#in arizona a prison was able to sue the state for lack of prisoners as well just a handful of years ago

[cainite-bite]

i hope people realize that the supreme court's ruling on the homeless is more than anything about making a bigger funnel for a slave labor force for the prison system

[thedcdunce]

Bombshell

“I hate Nazis!” - Bombshell

Real Name: Amy Sue Allen

Gender: Female

Eyes: Blue

Hair: Brown

Skin: Silver

Powers:

Dilustel Armor

Abilities:

Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic)

Marksmanship

Weaknesses:

Vulnerability to Extreme Temperatures

Equipment:

Quantum Jet

Universe: New Earth

Citizenship: American

Marital Status: Single

Occupation:

Adventurer

Soldier 

Criminal

First Appearance: Teen Titans Vol 3 #39 (November, 2006)

Last Appearance: Teen Titans Vol 3 #100 (October, 2011)

Powers

Dilustel Armor: Bombshell was exposed to the alien metal Dilustel which bestowed upon her tremendous power and the link to the Quantum Energy Field. Amy had been bonded to the metal and had not been at ground zero for a nuclear blast to tie her directly to the field. Nevertheless, her connection to said field is still present bestowing her numerous abilities such as either partially or fully coating herself in her Dilustel skin, it is yet to be seen if she still retains her link to the field even while partially covered.

Quantum Field Manipulation: Bombshell can control and project limited varieties of energy from the Q Field including harnessing it for use of her other powers as well. Although Either due to lack of experience or the process by which she was granted her powers of Superhuman Strength and Invulnerability, Amy lacks the fine tuned abilities that both of her hallmarks have come to possess over the years. So far she has shown a number of feats such as basic quantum blasts and energy absorption coupled to a few abilities unique to herself such as technopathy and neural disrupting energy pulses.

Energy Enhanced Punches: Amy Allen can empower her physical attacks with quantum energy magnifying the strength of her blows twice over.

Flight: She is able to fly at speeds reaching up to Mach 3.

Superhuman Durability

Superhuman Strength: Able to lift hundred ton masses with utmost ease.

Technopathy: She's shown the ability to channel her quantum powers to manipulate technological devices with nothing but her mind and electromagnetic interaction.

Abilities

Hand-to-Hand Combat (Basic)

Marksmanship

Weaknesses

Vulnerability to Extreme Temperatures: Though virtually invulnerable, Bombshell's Dilustel coating will break down in the presence of extreme temperatures.

Equipment

Quantum Jet

History

Very little is known about Amy Allen's history or how she came upon her powers. In all likelihood there is a connection between herself and the super-hero Captain Atom. Through an undetermined means, Amy's body was coated with the same Dilustel alloy that coats the bodies of Captain Atom and his nemesis Major Force. This "quantum metal" grants Amy near invulnerability, enhanced strength, and the ability to fly and project bursts of concussive atomic energy.

Shortly after the events of "Infinite Crisis", Amy was one of many heroes who turned out for a Teen Titans recruitment drive in San Francisco, California. Calling herself Bombshell, her tenure with the Titans was extremely brief and in less than a year, she left the team to pursue her own agenda.

In the following year, the Teen Titans embarked on a search for one of their missing members – Raven. They tracked Amy to the South China Sea where they found her engaged in battle with the Red Panzer. After assisting her in defeating the Panzer, they pressed her for information concerning Raven. Bombshell told them that Raven and she investigated rumors of a traitor within the ranks of the Titans at which point she openly accused Ravager of plotting to betray the team. This caused tension within the ranks and several Titans, particularly Kid Devil, argued in Rose's defense. Tempers quickly waned and Bombshell agreed to help them in their search for Raven. During their flight back to the United States, another new Teen Titan, Miss Martian intercepted Bombshell's Quantum Jet. As she phased inside, Bombshell ignited several incendiary devices, forcing Miss Martian to revert into her true White Martian form. It appeared obvious to everyone present, that Miss Martian was a traitor and another fight ensued.

It soon became apparent however that like Ravager, Miss Martian was innocent and that it was Amy herself who was the traitor in the Titans' midst. She turned against the Titans when they finally located Raven at the Church of Blood in Phoenix, Arizona. Bombshell sought to prevent Raven from using a computer disk containing the life essence of the late Titan Jericho in an occult ritual designed to bring him back to life. Bombshell attempted to take Raven down, but Ravager arrived, and succeeded in spoiling her shot, thus proving her commitment to the Titans. Raven completed the ritual and Jericho's body was reconstituted as it rose from the Pool of Blood. Bombshell unleashed a burst of quantum energy at him and Jericho attempted to use his powers to possess her. Fortunately for Bombshell, her Dilustel body armor was proof against Jericho's psionic abilities. Instead, Joey took control of Wonder Girl and punched Bombshell through a cement wall. Kid Devil used his powers to super-heat Bombshell's metal skin, after which, Raven used the power of her soul-self to instantly cool her down, causing her shell to blister and crack. Bombshell backpedaled in pain, enabling Ravager the chance to knock her out. The Titans handed Bombshell over to Diana Prince and Sarge Steel of the Department of Metahuman Affairs and she was subsequently incarcerated at Belle Reve prison in Louisiana.

A short time later, Cyborg and Miss Martian visited Belle Reve to interrogate Bombshell. Miss Martian was reluctant to use her abilities for such an invasive process, but agreed nonetheless. As Miss Martian and Bombshell exchanged quips, a new and more sinister group of Titans burst through the wall and began attacking. This group, headed by Deathstroke the Terminator referred to themselves as Titans East. One of their members, Batgirl, attacked the other Titans present in the cell block including Bombshell. She sliced Bombshell's throat open with a razor-sharp batarang.

Allen survived the attempt on her life, however, and was later given her powers back so that she could be drafted under Article X.

Having regained her powers, Amy sought out her parents in the hopes of learning more about the reasons why she was created. The administrators of the Quantum Project sent a squad of Quantum soldiers to liquidate her, not realizing that she was once again empowered. Bombshell fought against them and soon found herself engaged in combat against her old foes the Teen Titans. She joined the Teen Titans because in her words she had nothing better to do.

[yuanyuanxu-me]

What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a framework for analyzing (as well as changing) the realities of race and racism in society. A way of critically looking at race relations today.

Like Critical Pedagogy, CRT is not a thing in and of itself. CRT continues to inspire and inform Critical Pedagogy and critical educational discourse.

CRT is set of lenses (tenets) we can use as critical educators to check ourselves and look at the policies, stories, curricula, and other narratives around us and our students.

Colorblindness

Inspired by MLK ‘I have a dream speech’ - but altered meaning to focus on not seeing difference, rather than original intention/reference towards equality.

Allows you to avoid talking about race, a form of denial (‘ostrich in the sand’), but in the meanwhile Whites face reverse racism.

Connected to differences between Equity and Equality - equal resources do not help equal the systems in place that disadvantage unequally

Does not address inequity directly

Children are aware of racial difference, adults must address but often avoid

Teachers talk of ‘Fear of…’ reinforcing stereotypes, mis-stating, pity, etc.

Seeming neutrality

“The normalization of whiteness produces the coloblind ideology.” (Dipti Desai)

See: CRT Chapter, p. 26; Gloria Ladson Billings, p. 29; Racial Awareness, p. 2-4

Whiteness as property

bell hooks addresses intersection of race and gender, rape as assertion of dominance/dominion “racism and sexism are interlocking systems of domination which uphold and sustain one another” hooks, Race and Sex, p. 59

US was conceived and built on notion of property - connected to citizenship (who could vote, and who could not)

Whiteness connected to privileges - financial benefits and invisible/unearned privileges

Reproduced within structures of capitalism: based on originary system of chattel slavery and violent colonial disposession of indigenous land (bc they did not believe in notion of property/ownership of land), continues through more recent systems of disenfranchisement: Black codes, Redlining, legal definitions of whiteness (Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson)

“Whites know they possess a property that people of color do not and that to possess it confers aspects of citizenship not available to others. Harris’s (1993) argument that the ‘property functions of whiteness’ (p. 1731) - rights of disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property, and the absolute right to exclude - make the American dream of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ a more likely and attainable reality for Whites as citizens.” -- Ladson Billings, p. 26

Explains the expanding wealth gap.

See: Gloria Ladson Billings p. 25-26; Cameron Rowland, 91020000;

Meritocracy (Yuanyuan)

Similar to colorblindness, meritocracy is known as a political effort admitting individual efforts, talents and achievements towards equality regardless of one’s social class and race, aiming to deconstruct oppressive racial structures and reconstruct equitable and socially just relations of power in schools.

Meritocracy creates socioeconomic disparity, which directly affects the distribution of resources and quality of education.

It is closely correlated with high-standard entrance exams/placements, which is dominant by most financially rich and socially powerful elites and aggravates social and financial segregation. -Segregation Has Been the Story of New York City’s Schools for 50 Years, New York Times

Embedded with individual equality, the practice highlights the efforts of individuals, but fails to recognize the function of social, historical, or institutional process. (Ladson-Billings)

Meritocracy doesn’t practically resolve social/political/racial inequality with the existence of “bipartisan support for the privatization of school through charters and vouchers, and high suspension and expulsion rates for Black and Latina/o students at schools”.- Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall, Moving beyond Equality. P31-p32

Meritocracy remains dominated by the power structures, as Angela Davis states, “policies of enlightenment by themselves do not necessarily lead to radical transformation of power structures.”

Intersectionality (Alexis)

Recognizing the interconnectedness of social justice movements. It is also a way to recognize people and their identities as complex. Intersectionality does not hold one social justice cause above another, but rather recognizes the link of oppression under systemic constructs. For example, in 1972 the Gay Sunshine: A Newspaper of Gay Liberation published an article called We Are All Fugitives that, “Visually connected queer struggles with anti-prison, anti-colonial, feminist, Black Power and other liberation movements” (Quinn and Meiners P. 30). bell hooks says, “Black liberation struggle must be re-visioned so that it is no longer equated with maleness. We need a revolutionary vision of black liberation, one that emerges from a feminist standpoint and addresses the collective plight of black people.” She’s saying that with out a feminist framework applied to black liberation, the efforts will disproportionatley aid black men and not women. It is the intersection of black liberation and feminism that is necessary for progress.

“There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not lead single-issue lives.” Audre Lorde

Interest Convergence (Sarah W)

Some CRT scholars suggest “interest convergence” in response to contention that civil rights laws serve the interests of whites

Defined as “the place where the interests of whites and people of color intersect“ (Ladson-Billings).

Example of Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday commemoration in Arizona:

State of Arizona originally deemed MLK Jr Day too costly and wouldn’t recognize the holiday for state workers and agencies. African American groups and supporters began boycotting. When the NBA and NFL suggested high profile games not be played in Arizona, the decision was reversed. When the position on the holiday could have negative effects on tourism and sport entertainment venues, state interests converged with the interests of African-American community

“Converging interests, not support of civil rights, led to the reversal of the state’s position” (Ladson-Billings).

Deficit Model (Sarah S)

Focuses on students’ weaknesses

“Critical Race Theory suggests that current instructional strategies presume that African American students are deficient. As a consequence, classroom teachers are engaged in a never-ending quest for “the right strategy or technique” to deal with “at-risk” students.” African American students thus are addressed in a language and manner denoting failure and are often involved in some sort of remediation. When using a set of teaching techniques, the students instead of the techniques are found to be lacking. (Ladson-Billings)

Children are aware of racial differences as well as racism and begin picking apart societal negatives (or weaknesses) which apply to themselves at a young age (Derman-Sparks et al.)

Microaggressions (Zack)

Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups. (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder & Nadal, 2007).

The term racial microaggressions was first proposed by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, MD, in the 1970s, but psychologists have significantly amplified the concept in recent years.

From Buzzfeed, here are 15 Microaggressions heard by employees:

1.   What are you?

2.   So what do you guys speak in Japan? Asian?

3.   You don’t act like a normal black person, ‘ya know?

4.   Courtney, I never see you as a black girl.

5.   So, like, what are you?

6.   You don’t speak Spanish?

7.   No, you’re white.

8.       So, what does your hair look like today?

9.       So, you’re Chinese, right?

10.   You’re not really Asian.

11.   Why is your daughter so white?

12.   You’re really pretty for a dark skin girl

13.   Can you read this? (A Japanese character)

14.   Why do you sound white?

15.   Can you see as much as white people? You know, because of your eyes?

Anti-essentialism (Victoria)

Has a lot of connection with intersectionality

“No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity. A white feminist may also be Jewish or working class or a single mother… An Asian may be a recently arrived Hmong of rural background and unfamiliar with mercantile life or a fourth-generation Chinese with a father who is a university professor and a mother who operates a business. Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances.” (Delgado, Stefancic, 2001) Not all people of the same race have the same experiences. There’s a wide variety of experiences within one race, and oftentimes we’ll have multiple identities that will overlap or conflict with each other.

Hegemony (Ari)

-Hegemony is the internalization of dominant structures in society

-internal agreeance & submissiveness of power structures, sometimes because of not wanting to face furthur discrimination (example: refraining from using a non-english language in public)

-attempts to deconstruct hegemony is known as “counter-hegemony”

-power structure examples: white person & POC, male & female, thin person or large person, elder (wise) & younger (inexperienced), able bodied person & disabled person

-being hyper-aware of these and allowing them to continue, joining this system of oppression

[maxwellyjordan]

Justices to take up case involving faith-based adoption agencies and same-sex couples

The Supreme Court returned from its winter recess today with just one new grant from last week’s private conference, but the newest addition to the court’s merits docket is a significant one. Next term the justices will hear oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a challenge by several foster parents and Catholic Social Services to the city’s policy of cutting off referrals of foster children to CSS for placement because the agency would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. After they lost in the lower courts, the challengers went to the Supreme Court, where they asked the justices to weigh in on three questions: what kind of showing plaintiffs must make to succeed on this kind of religious discrimination claim; whether the Supreme Court should reconsider its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, holding that the government can enforce laws that burden religious beliefs or practices as long as the laws are “neutral” or “generally applicable”; and whether the government violates the First Amendment when it makes participation by a religious social-services agency in the foster-care system contingent on actions and statements by the agency that conflict with the agency’s religious beliefs.

Elsewhere on today’s order list, the justices asked the federal government for its views on Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra, a pair of challenges to a policy of the California attorney general’s office that requires registered charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors. The lawsuits were filed by a pair of conservative advocacy groups, who argued that the policy violates the First Amendment, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled for the state. There is no deadline for the federal government to file its brief.

The justices sent Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano, a case involving the First Amendment, the rights of religious organizations and the extent to which courts must defer to how those organizations have structured themselves, back to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court for another look. The case arose when a pension fund for Catholic school employees in Puerto Rico stopped making payments, prompting the employees to sue not only the fund, but also the Archdiocese of Puerto Rico and the Catholic church there. Courts in Puerto Rico treated all of the Catholic institutions on the island – the archdiocese, the dioceses that comprise the archdiocese and the parishes – as one legal entity and ordered nearly $5 million in assets to be seized from the churches to pay the pensions. The archdiocese asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling; in June, the justices asked the federal government for its views. The federal government told the justices that the Puerto Rico decision “violates the fundamental prohibition on denominational discrimination” and recommended that the court either vacate the lower court’s ruling and send it back for further proceedings or grant review.

In an eight-page per curiam – that is, “by the court” – opinion today, the justices followed the federal government’s suggestion to vacate the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s ruling and send the case back. The justices explained that the Puerto Rico trial court did not have the power to issue orders seizing the Catholic church’s assets and requiring it to pay millions of dollars because the archdiocese had moved the case to federal court. The justices acknowledged that, as the federal government had argued, the state court’s lack of authority to hear the case might not “prevent us from addressing additional errors, including those asserted under the Free Exercise Clause.” But, the justices continued, “we think the preferable course at this point is to remand the case to the Puerto Rico courts to consider how to proceed in light of the jurisdictional defect we have identified.”

Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. In Alito’s view, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico had interpreted a century-old U.S. Supreme Court decision incorrectly when it concluded that the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico is a single entity for purposes of being held liable in civil lawsuits. It would have been, Alito argued, “appropriate for us to reverse the decision below on that ground were it not for the jurisdictional issue that the Court addresses.” Moreover, Alito continued, “the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment at a minimum demands that all jurisdictions use neutral rules in determining whether particular entities that are associated in some way with a religious body may be held responsible for debts incurred by other associated entities.”

The justices denied review in the case of Texas death-row inmate Rodney Reed, who was convicted of the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites but has consistently maintained that he is innocent. Reed’s case has garnered widespread support, including from celebrities such as Kim Kardashian West, Rihanna and Beyoncé. The prime suspect in the case was originally Stites’ fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, a police officer who was later sentenced to 10 years in prison for kidnapping and sexually assaulting another woman. But suspicion shifted to Reed, who is African American, when his DNA matched the DNA of a small amount of semen in Stites’ body. Reed was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to death.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a statement regarding the denial of certiorari in which she noted that another proceeding in Reed’s case is ongoing in the Texas courts. In that proceeding, she stressed, “Reed has identified still more evidence that he says further demonstrates his innocence. It is no trivial moment that the Texas courts have concluded that Reed has presented a substantive claim of actual innocence warranting further consideration and development on the merits.” Moreover, Sotomayor added, the court’s refusal to hear Reed’s petition today “does not pass on the merits of Reed’s innocence or close the door to future review.” Sotomayor concluded by observing that, for her, “there is no escaping the pall of uncertainty over Reed’s conviction” or “any denying the irreversible consequence of setting that uncertainty aside.”

The court also denied review in Patterson v. Walgreen, involving the question of exactly how much employers must do to accommodate an employee’s religious practices. Under federal law, an employee cannot be fired for practicing his religion unless the employer can show that it cannot “reasonably” accommodate the employee’s practice without “undue hardship.” The petitioner in the case, Darrell Patterson, is a Seventh-day Adventist who does not work from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. In 2011, Walgreen fired Patterson after he did not come to run a training session on a Saturday afternoon; instead, Patterson held the training a few days later, so that the company still met the internal deadline that had prompted it to schedule the Saturday training.

When Patterson sued Walgreen in federal court, the company defended itself by arguing that it had tried to accommodate Patterson by offering him a lower salary and a demotion; moreover, it added, allowing him to take Saturdays off would be an “undue burden” because it might need to hold trainings on Saturdays more often in the future. After the lower courts agreed with Walgreen, Patterson went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on three issues: whether an accommodation, like the demotion and pay cut offered by Walgreen, can be “reasonable” when it doesn’t completely eliminate the conflict between an employee’s job and his religious practice; whether the employer must show an actual, rather than a speculative, burden; and whether the justices should overrule Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, their 1977 decision holding that employers can only be expected to shoulder minimal costs to accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs. In March of last year, the justices asked the federal government for its views; the federal government recommended that the justices deny review of the first two questions but take up the third question.

The justices denied Patterson’s petition today. Alito concurred in the denial of review, in an opinion joined by Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. Alito agreed with the federal government that the justices should consider whether to overrule Hardison, but he concluded that Patterson’s case was not an appropriate one in which to take up that question.

The justices turned down Arizona’s request to be able to file an original action – that is a complaint in the Supreme Court – against California, challenging the constitutionality of California’s application of a tax to Arizona limited-liability corporations that invest in California corporations. Thomas dissented from the denial, filing an opinion that was joined by Alito. Thomas argued in his brief statement that although the justices “have discretion to decline review in other kinds of cases, we likely do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our original jurisdiction that arise between two or more States.”

In Baldwin v. United States, the justices turned down a request to decide whether to overrule the court’s 2005 decision in National Cable Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet, holding that a court’s interpretation of a statute trumps an agency’s subsequent construction that is entitled to deference only if the earlier court decision held that its interpretation was dictated by the plain text of the statute, leaving no room for the agency to exercise discretion. The question came to the court in the case of Howard and Karen Baldwin, who filed a claim for a refund of $167,663 with the IRS. When the IRS said that it had never received the claim, the Baldwins filed this lawsuit, and at trial they were able to prove the date on which the claim was postmarked, consistent with federal law and the longstanding precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. But on appeal, the 9th Circuit ruled for the IRS, concluding that an August 2011 interpretation of federal law by the IRS superseded the prior law. [Disclosure: The author of this post was among the counsel to the respondents in Brand X.]

Thomas dissented from the denial of review in Baldwin. Although he was the author of the court’s decision in Brand X, Thomas wrote that he would now “revisit” the ruling. Thomas began by asserting that the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts should generally defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, “is in serious tension with the Constitution,” the Administrative Procedure Act “and over 100 years of judicial decisions.” But in any event, Thomas continued, he had “become increasingly convinced that Brand X was still wrongly decided because it is even more inconsistent with the Constitution and traditional tools of statutory interpretation than Chevron.”

The justices did not act today on two challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which they considered for the first time at last Friday’s conference. The petitions have been relisted for consideration at this Friday’s conference; orders from that conference are likely on Monday, March 2, at 9:30 a.m.

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

The post Justices to take up case involving faith-based adoption agencies and same-sex couples appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/02/justices-to-take-up-case-involving-faith-based-adoption-agencies-and-same-sex-couples/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[fightsportslaw]

Is the Muhammad Ali Act helping protect fighters?

Originally posted on The White Bronco in May 2016

By Jason J. Cruz

Oklahoma congressman Markwayne Mullin announced that he will sponsor a bill that seeks to amend the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (“Ali Act”) to include mixed martial arts. The news could be big for the sport of MMA, its fighters and supporters. However, one might be wary of the practical effects of the Ali Act based on prior litigation.

Background on the Ali Act

Due to concerns with the exploitation and anticompetitive practices occurring in the boxing industry, the Ali Act was signed into law on May 26, 2000.  According to the legislative history, Congress was particularly concerned with the lack of checks with contracting power.  The original Ali Act was introduced by Senators John McCain and Richard Bryan.  

Its stated purpose was three-fold.  First, it was to protect the rights and welfare of boxers.  Second, it was to aid state boxing commissions with the oversight of the sport.  Finally, it was to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.

The Ali Act mandated major reforms in boxing including creating a “firewall” between managers and promoters, protecting boxers from coercive contracts and requiring disclosures regarding the bouts that they promote.

The federal law carries penalties including money damages, court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.  There is also the possibility of serving “not more than 1 year” in prison.

Here are some notable cases where fighters sued under the Ali Act. In all of the below examples, the cases were resolved prior to trial.  

Andre Ward

In August 2014, Andre Ward filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against his promoter, Goossen Tutor Promotions, LLC (“GTP”) and Dan Goosen.  The lawsuit was premised upon violations of the Ali Act which require promoter disclosure to the fighters.  In his Complaint, Ward alleged that GTP had not made timely disclosures per the Ali Act for any of his fights from 2004 through 2012.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6307e(b) of the Ali Act:

A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxer it promotes:

(1) the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match;

(2) all fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the boxer pertaining to the event, including any portion of the boxer’s purse that the promoter will receive, and training expenses; and

(3) any reduction in a boxer’s purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the boxer or a purse bid held for the event.

The lawsuit was an extension of continued discontent between fighter and promoter.  Prior to the complaint, Ward and GTP went to arbitration twice in California.  In both arbitrations held by the California State Athletic Commission, the Commissioner, ruled in favor of GTP.

The underlying grievance centered around an Exclusive Promotional Rights Agreement (“Promotional Agreement”) signed by Ward with GTP.  The Promotional Agreement was to commence on September 8, 2012 and last three years.  The issue was whether an injury which sidelined Ward should extend the terms of the Promotional Agreement.  In the end, the State Athletic Commission agreed with GTP that it should.  

Ward, clearly not happy with the ruling, filed the lawsuit.  

It appears that the Ward-GTP battle ended in January 2015 as the parties stipulated to dismiss their case.  Soon thereafter, Ward signed with Jay Z’s Roc Nation Sports as his new promoters.  It was not until March 2016 that Ward returned to the ring.  

Joseph Agebko

Bantamweight boxer Joseph Agebko sued Don King and his promotional company under the Muhammad Ali Act in June 2012 citing that King’s promotional arm took more money than he was owed from his fights.  According to Agbeko’s complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, there were disparities in the amount he was paid versus the amount he was charged as fees and other charges were taken from his purse. Thus, for one fight he was paid only $4,000 but was charged $21,000.  The lawsuit alleged that King deducted money from Agbeko’s pay without substantiating these deductions.  

Agebko’s claims were based on the claim that King did not disclose payouts pursuant to Section 6307e(b)(1) of the Ali Act.  In addition, he claimed that King was acting as promoter and manager, a conflict and violation of the Ali Act.

In a motion to dismiss Agebko’s First Amended Complaint filed on November 8, 2012, King’s lawyers claimed that Agbeko’s claims under the Ali Act were baseless.  Attached to their motion, King’s lawyers included disclosures purportedly received by the fighter.  

The motion makes a key distinction when interpreting the disclosure section of the Act.  First, it notes that the Ali Act requires promoters “disclose only amounts they are ‘contracted to receive’ from a given boxing match.”  It argues that it does not require promoters “disclose the actual dollar revenue they ultimately receive.”  It further notes that the Act does not “require a promoter to supplement his disclosures.”

The lawsuit did not go far after King’s motion to dismiss was filed as Agebko’s attorneys voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit on November 12, 2012.

One might only assume that either the parties settled prior to the need to file an opposition to King’s motion and/or Agebko voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without settlement to avoid further litigation costs.

Bermane Stiverne

Bermane Stiverne sued King and his promotional company in November 2013 in the Southern District of New York.  He sued under the Ali Act for allegedly being coerced into signing contracts which made King his exclusive promoter.  He requested that the court void the promotional agreement he signed with King. Stiverne’s contention was that signing with King was a precondition to obtaining a fight with another boxer promoted by the same promoter.  This would be in violation of Section 6307b(a)(1)(B) of the Ali Act.  At the time, Stiverne was the World Boxing Council’s (“WBC”) No. 1 contender and sought a big payday with a fight with the heavyweight champion, Vitali Klitschko.  Stiverne’s attorneys sought a preliminary injunction to prevent King from interfering with the opportunity for Stiverne’s manager to negotiate the title fight.  

The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.

Stiverne’s lawsuit was met by King’s attorneys with a Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit and counterclaims citing breach of contract and tortious interference with a contract.

Stiverne’s case was voluntarily dismissed by Stiverne and according to reports he settled the case with King.  

Mikey Garcia

In May 2014, Garcia sued his promoter Top Rank Boxing under the Ali Act in federal court in Los Angeles. The case was subsequently moved to Nevada where Top Rank filed a partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss a number of claims including the Ali Act violation.

Garcia claimed that Top Rank engaged in managerial conduct after signing a 2009 promotional agreement.  This would be in direct contradiction to the firewall, section 6308 of the Ali Act, that was established which prevents this conflict of interest.  In addition, Garcia alleged he was not provided disclosures for his fights pursuant to the Act.  

Top Rank filed a Motion to Dismiss Garcia’s lawsuit citing the claims as without merit.  The promotion denied allegations that it served as manager and promoter.  It also provided evidence that it gave Garcia the requisite disclosures required of promoters under the Ali Act.  Top Rank made the distinction that the Ali Act does not require disclosure in connection with offering a bout, but only with an actual, scheduled fight.  

The case has settled with the parties agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit. As a result, Top Rank released Garcia from his contract earlier this year.  

Jeff Lacy

The only court opinion to date which sided with a fighter was the case of boxer Jeff Lacy in his lawsuit against promoter Main Events Productions (see Main Events Prod., LLC v. Lacy, 358 F. Supp. 2d 391 (D.N.J. 2004)) The violations of the Ali Act relate to Lacy not receiving disclosures pursuant to section 6307e.  In a motion for summary judgment, Top Rank argued that the disclosures went to Lacy’s manager. Premised upon agency law, Top Rank claimed that the delivery of the disclosures to the manager was sufficient. However, the court, reading the Ali Act’s plain language and legislative intent indicated that disclosing the payouts by a promoter from the event must be sent directly to the boxer.  The court denied Top Rank’s summary judgment motion.

In addition to the court denying Top Rank’s motion, it also denied its Motion for Reconsideration related to the aforementioned motion.

Although the parties settled prior to trial, one might infer from the ruling that Lacy was able to obtain a favorable outcome from the lawsuit.

Conclusion

Arizona Senator John McCain, the original lawmaker that introduced the Ali Act, recently endorsed expanding the federal law to protect mixed martial artists.  While Senator McCain’s sentiment to protect fighters is universal among all fight fans, it’s the practical impact of a law to do this which may be difficult.  Similar to boxers, protecting MMA fighters from the unsavory nature of the combat sports business is central to the Ali Act. However, certain measures should be made to allow accessibility of the Act for the individuals it seeks to protect.  The above cases are just a handful of examples of fighters that have tried to sue under the Ali Act.  The practical issue here is that most fighters do not have the financial means to pay lawyers to fight big time promoters.  In addition, under the Ali Act there are flaws which still do not provide the protection to fighters.  As shown above, promoter disclosures of payouts are a continued issue for boxers. There are also issues where the firewall of manager and promoter still seemingly exist creating the same problems boxers had before the law.  While the Ali Act has provided a caution to unsavory business practices in boxing, there are still instances of problems within the industry.  An extension of the law to MMA should include revisions to the existing legislation.