1st Amendment Protection

The Supreme Court might come to a ruling sooner than expected when it comes to the ruling of the football team the Redskins and there controversial name.  In the Article it says "Redskins certainly is offensive to native Americans and demeaning to the team and its fans. We have urged the owners to find a new name. But the legal issue is whether the 1st Amendment was violated in 2014 when the patent office canceled the Redskins' trademark registration, citing a law that prohibits trademark protection for names that “may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute."

There have been many different rulings on this case throughout its way to the supreme court.To some people a name like the Redskins can be taken as offensive ,But under the 1st Amendment government may neither outlaw their use or punish businesses that use such language. The purpose of the trademark system is to protect property rights, not to establish is something is offensive or not . This is a great first amendment case when it comes to freedom of speech and it will be interesting to follow as the decion from the supreme court is coming in the near future.



http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0504-scotus-redskins-20160504-story.html

Swan V. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, which includes the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, had more than 84,000 students in 107 schools in the 1968-1969 school year. Approximately 29% 24,000 of the people were African Maericans, about 14,000 of African Americans attended 21 schools that were at least 99% Negro. This resulted from a desegregation plan approved by the District Court in 1965.

The Schools still being segregated violated the ruling of Brown V. Board ending Plessy V. Fergusons separate but equal. Transportation was a large issue when looking at the issue of the schools being separated by skin color. That is when busing went into full effect ending segregation in the Charlotte - Mecklenburg school system.

In our Moot Court Lawyer Cardillo presented very compelling emotion based argument. Stating that people are trying to put off integrating schools, but there is no better time then now. For the other side Lawyer Bridgeford presented the argument of how bussing put children in danger and how bussing is a complete hassle. The honorable Dean Smith agreed that bussing was necessary to uphold the ruling of Brown V. Board. 

    


https://silsasupremecourtcasesbday.wikispaces.com/*Swann+v.+Charlotte-Mecklenburg+Boardof+Education

Schools Must Violate First Amendment Rights

The federal government has ruled that in order to meet its demands under Title IX, the law regulating equal access to educational opportunities at colleges and universities the schools must violate the First Amendment. For the schools To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university "carries the responsibility to investigate" all speech of a sexual nature that someone finds offensive even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech. So the question here is it okay to violate someone's first amendment rights while trying to put in a new law.

United States Supreme Court Ruled Officer Can Sue For First Ammendment Violation

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-2 decision that a police officer who alleges he was demoted over his supervisor’s mistaken belief that he supported a mayoral challenger, can sue for the alleged First Amendment violation. Officer Heffernan picked up a political sign for his bedridden mother, then went to the headquarters of the station where other officers saw him with this sign. Word spread of him at the headquarters with this sign and officer Heffernan was demoted the next day.

When the officer went to court a federal appeals court ruled that Heffernan did not engage in any First Amendment conduct, so the demotion did not deprive him of a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court disagreed. Thee courts  released this statement "When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983, even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee’s behavior"  The case is The case is Heffernan v. City of Paterson and is currently still currently going on.

http://www.legalreader.com/u-s-supreme-court-ruled-officer-can-sue-for-first-amendment-violation/

 

House Bill 2

House Bill 2, passed in late March by the North Carolinian governor, Pat McRoy, has been causing waves of controversy throughout the country in the past month or so. According to McRoy the bill was designed to provide safety and privacy for women in North Carolina bathrooms and locker rooms. The bill restricts transgender individuals from using a bathroom or locker rooms that correspond with the gender they identify with. Meaning they have to use the bathroom according to the gender on their birth certificate. People are arguing that this bill is an infringement of the First Amendment seeing as it discriminates against a group of people.  McRoy tweeted the night it passed “ordinance defied common sense, allowing men to use women’s bathroom/locker room for instance. That’s why I signed bipartisan bill to stop it”. On the contrary the Mayor of Charlotte was very open in her response saying, “This legislation is literally the most anti-LGBT legislation in the country”. There have been several artists who have been scheduled to perform in North Carolina but cancelled their shows in protest of House Bill 2. According to cnn.com there have been no recent comments from Pat McRoy regarding the bill or if they are going to change it.

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/madison-county-communities-strive-to-overcome-sundown-town-reputation/article_51e21ccd-63bc-5cea-a47b-3278d3eb3020.html

America Evolves: The Decline of “Sundown Towns”

            Sundown towns have been a problem in the United States since the 1890’s. The fundamentals of a sundown town were that by law, African Americans were unwelcome and not protected by the police if they were seen in the town after sundown. People were free to attack and even kill African Americans if they wanted to after dusk in these sundown towns. According to an article by The Herald Bulletin a town called Alex in Madison County, Indiana is still struggling with separating themselves with their past of being a sundown town. The Herald conducted an interview with Indiana born and raised, Christopher Hayes, an African American man who moved to Alex, Indiana (a town that was previously a sundown town) in 2011 to live with his girlfriend. He was quoted saying “If it came to hanging out, I’d rather venture out than invite them here” talking about how he would have rather gone to a different town to hang out with his friends because he was so uncomfortable in his own. This is really sad because it shows that there is still a huge problem in our society with accepting the First Amendment.

 African American citizens should not still be suffering from the ignorant beliefs of our ancestors. Elwood, Indiana another town in Madison County is the most famously known town in the county for being a sundown town. The Herald includes a quote from the current Mayor of Elwood Todd Jones saying, “when the leader of a city doesn’t know what ‘sundown town’ means, that should tell you how things have changed”. He also included that 70% of Elwood voted for President Barack Obama in the 2008 general election. I see this as a hopeful turn for the better in cities previously known as sundown towns and our nation in general.

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/madison-county-communities-strive-to-overcome-sundown-town-reputation/article_51e21ccd-63bc-5cea-a47b-3278d3eb3020.html

Plessy v. Ferguson and the role of dissenting opinions

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson there was a dissenting opinion. A dissenting opinion is when then the Opinion of one or more judge  does not concur with the judgment delivered by the majority of judges hearing the case. Justice Harlan believed thaws the ruling in the case was wrong by allowing a public authority to control where people of what races sit on a train. He believes this goes against the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. He wrote out the losing argument ,because he knew how wrong this ruling was and even comparing it to the case of Dred Scott and knowing how this will have it own place in history.

I believe Justice Harlan makes a very relevant argument. He quotes the fourteenth amendment saying "declared, in legal effect, this court has further said, that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color." In my opinion this clearly violates the fourteenth amendment.

The reaction today in a time where some would say racial tensions are at a all time high, would be very different to the reaction of the people during the time of Plessy v. Ferguson. The dissenting opinion of justice Harlan and his mentality is years before his time. Separate but equal is not a possibility. With equality there is no separation.