Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Overusing a park, prefering a paramour, and taking a knee.

|

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

Many of the opinions we summarize on Short Circuit reference the "Will of the People." Judges are like "who am I to find a law unconstitutional? That would overrule the Will of the People." But what exactly is this "Will" anyway? Do "the People" even know about most laws, let alone "will" them? We at the Center for Judicial Engagement are trying to answer these questions with a conference on Friday, September 10, featuring a slew of top-notch scholars. If you're in the Washington, DC area we'd love to have you come and join in! Register here. There's free Virginia CLE.

  • Did U.S. intelligence have advance knowledge of a credible threat to Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, whose murder was—to a high degree of confidence—ordered by the Saudi Crown Prince? That's not the sort of thing you can find out via a public records request, says the D.C. Circuit.
  • Allegation: Tenants tell Biddeford, Maine police officer that their landlord just threatened to murder them and shows the officer video of the landlord screaming at them. The landlord then screams at the officer that he has "nothing to lose," that he'll be "in the newspaper tomorrow," and that he'll make a "bloody mess." The officer leaves. Minutes later, the landlord shoots the tenants, killing two of them. First Circuit (over a dissent): The officer and the city might be liable.
  • Private Massachusetts high school receives three unsolicited one-page faxes from the nonprofit that administers the ACT. As one does in such situations, the school files a class action seeking $400 mil in damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which drags on for eight years. First Circuit: The case can't go forward as a class, but the school's individual claims can go forward. The nonprofit's offer to settle for the school's requested individual damages of $46.5k did not moot the case, because the school didn't accept the offer.
  • Seven months after being arrested by New York City police for alleged drug violations, man successfully has the prosecution dismissed on speedy-trial grounds. He then sues for malicious prosecution. But wait! He can't sue unless the criminal prosecution had a "favorable termination." Does dismissal on speedy-trial grounds count? Second Circuit: If the state doesn't prosecute your case, it's probably safe to assume it wasn't a very good case, which sounds like a favorable outcome to us.
  • Can a transgender woman who claims she was stabbed and raped by a fellow inmate sue federal prison officials who allegedly ignored her concerns? Third Circuit: "Her case falls comfortably within one of the few contexts in which the Supreme Court has recognized a Bivens remedy."
  • North Carolina state employee health care plan does not cover "gender-confirming" services. Transgender enrollees sue, claiming this violates the Affordable Care Act. Fourth Circuit (over a dissent): You can't usually sue a state for violating a federal law, but the high standard for waiver of the protections of the Eleventh Amendment was met here (because the plan accepts federal funds conditioned on such a waiver).
  • Prisoners must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a claim in federal court. Fifth Circuit: It's possible that no administrative remedy exists for a Texas prisoner concerned about future retaliation, particularly where officials have already claimed they would "gas [his] ass," slammed him to the ground, and maced him for filing grievances.
  • After refusing to either join MS-13 or pay a "war tax," Honduran man and his wife are repeatedly brutalized by the gang. The man enters the U.S. illegally and shows the authorities gruesome photos of his wounds. Immigration judge: He's likely to be tortured or killed if deported, but deport him we must. The Honduran gov't is merely unable to protect him. It doesn't consent or acquiesce to his persecution, which is what the law requires. Fifth Circuit (over a dissent): That's so. Nothing stopping the feds from using their discretion to let him stay, though.
  • College student gets restraining order against ex-boyfriend who'd broken her nose, pointed a gun at her head. Informed that he's continuing to stalk her, Ottawa County, Mich. police do little (allegedly upon the request of his father, a fellow officer), for instance, mailing him an arrest warrant rather just arresting him. He kills the student and himself. Sixth Circuit: Her family has no claim against the gov't.
  • Allegation: A woman is arrested for drunk driving in Tennessee. She's combative, and an officer tries to force her inside his vehicle, pushing on her knee. Which pops. She ends up with a broken shinbone and a torn ACL. In jail, she's unsteady and yelling about her knee. But a nurse glances at it for a minute and doesn't see swelling. Can the injured detainee sue the guard who refused to give her any medical treatment? A majority of the Sixth Circuit says the case goes forward. (The dissent would apply qualified immunity.)
  • Woman takes photos, records video of schoolchildren at Bloomington, Minn. park—the better to share her concern with the community that the Islamic charter school next to the park is overusing and otherwise not keeping to its agreement with the city re: park usage. Eighth Circuit: The First Amendment protects everyone, and the city's ordinance banning photography and videorecording in public parks is unconstitutional.
  • Is it sex discrimination when an employer favors one employee over another because of a workplace romance? Joining every circuit to consider the question, the Ninth Circuit says no, Title VII liability does not cover paramour preference.
  • Two cannabis activists ask the DEA, with a one-page handwritten petition, to reschedule the drug and make it less illegal. The DEA declines. A different group of people go to court challenging the denial. Ninth Circuit: The group before us has standing, but this lawsuit can't go forward because they raised different arguments from the original petition (and thus have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies). Concurrence: In the appropriate future case, the DEA's current classification of marijuana should go up in smoke.
  • Fans of the Seattle Mariners who use wheelchairs sue T-Mobile Park for having inadequate sightlines, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ninth Circuit remands for consideration of DOJ's 1996 Accessible Stadiums document. Left unanswered is how being unable to see the Mariners play constitutes an injury in fact.
  • After years of trying different kinds of medications (some make his tongue swell so much he can't talk, others make him grow breasts), man and his doctors at last find a combination that eases the symptoms of his mental illness without such severe side effects. Ninth Circuit: Nevada prison officials probably violated the Eighth Amendment when they ceased providing him those medications.
  • Pursuant to "bulky items" policy, Los Angeles officials summarily destroy homeless people's property like a dog crate, wooden pallets and a cushion for sleeping, carts used for moving one's possessions, and bins that a person used to keep their clothes dry. Ninth Circuit (over a dissent): Which probably violates the Fourth Amendment. The city must stop destroying people's stuff while the suit proceeds.
  • Oklahoma City cop moonlighting as security guard shines flashlight into parked car, startling man who'd apparently been sleeping in driver's seat with a gun in his lap or in his waistband. The man reaches for the pistol, and the officer shoots him nine times, killing him. Tenth Circuit: No constitutional violation here. Qualified immunity.
  • Allegation: 15-year-old is taken from California against her will to Logan, Utah residential treatment facility, where she's repeatedly sexually abused. She files a timely suit in California. But the facility transfers the case to Utah, where it's beyond that state's statute of limitations and thus dismissed. Tenth Circuit: Just so. Deciding which state's substantive law applies to a dispute with more than one state connection is complex—there are at least seven approaches in use among the 50 states—but we're going with Utah here. Dissent: Ought to go with California.
  • The city of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. prevents a local nonprofit from distributing food to the homeless in a public park, which the group challenges as a violation of the First Amendment. Eleventh Circuit: And they're right. Concurrence (by two judges): But don't get any ideas. This case had a well-developed record showing that the nonprofit uses these events to spread its particular political message.
  • From this day forward, it's unconstitutional for police to shoot 20 times at a driver coasting by them unthreateningly, says the Eleventh Circuit. However, since no case has previously said as much, the officers here are entitled to qualified immunity.
  • Georgia voters who vote via absentee ballot can either mail it in or drop it off. Plaintiffs: The stamp voters must provide to mail in an absentee ballot is a poll tax in violation of the 24th Amendment. Eleventh Circuit: It is not, and your claims "border on the frivolous."
  • After Kennesaw State University cheerleaders kneel during national anthem at football game, Georgia state legislator (who chairs committee controlling public university budgets) and county sheriff tell the university's president to make them stop. The university responds by keeping the cheerleaders in a tunnel while the anthem is played for several games. Eleventh Circuit (in a ruling with two majority opinions): A cheerleader's claims against the sheriff can't go forward.

Earlier this year, the DEA and the Nevada Highway Patrol took nearly $87k in cash from Stephen Lara, a Marine veteran pulled over for following a truck too closely. He had committed no crime and wasn't arrested. And when the deadline for officials to either return the money or sue to keep it came and went, officials just . . . kept the cash. However, within minutes of The Washington Post publishing a story about the seizure and the launch of an IJ suit seeking a return of the money, the DEA announced it was returning the money this week. The suit is not over, however, as Stephen is also challenging the Nevada Highway Patrol's power to participate in the federal "equitable sharing" program, which lets state agencies do an end-run around state law and process forfeitures under federal law. Click here to learn more.

NEXT: Four Things Opponents of S.B. 8 Should Not Say

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “mailing him an arrest warrant rather just arresting him”

    Why not just arrest him via Zoom?

    1. Every fact in that case is outright disgusting conduct by the police.

      1. Ok…don’t take what I said literally. Not *every* fact, but the apathy and lack of urgency shown towards someone who is well-armed and threatening murder is appalling.

    2. Guy missed a golden opportunity to do the old, mail me a warrant/citation, I’ll mail back a pic of money, patiently waiting your next missive with pic of handcuffs. 🙂

    3. When it comes to protection, everyone is responsible for himself. The government will not protect you.

      1. And THAT’S why abortion is legal in the United States.

  2. He’s likely to be tortured or killed if deported, but deport him we must. The Honduran gov’t is merely unable to protect him. It doesn’t consent or acquiesce to his persecution, which is what the law requires

    Pretty much has to work this way, otherwise what? We’re just importing the entire country of Honduras? If so, they’re bringing MS-13 with them, then not only have we not helped the Hondurans now Americans are being victimized too. The 9th Circuit has some questionable law on this topic, SCOTUS should take an opportunity soon to clarify that the 5th is right here. Honduras is going to have to solve her own problems.

    1. Pretty sure MS-13 started here in USA.

      1. Started in the USA by Salvadorans. That the USA was at one point in the past victimized by Salvadoran criminals doesn’t make the USA responsible for the actions of current Salvadoran criminals. If anybody is responsible for taking in refugees, it’s El Salvador, it’s their nationals that founded the gang.

        1. We exported them to Honduras fair and square.

    2. > We’re just importing the entire country of Honduras?

      I am pretty sure that is the Democrat’s goal.

      1. I am pretty sure that you just outed yourself as rather stupid.

    3. Actually, they do acquiesce. Read the decision. Read the dissent.

      This is just a couple of xenophobic Trump judges turning a blind eye to the facts.

  3. Fun week of police both having no duty to help anyone AND no liability for needlessly harming anyone. What an amazing society we live in.

    1. BACK THE BLUE!

        1. Rhythm and blues?

    2. Government protects itself?

      Shocking!

      Let us give it more power …what could go wrong?????

    3. They are the agents of the prosecutor, a lawyer, and suck in every way.

      1. Every way? Even the way YOU suck?

  4. “ ‘The facts of this case are undeniably tragic.’” 489 U.S. at 191. Since that decision, which at least tacitly created a state-created danger component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, nearly every decision contains similar language, usually in the context of denying a claim. This appeal is no different.”

    “There’s simply nothing we can do about all these tragedies” say people who get to make up constitutional law as they go.

  5. So long as police officers now only shoot someone 19 times as they coast past “unthreateningly” they’ll once again get qualified immunity. Then 18, and 17….. Q.I. definitely needs to be fixed.

    1. Not 100% sure you can rule out 21 either.

      On the one hand, you have to first shoot someone 20 times to get to the 21st shot so there’s a constitutional violation en passant.

      But the officer could counter that he only did the first 20 as an inseparable part of a comprehensive 21-shot scheme, and 21 hasn’t been ruled on yet.

      1. The cop also almost certainly had to reload.

        1. Not if he works as part of a team.

      2. 21 gun salute as a single volley at the unthreatening vehicle.

  6. “Left unanswered is how being unable to see the Mariners play constitutes an injury in fact.”

    Ouch. That burn was so harsh I think you deorbited.

    1. A 15 year old boy challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him. The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with child custody law and regulation requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree possible. The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and said that they also beat him. After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him. After two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Seattle Mariners, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.

      1. Came here to post this exact joke ….

        1. I believe the M’s currently have a record over .500.

          1. …and…ummm…only three games out of the second American League Wildcard spot!

            Hey, when you’re a Mariners fan you seize whatever small triumphs that come along.

            1. I don’t know that there are any actual Mariners fans. When I lived near Seattle (in 1989), the point of going to a game was to see the visiting team. At that point, they’d never had a winning season, and there was only one Ken Griffey playing professional baseball and he played for the Reds, in a completely different league.
              I grew up in Portland, OR, which remodeled its AAA baseball stadium into a soccer facility a little over a decade ago.

  7. A nice selection of law enforcement getting it from both ends. Either they’re too zealous or not zealous enough. Though, apparently the courts have decided the latter is the better course of (in)action. And people will wonder why crime is skyrocketing.

    1. Violent crime is down so far in 2021. There was a modest increase (3%) in 2020, but even then the overall rate is way lower than a decade ago.

      So no, people don’t wonder why crime is skyrocketing since it’s actually declining.

      1. Gee, just yesterday our Democrat DA in Harris County, TX said crime is on the rise because courts are backlogged, and too many criminals are being released. Is she lying or just misinformed? Perhaps she just doesn’t have access to your sources of information, but I’ll pass along the good news.

        1. It’s some fun with statistics & being overly precise. It’s true that “violent crime” increased 3% in 2020. Homicide, a subset of violent crime, was up 25% in 2020 and up 16% in 2021 so far. Also absent from the 3% is “non-violent crime” (including robberies) is up significantly as well.

          So yes, it’s true that “violent crime” a very large category is up “only” 3%. Then you look at the details and see the jumps.

          1. Even if you want to focus on murders (which I agree are up a lot, but no one really has a great theory as to why they’re increasing while basically all other violent crimes are not), they’re still WAY lower than 20 years ago.

            As for non-violent crime, I’ve not seen any data for 2020/2021 at all. Can you point to something showing they’re up substantially?

            As far as I know, there’s one or two specific crimes that have shown an increase over the past couple of years. Everything else is flat or down. The notion that “crime is skyrocketing” is not supported by any actual data, regardless of what politicians may be saying to get elected.

            1. When you increase the threshold of what constitutes a major property crime it is pretty easy to say that crime has gone down even if the number of thefts remain the same. Throw in the number of districts dismissing cases because of lack of court dates due to the pandemic as long as no violence is involved and we wonder how they claim crime is down?

              1. ” Throw in the number of districts dismissing cases because of lack of court dates due to the pandemic as long as no violence is involved and we wonder how they claim crime is down?”

                Lack of convicting anyone for committing a crime doesn’t make the rate of crime go down.
                If you get the right guy, and if that guy has a predilection towards committing that crime, then getting a conviction can make the crime rate go down, because there’s one less guy committing that crime on the street.

            2. Even if you want to focus on murders (which I agree are up a lot, but no one really has a great theory as to why they’re increasing while basically all other violent crimes are not), they’re still WAY lower than 20 years ago.

              I think you mean way lower than 30 years ago. 20 years ago, they were “about the same”. As for the a theory one why, Police backing off enforcing a lot of stuff (George Floyd/Chauvin protests/riots being one of many). It’s easier to let someone go than risk another riot.

              As far as I know, there’s one or two specific crimes that have shown an increase over the past couple of years. Everything else is flat or down. The notion that “crime is skyrocketing” is not supported by any actual data, regardless of what politicians may be saying to get elected.

              I’ll cite CNN for this one. When reporting takes effort and doesn’t result in anything happening, people stop reporting & it doesn’t make it into the official data.

              https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/16/us/san-francisco-shoplifting-walgreens/index.html

            3. “which I agree are up a lot, but no one really has a great theory as to why they’re increasing while basically all other violent crimes are not”

              It’s really hard to lie about whether somebody got murdered, you’ve got this dead body to explain. Other statistics are easier to rig.

              1. It used to be the case, and probably still is, that homicide counts were the best index of violent crime, for that reason.

              2. “It’s really hard to lie about whether somebody got murdered, you’ve got this dead body to explain.”

                Unless you don’t. Not that I’m suggesting any specific course of action, but it is possible to murder someone AND destroy the corpse either concurrently or subsequently.

        2. Depends on the context. Was she advocating for more budget and resources, or running for re-election, or actually advocating stricter enforcement?

          Crime is always rampant when it’s budget time. Crime is always going down when it’s time for re-election.

        3. “Is she lying or just misinformed?”

          It’s Texas, so probably both.

  8. Jim Crow on steroids:
    “Georgia voters who vote via absentee ballot can either mail it in or drop it off. Plaintiffs: The stamp voters must provide to mail in an absentee ballot is a poll tax in violation of the 24th Amendment.”

    1. The next step was going to be claiming having to carry the envelope to the mailbox was a 13th amendment violation, so ballot harvesting had to be permitted.

    2. I mean they could just, you know, show up on voting day at the polls.

      1. Sure. Just show up to polling places that are intentionally poorly-placed, and unable to handle the capacity of people who DO show up. I mean, EVERYBODY can devote 5 hours to waiting in line to vote on a workday, right?

        1. The State of Georgia has provided, as an alternative, that they mail in an absentee ballot. All for the cost of a stamp — today 55 cents. If they are employed and cannot miss work, then for the convenience of mailing it in, they have to pay that minimal sum. The minimum wage in Georgie is $ 7.25 per hour, which means they have to give up less than 5 minutes worth of wages.

          So, no, when you are being given a cheap, convenient alternative, I have no sympathy to someone who complains as you do.

          1. So what is your point?

            1. Read the thread. Paying for a stamp is not mandatory, it’s the cost of a convenience, and a pretty cheap cost at that. The traditional way was to show up at the polls, wait your turn, and vote. What I have been doing in every election since I was 18.

              If someone chooses to use an alternative convenience, and has to pay 55 cents for it, that is not a Constitutional violation, nor a threat to democracy.

              1. “The traditional way was to show up at the polls, wait your turn, and vote. ”

                Which would be fine, if one of the parties weren’t (apparently intentionally) placing polling places in inconvenient locations in some precincts that have a history of not supporting that party’s candidates, or of undersupplying necessary equipment and supplies to support such precincts.

                In short, Republicans are well aware that their voter base are highly likely to show up on election day, and wait, and vote, even if it is made difficult for them to do so. On the other hand, there is a huge pool of people who will choose to stay home (or at work) on election day, and many of those potential voters are people who tend to support not-Republicans running for office, and not-Conservative ballot issues. Sometimes, these would-be voters will even vote that the government should provide benefits to citizens, even if (gasp!) taxes have to be raised to pay for the services they want. Obviously, it behooves the Conservative Republicans to make it as hard as possible to actually cast a ballot. It turns out, if you don’t keep those people from voting, they will actually show up and vote for things that they want, and the Conservative Republicans do not want. In Oregon, they came up with a variation… all government spending bills had to be approved by at least 50% of eligible voters, rather than by a majority of the votes cast. You’d have spending bills on the ballot that got 70% or 80% “yes” votes… and failed because turnout wasn’t high enough. They were actually running “get out the not-votes” among Republicans. They didn’t ask their supporters to go vote “no”, they asked them to not vote. So they switched to all-mail voting, and then automatically registered people to vote when they did anything at the DMV… get a new driver’s license, and you’re registered to vote at the address you gave the DMV. (That takes care of voter-ID with registration… the nice folks to issue most of the state-issued ID are registering voters.)

          2. “The State of Georgia has provided, as an alternative, that they mail in an absentee ballot. ”

            They also coincidentally, just tightened up the rules about who can be allowed to vote absentee. “Because I want to” is not considered a good enough reason.

    1. Huh, go figure: Reason allows multiple links if you don’t bother creating a proper hyperlink, but instead post the naked url. I don’t see how that could be deliberate, so somebody really messed up their spam filter.

      1. Shocker. Someone else who doesn’t understand how IT security works.

  9. After years of trying different kinds of medications (some make his tongue swell so much he can’t talk, others make him grow breasts)

    What were these drugs again that make your tongue longer and breasts grow? Asking for a friend.

    1. There’s a whole class of psychiatric medications, which are notorious for causing those sorts of side effects. (Tongue swelling, btw, not lengthening.

      1. Anyone surprised that Brett has knowledge of the side effects of psychiatric medications?

        1. Four years of college level human biology, and I’m good with a search engine. Took about 15 seconds to google it, but without the biology background I might not have known what to search for.

          1. AND he’s quick (ish) with an excuse for knowing all about psychiatric drugs!

  10. Allegation: 15-year-old is taken from California against her will to Logan, Utah residential treatment facility, where she’s repeatedly sexually abused.
    ________
    Logan River responded by moving to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, transfer the case to federal court in Utah. The Central District granted the motion to transfer because … the interest of justice, favored transfer … Once in Utah, Logan River … moved to dismiss [because statute of limitations][Granted!]

    Justice served!

    1. Cute, but note that transferring venue from California to Utah has nothing to do with whether Utah or California law would formally apply to the case.

      1. Sure, the defense had no idea how that would work. Sounds likely.

  11. The city of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. prevents a local nonprofit from distributing food to the homeless in a public park, which the group challenges as a violation of the First Amendment. Eleventh Circuit: And they’re right. Concurrence (by two judges): But don’t get any ideas. This case had a well-developed record showing that the nonprofit uses these events to spread its particular political message.

    So you can feed the pigeons if you blabber at them, but not if you’re just trying to be nice.

    Did Christians make this law? Because it makes Jesus angry. You’re supposed to help the poor, not hurt those who do.

    1. Also, isn’t this supposed to use an argument about being inextricably intertwined with speech?

      Also, we hate using speech as cover for actions, until we don’t, like BDS. Or do we? Wait, what was the issue? I need to know before I decide how I weigh in on the importance of this philosphical principle. Is it a shining girder of gold restraining government, or just some old crap from dead white men we can ignore?

    2. This particular case is a little odd.

      These sorts of cases are usually the result of food safety and licensing laws, not anti-charity laws. It’s the same laws that threaten 7 year-olds with lemonade stands.

      This time, there is no justification, reasoning, or guidance: The law just says that organizations are required to get written permissions from the government before distributing food. Nothing else.

      Of course, equally stupid is the entire “Giving out food is free speech” claim – giving out food is a demonstration of their views, not the description of them, nor is it necessary to spread their message.
      It’s like claiming that because your message is that prostitution should be legal, you have a First Amendment right to engage in it.

      1. This time, there is no justification, reasoning, or guidance: The law just says that organizations are required to get written permissions from the government before distributing food. Nothing else.

        The city is trying to limit large numbers of homeless people congregating in the park.

        You can agree or disagree with that policy goal, but I don’t think there’s anything particularly opaque about it.

        1. Sorry for being unclear, I was quoting the Court’s description of the law, rather than the application to this case.

          It seems like the law as written does not give anything beyond the bare requirement, nor was there any legislative record left. While the Court may be wrong about that, it’s what they said in the ruling and I’m too lazy to try to look it up.

      2. “This time, there is no justification, reasoning, or guidance: The law just says that organizations are required to get written permissions from the government before distributing food. Nothing else.”

        I would guess the goal is limiting the number of people attracted to the park who won’t be leaving by sundown.

  12. a poll tax in violation of the 24th Amendment.

    Sigh. The 24th Amendment does not forbid poll taxes. On the contrary, it pretty explicitly permits them. What it forbids is not letting someone vote because he hasn’t paid “any poll tax or other tax”.

    The only reason poll taxes are mentioned separately is that the mischief it was intended to cure was that certain states were conditioning the right to vote on payment of that specific tax, as opposed to some other tax or to all taxes, and were enforcing that condition in a racially biased manner. That they picked that specific tax was more a coincidence than anything else.

    1. Perhaps I’m being dense today, but I think that I’m missing something here. Are you saying that it doesn’t forbid poll taxes, it just forbids not letting people vote because they haven’t *paid* said poll tax?

      1. That would be a good plain text reading, yes. By the way, the “poll” in “poll tax” doesn’t mean “voting”. It’s a “head” tax or per capita tax. A tax that applies per person not per voter.

      2. Yeah, that’s pretty clear: They can’t stop you from voting because you’re behind on your taxes.

  13. After Kennesaw State University cheerleaders kneel during national anthem at football game, Georgia state legislator (who chairs committee controlling public university budgets) and county sheriff tell the university’s president to make them stop. The university responds by keeping the cheerleaders in a tunnel while the anthem is played for several games.

    Cancel culture, anyone?

    1. “Cancel culture, anyone?”

      Before they started whining about it, conservatives were masters of that game. They invented it.

  14. Hooowah! This 77-year-old retired lawyer doth love the John Ross show.

    Full of great writing and rapier wit.

Please to post comments