Civil Rights News - Law and Daily Life

Law & Daily Life - The FindLaw Life, Family and Workplace Law Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Category

Contrary to certain internet rumors, President Donald Trump hasn't altered the U.S. Constitution. Yet. But could he if he wanted to?

Trump has proposed constitutional amendments in the past and it's no secret that there are provisions in our nation's founding documents with which our new president disagrees. So the question with President Trump is not so much whether he would like to change the Constitution, but whether he can.

The idea of internet privacy seems to take one of two forms: outrage that web browsers, email providers, and ISPs have nearly unfettered access to your information on the one hand, and on the other a shrug of the shoulders and a "you put your info on the internet, what did you expect?" The law has tried to find a balance between these two poles, weighing an individual's privacy interests against the public nature of the web, all while dealing with statutes that become antiquated in just a few years.

The latest attempt from legislators to strike such a balance is the Email Privacy Act, which, among other provisions, would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing private messages and documents stored online with communications and cloud computing companies like Google, Facebook, and Dropbox. The Act is making its third run through Congress in an attempt to become law, but will it fare any better this time than in the past?

Last month, in response to President Trump's executive order on immigration, protests spontaneously broke out at many of the nation's largest international airports. Those protests subsided as opponents won injunctions in court, barring federal authorities from enforcing the order. But that doesn't mean the end.

Those court cases are still ongoing, and Trump has indicated his administration will redraft the travel ban in an attempt to make it more Constitution-friendly, which leaves open the possibility of future airport protests. Are these protests legal? And do protestors' rights differ when they're in or around airports?

When Donald Trump issued an executive order banning entry into the United States of individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries, the legal response was immediate. Lawsuits in New York, Virginia, and Boston won temporary stays against enforcement of the order, and a suit from the Washington State resulted in a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban from going into effect.

Trump's lawyers appealed that decision, asking that the government be allowed to enforce the executive order while the legal cases played out in court. But in a unanimous decision yesterday, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued yet another ruling against Trump's travel ban, upholding the prohibition on enforcement.

Suing government officials and employees is not always possible, and when it is, it's more difficult than most people expect. Whether you have a civil rights case against a law enforcement officer for excessive force, or a postal carrier rear ended you, to simply achieve a legal resolution, there are several barriers to overcome to get justice from the government, even for government employees.

One of the biggest hurdles to getting justice from the federal, state or local government, or an employee, or official, is the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity. This legal doctrine basically states that the government (the sovereign) is immune from liability (can't be held accountable in court). However, while immunity is an actual thing, under limited circumstances, the government cannot claim sovereign immunity to escape liability. This session of the United States Supreme Court is expected to provide more insights as to when immunity defenses will apply to police officers and federal agents that are being sued for civil rights violations.

Depending on who you talk to, Roe v. Wade might be the Supreme Court's best or worst decision. It's certainly one of its most controversial. And whether or not you support the Court's ruling, you'll probably end up in a discussion at some point, talking about what it says and what it means for women, for pregnancies, or for the country.

Like many important court cases, there are plenty of misconceptions and misinformation about what Roe means and what its long-term legal impact has been. Here are the five biggest myths regarding the Court's ruling, and the truth behind them.

At the tail end of an already busy first week in office, President Trump on Friday issued an executive order banning the entry of all foreign refugees into the country along with nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including those with immigrant visas and possibly green card holders as well.

The response -- from protestors and civil rights attorneys -- was immediate, and by Saturday night a federal judge in New York issued a "stay," prohibiting the government from enforcing certain parts of the order. Federal judges in Virginia, Seattle, and Boston did the same, but many are still left in legal limbo while the constitutional crisis sorts itself out.

So what are these stays, whom do they cover, and how long will they remain in effect?

After the Badlands National Park went rogue on Twitter last week, posting facts related to climate change, much attention was drawn to the new president's policies on government employee free speech. While the First Amendment protects free speech rights, those rights are not absolute.

This week, the White House issued directives to several federal agencies that mandate supervisor approval before employees make public statements, particularly concerning political or scientific matters that the previous administration supported. The implication seems to be that supervisor approval will be withheld if the content is in line with the previous administration's core policies.

The president, as the executive officer of the federal government, basically controls each federal agency through the power to hire the agencies' head directors. Additionally, it is within the president's power to tell the directors to implement new policies, even those that restrict government employee speech that relates to an employee's duties.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a federal lawsuit against one of the largest private and federal student loan servicing company, Navient Corp. The lawsuit alleges Navient of "systemically and illegally failing borrowers at every stage of repayment."

Basically, they are alleged to have regularly deceived borrowers into choosing higher cost options.

Way back in 2011, the former President Barack Obama's administration set up "We the People," an electronic petitioning system that provided users with a free WhiteHouse.gov account that allowed them to create new petitions and sign existing ones. The site garnered a lot of attention and more than a few petitions -- from September 2011 to July 3, 2016 almost 5,000 petitions were submitted that received at least 150 signatures, including 174 petitions in the site's first eight days.

As with anything on the internet, there was some good and there was a lot of bad. While we don't know the fate of online petition site in the hands of now-President Donald Trump, we can take a look back at the good, the bad, and the crazy from "We the People" over the past five years.