the Offices of the Texas Governor, Texas Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House.

- Click here for more.
- HB 5 (87) Relating to the expansion of broadband services to certain areas.
- SB 1238 (88) Relating to broadband development.

The newsletter highlights the effort of the office to obtain federal funding for broadband access, which fits within the subject of fiscal federalism.

Check them out: 

- The Broadband Development Office (BDO) published the BOOT II Notice of Funding Availability on July 11, 2024.

- The BDO launched the Texas Digital Opportunity Hub on April 29, 2024.

- The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) (PDF) for the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program on March 29, 2024.

Comparing the platforms of the Texas Democratic and Republican Parties

The best way to understand the differences between the two major parties is to compare their platforms.

Here are links to the platforms developed and approved by the delegates of those two parties that meet in state conventions recently. These are only a reflection of the attitudes of the participants of these meetings, and does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of candidates for office, or rank and file identifiers of each party.

But it's a good gauge of what each party is likely to do if in power: 

- Click here for the 2024 Texas Republican Party Platform.

- Click here for the 2024 Texas Democratic Party Platform.

Monday, July 22, 2024

Who was Sheila Jackson Lee? How will she be replaced?

Until her death, she represented the 18th District of Texas - just north of us in central Houston. 

For more information about her: 

- Wikipedia: Sheila Jackson Lee.
- Wikipedia: Texas's 18th congressional district.

From the Texas Tribune: 

- After U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s death, Texas Democrats have to find a new candidate for November.

Gov. Greg Abbott can call a special election to fill the congressional seat for the rest of the year. State law does not specify a deadline to call a special election, but if it is called the election is required to happen within two months of the announcement. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

. . . “The history of Texas is to call a special election and fill the unexpired term. So that's what we expect Governor Abbott to do,” said Chad Dunn, a Texas Democratic Party lawyer.

. . . She was set to be on November’s general election ballot after defeating Amanda Edwards — a former intern for Jackson Lee — in the March Democratic primary. Democrats now have to decide on another candidate.

Texas law lays out the procedures for Democrats to nominate a new candidate to run against Lana Centonze, the Republican candidate, in the general election.

. . . the county will hold a meeting at least 10 days out to select a new candidate.

That meeting will include the Harris County Democratic Party’s executive committee, which by Texas law has until 5 p.m. on Aug. 26 to nominate someone. The committee is made of Harris County precinct chairs — elected officials representing districts within the county. There are currently around 130 precinct chairs in Harris County.

During the committee’s selection process, potential candidates will make their case to the precinct chairs, explaining their positions and priorities. Dunn said that while the decision is made by the precinct chairs, it is still a “very democratic process” as the meetings are public and precinct chairs are “the smallest unit of representative government we have.”

. . . If the Texas Democratic Party fails to make a new nomination on time, Jackson Lee remains on the ballot. If she is then elected, the seat would be vacant and a new election would be called.

For my summer 2 students: Some more suggestions for your 1000 word essay

For GOVT 2305 2INS3 and 2INP3

1 - What is the question raised in the case? Do your best to figure it out. Think about why the Supreme Court decided to hear this case. Your textbook mentions that out of 15,000 appealed to it, they hear around 75. Why was this case selected? What's was so important about it? 

2 - You might want to look at the advocates - the lawyers - that are arguing the case before the court. Perhaps provide a little background on each. Some might have more information available, but you may want to figure out why they are arguing this side.

3 - Also consider what argument they are making. Look for the link to the oral arguments. Click on it. Listen to it. It'll take a while, but try to follow along. What arguments are made buy each side?

4 - What was the vote on the decision? Was it unanimous? 8-1? 7-2? 6-3? 5-4? Was it divided ideologically?

For GOVT 2306 - 2IN01

1 - Do some research on the background of both Ken Paxton and Joe Biden. See if you can determine the ideological orientation of each. What do they do to implement it? How might they come into conflict? How might they not?

2 - Think about the subject matter of the press release. What area of public policy is involved? Why is the national and state governments involved in it?

For GOVT 2306 - 2IN02 

1 - Become familiar with the information about about HB 2127 contained in the Texas Legislature Online.
- click here

2 - Identify the specific thing the bill intends to accomplish.

3 - Read these two analyses of each bill. Try to understand the various arguments made for and against the bill.
- click here.
- and click here.

Sunday, July 21, 2024

Saturday, July 20, 2024

From Vox: 40 maps that explain the internet

The internet is the term used to describe the infrastructure that has been built up to allow us to do what we're doing right now.

It took some time to evolve. 

Here is a useful walk-through that process.

- Click here for the article.

This is what it looked like in 1969: 





What is CrowdStrike?

Other than being the people responsible for the internet shutting down.

- Wikipedia: 2024 CrowdStrike incident.

- Click here for the entry on CrowdStrike

CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is an American cybersecurity technology company based in Austin, Texas. It provides cloud workload protection and endpoint security, threat intelligence, and cyberattack response services.

The company has been involved in investigations of several high-profile cyberattacks, including the 2014 Sony Pictures hack, the 2015–16 cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the 2016 email leak involving the DNC. In July 2024, a faulty update to its security software caused global computer outages that disrupted air travel, banking, broadcasting, and other services.

. . . CrowdStrike was co-founded in 2011 by George Kurtz (CEO), Dmitri Alperovitch (former CTO), and Gregg Marston (CFO, retired).[9][10][11][12] The following year, they hired Shawn Henry, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official, to lead the subsidiary CrowdStrike Services, Inc., which offered security and response services.[13][14] The company launched its first product in June 2013: CrowdStrike Falcon, which provided endpoint protection, threat intelligence and attribution.

Friday, July 19, 2024

Speaking of Infrastructure

 

We are currently experiencing a global Microsoft outage that may affect some of our online services. Our ACC IT department is aware of the issue and is working diligently to restore full functionality as soon as possible.

Thursday, July 18, 2024

What is a Public Utility? What is Infrastructure? What is a Public Service?

Wikipedia: What is a Public Utility

A public utility company (usually just utility) is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.

Public utilities are meant to supply goods and services that are considered essential; water, gas, electricity, telephone, waste disposal, and other communication systems represent much of the public utility market.



Wikipedia: What is Infrastructure?

"installations that form the basis for any operation or system"

A way to embody personal infrastructure is to think of it in terms of human capital.

Infrastructure is the set of facilities and systems that serve a country, city, or other area,[1] and encompasses the services and facilities necessary for its economy, households and firms to function.[2] Infrastructure is composed of public and private physical structures such as roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, and telecommunications (including Internet connectivity and broadband access). In general, infrastructure has been defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions" and maintain the surrounding environment.

One way to describe different types of infrastructure is to classify them as two distinct kinds: hard infrastructure and soft infrastructure.[4] Hard infrastructure is the physical networks necessary for the functioning of a modern industrial society or industry.[5] This includes roads, bridges, and railways. Soft infrastructure is all the institutions that maintain the economic, health, social, environmental, and cultural standards of a country.[5] This includes educational programs, official statistics, parks and recreational facilities, law enforcement agencies, and emergency services.



Wikipedia: What is a Public Service?

A public service or service of general (economic) interest is any service intended to address specific needs pertaining to the aggregate members of a community.[1][2] Public services are available to people within a government jurisdiction as provided directly through public sector agencies or via public financing to private businesses or voluntary organizations (or even as provided by family households, though terminology may differ depending on context). Other public services are undertaken on behalf of a government's residents or in the interest of its citizens. The term is associated with a social consensus (usually expressed through democratic elections) that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income, physical ability or mental acuity. Examples of such services include the fire brigade, police, air force, and paramedics (see also public service broadcasting).

Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors for social and political reasons. Public policy,[3] when made in the public's interest and with its motivations, is a type of public service.

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

What is National Populism?

It seems to now be the dominant ideology of the Republican Party.

What is it? 

No surprise that there is no single definition, meaning that its confusing, but let's see what we can do. Here are three approaches from three sources.

- Wikipedia:

. . . an attempt to combine the socio-economical values of the left and political values of the right and the support for a referendary republic that would bypass traditional political divisions and institutions as they aim for the unity of the political (the demos), ethnic (the ethnos) and social (the working class) interpretations of the "people", national populists claim to defend the "average citizen" and "common sense", against the "betrayal of inevitably corrupt elites"

- Populism Studies.

. . . a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes. The rhetoric often consists of anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the perceived ‘establishment’, and speaking to the ‘common people’. Both right-wing populism and left-wing populism object to the perceived control of liberal democracies by elites; however, populism of the left also objects to the power of large corporations and their allies, while populism of the right normally supports strong controls on immigration.

- National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy.

. . . a 2018 book by political scientists Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin, published by Pelican Books. The book attempts to explain the success of national populist movements using a what the authors call a 4D model, with four variables: destruction of the national culture caused by large-scale immigration; deprivation of opportunities because of globalization and frequent disruptions and slow growth in the post-industrial economy; growing distrust amongst rural and working-class voters, who increasingly feel alienated by liberal, cosmopolitan, urban-inhabiting media and political elites; and de-alignment from traditional political-ideological allegiances, witnessed in high levels of voter volatility, or people switching party support between elections.

-
 Click here for more posts on populism.

Monday, July 15, 2024

Some Pointers for GOVT 2306 2IN01

The local and state governments in Texas perpetually fight for power. Recently, the state has expanded its influence over local government and is vocal about expanding it further. The bill I asked you to analyze is just one of these, but its a big one. 

I'll help you figure out why. 

Here are terms that should help: |

- Cooley Doctrine.
- Dillon's Rule.
- Home Rule Authority
- Preemption.

Some pointers for GOVT 2306 2IN02

Since the question has to do with the legal process states - in this case Texas -  use to push back against national policies they disagree with, you should become familiar with the following concepts:

- Federalism.
- Enumerated (or Delegated) Powers.
- Reserved Powers.
- Implied Powers.
- The Supremacy Clause.
- The 10th Amendment.
- Lawsuits.
- State Attorney General.
- Press Release.

Some pointers for GOVT 2306 2INS3 and 2INP3

These websites might help you approach this exercise: 

- From the ABA: How to Read a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion.

- From Justia: Reading a Supreme Court Decision.

- From the U.S. Supreme Court: FAQs - Locating Court Documents and Information.

Here are some terms that you should know:

- Main Opinion.
- Majority opinion
- Plurality opin­ion
- Justice
- Author
- Per curiam
- Concurring Opinion
- Dissenting Opinions
- Facts
- Legal Dispute
- Disposition
- Legal reasoning
- Legal precedent

 

For GOVT 2305 2INS3 and 2INP3 Unpack a Recent Decision of the United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court just finished it 2023-2024 term. 

I've assigned one the cases it ruled on below to my GOVT 2305 summer 2 students and have requested that they study, describe, and analyze it.

- Click here for pointers.


Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a civil rights “tester” has Article III standing to challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website.


Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

A case in which the Court held that South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan does not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.


Brown v. United States

A case in which the Court held that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.


Campos-Chaves v. Garland

A case in which the Court held that the government provides adequate notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document lacking the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information.


Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.

A case in which the Court clarified the test for whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state laws to national banks.


Carnahan v. Maloney

A case in which the Court will decide whether individual members of Congress have Article III standing to sue an executive agency to compel it to disclose information that the members have requested under 5 U.S.C. § 2954.


Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause.


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America

A case in which the Court upheld the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as consistent with the Appropriations Clause.


Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz

A case in which the Court held that the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.


Devillier v. Texas

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action, but it concluded that it did not need to resolve that question to dispose of this case.


Fischer v. United States

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.


Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

A case in which the Court was asked to resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.


Garland v. Cargill

A case in which the Court will decide whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).


Gonzalez v. Trevino

A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.


Lindke v. Freed

A case in which the Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.


Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.


McElrath v. Georgia

A case in which the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity.


Moody v. NetChoice, LLC

A case in which the Court will decide whether Florida S.B. 7072’s content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and whether the law’s individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.


Moore v. United States

A case in which the Court will decide whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.


Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

A case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions that cause some harm, not merely "significant" harm.


Murthy v. Missouri

A case in which the Court will decide whether the government’s requests to large social media companies that they take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation constituted coercion and thus transformed those private companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated users’ First Amendment rights.


National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

A case in which the Court permitted the National Rifle Association's lawsuit to proceed where it plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.


NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton

A case in which the Court will decide whether a state law restricting social media platforms from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech and requiring them to submit to onerous operational and disclosure requirements violates the First Amendment.


O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.


Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency

A case in which the Court stayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan, for failure to adequately explain its emissions reduction requirements, likely violating the Administrative Procedure Act.


Pulsifer v. United States

A case in which the Court held that a defendant must satisfy individually each of the three conditions of the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) to be eligible for sentencing relief.


Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.


Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.


Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California

A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.


Smith v. Arizona

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?


Snyder v. United States

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.


Thornell v. Jones

A case in which the Court held that when a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence, which the court does by evaluating the strength of all the evidence and comparing the weight of aggravating and mitigating factors.


Trump v. Anderson

A case in which the Court held that Congress alone must decide whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an individual from running for the office of President.


Trump v. United States

A case in which the Court will decide whether, and if so to what extent, a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.


Vidal v. Elster

A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

For GOVT 2306 2IN01: What is the Death Star Bill? What might its impact be on local governments in Texas?

During the 88th meeting of the Texas Legislature a law was passed that increased the state of Texas' power over local governments. States can do this based on a concept known as Dillon's Rule. The title of the law is: 

Relating to state preemption of and the effect of certain state or federal law on certain municipal and county regulation.

It is also referred to by its bill number: HB 2127.

I want you to analyze the law and describe the issues raised it. 

Also consider the arguments made in favor of it and against it and see if you can determine what impact it has had on the relationship between cities in Texas and the state. 

- Click here for pointers.


For GOVT 2306 2IN02: Describe a Conflict between the State of Texas and the United States

This is the 1000 word essay topic for GOVT 2306 2IN02

- Click here for pointers.

Part of our subject matter is the conflict between the legitimate powers of the states and those of the national government. There are many ways to approach this conflict. One way is to look at the specific legal actions taken by the Texas Attorney General's office against the national government. 

I've given each student the assignment of looking at the issues raised in one of the press releases below.

I'll post relevant info as the semester proceeds

For a link to all of the Texas Attorney General's press releases: News Releases.

These have been highlighted: 

- Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Stops Biden’s Unlaw­ful Ban on Liqui­fied Nat­ur­al Gas Exports.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Leads 19-State Coali­tion Chal­leng­ing the Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment for Over­step­ping Author­i­ty and Forc­ing Cost­ly ​“Green Ener­gy” Tran­si­tion on States.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Stay from Texas Supreme Court Stop­ping Har­ris County’s Unlaw­ful ​“Guar­an­teed Income” Scheme.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Injunc­tion Stop­ping the Biden Administration’s Unlaw­ful Attempt to Ban Pri­vate Firearms Sales.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden Depart­ment of Labor to Pre­vent Attempt to Grant For­eign Labor­ers More Rights than Amer­i­can Workers.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Major Win Block­ing Biden Administration’s Attempt to Force ​“Trans­gen­der” Poli­cies Into Schools, Secur­ing Nation­wide Relief Against Unlaw­ful Agency Actions.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Leads Mul­ti­state Coali­tion Reach­ing Land­mark $700 Mil­lion Set­tle­ment Against John­son & John­son Over Mis­lead­ing Safe­ty Claims Regard­ing Its Talc-Based Baby Powder

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden’s Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices to Stop Rule Forc­ing Health­care Providers to Per­form ​“Gen­der Tran­si­tion” Procedures

State­ment from Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton on Bor­der Lit­i­ga­tion Against Biden Administration

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Suc­cess­ful­ly Stops Unlaw­ful Attempt By The Biden IRS To Impair Texas Child Sup­port Programs

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden Depart­ment of Labor for Attempt­ing to Revive Ille­gal Oba­ma-Era Mandate

In 75th Legal Action Against the Biden Admin­is­tra­tion, Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Over Ille­gal EEOC Reg­u­la­to­ry Guid­ance Man­dat­ing ​“Gen­der Iden­ti­ty” Accom­mo­da­tions in the Workplace

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Tem­po­rary Restrain­ing Order Against Biden Admin­is­tra­tion, Stop­ping Unlaw­ful ATF Rule from Tak­ing Effect

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Impor­tant Win in Cen­sor­ship Law­suit Against Biden Administration

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Leads Mul­ti­state Coali­tion Suing Biden Admin­is­tra­tion Over Unlaw­ful Ban On Pri­vate Firearms Sales

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Urges Expe­dit­ed Process In Con­certi­na Wire Law­suit, Point­ing to Major Prob­lems With Fed­er­al Government’s Claims

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden to Stop Unlaw­ful Ban on LNG Exports

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Pre­vails Over Biden’s Unlaw­ful Attempt to Redi­rect Mon­ey Away from Bor­der Wall Construction

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden Admin­is­tra­tion to Stop New Rad­i­cal Emis­sions Rule

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden Admin­is­tra­tion to Stop New Cli­mate Pol­i­cy Expansion

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Wins Case Chal­leng­ing $1.7 Tril­lion Fed­er­al Fund­ing Bill Passed Uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly With Less Than Half of U.S. Con­gress Phys­i­cal­ly Present

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden Admin­is­tra­tion for Over­reach­ing Trans­porta­tion Emis­sions Rule

Pax­ton Files Law­suit Against IRS Over Biden Plan to Impair Child Sup­port Program

Pax­ton Sues Biden Admin­is­tra­tion Over Their Ille­gal Use of a Mobile Phone App to Bring Count­less Ille­gal Aliens into the Country

Pax­ton Files Supreme Court Ami­cus Brief to Pro­tect States’ Sov­er­eign Immunity

Pax­ton Fights to Uphold Con­sti­tu­tion­al Rights of Reli­gious Institutions

Pax­ton Chal­lenges Biden Administration’s Efforts to Remove First Amend­ment Pro­tec­tions for Reli­gious Stu­dent Orga­ni­za­tions in High­er Education

Pax­ton Sues Biden Admin to Safe­guard Texas’s Med­ic­aid Program

Pax­ton Files Brief With the U.S. Supreme Court to Pro­tect Reli­gious Orga­ni­za­tions from Inva­sive Gov­ern­ment Interference

Pax­ton Peti­tions U.S. Supreme Court to Affirm the Role that States Play in Reg­u­lat­ing Their Own Environment

Saturday, July 13, 2024

Tuesday, July 2, 2024

The Right to Remain in Public Space

Implicit in the City of Grants Pass v Oregon is the decision that there is no right to remain in public space, at least as far as I can infer. 

Presumably, it is not contained in the broader meaning of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

For more:


- Rights in Public Spaces.

This chapter discusses the rights of low-income persons, including those who “look poor” or homeless, to travel, to become members of a community, and to use public spaces, such as streets, parks, libraries, and post offices. Many localities have adopted “quality of life” regulations that restrict and even criminalize acts that are innocent when done in the privacy of one’s home, such as sleeping or eating, but become illegal when done in public. The chapter sets out the constitutional right to travel from state to state and within a state, and describes the practical and legal barriers that exist to the actualization of that right, such as the absence of public transportation or not having money to buy a car. Attention is given to the constitutional status of residency requirements and how they impact efforts to obtain better housing and schooling. It explores permissible limits on rights to use public spaces, and protections that may be invoked in many typical encounters with the police, such as demands for identification cards or the seizure of possessions temporarily left in a park. Practical advice is given about library services and mail delivery, as well as how to get licenses for commercial activities that make use of public spaces, including street vending.


“You Can’t Be Here”: The Homeless and the Right to Remain in Public Space.

In cities throughout the country, homeless individuals are continuously relocated from place to place and faced with the quandary that by engaging in basic life activities they are breaking the law. Many of these individuals and their legal advocates have argued that laws prohibiting the homeless from sleeping or sitting down in public make it effectively impossible for them to exist, violating the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments and the right to travel derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the vast majority of courts have rejected these arguments because they do not readily fit into existing doctrines.


What is The Right to Public Space?

The right to public space is not among the more conventional human rights such as the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to adequate housing, or the freedom of religion or expression. Public space is usually guaranteed by default under the right to freedom of speech or the right to peaceful assembly and association. Still, some countries have made the right to public space explicit in their constitution. Colombia was the first. The 1991 Constitution states, “It is the duty of the state to protect the integrity of public space and its assignment to common use, which has priority over the individual interest.” This constitution was drafted during a time when Bogota, Colombia’s capital, was considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to political violence and large swathes of the country were controlled by guerilla groups and drug cartels. Citizens were on edge and the public spaces throughout the country were fractured. By guaranteeing the right to public space, the State has made a commitment to protecting the social fabric of the nation.


The Right to Public Space.

The rights in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights depend, practically, on having public spaces in which to exercise them, including the right to work (whether traveling to work, setting up shop on the sidewalk, lining up as a day laborer, or advertising one’s services), the right to form and join trade unions, freedom of conscience and religion (whether men praying on the sidewalk outside an overflowing mosque, the faithful street preaching and evangelizing, or observers publicly displaying their affiliation through what they wear) and the right to rest and leisure.

The ordinances at issue in City of Grants Pass v Oregon

I collected these from the Oyez page related to the case.

There are four: 

“anti-sleeping” ordinance
“anti-camping” ordinances
“park exclusion” ordinance
“park exclusion appeals” ordinance