Eastern District of California Blog

Las Vegas Man Sues Sacramento Over Law Criminalizing Refusal to Stand During National Anthem

Per today's Sacramento Bee,

The debate over whether people should stand for the playing of the national anthem has now come to Sacramento, courtesy of a federal lawsuit filed against the city by a Las Vegas man who says he is afraid he could be arrested if he refuses to stand for the song at future Sacramento Kings games.

Jack Lipeles, who has operated jewelry and car service businesses and has been dubbed the “Jeweler to the Stars” because of his business and social ties to celebrities such as former boxing champ Mike Tyson, filed the suit last week alleging that Sacramento’s city code makes refusing to stand for “The Star-Spangled Banner” a crime.

“Plaintiff is unwilling (and should not be required) to subject himself to criminal prosecution in order to preserve his constitutionally (protected) right to freedom of speech,” the lawsuit says. “Consequently, it is impossible for Plaintiff to attend Kings game(s) but not stand for the Anthem.”

Although I applaud the First Amendment principle at issue here, this lawsuit seems more form than substance.  As a Kings season ticket holder, I can say that I've seen people sit (or kneel) during the National Anthem numerous times without repercussions.   And Judge England should have plenty of time to deal with this suit as I doubt there will be Kings games with fans in Sacramento any time this year--and maybe not next year either.  See Lipeles v. City of Sacramento, No. 2:20-CR-1328-MCE.

DOJ to Governor Newsom: Closing Churches Violates Religious Freedom, Call EDCA U.S. Attorney To Discuss

The U.S. Department of Justice sent this letter to Governor Newsom complaining that California's temporary closures to stop the spread of COVID-19 violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by purportedly singling out religious gatherings for unequal treatment.  Although the letter lists all four California U.S. Attorneys, the letter ends by suggesting Governor Newsom call EDCA U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott to discuss the matter further.

See also CBS Sacramento, 5/20/20.

EDCA Court Orders Sacramento County Sheriff to Unblock BLM Activists From Facebook

According to CBS Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones loses a First Amendment lawsuit over his ban of two Black Lives Matter activists from his facebook page.

ACLU Sues Fresno County Registrar Over Removal of Unitarian Church as Polling Place Because of "Black Lives Matter" Banners

Fresno County officials on Tuesday released a lengthy response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over the county’s decision to remove the Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno as a polling site — saying they did so after the church wouldn’t budge on displaying “Black Lives Matter” banners .

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed its lawsuit against Fresno County Registrar Brandi Orth in U.S. District Court in Fresno on Monday. The lawsuit claims Orth illegally removed the church as a polling location for the November election over banners with the words “Black Lives Matter” on the property.

Fresno Bee, 6/12/19 (updated)

 

EDCA Court Overturns California Ban On Handgun Advertising Signs

A federal judge in Sacramento has overturned a 95-year-old state law that banned firearms dealers from using images of handguns on their storefronts as advertising to sell such weapons.

The law blocked dealers from using such images but allowed them to use signs featuring shotguns or rifles, something state lawyers argued was in place to stop impulsive individuals from purchasing a handgun and using it in a suicide or crime.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley disagreed, ruling in an order filed Tuesday that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

“California may not accomplish its goals by violating the First Amendment,” Nunley wrote in a 15-page order issued in the four-year-old case.

Sac Bee, 9/11/18

Fresno State Professor Settles First Amendment Suit Over Erasing Anti-Abortion Chalk Messages on Campus

A Fresno State professor will pay $17,000 and undergo first amendment training after he erased students’ anti-abortion chalk messages on campus, according to Alliance Defending Freedom.

Greg Thatcher, a professor of public health, was sued in May by two students after video showed him scrubbing out messages like “women need love, not abortion” with his shoe and instructing other students to do the same. A court order filed last week forbids Thatcher from “interfering with, disrupting, defacing, or altering” any similar student activities.

Fresno Bee, 11/10/17

Feds Sue Raley's Over Alleged Religious Discrimination

Federal officials are suing the Raley’s supermarket chain, alleging one of its Chico stores engaged in religious discrimination against a courtesy clerk, then fired her because she did not complete a shift that conflicted with a religious meeting she had to attend.

The suit, which Raley’s says is unfounded and which it “will vigorously defend itself against,” was filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Jennifer Webb, who was hired in May 2014 to work at the Raley’s store on Notre Dame Boulevard.

According to the complaint, Webb told Raley’s supervisors before she was hired that she was a Jehovah’s Witness and because of her beliefs could not work shifts after 5 p.m. on Wednesdays and before 4 p.m. on Sundays because she had to attend religious meetings at those times.

Sac Bee, 9/28/17

 

EDCA Court Permits First Amendment Right of Association Claim By Siblings of Man Killed by Sacramento Police

The Sacramento Bee today reports on an interesting ruling by Judge Shubb permitting a First Amendment right of association cause of action to proceed in a § 1983 action brought by the siblings of Joseph Mann, who was killed by Sacramento police last year:

The sisters and brothers of a man killed by Sacramento police won a pivotal federal court ruling this week that potentially expands who can legally sue in the aftermath of police shootings and opens a window on more information about the controversial incident.

Joseph Mann was shot 14 times in July of last year by two Sacramento police officers, John Tennis and Randy Lozoya.

Mann’s father previously sued the city and settled for $719,000.

But Mann’s five siblings were unhappy with the outcome of their father’s suit because they wanted it to include public tracking of police reforms in Sacramento and information on whether the two officers who fired shots had been disciplined by the department.

In June, they filed an unusual lawsuit using the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Most commonly known for protecting free speech, the First Amendment also protects the right of association – usually invoked for social or political groups.

Lawsuits involving police shootings are usually filed in federal court using the due process clause of 14th Amendment. But the Supreme Court has limited who can file those suits to parents and children of the deceased.

In the Mann case, Sacramento lawyer Mark Merin argued that the killing deprived Joseph Mann’s sisters and brothers of the right to associate with him.

A judge said that legal angle raised “perplexing” questions, but was valid.

United States District Judge William B. Shubb ruled that nothing in the language of the Constitution or case law around the two amendments clearly excludes siblings from suing under the First Amendment, making it legal for the Mann siblings to make their claim.

Highlighting the ambiguity and gaps in current case law that lead to his decision, Shubb wrote, “It is sometimes said that tough cases make bad law. Here it might be more appropriately said that bad law makes tough cases.”

 

EDCA Court Blocks Cal Law That Allows Public Officials To Demand Their Private Info Be Taken Down From Internet

Gun owners' rights advocates are free to publish the home addresses and telephone numbers of California state lawmakers who voted for firearms restrictions, a federal judge decided Monday.

It is the second time in a week that judges decided that California lawmakers went too far in protecting the private information of public figures.

U.S. Chief District Judge Lawrence O'Neill of Fresno issued a preliminary injunction Monday blocking a state law that lets public officials demand that their private information be removed from the internet if they fear for their safety or the safety of their families.

O'Neill ruled that the state law is too broad and violates the advocates' free speech rights. Publishing the lawmakers' personal information "is a form of political protest," he said in a 38-page opinion.

Sac Bee, 2/27/17.  Here is Judge O'Neill's ruling from the Washington Post.  For more background, see Dan Morain's opinion on the ruling and the blogger who published the addresses of 40 state legislators who voted in favor of legislation requiring people who buy bullets to go through brief background checks first.

Prison Legal News Claims Censorship By Tulare County Jail Officials

Prison Legal News magazine has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux of violating the free speech rights of inmates by not delivering its publications to them.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Fresno, claims that 336 issues of Prison Legal News were not delivered or were returned to sender with no explanation.

It said the jail won’t deliver them because they have staples holding the pages together, but a Christian magazine with similar staples gets delivered.

Fresno Bee, 10/31/15