#U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit

[minnesotafollower]

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Thao’s Petition for Review of Conviction for Killing of George Floyd     

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Tou Thao’s petition for certiorari asking for review of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ affirmance of his conviction on two counts of depriving George Floyd’s civil rights under color of law in 2020. Thao, therefore, must continue serving  his 3 and a half year sentence in federal prison.[1] =============================== [1] Montemayor, Supreme Court…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

On Friday afternoon, a federal appeals court blocked the Biden administration from doing almost anything to provide student loan relief to those people nationwide whose loans are currently in income-contingent repayment plans. It was the third appeals court ruling relating to the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program — and followed a June 30 order from a different appeals court that would have allowed the program to go into effect. Friday’s order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is the first of those appellate orders addressing the SAVE program that contained any substantive discussion of the effort. With the ruling, seven Republican-led states succeeded in getting a three-judge panel of all Republican appointees on a federal appeals court that only has one Democratic appointee to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the SAVE program. More than that, the injunction goes even further — blocking any similar relief, regardless of whether it is issued under the rule creating the SAVE program or otherwise.

The per curiam order issuing an injunction pending appeal, unsigned and with its grand total of eight pages of substance, was issued for Judge Raymond Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judges Ralph Erickson and Steven Grasz, Trump appointees. The ruling caused significant confusion coming a day or two after many borrowers across the country received word that their loans had been placed into forbearance following an earlier order from the same court in mid-July. Although the covered loans are not accruing interest during this time, according to the Education Department, the months the loans are in forbearance will not court toward borrowers’ Public Service Loan Forgiveness or income-driven repayment loan forgiveness time. Neither the Justice Department nor Education Department provided comment on Friday’s ruling or next steps in its immediate aftermath. The bottom line, though, is that the SAVE plan is blocked currently — and that this is not the final word.

Right-wing judicial activists on the 8th Circuit Court blocked the SAVE program from going forward.

[coquelicoq]

A Grants Pass city ordinance requires homeless residents living in vehicles to move every 72 hours, and police require anyone living in parks to move as often as is allowed by state law, which is also every 72 hours. City code bars anyone from sleeping in public spaces or using sleeping materials for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live under threat of criminal and civil penalty.

[...]

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case out of southern Oregon, expected in June, will broadly impact how local governments write homelessness policy in the United States.

Since the Supreme Court took up the case in January, Democrat and Republican governments, district attorneys and business associations submitted amicus briefs arguing a 2022 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals injunction removes necessary tools for enforcing laws against homeless residents sleeping on public property.

A host of organizations submitted amicus briefs in support of counsel representing homeless residents, saying laws punishing individuals for being homeless are cruel and unusual. The briefs also argued the laws do nothing to solve the homelessness crisis and will likely exacerbate the issue.

[...]

Referring to the state law, Jackson asked about “constitutional avoidance,” a legal doctrine that would allow the Supreme Court to decline to render a decision on the constitutionality of the Grants Pass ordinance. Roberts appeared to also question the court’s responsibility, asking why “these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgements.”

The lower court’s decision will stand if the court decides not to issue a ruling as a matter of constitutional avoidance. Kelsi Corkran, Georgetown Law Supreme Court director and counsel for the class of homeless residents, told the court she would have no issues with that outcome.

If the court determined the ordinance does not violate the Eighth Amendment because Oregon has a necessity defense, the burden of proof would fall on each homeless individual to show a court they were sleeping outside for a reason, each time they received a citation.

[...]

“Ending homelessness requires collaboration and buy-in,” Rabinowitz said. “That cannot happen when the government is focused on throwing away people's stuff and throwing folks in jail.”

Tickets can impact credit scores, making it more difficult for people to be accepted into housing, and a criminal history also creates significant barriers.

“All of these things break connections and displace people from their chosen communities,” Rabinowitz said. “They all make homelessness worse.”

There is a broad range for what the Supreme Court could ultimately decide, Rabinowitz said. It could uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision saying civil and criminal punishments against homeless residents for being homeless are cruel and unusual. It could say people can be fined but not arrested, or it could overturn Martin v. Boise. While there appeared to be little appetite for it in the courtroom, the court could go so far as to say it has wrongly interpreted the Eighth Amendment in cases like 1962’s Robinson v. California. That could make way for laws criminalizing other involuntary statuses.

Rabinowitz said in the best-case scenario, the Supreme Court will set a bar — albeit a low bar — saying homelessness cannot be criminalized. People still need a place to go, regardless of the court’s decision. Until the support systems are in place to keep people from becoming homeless, the crisis will continue, according to Rabinowitz.

“Homelessness is a choice made by our elected officials every day when they fail to fund housing,” he said.

8 May 2024

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on June 9 affirmed a Massachusetts middle school’s decision to forbid a student from wearing two T-shirts to school that say, “There are only two genders” and “There are [censored] genders.”

In May 2023, attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit against the town of Middleborough, Massachusetts on behalf of seventh-grader Liam Morrison, in which they asked the court to halt Nichols Middle School’s ban on his shirts and allow him to express his opinions as freely as the other students through the course of the lawsuit. The court denied that request. On Aug. 4, ADF attorneys filed a notice of appeal, requesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit rule in favor of Morrison’s free speech rights.

David Cortman, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation...

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The Supreme Court creates train wreck over Texas immigration law.

Over the last forty-eight hours, the Supreme Court has made a monumental mess of its review of a Texas law that seeks to assume control over the US border. If the consequences weren’t tragic, it would be comical.

The Texas law is plainly unconstitutional. It is not even a close question. But the Supreme Court created a situation in which enforcement of that law was stayed and then permitted to go back into effect multiple times in a forty-eighth hour period. It was like the Keystone Cops—all because the Supreme Court does not have the fortitude to control the rogue judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here's the bottom line: As of late Tuesday evening, the Texas law cannot be enforced pending further order of the Fifth Circuit. See NBC News, Appeals court blocks Texas immigration law shortly after Supreme Court action. As explained by NBC,

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 2-1 in saying in a brief order that the measure, known as SB4, should be blocked. The same court is hearing arguments Wednesday morning on the issue.

The appeals court appeared to be taking the hint from the Supreme Court, which in rejecting an emergency application filed by the Biden administration put the onus on the appeals court to act quickly.

I review the complicated procedural background below with a warning that it may change in the next five minutes. For additional detail, I recommend Ian Millhiser’s explainer in Vox, The Supreme Court’s confusing new border decision, explained.

Let’s start here: The federal government has exclusive authority to control international borders. The Constitution says so, and courts have ruled so for more than 150 years.

There are good reasons for the federal government to control international borders. If individual states impose contradictory regulations on international borders that abut the states, the federal government could not promulgate a single, coherent foreign policy—which is plainly the job of the federal government.

Texas passed a law that granted itself the right to police the southern border and enforce immigration laws, including permitting the arrest and deportation of immigrants in the US who do not have the legal authority to remain in the country.

Mexico immediately notified Texas that it would not accept any immigrants deported by Texas. (Mexico does accept immigrants deported by the US per international agreements.)

A federal district judge in Texas enjoined the enforcement of state law, ruling that it usurped the federal government's constitutional role. Texas appealed.

When a matter is appealed, the court of appeals generally attempts to “maintain the status quo” as it existed between the parties prior to the contested action. Here, maintaining the status quo meant not enforcing the Texas law that allowed Texas to strip the federal government of its constitutional authority over the border.

However, the Fifth Circuit used a bad-faith procedural ploy to suspend the district court’s injunction, thereby allowing Texas law to go into effect. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit did not “maintain the status quo” but instead permitted a radical restructuring of state-federal relations in a way that violated the Constitution and century-and-a-half of judicial precedent.

In a world where the rule of law prevails, the Supreme Court should have slapped down the Fifth Circuit's bad-faith gambit. It did not. Instead, the Supreme Court allowed the Fifth Circuit's bad-faith ploy to remain in effect—but warned the Fifth Circuit that the Supreme Court might, in the future, force the Fifth Circuit to stop playing games with the Constitution.

The debacle is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit. The reason the Fifth Circuit acts like a lawless tribunal is because the Supreme Court has allowed the Fifth Circuit to engage in outrageous, extra-constitutional rulings without so much as a peep of protest from the reactionary majority on the Court.

John Roberts is “the Chief Justice of the United States.” He should start acting like it by reprimanding rogue judges in the Fifth Circuit by name—and referring them to the Judicial Conference for discipline. Until Roberts does that, the Fifth Circuit will do whatever it wants.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[futileexercise]

Orwellian.

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court on Monday ruled that private individuals and groups such as the NAACP do not have the ability to sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act, a decision that contradicts decades of precedent and could further erode protections under the landmark 1965 law.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires political maps to include districts where minority populations’ preferred candidates can win elections.

The ruling applies to federal courts covered by the 8th Circuit, which includes Iowa as well as Arkansas, the state from which the appeal was filed. Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota also are in the court's territory.

The majority said other federal laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, make it clear when private groups can sue but said similar wording is not found in the voting law.

“When those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when ‘text and structure’ require it,” U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for the majority in an opinion joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender. Stras was nominated by former President Donald Trump and Gruender by former President George W. Bush.

The decision affirmed a lower judge’s decision to dismiss a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. The court had given U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland five days to decide whether to join the lawsuit.

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith noted in a dissenting opinion that federal courts across the country and the U.S. Supreme Court have considered numerous cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith said the court should follow “existing precedent that permits a judicial remedy” unless the Supreme Court or Congress decides differently.

“Rights so foundational to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government’s agents for protection,” wrote Smith, another appointee of George W. Bush.

NAACP: 'a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American'

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, called the ruling a “travesty for democracy.” She had argued the appeal on behalf of the two Arkansas groups.

“By failing to reverse the district court’s radical decision, the Eighth Circuit has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy, tossing aside critical protections that voters fought and died for,” Lakin said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether the groups would appeal. A statement from the ACLU said they are exploring their options.

Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, called the ruling "a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation’s electoral system.”

The state NAACP chapter and the public policy group had challenged new Arkansas state House districts as diluting the influence of Black voters. The state’s redistricting plan created 11 majority-Black districts, which the groups argued was too few. They said the state could have drawn 16 majority-Black districts to more closely mirror the state’s demographics.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky noted there was “a strong merits case that at least some of the challenged districts” in the lawsuit violate the federal Voting Rights Act but said he could not rule after concluding a challenge could only be brought by the U.S. attorney general.

The Justice Department filed a “statement of interest” in the case saying private parties can file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act but declined to comment on the ruling.

Another circuit court makes opposite ruling. Will Supreme Court decide?

It’s likely the case eventually will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the issue was raised in a 2021 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“I join the court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide,” Gorsuch wrote at the time, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “Our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under section 2.”

Gorsuch wrote that there was no need in that case for the justices to consider who may sue. But Gorsuch and Thomas were among the dissenters in June when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in another Voting Rights Act case in favor of Black voters in Alabama who objected to the state’s congressional districts.

The Gorsuch and Thomas opinion was referenced less than two weeks ago in another federal court decision that came to the opposite conclusion of Monday's ruling by the 8th Circuit.

On Nov. 10, three judges on the conservative-dominated 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments that there is no private right to sue under the Voting Rights Act. In a Louisiana congressional redistricting case, the panel said the U.S. Supreme Court so far has upheld the right of private litigants to bring lawsuits alleging violations of Section 2, as have other circuit appellate courts.

Fifth Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of ex-President George W. Bush, pointed to separate cases from 1999 and 2020 that reaffirmed that right.

Election law experts say most challenges seeking to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs and that the Justice Department has limited resources to pursue such cases. Some voting rights experts also noted the apparent contradiction in the Alabama case decided by the Supreme Court last June and Monday's ruling by the appellate court.

“It doesn’t seem to make sense,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “If the laws were that private parties couldn’t bring these cases, then the Alabama case would have never even gotten off the ground.”

If ruling stands, voting rights challenges likely to be limited

Lawsuits under Section 2 have long been used to try to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of racism, including many Southern states. Racial gerrymandering has been used in drawing legislative and congressional districts to pack Black voters into a small number of districts or spread them out so their votes are diluted. If only the U.S. attorney general is able to file such cases, it could sharply limit their number and make challenges largely dependent on partisan politics.

It’s unlikely Congress will be willing to act. Republicans have blocked recent efforts to restore protections in the Voting Rights Act that were tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago. In the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, justices dismantled an enforcement mechanism known as preclearance, which allowed for federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect in certain states and communities with a history of discrimination.

In a statement, the Congressional Black Caucus noted that private individuals and civil rights groups have been successful in giving Black voters better representation through recent challenges to congressional maps drawn by Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

“This decision by the appellate court is ill-advised, cannot stand, and should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we hope will reaffirm that citizens have a private right of action to bring forward lawsuits under Section 2,” the group said.

[mariacallous]

A federal appeals court has rolled back a Biden administration proposed rule on sex discrimination in a ruling blocking a transgender care mandate.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a North Dakota district court opinion in ruling in favor of Catholic health systems and associations, and the Religious Sisters of Mercy. The appeals court said implementation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibiting certain forms of discrimination in healthcare compels providers to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transition, which infringes upon religious freedom.

It affirmed the district court's opinion that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 entitles the plaintiffs to permanent injunctive relief from the provision or coverage of gender-transition procedures. 

WHY THIS MATTERS 

In July, HHS announced a proposed rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age and disability in certain health programs and activities. This proposed rule aimed to restore and strengthen civil rights protections after a Trump-era 2020 version of the rule limited its scope and power. It was expected to go into effect in 2023.

The Religious Sisters of Mercy; Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center, Alma, Michigan; SMP Health System; University of Mary; Catholic Benefits Association; the Diocese of Fargo; Catholic Charities of North Dakota; and the Catholic Medical Association brought a lawsuit and won in federal court in North Dakota.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appealed on the grounds that the district court erred in determining "that plaintiffs had demonstrated standing, ripeness, and imminent irreparable injury sufficient to justify permanent injunctive relief." 

The three-judge panel of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously disagreed.

THE LARGER TREND

The ruling is a setback for the Biden administration's attempt to uphold ACA transgender protections that were rolled back by the Trump administration.   In October, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General urging the Department of Justice to investigate the threats of violence against physicians, hospitals and families of children for providing and seeking gender-affirming care.

In June, a Texas judge reportedly temporarily blocked the state from investigating families of transgender children who had received gender-confirming medical care.

It's always the motherfucking Eighth Circuit...

[hansilw]

TODAY: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears 10 a.m. ET oral arguments in a lawsuit that may weaken Voting Rights Act protections. Republican officials in North Dakota argue private individuals and groups, who bring the majority of Voting Rights Act Section 2 cases, don't have the right to sue under what’s known as “Section 1983”

[minnesotafollower]

U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Federal Conviction of Tou Thao for Violating the Civil Rights of George Floyd

On August 4, 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed the conviction of Tou Thao by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for violating the civil rights of George Floyd during the 2020 murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin.[1] The appellate opinion by Circuit Judge Jonathan Kobes, which was joined by Circuit Judges James…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

A federal judge in North Dakota issued an injunction on Monday blocking the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from protecting any employees of any members of a nationwide Catholic association who are seeking time off or other accommodations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for an abortion or in vitro fertilization treatment.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor, a Trump appointee to the federal court in North Dakota, issued the religion-infused preliminary injunction to partially block enforcement of an EEOC rule implementing the 2022 law, along with related implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as to the Catholic Benefits Association and its members — current or future — nationwide. The order covers more than 8,000 employers — including thousands of churches — across the country. The PWFA was passed in December 2022 and is supposed to protect covered workers from discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” by, in part, requiring employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations. The EEOC proposed its implementing rule for the PWFA in August 2023, stating in part that abortion and fertility treatment, including IVF, are covered by the law’s protections. That rule, which does not relate to insurance coverage, went into effect in June.

“It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America,” Traynor declared in the introduction to his 21-page opinion, criticizing “the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.” Ultimately, Traynor concluded that happened again here, finding that the CBA is likely to succeed in its challenge to the rule and related Title VII enforcement guidance under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Any appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which only has one Democratic appointee among its 11 judges.

[...] Traynor sided with the Catholic employees — rejecting the EEOC’s arguments — on virtually all points, from standing to the underlying religious freedom claims to the scope of his eventual injunction. (Notably, Traynor gave little credit to the EEOC’s argument that “the Final Rule and Guidance acknowledge that employers may have RFRA defenses and commit to a fact-sensitive, case-by-case analysis.” Instead, he found that such an approach is not likely sufficient because the “burden of investigation and possible litigation” would remain.) The injunction is extremely broad, barring the EEOC from enforcing accommodations required under the PWFA rule relating to “abortion or infertility treatments,” along with guidance relating to “abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition“ under Title VII, including recent workplace harassment guidance.

Trump-appointed judicial activist Daniel Traynor issued a nationwide injunction in Catholic Benefits Association v. Burrows that blocks the EEOC from protecting any employees of any Catholic Benefits Association members who are seeking time off or accommodations for abortion or IVF services.

[nationallawreview]

Supreme Court Holds That the Eighth Amendment Does Not Prevent Enforcement of Local Camping Bans, Authorizing a Significant Shift in Local Policies on Homelessness

Until recently, local policies on homelessness have been guided by two controversial rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Martin v. Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584 and Johnson v. City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. 2022) 50 F.4th 787.[1] However, the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson(2024) 603 U.S. ____, is likely to transform local jurisdictions’ policy…

[cksmart-world]

SMART BOMB

The Completely Unnecessary News Analysis

By Christopher Smart

April 23, 2024

THONG BIKINIS — CHEEKS AHOY, RIO COMES TO ZION

Remember the “Girl from Ipanema?” In Brazil they've been wearing thong bikinis for quite a while now. You've seen the pictures, all those tanned butts up and down the beach. That's what you expect in Rio de Janeiro. Well Wilson, it's hard to believe but thong bikinis have come to the states — and even right here in Utah you see bare butts all over the place. Rio comes to Zion. Luckily the “Word of Wisdom” has nothing to say about thong bikinis. And we're not talkin' one here and there. Go to the park and take a gander at the young women sunning themselves. It's butts up. No Wilson, we don't know if there is a special butt-tanning lotion, but there could be a good business opportunity there. You could call it Cheeks Ahoy. Makes you wonder what young kids are going to think around the pool come summer. Hey mom, why is that lady's butt hanging out? Look away, Bobby. But mom, why does she have that thing in her butt crack? Bobby here's some money go get a candy bar and don't hurry. Butt-crack bikinis can be attractive — or not. Beautiful butts are in the eyes of the beholder. Speaking of which, there's trouble on the horizon. Hold on to your California baggies, soon men will be wearing thong bikinis. Yecht. You're right, Wilson, that's just wrong.

TIME TO KILL OFF THE HOMELESS

There are too many homeless people and it's high time we get rid of them. They're camping everywhere and using parks for restrooms and they drive real estate down. The U.S. Supreme Court soon will consider making homelessness illegal. The idea would be to ticket them and fine them and even jail them. HUD estimates there are some 650,000 homeless but the reality is closer to 1 million. Luckily there are some good ideas out there. One is to drive them like cattle to Canada. Another is to hire the Israelis and force them into the sea, kinda like Gaza. Or we could just send them all to Phoenix, Ariz. where they would soon burn up. But right now homelessness is legal following a ruling from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “[T]he Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precludes the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter.” If the Supreme Court lets that ruling stand the whole country could look like San Francisco or New Delhi. Of course, about the time Ronald Reagan moved into the White House homeless people were hard to find. But what's the sense in talking about what causes homelessness when we can just outlaw it and send them to the Galapagos.

DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH

Salt Lake City's Rio Grande district is a miracle waiting to happen... and waiting and waiting and waiting. Walt Disney took a barren chunk of land in Souther California and turned it into a magic wonderland. Well image the magic makeover the mayor and city could could do for the Rio Grande district — once home to the homeless and an open-air drug market. You may be pleased to know there are brand new plans for the area just west of the historic Rio Grande Depot. It's going to be swell — even more sweller than the last plan that wasn't implemented. It'll be something like Bourbon Street in New Orleans sans the Bourbon and the beads. With a cost $5 billion it will be so cool as to be unbelievable. Many of the details are under wraps, but sources who wished to remain anonymous tell Smart Bomb that plans include coordinating transportation systems with a wild mouse connecting Front Runner to the light rail — people could jump off at Festival Street. OK, what is Festival Street? Much like Main Street U.S.A. at Disneyland, it will feature fun stuff for the whole family, like Mr. Toads bridal gowns, Bear County lingerie and Frontierland Gun Shop. But like it has been for decades, plans remain in flux. For updates check back in 2028. It's going to be so cooooool. Just wait.

Lost script — Alright that's going to do it for another fun-filled week here at Smart Bomb where we keep track of the room temperature at Trump's “hush-money” porn star trial so you don't have to. Fact is, it's just damn cold in there. But even with the AC on blast the former president keeps dozing off. His defense team is working feverishly to come up with ways to keep him awake, including putting chili powder in his Gucci loafers and Bengay in his Jockeys. Something burning? Here's an item from our “New Celebs”-file. “The Devil Wears Prada” and so does Caitlin Clark. At the presser where she announced signing with the Indiana Fever, the b-ball scoring phenom who was No. 1 in the WNBA draft, was outfitted by — you guessed it — Prada. She cut a stylish figure sporting a double white satin shirt and skirt with an embroidered rhinestone mesh top — the first basketball player to be dressed by the luxury label for draft night. Prada isn't paying her, but Nike is. Clark has reportedly signed a eight-year, 28 million dollar deal with the shoemaker. That should help make up for her $76,000 WNBA salary. Just imagine, five years ago she was a kid trying out for the Iowa women's basketball team. You're right Wilson, that's one heck of an education.

Well Wilson, swimsuit season is upon us. Soon there will be a lot of flesh on display. At the pool and the park young folks will be working on tans and the side-effect called skin cancer. Utah has the highest skin cancer rate in the nation. For real. But forget that for a minute and get the band to play a little something for our soon-to-be thong-wearing friends:

Tall and tan and young and lovely The girl from Ipanema goes walking And when she passes Each one she passes goes - ah When she walks, she's like a samba That swings so cool and sways so gentle That when she passes Each one she passes goes - ooh But I watch her so sadly How can I tell her I love her Yes I would give my heart gladly But each day, when she walks to the sea She looks straight ahead, not at me Tall and tan and young and lovely The girl from Ipanema goes walking And when she passes, I smile But she doesn't see She just doesn't see, she never sees me...

(Girl From Ipanema — Lyrics written in Portuguese by Vinicius de Moraes, 1962, with music by Antonio Carlos Jobin. English lyrics written by Norman Gimbel, 1963.)

[sybbi]

For those who don't know, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that essentially will decide whether cities can criminalize being homeless if they're unable to provide adequate shelter to take people off the streets.

The people arguing for the right to say fuck the poor are basically arguing that, without being able to fine/imprison people without homes, they can't manage encampments and their towns will become unsafe and unsanitary. Basically, they don't want to address the issues causing rampant houselessness in their areas and, you know, govern for the public good, they want to take the easy way out and kick the can (or rather the homeless) down the road and hope the problem vanishes from their sight.

Even the Justice Department has weighed in and said people shouldn't be punished for sleeping outside when it's determined they have nowhere else to go.

More background, per the AP:

"The case comes from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which started fining people $295 for sleeping outside to manage homeless encampments that sprung up in the city's public parks as the cost of housing escalated.

The measure was largely struck down by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also found in 2018 that such bans violated the Eighth Amendment by punishing people for something they don't have control over. The 9th Circuit oversees nine Western states, including California, which is home to about one-third of the nation's homeless population.

The case comes after homelessness in the United States grew a dramatic 12%, to its highest reported level as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more Americans, according to federal data.

The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June."

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a 94-year-old grandmother who lost her home to foreclosure and then lost the equity she had in the property beyond the taxes she owed.

A Minnesota County sold Geraldine Tyler’s condo at an auction for $40,000. Instead of returning the $25,000 difference between the sales price and what she owed in back taxes, the county pocketed the balance and used the extra money for forest development, county parks, and recreation programs.

"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but not more," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Tyler's attorneys said about a dozen states have laws similar to Minnesota's – including New York, Arizona and Illinois – and that those laws can have a big impact on seniors struggling to pay property taxes after retirement. Tyler claims the county's handling of the property represented a government "taking" that she says violates the Fifth Amendment.  

Hennepin County told the Supreme Court that Tyler had five years to pay the taxes or sell the property. And, it argued, Tyler couldn't have recuperated the surplus money – and therefore doesn't have standing to sue – because she owed a mortgage and back homeowner association fees. Tyler moved out of the condo and into an apartment building for seniors in 2010.  

A federal district court sided with the county in the dispute and the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed that decision.

But a majority of the justices – conservatives and liberals – signaled during oral argument in April that they were concerned with the state law at issue in Tyler's case. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment bars the government from taking private property "without just compensation." 

Tyler also argued that the fines assessed by the county are excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Tyler owed about $2,300 in back taxes but with penalties and interest, her obligation grew to $15,000. 

The case is Tyler v. Hennepin County.