Media challenges constitutionality of Tennessee 'police buffer zone' law

A media coalition, represented by attorneys at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, is challenging the constitutionality of a new Tennessee law that makes it a crime to approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer after being told to stay back in certain situations.

In a federal lawsuit filed this week, seven news organizations — Gannett, Gray Local Media, Nashville Banner, Nexstar Media Group, Scripps Media, Tennessee Lookout, and TEGNA — argue that the law grants law enforcement officers limitless discretion to bar journalists and the public from reporting — for any reason or no reason — on protests and other newsworthy events, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

This is the third lawsuit Reporters Committee attorneys have filed on behalf of news media coalitions challenging so-called police “buffer zone” laws. In Indiana and Louisiana, news outlets won preliminary injunctions prohibiting the states from enforcing nearly identical laws that federal district courts found to be unconstitutionally vague.

“These buffer laws jeopardize reporters’ ability to bring their communities some of the news that matters most — about crime, disaster response, police misconduct, and more,” said Reporters Committee Staff Attorney Grayson Clary, who is representing the media coalition alongside Paul McAdoo, RCFP’s Local Legal Initiative attorney for Tennessee. “When law enforcement pushes the press out of eye and earshot, it’s the public that ultimately loses out.”

Tennessee’s law, which went into effect on July 1, makes it a misdemeanor for journalists and others to approach within 25 feet of an officer while the officer is engaged in official duties at a traffic stop, the scene of an alleged crime, or “an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety” — scenarios broad enough to sweep in most of what officers do in public, from enforcing the law at a public assembly to conducting disaster response. It authorizes officers to order individuals to back up even if they don’t pose a safety risk and are not obstructing law enforcement. And it also does not require officers to accommodate the First Amendment right to report on government activity.

In its lawsuit, the media coalition notes that journalists in Tennessee routinely come into close contact with police officers during the course of their reporting, including at crime scenes and football games. But under the new law, they could be forced to move far enough away from a newsworthy event that they are unable to record audio or video, speak to sources, or simply observe an officer’s actions. 

“With the Act now in effect,” the lawsuit argues, “whenever one of Plaintiffs’ journalists is told to retreat while standing within 25 feet of law enforcement, that reporter is put to a choice between committing a crime or forgoing newsgathering.”

In addition to its First Amendment arguments, the lawsuit alleges that the buffer zone law violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it fails to specify what kinds of behavior by a journalist or other member of the public might prompt an officer to issue an order to stay back.

“This law just gives officers too much discretion to pick and choose who is and isn’t violating the law, to the point where officers are essentially writing the law themselves,” Clary said. 

In Indiana and Louisiana, the district courts focused their decisions on the Fourteenth Amendment arguments, concluding that the laws in those respective states were unconstitutionally vague. 

Both states have appealed the rulings. In Indiana, the appeal is fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In Louisiana, attorneys for both sides are in the process of briefing the case in advance of oral argument, which hasn’t yet been scheduled.

Even as we await the appeals court rulings, the media coalitions’ victories at the district court level appear to be pushing lawmakers toward narrowing the scope of police buffer zone laws. In response to the district court’s opinion in Indiana, for example, state lawmakers passed a new buffer zone statute that only applies if officers in fact have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual threatens to interfere with the performance of their duties. Florida recently adopted a similarly narrower law. 

“The message is getting through,” said Clary, who has helped litigate all three media coalition lawsuits. “I still don’t think those laws are perfect. I think there’s still a risk that they’ll sweep in more legitimate speech and newsgathering than necessary in practice on the ground. But I do think it’s encouraging that outside the courtroom, there’s clearly been a shift towards a narrower and less speech suppressive version of these statutes, even if I wish states weren’t going down this road at all.”

To read more CLICK HERE

President Teddy Roosevelt's thoughts on dissent

 "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." 

-Theodore Roosevelt

LAW & CRIME: Trump’s deployment of military to the streets of Los Angeles exceeds his presidential authority

Matthew T. Mangino
LAW & CRIME
June 14, 2025

President Donald Trump’s deployment of nearly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles has exceeded the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws in American cities.

The Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, intends to prove that in a court of law. The state has filed a lawsuit alleging, “President Trump has repeatedly invoked emergency powers to exceed the bounds of lawful executive authority.”

“On Saturday, June 7, he used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the state of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-chief of the state’s National Guard,” says the complaint, which was filed in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer agreed. Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee who also happens to be the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, declared that Trump’s “actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” and ordered control of the National Guard returned to Newsom. The order was supposed to take effect Friday at noon, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court granted an administrative stay late Thursday night, pausing — at least temporarily — Breyer’s order.

What this lawsuit comes down to is the Insurrection Act versus the Posse Comitatus Act. One act is more than 200 years old and the other, nearly a century and a half.

The Insurrection Act, passed in 1807, authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion, invasion or to enforce federal law in certain situations. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, was put in place to ensure that the federal military would not be used to intervene in the establishment of Jim Crow laws in the former Confederacy after Reconstruction. The overarching principle of the Act is to prevent the military from interfering in the affairs of civilian government.

When it comes to the Insurrection Act, troops can be deployed under several sections of the law. The statute’s requirements are not clearly defined, leaving some aspects of the law to the discretion of the president. One provision provides that the president can send in troops at a governor’s request. A second provision provides the president with the authority to deploy troops to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebellion” whenever unlawful obstructions make it difficult to enforce federal law — even against the state’s wishes.

A third provision provides if anyone in a state is being deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right — think Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy following Brown v. Board of Education — the president can deploy troops.

“He [Trump] is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,” Ilya Somin, a libertarian professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, told the New York Times.

Now let’s juxtapose the Insurrection Act with the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution. Supposedly that statute would be the Insurrection Act — but clearly there is no insurrection or rebellion, and Trump has said as much.

Here is Trump’s rationale, straight from a June 7 White House memo:

In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property.

Section 12406 provides that the President may active the National Guard if the country” is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign country”; there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion”; or the president is unable with regular forces “to execute the laws of the United States.” None of those circumstances exist, and even if one did, Section 12046 concludes with, “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States …

The White House is violating, in the most blatant way, the United State Constitution. But why? The New York Times suggests, after talking with various experts that the “real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump’s deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tensions in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission.”

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

To visit Law & Crime CLICK HERE

Autocracy 101: Crush the free press

Joanne Lipman on Catie Couric Media:

Last fall, I created a scorecard for the journalism class I teach at Yale. It listed five strategies that authoritarian-leaning leaders have used to crush the free press in their countries. I flashed the scorecard on a screen. “Take a picture,” I suggested to the students, “and keep track of which of those strategies might migrate to the United States.”

I had culled the five strategies from a Washington Post essay, “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America,” by New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger. His piece focused on leaders in democracies like Hungary and India who have weaponized existing laws and norms to cripple the news media, deploying an arsenal that includes normalizing harassment of journalists, abusing regulatory authority, and exploiting the courts with frivolous lawsuits.

Sulzberger’s piece was intended to be a warning. The Trump administration apparently read it as a playbook.

Like my students, I’ve been keeping score too. I’ve been around for a while — my first Trump-adjacent article was about the “new” USFL (Google it!) — so I’m not surprised by much. But honestly, it is astonishing how quickly the scorecard has filled out. And it’s growing longer by the day.

By my latest count – and it is likely incomplete– there have been more than 100 actions that threaten American press freedom, most taken since the November election or shortly before. And that doesn’t count yesterday’s headlines about Trump allegedly seeking more than $25 million from Paramount to settle a lawsuit over routine editing of a CBS “60 Minutes” interview. The case is so widely considered frivolous – my pal Katie Couric yesterday called it “bullshit” – that some company execs fear settling it may lead to criminal charges of bribery.

All of these measures have been reported individually. But the visual list is a gut punch — and a wake-up call.

Here’s the original scorecard:

Go HERE to see Trump Administration scorecard.

Mainstream media, for the most part, has remained steadfast in the face of the onslaught. Reporting from major outlets, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and ProPublica, remains robust, as does that from smaller news organizations and independent journalists, like those writing on Substack.

And to be clear, there are valid criticisms of the news media. Trust in the press has been declining for about half a century, long before the current moment, for a variety of reasons, including some that were self-inflicted.

But what’s happening now is an order of magnitude greater than anything we have seen before. And it’s taking a toll — from threatening journalists’ safety to prompting self-censorship among news organizations for fear of reprisals for factual reporting. Already, executives at news organizations from CBS and WNET to The New York Post have allegedly pressured newsrooms to tone down or even kill some coverage of the Trump administration.

I’m a firm believer in the notion, which I realize some colleagues think is outdated, that the role of the news media isn’t to be the resistance. It is to hold power to account and to seek the truth, regardless of who is in power.

If this scorecard shows us anything, it illustrates that the watchdog role is more important than ever, and how crucial it is for journalists, and all of us, to hold the line.

As Sulzberger rightly pointed out in a recently updated speech on the topic, “Fear is contagious. But courage is also contagious.”

Washington law requires Catholic priests to report confessions of child abuse

The secrecy of the confessional in the Roman Catholic Church is so sacrosanct that any priest who violates it is automatically excommunicated.

In Washington State, a new law requiring clergy to break the seal when child abuse has been revealed has kindled a heated battle involving the state, the Roman Catholic Church and the Justice Department, reported The New York Times.

The legislation, signed into law last week by Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, requires members of the clergy to report child abuse or neglect to authorities, even if that knowledge arises during the sacrament of confession. It has outraged many Catholics in the state, and across the country.

“This law is a clear intrusion into the practice of our Catholic faith,” said Archbishop Paul D. Etienne of Seattle. “The state is now intruding into the practice of religion, and if they’re allowed to get away with that, where do we draw the line?”

The Justice Department apparently agrees. On Monday, the department announced it was opening a civil rights investigation into the law, which it called “anti-Catholic.” The investigation will focus on the law’s “apparent conflict” with religious freedom under the First Amendment.

Clergy are considered mandated reporters in a majority of states, meaning they are legally obligated to report to authorities if they suspect a child is being abused. In most states, however, the state reserves protections for the clergy-penitent relationship. In seven states, including New Hampshire and West Virginia, there is no such exception. (In Tennessee, the privilege is denied only in cases of child sexual abuse.) It’s not clear that any priests have been prosecuted or penalized in those states over failing to report abuse that they learned about during a confession.

A similar bill in California was withdrawn by its sponsor in 2019 after a backlash, including from critics who pointed out that it would be difficult to enforce. The Vatican also appeared to weigh in, releasing a document in the run-up to the California vote emphasizing that the secrecy of confession is an “intrinsic requirement” of the sacrament.

President Trump has made “eradicating anti-Christian bias” a priority for the Justice Department. In April, Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the department’s civil rights division, rewrote a mission statement for the division to prioritize investigations into issues including anti-Christian bias and transgender women’s participation in sports, a sharp shift for an agency known for decades for its work on racial equality.

To read more CLICK HERE

Wrap your head around this latest State Department directive

The Trump administration has ordered State Department employees to report on any instances of coworkers displaying “anti-Christian bias” 

The directive is part of the State Department's effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government, reported POLITICO.

The department, according to a copy of an internal cable obtained by POLITICO, will work with an administration-wide task force to collect information “involving anti-religious bias during the last presidential administration” and will collect examples of anti-Christian bias through anonymous employee report forms.

We would do well at times like these to remember Sir Winston Churchill's words to the English people during the Second World War, "You see these dictators . . . They're afraid of words and thought . . .  A state of society where men may not speak their mind . . . where a businessman or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinion. Such a state of society cannot long endure . . ." 

The cable was sent out to embassies around the world under Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s name. The instructions also were released in a department-wide notice.

The document says the task force, which was established by the executive order, will meet around April 22 to discuss its initial findings.

The cable encourages State Department employees to report on one another through a tip form that can be anonymous. “Reports should be as detailed as possible, including names, dates, locations (e.g. post or domestic office where the incident occurred,” the cable reads.

Some State Department officials reacted to the cable with shock and alarm, saying that even if well-intentioned, it is based on the flawed premise that the department harbors anti-Christian bias to begin with, and warning it could create a culture of fear as the administration pushes employees to report on one another.

To read more CLICK HERE

Targeting noncitizen students for deportation harkens back to McCarthy Era

 Several students and professors lawfully present in the U.S. with visas have been detained and deported for their pro-Palestinian activism and many have filed legal challenges against the Trump administration, reported Truthout. On March 27, Rubio declared that at least 300 foreign students have had their visas revoked.

The administration is apparently targeting noncitizen students for deportation just for “liking or sharing posts that highlighted ‘human rights violations’ in the war in Gaza,” signing “open letters related to the war,” and “call[ing] for ‘Palestinian liberation.’” The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted that ICE has “reportedly paused its human trafficking and drug smuggling investigations to have agents monitor social media for posts and likes from pro-Palestinian students.”

Trump’s witch hunt against pro-Palestinian voices harkens back to a dark time in our history.

“This is the McCarthy era all over again,” attorney Van Der Hout told me. “The government tried this 40 years ago against a group of Palestinians I represented in Los Angeles and, after 20 years, the case was thrown out for government misconduct. It was outrageous then, and it’s outrageous now. Mahmoud will be challenging this until his rights to speak out about what is happening in Palestine and anywhere else are vindicated.”

Attorney Sisay told me that, “As long as he remains in ICE custody, away from his pregnant wife and movement community, his ability to speak freely, and the ability of many other students speaking out against the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza, will continue to be chilled.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Voice of America journalists under fire for criticizing the President

 Voice of America, the federally funded broadcaster to the world, has long prided itself on serving as an accurate and fair source of news and on being independent of whichever president and party are in power in the United States, reported The New York Times.

Since the election of President Trump, that independence is increasingly being tested.

In recent months, Voice of America’s parent organization, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, has opened human-resources investigations into Voice of America journalists for reporting on criticism of Mr. Trump or for making comments that were perceived as critical of him, according to several employees. Some journalists raised concerns about the investigations in a meeting this week with the broadcaster’s director.

At least a couple of articles that included criticism of Mr. Trump and his administration were not published or were watered down after publication in recent months, said three Voice of America employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution.

The Agency for Global Media informed one of Voice of America’s highest-profile journalists, Steven Herman, that he was being placed on an extended “excused absence” pending a human resources investigation, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Herman confirmed receiving the letter, which said the investigation was into whether his “social media activity has undermined V.O.A.’s audiences’ perceptions of the objectivity and/or credibility of V.O.A. and its news operations.”

Weeks earlier, Mr. Herman came under fire from the Trump administration when he cited a quote on social media from an anticorruption watchdog group criticizing cutbacks at the United States Agency for International Development.

Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s envoy for “special missions,” wrote on X that Mr. Herman’s comments were “treasonous.”

“You don’t get to work against the official U.S. government policies while being paid by US taxpayers,” Mr. Grenell continued. “You should be immediately fired.”

Also on Friday, Voice of America officials informed Patsy Widakuswara, the broadcaster’s longtime White House bureau chief, that she was being involuntarily reassigned to another beat, employees said. Some Voice of America journalists suspected the move was part of an effort to reduce friction with the Trump administration, although an official at the broadcaster, who wasn’t authorized to talk to the media, denied that.

The Agency for Global Media declined to comment.

The upheaval at Voice of America comes amid a series of broadsides against the media by the Trump administration. The White House has started selecting which news outlets are part of the press pool that covers the president, and it has barred The Associated Press from events because it won’t reclassify the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The Federal Communications Commission has opened investigations into whether broadcasters are acting in the public interest. And Mr. Trump has filed or threatened lawsuits against news outlets whose coverage he objected to.

Journalists at Voice of America have been fretting about their future ever since Mr. Trump said he would appoint Kari Lake, a former television news anchor and failed Republican Senate candidate who has frequently spread lies and conspiracy theories, to lead the broadcaster.

Ms. Lake has rebuffed calls from Elon Musk and Mr. Grenell to abolish Voice of America altogether. But she has said the broadcaster’s coverage will be free from what she described as “Trump derangement syndrome,” or T.D.S.

“It won’t become Trump TV,” Ms. Lake said during a speech this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an influential gathering of conservatives. “But it sure as hell will not be T.D.S.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Judge blocks law requiring 25-foot buffer zone for working police

 A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of a state law, approved last year, that creates a buffer zone around police, making it a criminal offense to come within 25 feet of a working officer after being ordered to step back, reported the Louisiana Illuminator.

The preliminary injunction was issued Friday in response to a lawsuit filed in July by six media companies, including Verite News’ parent company Deep South Today, asking for the law to be blocked.

The media groups — represented by the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Louisiana attorneys Scott Sternberg and Marcia Suzanne Montero — say the law could interfere with journalists’ First Amendment rights to cover police actions and expose police misconduct. They also argue the law is unconstitutionally vague, allowing police to invoke the buffer arbitrarily.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is a defendant in the suit, contends that the law is a common-sense public safety measure that will protect police officers while they are on the job. In a December court hearing, attorneys representing Murrill also argued that the media groups’ suit is based on purely hypothetical grounds, as the law has yet to be enforced since it took effect in August.

But in his ruling, Judge John deGravelles of Louisiana’s Middle District, said the threat to newsgathering warrants immediate action.

“Plaintiffs’ journalists are regularly within 25 feet of peace officers, and now face the threat of arrest and prosecution if an order to retreat is given,” deGravelles wrote. “The distance required is likely to impede Plaintiffs’ non-obstructive newsgathering. … Therefore, the Act has a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights,” even if it has not yet been enforced.”

DeGravelles, a federal court appointee of former President Barack Obama, also agreed with the plaintiffs that the law is overly vague.

“Here, while the Act clearly states that an officer can enforce a 25-foot buffer zone, it lacks any standard by which an officer may issue an order to stand back or retreat,” the judge wrote.

Louisiana is one of several states that have passed police buffer zone laws. Similar laws in Arizona and Indiana have faced legal challenges on constitutional grounds. The Arizona law was struck down in 2022. The Indiana law has faced two separate challenges. In one case, the law was upheld. In another, it was struck down.

The  preliminary injunction will be effective while the case is pending. The plaintiffs’ ultimate goal is a permanent block on the law.

In a statement, Murrill said she had not seen the ruling yet but would “continue to defend the law.”

“We think it is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction from obstructing and interfering with working police,” Murrill said. “We are trying to protect the public. This is a reasonable law.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Chapter one in the autocratic playbook--'Criminalizing dissent'

An expert who studies authoritarianism and fascism said Donald Trump’s rhetoric about criminalizing dissent is familiar, and could carry serious implications for the country if he’s elected president, reported NBC News.

“This is out of the autocratic playbook. As autocrats consolidate their power once they’re in office, anything that threatens their power, or exposes their corruption, or releases information that’s harmful to them in any way becomes illegal,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian and professor at New York University who wrote the 2020 book “Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present.”

“He’s actually rehearsing, in a sense, what he would be doing as head of state, which is what Orban does, Modi is doing, Putin has long done,” she said, referring to the leaders of Hungary, India and Russia, respectively. “Just as there’s a divide now because of this brainwashing about who is a patriot and who is a criminal about Jan. 6, right? In the same way, telling the truth in any area — journalists, scientists, even people like me, anybody who is engaged in objective inquiry, prosecutors, of course — they become criminal elements and they need to be shut down.”

Some Harris voters say Trump is channeling dictators.

“He reminds me of Hitler and the rise to power,” said Dan Geiger, a retired Pittsburgh resident. “The more he lies the more it’s accepted by his faithful followers.”

Trump has suggested investigations involving his conduct are illegitimate under the law and vowed revenge against the prosecutors who oversee them. He has also claimed, with no evidence, that President Joe Biden directed those prosecutions, even the state indictments he has no authority over.

Upon early revelations of his New York indictment, Trump said the prosecutor “ILLEGALLY LEAKED” it. And the probe into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia? “They illegally spied on my campaign.”

Trump voters have mixed views on revenge

Trump rallied a raucous crowd Wednesday in Scranton, Pennsylvania, launching personal attacks on Harris and drawing jeers and boos from a sea of red MAGA-hatted supporters as he spoke of the “enemy from within” — government officials with whom he’s clashed. He mentioned as one example Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., which sparked a “lock him up!” shout from one supporter.

But some of Trump’s own voters told NBC News they disapprove of the revenge-based themes in his campaign while still planning to support him because of their concerns about the economy and immigration.

Walter Buckman, a Scranton native, said he’s supporting Trump because of his views on immigration and the economy. But the self-described Catholic is “absolutely not” on board with his rhetoric about exacting revenge and getting even.

“The way to get even with anybody is to change the economy. Getting even should not be in the playbook,” he said. “Is revenge a good thing? It’s not a good thing.”

Debbie Hendrix, a Pennsylvanian who attended the Trump rally donning a “MAGA” hat, said she’s excited to vote for Trump a third time. But even she is put off by his talk of retribution.

“I don’t agree with that. I think people like ‘Drain the swamp,’” she said, but in her view that doesn’t mean personally going after his critics. “I don’t think he should sink to their level.”

Sometimes, Trump launches the claim of illegality plausibly. In October 2023, he said advocates in Colorado are trying to “illegally remove my name from the ballot” over his role in Jan. 6, a case he fought and won at the U.S. Supreme Court. More recently, he has said people who get caught cheating in the election will be prosecuted, essentially restating existing law.

Fetterman: ‘A menu of dumb s---’

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who is campaigning in conservative rural areas for Harris, said Trump is no stranger to “bizarre ramblings,” but warned that it doesn’t demotivate his voters.

“That’s just a menu of dumb shit that he always says,” Fetterman said. “I don’t even pay attention to those kinds of things. Most people don’t really take it at face value or whatever.”

It’s important for everyone who’s troubled by it to turn out and vote for Harris, he said, criticizing the “uncommitted” movement, supporters of perennial Green Party nominee Jill Stein, and others who abhor Trump but could waste their vote.

“If you are not 100% voting for Harris, then you are either directly or indirectly helping Trump,” Fetterman said. “Go ahead and try that again. That’s what happened in 2016 when people threw their votes away on that dope Jill Stein.”

Trump has responded to criticisms of his authoritarian rhetoric by repeatedly claiming Democrats are the real fascists and accusing them of “weaponizing” the government against him. His campaign didn't return messages seeking comment for this article.

If he’s elected, could Trump actually succeed at centralizing power for himself, in a system built on checks and balances that was often successful at restraining him during his first term.

“That’s the big question,” Ben-Ghiat said, adding that it depends partly on his ability to impose party fealty, intimidate critics and install competent bureaucrats who are effective at using levers of power to advance his personal aims.

“It is about criminalizing dissent,” she said. “There is a method to his madness in that he has taken people on a journey of indoctrination.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Florida Governor DeSantis tries to strong arm political opponents

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) administration is reportedly trying to intimidate television stations into taking down advertisements put out by supporters of Amendment 4 — a proposal on the ballot in Florida this fall that seeks to codify abortion access into the Sunshine State constitution, where abortion is banned after six weeks, reported Talking Points Memo.

On Oct. 3, DeSantis’ Department of Health sent a letter to at least one local NBC affiliate, WFLA-TV, suggesting they could face criminal charges for airing ads that encourage voters to support Amendment 4.

The letter, first reported by Florida investigative journalist Jason Garcia, claims that such ads violate Florida’s “sanitary nuisance” law and suggests that stations may be committing a misdemeanor offense by airing them.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group sponsoring Amendment 4, responded to the Health Department’s letter with one of their own, addressed to the local news station.

“The Department cannot criminalize media outlets running political advertisements with which it disagrees,” they wrote in the letter they shared with TPM. “Such advertisements are not a ‘sanitary nuisance.’ They do not expose the stations running the advertisements to criminal sanction. Speech criticizing the government in the context of a political campaign is the lifeblood of democracy and lies at the very heart of the First Amendment’s protections. The Department’s letter is a flagrant abuse of power and must be rejected.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Louisiana enacts "buffer" law insulating police from community observation

A Louisiana law will go into effect making it a misdemeanor for anyone, including journalists, to be within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer if the officer orders them back, according to ProPublica. These new laws, known as "Buffer" laws, are rare but gaining traction.

Karen Savage was working for a news site focused on juvenile justice issues on the second day of the demonstrations in July 2016 when she photographed officers putting a Black man in a chokehold as they detained him. Cherri Foytlin, who was working for a small newspaper and a community media project, said she was within 4 feet when she photographed officers violently dragging a Black man off private property and arresting him.

Foytlin and Savage said they are hesitant to cover protests in Louisiana now that they could face criminal charges if they’re too close to an officer. “I was thinking about how far exactly 25 feet is, and, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. It’s going to be whatever the officer wants it to be,” Savage said. “And if it doesn’t get to court, it won’t matter because they will have accomplished what they wanted, which was to get the cameras away.”

A coalition of media companies representing a couple dozen Louisiana news outlets, including Verite News, filed suit against Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges and East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III, alleging the law violates the First Amendment.

In a statement provided Thursday, Murrill said the law ensures law enforcement officers can do their jobs without being threatened or impeded by others. She said she looks forward to “defending this reasonable response to documented interference with law enforcement.” State Police spokesperson Capt. Nick Manale declined to comment on the suit; a representative for Moore did not respond to a request for comment.

Police buffer laws, as they are commonly known, are relatively new; Louisiana is the fourth state to enact one. Although those states already prohibit interfering with police officers, supporters say buffer laws are necessary to protect police from distrustful, aggressive bystanders. And with advances in cellphone cameras, including zoom lenses, supporters say there’s no need to get close to officers in order to record their activities.

“There’s really nothing within a 25-feet span that someone couldn’t pick up on video,” Rep. Bryan Fontenot, R-Thibodaux, the sponsor of Louisiana’s bill and a former law enforcement officer, said during a legislative hearing this year. At the same time, he said, “that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest.” (He did not respond to a request for comment.)

Foytlin disagreed. “You can’t even get an officer’s badge number at 25 feet. So there’s no way to hold anyone accountable.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Why national 'Sunshine Week' should be important to every American

Sunshine Week may be a contrived event — much like First Responder Wellness Week, National Siblings Day or National Donut Day. But it holds special significance to us. And it should for you, reported the Tampa Bay Times.

It’s a weeklong opportunity beginning Sunday to note the importance of public records and open government. It also can be a chance to call out those who try to keep the public in the dark.

Let me share one chilling example. A couple weeks ago, Tampa Bay Times reporter Justin Garcia showed up, as any individual can do, to the downtown headquarters of the Tampa Fire Rescue Department. He was interested in paperwork pertaining to a firefighter who had been terminated.

A department employee in the third-floor lobby claimed that access to public records doesn’t work that way. There is an online portal where Justin needed to make his request, she told him.

Justin had already done that. But he also apparently knew the ins and outs of Florida’s records law better than the gatekeepers of those documents. You’d be surprised — and dismayed — how often government officials have no idea how public records laws actually work.

When Personnel Chief Robbie Northrop showed up, Justin again tried to make his case. The law permits anyone to request and view documents in person, and government agencies should comply unless there’s a good reason. Northrop left for a while. He returned, Justin said, to hammer away at the point that we wouldn’t be getting anything now since we had made the online request.

Justin cited Florida’s Chapter 119, which he had called up on his phone, while seated on the lobby couch. It says “all state, county and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.” According to Justin, this appeared to further irk Northrop, who repeatedly insisted he knew the law, when it was obvious that he didn’t.

“I couldn’t even finish my sentence,” Justin told me. “He kept interrupting.”

If you have met Justin Garcia, he’s a thoughtful and sharp reporter. We hired him about a year ago from Creative Loafing because we were tired of him scooping us. He’s dogged, but he does not exude in-your-face intensity. Rudeness is not his style, and it’s part of the reason sources generally respond to him.

When Justin tried to ask for a clearer explanation, Northrop ended the discussion. That would be enough questioning of authority, apparently.

Northrop then asked an office worker, according to Justin, to “go ahead and call TPD on him.”

Let that soak in. A reporter from the Tampa Bay Times asked to see public records, and the fire department’s response was to call the cops.

Was the personnel chief trying to intimidate a journalist? Did he believe Justin’s attempt to get answers had crossed the line into criminal behavior? Did he not like Justin’s long hair? Northrop wouldn’t agree to be interviewed by the Times.

In the initial days after the lobby encounter, it remained a mystery how the police were notified. It took rounds and rounds of questions over nine days to extract the details.

Northrop had told the office worker — who witnessed the entire thing — to call the police. But she claimed in a written statement that she didn’t have time.

So someone stalked over to Chief Barbara Tripp’s office and urged her to initiate the call.

And Tampa’s top firefighter did.

Justin had left by the time the cavalry arrived.

Mayor Jane Castor’s spokesman Adam Smith acknowledged that none of this should have happened.

Smith told us that Northrop isn’t normally the custodian of records and isn’t used to handling requests from the public, or from reporters. He said the personnel chief came to the lobby because he was informed that Justin was creating a disturbance.

Afterward, Northrop collected three brief statements from fire department staff who were present. In one, a captain did not call out issues with the way Justin had comported himself, only to say that he was persistent and insistent. (Good journalistic qualities.) Two lower-ranking employees described him as combative and agitated. Justin’s demeanor was the reason the police had to be involved, according to Northrop.

“Mr. Garcia persisted in being argumentative and repetitive and refused to accept the answer and leave,” wrote Northrop in his personal memo to Smith in response to inquiries from the Times. Justin said he never raised his voice.

Tripp, according to Justin, had waved politely to him in the lobby when he first arrived but wasn’t present for any of the interaction with Northrop. When Tripp told dispatchers to summon the police, she also used the word “argumentative,” according to an audio recording of the phone call that we obtained. She didn’t mention that Justin was a reporter but an “individual” who was being “unruly towards personnel.”

No matter how you want to spin it, though, journalists are supposed to ask questions and seek explanations. That may rankle people in power, but it doesn’t constitute an unruly disturbance.

Think about the alarming message the episode sends to all Tampa Bay area journalists when asking too many questions can lead to this.

“No one should ever call the police on a reporter even if that reporter is being belligerent, obnoxious and aggressive,” said Smith.

Or, for the sake of total clarity here, when he is being none of those things.

About 90 minutes after Tripp ordered the police called, Smith provided the records to the Times.

“It was a misunderstanding,” Smith said. “It sounds like we need to have a conversation about that.”

“We have 4,600 employees,” he added later. “He (Northrop) has been in this particular job for a month, and we need to make sure our employees are trained so they know what is appropriate and what’s not appropriate.”

And what’s the excuse for Tripp, who has been running the department for almost four years?

As we recognize Sunshine Week, let’s hope government agencies throughout Florida have meaningful conversations with their employees, top to bottom, about complying with the state’s public records law. We’d be happy to sponsor a refresher course.

If you’re wondering, the Times asked to view any video surveillance showing the lobby encounter between Justin and the personnel chief.

City officials initially denied the request — citing security reasons. Then they told us no such video exists.

This time the police were left out of it.

To read more CLICK HERE

Montana judge blocks restrictions on public drag performances

Chief District Judge Brian Morris issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the state of Montana from instituting and enforcing its restrictions on drag performances in public venues, reported Jurist. The case is in the US District Court for the District of Montana Butte Division.

Morris found that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that House Bill 359 is unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.

On the First Amendment claim, Morris noted that 359 imposes both content-based restrictions and viewpoint-based regulation, which leads to a strict scrutiny analysis. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. Morris also noted that 359’s legislative history provided “substantial evidence” that an “impermissible purpose” was behind 359’s enactment. This impermissible purpose was to “target the speech and expression of LGBTQ+ community members, particularly trans, Two-Spirit, and gender non-conforming people.” Morris then concluded that 359 was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest because “[f]orcing protected expression to take place under a cover of darkness, rather than banning it outright, does not save H.B. 359 from constitutional infirmity.” Thus, Morris concluded that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on their First Amendment challenge. 

For the Fifth Amendment challenge, Morris found that 359 is likely unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Morris noted that the law “fails to define the conduct it criminalizes ‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.'” Morris also noted that there was “no evidence” submitted that minors face any harm from drag-related events.

House Bill 359 prohibits minors from attending “sexually oriented shows.” Additionally, the law bans drag story hour in public schools and libraries and bans “sexually oriented performances” in public schools, public libraries and public property where minors are present.

This is not the only litigation revolving around state bans on drag performances. Last month, a US federal judge in Texas ruled that the state’s ban on drag performances was unconstitutional and blocked it from going into effect.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS decides reckless satisfies intent for threat

The First Amendment does not, and never has, protected threats of violence, and this week the Supreme Court clarified the standard for criminalizing “true-threats,” resolving a circuit split in the process. In Counterman v. Colorado, the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, held that although a person needs to intend for words to be threatening to rise to the level of criminality, a showing that a person was acting recklessly when they made the statement would satisfy the intent requirement, reported Lawfare.  

What Is a “True-Threat”?

The Court began by defining a “true-threat” as a “‘serious expression’ conveying that a speaker means to ‘commit an act of unlawful violence.’” The Court reiterated, however, their distinction that a true-threat is different from “jests, ‘hyperbole,’ or other statements that when taken in context do not convey a real possibility that violence will follow.”  

he Court decided between three different mens rea standards for the prosecution to be able to convict someone under a true-threats theory: (a) The defendant wanted his words to be perceived as a threat (purposeful); (b) he knew to a practical certainty that his words would be taken as a threat (knowledge); and (c) he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct would cause harm to another (recklessness). Out of these three standards, recklessness prevailed as the path forward: “In the threats context, it means that a speaker is aware ‘that others could regard his statements as’ threatening violence and ‘delivers them anyway.’” The Court noted that reckless defendants have done more than make a bad mistake, but have consciously accepted a substantial risk of inflicting serious harm. Their formulation of the path forward took into consideration the “competing value” found in “protecting against the profound harms, to both individuals and society, that attend true threats of violence—as evidenced by this case” against chilling protected speech.  

Therefore, the Court ruled that, to find that someone communicated a true-threat, a party must prove the defendant at least acted recklessly when he or she conveyed the threat to another.  

To read more CLICK HERE

 

A summary of recent SCOTUS decisions on student debt, affirmative action, religious freedom and more

 A summary of significant SCOTUS cases during 2022-2023 term from The National Constitution Center:

Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown
ARGUED: 2/28/2023
These highly publicized cases involve the legality of the Biden administration’s student-debt relief program. Among the questions before the Court are if the respondents have the standing to challenge the program in court; if the Biden administration exceeded power granted to it by lawmakers; and if the Biden administration used the proper procedures to adopt the program.
Podcast: Presidential Power, Standing, and Student Loan Forgiveness
DECISION: 6/30/2023: In a 6-3 decision from Chief Justice John Roberts in the Nebraska case, the Court said the Secretary of Education lacked the authority under the HEROES Act "to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal." The other challenge was dismissed for lack of standing.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
ARGUED: 12/5/2022
In this case, an artist declined to design a website for a same-sex wedding, stating it was against her religious beliefs. The Court is considering if a Colorado public-accommodation law violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause if it compels a website artist and designer to speak or stay silent. ​​
Podcast: Free Speech, Same-Sex Marriage, and Anti-Discrimination Laws
DECISION: 6/30/2023: In a 6-3 decision from Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard Collegeand Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
ARGUED: 10/31/2022
In these cases, the Court is reviewing its prior precedent, Grutter v. Bollinger, regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education,and if institutions of higher education can still use race as a factor in their student admissions process.
Podcast: The Future of Affirmative Action
DECISION: 6/29/2023:  A divided Supreme ruled that the use of affirmative action in admissions programs at two universities was unconstitutional. In the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said the admissions programs could not be reconciled with the "guarantees of the [Constitution’s] Equal Protection Clause.” In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits."

Groff v. DeJoy
ARGUED: 4/18/2023
In this case, the Court will decide what is an “undue hardship” for an employer under the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII, after a postal worker declined to work on Sundays delivering Amazon packages due to his religious beliefs.
DECISION: 6/29/2023: In a unanimous opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business." The Court left the context-specific application of that clarified standard in this case to the lower courts to decide.

Counterman v. Colorado
ARGUED: 4/19/2023
A case involving numerous messages sent to a Facebook user that were interpreted by their recipient as threatening, leading to the sender’s conviction under a Colorado state stalking law. The court is considering if the sender knew or understood the statements could be interpreted as “true threats” unprotected by the First Amendment, or if a test that a reasonable person would understand the statements as threatening was enough to remove the speaker’s First Amendment protections.
Podcast: What are “True Threats” Under the First Amendment?
DECISION: 6/27/2023: In a 7-2 decision, the Court's majority said the State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than recklessness.

Moore v. Harper
ARGUED: 12/7/2022
In this case, the Court is considering the ability of North Carolina state lawmakers to have final approval over their own redistricting map. The power to do so would be based on an “independent state legislature” theory that cites the U.S. Constitution’s Election Clause as granting exclusive powers to state lawmakers to regulate federal elections within states.
Podcast:  The Supreme Court Considers the Independent State Legislature Theory
DECISION: 6/27/2023: In a 6-3 opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court's majority found that the Constitution's Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. 

United States v. Texas
ARGUED: 11/29/2022
The Court is considering if certain states have standing to challenge the Biden administration’s revised immigration guidelines, and if the revised guidelines violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
DECISION: 6/23/2023: In an 8-1 decision, the Court's majority said Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge the Biden administration's immigration-enforcement policy.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

Arizona v. Navajo Nation
ARGUED: 10/12/2022
The case centers on a dispute between the Navajo Nation and several states about water rights for the Colorado River. It involves the scope of the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the river’s waters.
DECISION: 6/22/2023: In a 5-4 decision, the Court said the 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.

Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products LLC
ARGUED: 3/22/2023
This case involves the design and branding of a line of humorous dog chew toys that resemble familiar trademarks. The Court is considering if the trademark holder is protected by the Lanham Act or if the toys’ producer instead receives heightened First Amendment protection due to the humorous nature of the dog toys, among other factors.
DECISION ON 6/8/2023: In a unanimous opinion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of the noncommercial use exclusion that a parody is always exempt from fair-use limits established by Congress.

Merrill v. Milligan
ARGUED: 10/4/2022
The justices will decide if Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven districts in the U.S. House of Representatives conflicts with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which bans racial discrimination in voting policies.
DECISION ON 6/8/2023: In a 5-4 opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court affirmed the District Court’s determination that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
ARGUED: 10/3/2022
In this case, the Court is considering the proper test for determining if wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate wetlands in general.
DECISION ON 5/25/2023: The justices decided the EPA lacked the ability to regulate the petitioners' property. A majority held the legal definition of wetlands is now limited to areas with a continuous surface connection to other waters. Four justices disagreed with the new definition.

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
ARGUED: 10/12/2022
This case involves a copyright dispute about the use of a photograph taken in 1981 of the musician Prince used in a later series of prints and illustrations created by the artist Andy Warhol without the photographer’s consent. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts argued the fair-use doctrine permitted such derivative works.
DECISION: 5/18/2023: In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that the foundation did not have a fair-use defense to license a derivative version of the photograph for commercial purposes.

Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
ARGUED: 2/21/2023, 2/22/2023
In Gonzalez v. Google, the Court considered if the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 allows lawsuits against internet services when algorithmic programs recommend a third party’s content to likely users, or if they can be sued only when engaging in traditional, manual editorial functions.
In Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court took on a similar question about the liability of widely available internet services such as Google’s YouTube service, Facebook, and Twitter under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and if these services can be sued based on the level of activity undertaken by them to detect their use by foreign terrorists such as ISIS.
DECISION ON 5/18/2023: Writing for a unanimous court ruled in Twitter v. Taamneh, Justice Clarence Thomas said that “the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.” After the Twitter decision, the court remanded the Gonzalez v. Google case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration.
Podcast: Google, Twitter, Section 230 and the Future of the Internet

To visit The National Constitution Center CLICK HERE

Tennessee legislature looks to expel three members for protesting gun laws

The Tennessee House is voting Thursday on whether to expel three Democrats from the legislature after they halted proceedings last week to join protesters demanding gun control, reported the Washington Post.

The House’s session has 29 items on its agenda, and the expulsion vote is expected to come near the end of the session. At the start of Thursday’s proceedings, Rep. Justin Pearson (D), one of the three facing expulsion, welcomed his supporters to the Capitol on the House floor.

“Thank you for getting on the bus at 3 a.m. or 2:30 a.m. this morning to be a part of this process,” Pearson said, “and to make sure your voices are heard and your presence is power so that we can continue to elevate the issues in our community and those who we continue to lose.”

As bills related to school safety and mental health were debated on the House floor on Thursday morning, Rep. Justin Jones (D), another of the three facing expulsion, argued that Republicans were trying to pass bills just to pass bills in a “PR move.”

“[These are] false solutions right before an expulsion vote,” Jones said, as supporters could be heard protesting outside the chamber.

At the doors to the entrance of the main gallery, several hundred protesters stood with ponchos and umbrellas on a rainy Nashville day, blowing whistles and chanting, “What do we want? Gun control. When do we want it? now” and “Do your job! Do your job!”

A young woman in a red bandanna with a pink whistle held a sign that says “I turn 18 today. Hallie, William and Evelyn never will,” in reference to the three 9-year-olds killed in the Covenant School shooting in Nashville.

Young children, teenagers, and parents stood in a light drizzle and 53-degree temperatures. They held an extended, bloodcurdling scream for more than three minutes, then chanted, “14 minutes. 14 minutes. Six Lives. Six Lives.”

Pediatric emergency physician Steve Riley, of Gallatin, Tenn., said he felt the need to make his presence known at the capitol despite the cold and rain.

“I’ve seen the video of what happened on the House floor, and I understand [the three Democrats] being reprimanded for not following the rules of decorum for the House, but a vote to expel them is wrong,” he said.

The Tennessee House has only expelled members twice in the modern era, according to a report from the office of the state’s attorney general.

On March 30, hundreds of students, parents, teachers and people from across Tennessee flooded the Capitol to urge lawmakers to pass gun-control legislation in the wake of the Covenant School shooting that killed six people, including three 9-year-olds.

During the protests, Reps. Justin Jones, Gloria Johnson and Pearson walked to the front of the chamber to join in the chants that reverberated from the gallery.

There were protesters of all ages — including children “from strollers to high school,” according to Johnson — padding the gallery, filling the rotunda and overflowing outside the building.

Jones, who held a sign that read “Protect kids, not guns,” led the crowd on the chamber balcony, shouting “No action, no peace!” into a megaphone. Afterward, Pearson spoke through the megaphone about gun violence and chanted, “Enough is enough.”

“There comes a time when you have to do something out of the ordinary,” Jones tweeted later that day. He added that the lawmakers “could not go about business as usual as thousands were protesting outside demanding action.”

The same day, Speaker of the House Cameron Sexton (R) referred to the Democrats’ actions as an “insurrection.” He said they had committed “multiple violations” of the General Assembly’s rules.

Republicans in the House filed the resolutions Monday to oust Jones, Johnson and Pearson, saying the three lawmakers “did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonor” to the House.

The resolutions to expel the three lawmakers cited the rules Sexton referred to, which include “preserving order, adhering to decorum, speaking only with recognition, not crowding around the Clerk’s desk, avoiding personalities, and not using props or displaying political messages.”

Pearson sent a letter the same day to all Tennessee representatives acknowledging that he had broken decorum during the March 30 protests but adding that “it was untenable to hear the chants, pleas, and cries of thousands of peaceful children outside our chambers and do nothing — say nothing.”

“We must never become desensitized to the voices of people crying out for change,” Pearson wrote at the end of the letter, which he posted online Tuesday. “We must never accept senseless deaths to continue on our watch and do nothing.”

Phillis Sheppard stood in line for an hour in the rain Thursday morning, hoping to get into the capitol rotunda to witness the expulsion vote. Across the street from the line, live musicians performed and volunteers passed out snacks and bottles of water to protesters.

“They’ve stopped letting people in,” Sheppard said. “It’s clear it’s an attempt to stop legislators from seeing what kind of support exists here outside. What’s happening with legislators, trying to expel these members, runs counter to everything we stand for. We want legislators to stand and speak for their constituents. It’s disheartening and enraging.”

Minutes later, the doors opened and the crowd cheered, as a family pushing a stroller emerged from inside — Eric Zabriskie, a doctor and psychiatrist at Vanderbilt medical center, with his wife and two boys, ages 4 and 2. The older boy is holding a yellow construction paper that reads “No Guns.”

“We were in the gallery,” he said. “They were voting in a bill for making sure there’s an armed security in schools — public and charter schools. As a physician and psychiatrist and father, I am here because we want common-sense gun reform.”

The Tennessee General Assembly — where Republicans hold the supermajority in both chambers — has faced pressure to enact gun legislation since the March 27 shooting but has resisted calls to do so.

Should the lawmakers be expelled, county and city-level officials would select delegates to serve in the three vacant House seats until the next regularly scheduled election in August 2024, said Carrie Russell, a political science senior lecturer at Nashville’s Vanderbilt University. Jones, Johnson and Pearson would be able to run for reelection at that time, she said.

As the resolutions were filed, protesters shouted and began chanting in the gallery, which Sexton ordered to be cleared and for state troopers to remove hecklers.

While the three lawmakers — who’ve been dubbed the Tennessee Three — awaited the votes this week, their supporters organized rallies and protests against their expulsion. Some were part of a caravan to Nashville, leaving their homes across the state in the early morning to reach the Capitol for Thursday’s proceedings.

Republican Reps. Gino Bulso, Andrew Farmer and Bud Hulsey, who filed the resolutions, did not respond to requests for comment from The Washington Post on Wednesday.

The White House opposed the resolutions to expel the representatives. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Tuesday that, across the country, Republican lawmakers were “doubling down on dangerous bills that make our schools, places of worship and communities less safe.”

“By doing what they’re doing with these three Democratic legislators, they’re shrugging in the face of yet another tragic school shooting while our kids continue to pay the price,” Jean-Pierre said. “That’s what we’re seeing every time that we hear one of these tragic events.”

Before Thursday’s votes, Russell told The Washington Post that she feared a “chilling effect” on lawmakers no matter the outcome.

She said taking an “extraordinary measure” like attempting to expel representatives “doesn’t bode well” for a government based on a representative democracy and an open marketplace of ideas.

“Cutting the mics off and expelling members is seemingly pretty closed off to deliberative democracy,” Russell said.

To read more CLICK HERE