“Crash Up” Possible As “Demand For Downside Rages On” Despite Gains, Nomura Warns

“Crash Up” Possible As “Demand For Downside Rages On” Despite Gains, Nomura Warns

As equity markets slowly push to higher highs, Nomura’s Charlie McElligott notes something odd is going on in the options markets.

The demand for downside rages-on, with Put Skew crazy bid (1m 89.7%ile, 3m 93.2%ile, 6m 96.5%ile!), while upside Call Skew remains Charmin-soft (1m 24.1%ile, 3m 29.8%Ile, 6m 28.9%ile)

This trend has been in place for about a month, and notably the last week or so has seen it re-engaged… As stocks have rallied, a bid for hedges has accelerated.

Source: Bloomberg

On the other hand, the demand for VIX downside (bullish stocks) has recently surged relative to VIX upside (bearish stocks)…

Source: Bloomberg

Additionally, ‘vol of vol’ has started to signal downside risk for VIX (bullish) for stocks…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, we note that SpotGamma’s analysis also suggests short-term bias to the upside:

We still track ~20% of S&P gamma and ~30% of QQQ gamma expiring Friday.

These are large amounts.

Everything we’re seeing seems to point to a fairly volatile period over the next several days, particularly to start next week.

This volatility does not have to necessarily manifest in lower markets, it could also indicate a breakout to the upside.

We are currently giving the “upside” an edge due to the negative gamma position in QQQ/IWM.

All of which fits thematically with McElligott’s view that continues to see “Crash UP” in “Cyclical Value” / economically-sensitive stuff maintaining its bid.

So, is today’s tumble a fake-out for the next push to record highs, forcing the heavily-hedged to puke their protection, send stocks to higher-highs before the reality of 50%-plus capital gains taxes and all that the Biden admin has to offer along with surging interest rates start to bite into equity valuations.

Besides, even Fed Chair Powell admitted stocks are “frothy”.

Source: Bloomberg

Maybe the J-Hole meeting is the target?

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/29/2021 – 12:27

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eMsl9E Tyler Durden

Biden Is Using the Pandemic as an Excuse for Permanent Expansions of Government Power


biden-notSOTU-2021-xnaphotostwo364185

President Joe Biden isn’t letting a crisis go to waste. 

His administration is using the pandemic as an excuse to push a list of preexisting Democratic policy priorities, few of which have much to do with COVID-19, and some of which were initially pitched as temporary measures. 

But in last night’s address to a joint Congress, Biden made clear that he wants to extend some these policies, turning COVID-era emergency measures into permanent expansions of federal power, using the virus as an excuse. For Biden, the pandemic has become a catchall justification for a wide array of big-government programs that he and the Democratic Party already wanted to pursue. 

Take, for example, Biden’s push to expand subsidies for health insurance purchased via the Affordable Care Act, the health law commonly known as Obamacare. 

Biden’s American Rescue Plan—the $1.9 trillion aid bill passed in March—included $34 billion to temporarily boost subsidies for health coverage purchased through Obamacare’s marketplaces. The subsidy boost was set to last for two years. 

One could perhaps argue that a pandemic that left millions out of work would justify a temporary program to make health insurance premiums less directly costly for struggling low-income individuals. 

But Biden’s subsidy expansion was structured in a way that would expand subsidy availability to families with quite high incomes. The expanded subsidy is tied to local premiums, and so it varies geographically. In some parts of the country, however, it could make tens of thousands of dollars in annual subsidies available to households earning $350,000 a year

In a pandemic-induced recession whose negative economic effects have been concentrated almost entirely at the bottom of the income ladder, there’s no non-ridiculous way to justify that sort of handout to the well-off as pandemic relief. It’s just a straightforward bid to make an existing big-government program even bigger. 

And what was initially touted as a temporary subsidy expansion is now being upsold as a permanent upgrade. Last night, Biden announced that he wants to extend the subsidy boost indefinitely, which would cost an estimated $200 billion over the next decade. He then went on to praise Obamacare as a “lifeline for millions of Americans” and insist that “the pandemic has demonstrated how badly it is needed.” 

The pandemic, in other words, was a convenient excuse—first for a temporary expansion of an already large federal program, then for an even more expensive permanent expansion of that same program. Big government for now swiftly becomes bigger government forever. 

Biden is using this playbook to extend and expand other programs as well. His $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan also included a one-year expansion of the child tax credit. Much of it is refundable, and the plan allows for it to be paid monthly, meaning that it is essentially a regular check cut to parents by the government. As a New York Times report put it recently: “Though framed in technocratic terms as an expansion of an existing tax credit, it is essentially a guaranteed income for families with children.” 

The one-year cost of expanding the child tax credit was about $100 billion. In last night’s speech, Biden pushed Congress to extend the boost to 2025, likely costing hundreds of billions more. And while some of the benefits would go to low-income households, this plan, too, is structured in a way that delivers benefits to families with six-figure earnings; the White House fact sheet offers an example of a family of four making $100,000 a year that would see thousands of dollars in benefits from this plan. 

If Biden’s cash for kids program is extended through 2025, it would be unlikely to end there. It might be reauthorized and extended on a rolling basis, but it would effectively become an ongoing program, another untouchable entitlement in America’s already sizable federal policy firmament. Indeed, some Democrats have already publicly pushed the president to simply make the program permanent. And from there, it’s easy to imagine that the next push would be to make the benefit even larger. Big government has already become bigger government, and under Biden, it is on track to grow larger and larger still. 

And somehow it’s all justified by the pandemic. His speech last night started with the words, “Tonight, I come to talk about crisis.” As he took office in January, he said, he had “inherited a nation in crisis.” The speech, and its laundry list of pricey new programs and policies, was thus framed as an extended response to that crisis. 

It’s not. In part that’s because so many of his proposals are either poorly targeted (large checks for households with stable six-figure incomes) or totally irrelevant to any actual problems stemming from the pandemic (bailouts for union pension funds). 

And in part because the crisis itself is fading from the scene, or at least becoming less severe. Thanks to vaccines, COVID-19 cases and deaths are falling rapidly. And thanks to the improving picture around coronavirus health and safety, the economy is rebounding too. The crisis is, if not entirely gone, much less of one than it was a few months ago, and thus much less of a plausible justification for extreme measures in response. Yet even as COVID fades away, Biden is pursuing massive expansions of federal power premised on crisis response. 

That’s because despite the speech’s framing, crisis response isn’t really the goal—or, at the very least, it’s only part of it. Biden is pursuing a historically unprecedented expansion of government spending and power for its own sake. And no one is really trying to hide it either. The post-speech headline at the top of The New York Times main page this morning read, “Biden Makes Case to Vastly Expand Government’s Role.” It described his speech as an “ambitious agenda to rewrite the American social compact.”  

Biden’s presidency is barely three months old, but it’s already fallen into a predictable pattern: Point to the pandemic. Declare that it’s an emergency, and that something must be done. Then insist on an expensive, expansive policy overhaul that Democrats have pushed for years—first, in some cases, as a temporary measure, and then, inevitably, for much longer. It’s deceptive and dangerous. And if he keeps this up, he may leave a new crisis in his wake.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/330RQOM
via IFTTT

Stocks Slammed As Biden Admin Says Gig-Workers Should Be Classified As Employees

Stocks Slammed As Biden Admin Says Gig-Workers Should Be Classified As Employees

‘Government knows best’ is clearly the message from the Biden administration as once again this morning, they unveil their latest target for the nanny state… gig workers.

In November, millions of Americans voting against state-imposed laws forcing gig workers to be employees (with the victory of Proposition 22 – by a convincing 58% to 42% margin).

The law passed by the state legislature in 2019 that tightened the rules for classifying workers as independent contractors. Rather than allow companies to consider those individuals as contractors not subject to the rules requiring health insurance, retirement benefits, and associated legal protections for fulltime employees, that legislation mandated that businesses that exercised particular controls over workers would have to classify them as regular employees and grant them relevant benefits.

But, who cares what the people want!

Today, as Reuters reports, President Joe Biden’s top labor official said most gig workers in the United States should be classified as “employees” deserving of related benefits.

“We are looking at it but in a lot of cases gig workers should be classified as employees… in some cases they are treated respectfully and in some cases they are not and I think it has to be consistent across the board,” Walsh told Reuters in an interview on Thursday, expressing his view on the topic for the first time.

“These companies are making profits and revenue and I’m not (going to) begrudge anyone for that because that’s what we are about in America… but we also want to make sure that success trickles down to the worker,” he said.

And the response is what one would expect: Uber and Lyft got hammered…

And because everything is one trade… and more nanny-statism is never great for margins, the entire market tumbled with it…

Get back to work Mr.Biden and walk back these comments.

In case you think this is just a strawman, bear in mind that David Weil, the Obama administration’s top wage regulator who has supported government crackdowns on the workforce models of Uber and other gig-economy companies, is in line to become the White House’s nominee for his former post at the U.S. Labor Department.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/29/2021 – 12:13

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3t2AITv Tyler Durden

ACLU-Led Coalition Warns Biden Administration Against Menthol Ban, Citing “Racial Justice Implications”

ACLU-Led Coalition Warns Biden Administration Against Menthol Ban, Citing “Racial Justice Implications”

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A coalition led by the American Civil Liberties Union is urging the Biden administration not to ban menthol cigarettes.

Such a ban would “have serious racial justice implications” and would “trigger criminal penalties, which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the coalition wrote in a letter this week to Health Secretary Xavier Becerra and acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Janet Woodcock.

“A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement,” they added.

The White House, the Department of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not respond to requests for comment.

The federal government is responding to a citizen’s petition. Groups including the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council and the American Academy of Pediatrics in the petition asked the FDA to “remove menthol cigarettes from the market.”

The groups praised the move in 2009 by members of Congress to ban flavored cigarettes but noted that menthol cigarettes, which have a mint flavor, were excluded from the prohibition.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act enables the FDA to ban menthol.

Petitioners said tobacco use remains a leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States and that surveys indicate about half of youth smokers smoke menthol cigarettes, a higher percentage than adult smokers.

“Prohibiting menthol in cigarettes is perhaps the single most powerful measure readily available to the FDA to improve America’s health,” the groups wrote.

The House of Representatives last year passed a bill that would prohibit menthol cigarettes but it was not brought to a vote in the Senate. Several states have passed menthol bans.

During the Trump administration, the FDA was considering a ban on menthol cigarettes. Scott Gottlieb, the agency’s commissioner at the time, said in a statement that “menthol serves to mask some of the unattractive features of smoking that might otherwise discourage a child from smoking,” and that “menthol products disproportionately and adversely affect underserved communities.”

The FDA ended up banning flavored e-cigarette products, but not taking action on menthol e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

According to federal data, most African American youth who smoke use menthol, while African American adults have the highest percentage of menthol use compared to other populations.

Menthols are believed to be more harmful than regular cigarettes because menthol makes harmful chemicals more easily absorbed in the body, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tobacco companies oppose the reported ban.

“We share the common goal of moving adult smokers from cigarettes to potentially less harmful alternatives, but prohibition does not work,” Steven Callahan, a spokesman for Altria, which owns Philip Morris, told the New York Times. “A far better approach is to support the establishment of a marketplace of FDA-authorized non-combustible alternatives that are attractive to adult smokers.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/29/2021 – 11:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PD8gKi Tyler Durden

If Biden Truly Wanted To Create Jobs, He Wouldn’t Support the PRO Act


Bidenproact_1161x653

President Joe Biden’s hour-long paean to massive government spending Wednesday evening deliberately focused on job creation. He insisted that his American Jobs Plan will “create millions of good paying jobs—jobs Americans can raise their families on.”

But then in practically the next breath, Biden called on Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and send it to his desk. The PRO Act will, if passed, destroy hundreds of thousands of careers across the country.

When Biden and the bill’s supporters talk about the PRO Act, they only mention that it helps protect the right for workers to attempt to unionize. But that’s not all the PRO Act does. The PRO Act does tremendous harm to the workforce by making it hard—nearly impossible—for many freelance workers to continue working independently.

This isn’t speculation. We know what this law bill will do to freelancers because it’s based on A.B. 5, legislation passed in California in 2019 that codified extremely restrictive rules controlling who was allowed to work as an independent contractor. The law was written deliberately to attack the gig economy and companies like Uber and Lyft, which operate on a business model in which drivers are classified as independent contractors. This means they can set their own hours and control their work schedules, but also means they don’t qualify for certain benefits. And it also makes it much harder for union supporters to organize them.

But A.B. 5 was written so broadly that in practice it affected thousands of different jobs, threatening hairdressers, freelance journalists, real estate agents, translators, musicians, and many, many others. Ultimately, the bill’s own creator had to pass legislation last year that carved out a bunch of occupational exemptions. The ride-sharing and delivery drivers were left in, but then California voters in November supported a ballot initiative that exempted them as well.

A.B. 5 is in tatters but is still officially on the books. A federal ruling had exempted truck drivers from A.B. 5, accepting the argument that it was preempted by federal transportation law. But on Wednesday, a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court’s order, meaning that independent truckers may soon be affected by the law, hampering their ability to find work unless a company takes them on as employees.

Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett was the sole dissenter, noting that “[California Trucking Association’s] members will now suffer irreparable injury.”

Embedded within the PRO Act is text to take A.B. 5 nationwide, despite California voters’ rejection of the measure. It sets the exact same rules restricting who is permitted to be classified as an independent contractor, regardless of what the worker actually wants. This, to be clear, is completely intentional. A.B. 5 proponent Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D–San Diego) dismissed the concerns of freelancers, saying, “These were never good jobs.” It was very clearly her goal to dismantle and destroy the ability for workers to decide to make careers out of being independent contractors.

Biden can say that he wants to create new jobs all he likes, but the only jobs that the PRO Act actually cares about are union jobs. The bill is actively hostile to jobs that aren’t unionized. That’s a recipe for neither economic growth nor individual freedom.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Sf6FeA
via IFTTT

If Biden Truly Wanted To Create Jobs, He Wouldn’t Support the PRO Act


Bidenproact_1161x653

President Joe Biden’s hour-long paean to massive government spending Wednesday evening deliberately focused on job creation. He insisted that his American Jobs Plan will “create millions of good paying jobs—jobs Americans can raise their families on.”

But then in practically the next breath, Biden called on Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and send it to his desk. The PRO Act will, if passed, destroy hundreds of thousands of careers across the country.

When Biden and the bill’s supporters talk about the PRO Act, they only mention that it helps protect the right for workers to attempt to unionize. But that’s not all the PRO Act does. The PRO Act does tremendous harm to the workforce by making it hard—nearly impossible—for many freelance workers to continue working independently.

This isn’t speculation. We know what this law bill will do to freelancers because it’s based on A.B. 5, legislation passed in California in 2019 that codified extremely restrictive rules controlling who was allowed to work as an independent contractor. The law was written deliberately to attack the gig economy and companies like Uber and Lyft, which operate on a business model in which drivers are classified as independent contractors. This means they can set their own hours and control their work schedules, but also means they don’t qualify for certain benefits. And it also makes it much harder for union supporters to organize them.

But A.B. 5 was written so broadly that in practice it affected thousands of different jobs, threatening hairdressers, freelance journalists, real estate agents, translators, musicians, and many, many others. Ultimately, the bill’s own creator had to pass legislation last year that carved out a bunch of occupational exemptions. The ride-sharing and delivery drivers were left in, but then California voters in November supported a ballot initiative that exempted them as well.

A.B. 5 is in tatters but is still officially on the books. A federal ruling had exempted truck drivers from A.B. 5, accepting the argument that it was preempted by federal transportation law. But on Wednesday, a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court’s order, meaning that independent truckers may soon be affected by the law, hampering their ability to find work unless a company takes them on as employees.

Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett was the sole dissenter, noting that “[California Trucking Association’s] members will now suffer irreparable injury.”

Embedded within the PRO Act is text to take A.B. 5 nationwide, despite California voters’ rejection of the measure. It sets the exact same rules restricting who is permitted to be classified as an independent contractor, regardless of what the worker actually wants. This, to be clear, is completely intentional. A.B. 5 proponent Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D–San Diego) dismissed the concerns of freelancers, saying, “These were never good jobs.” It was very clearly her goal to dismantle and destroy the ability for workers to decide to make careers out of being independent contractors.

Biden can say that he wants to create new jobs all he likes, but the only jobs that the PRO Act actually cares about are union jobs. The bill is actively hostile to jobs that aren’t unionized. That’s a recipe for neither economic growth nor individual freedom.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Sf6FeA
via IFTTT

Remy: Dogecoin Rap


image_yt_v5

There are various indicators showing that the U.S. could be headed for a currency crisis. One of them has paws.

Written and performed by Remy; music tracks and mastering by Ben Karlstrom; video produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg

Photos: Stefani Reynolds—Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom; Greg Nash—Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom; Andrew Harnik—Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom

LYRICS:
Coming up: Bad news for savers as even those with high-interest savings accounts
are seeing their money disappear thanks to inflation
But first, we’ll detail every possible thing you could die from

He’s a rational investor, dividend digester
Saves some of his paycheck just like all his ancestors
Him looking for high yields? That’s never the case
He’s seeking six percent returns, slow and steady wins the race!

But when he checks his accounts just to see what they’re fielding
It’s like driving in Maryland—ain’t nobody yielding
What is he to do? He shouldn’t be in a drought
So he visits his adviser just to sort it all out

Inflation’s higher than your bond rates
That’s what I was fearing
And so your savings account is slowly disappearing
And your CDs are pointless
That’s not very funny
What would you like me to do?
Put it all in dog money

Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m trading it in for dog money
Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m putting it all in dog money

My 401(k) is now a 401(K9)
The sum of my net worth ain’t no longer in a straight line
I’m making smart moves, I ain’t gonna be a pun
I sold my IRA and bought an NFT of one

All in on doge, I dish ’em out like a Tommy gun
You’d think I was statehood the way I’m passing on Washingtons
I feel like Matt Gaetz, you know what I mean?
Assuring everybody it’s above 18

It’s a modern-day gold rush, the prices’ll boom
Like Reggie White vs. the Oilers, I’m heading straight to the moon
My broker’s calling? You KNOW that it’s on
Buy dog money, don’t stop till it’s dawn

One more air base, two more museums
Three more walls, four more Supremes
Five more stadiums—we’re all out of fiat?
Can you take trillions of these and go and make a xerox?

We pay our debts in our currency, that might be unfurled
If it’s no longer the reserve currency of the world
Confidence in the dollar is permanent, just ask any scholar!
People are exchanging their dollars for dog money
Dog money?
Dog money
Dog money…

We’re trading it in for dog money!
Dog money, dog money, dog money, dog money
I’m putting it all in dog money

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nvOYCW
via IFTTT

Connecticut Repeals Religious Exemption from Immunization Rules

Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) reports:

Yesterday Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed HB 6423 (full text) which eliminates the previously available religious exemption from the state’s immunization requirements for school children. However, the new law allows children who have previously been granted a religious exemption to maintain the exemption, with certain exceptions for grade-school children.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ez2zFq
via IFTTT

“Tenured Professor Abruptly Fired After Raising Allegations of anti-Semitic Speech by Linfield University’s President”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports (or you can read FIRE’s letter to the university president):

A university embroiled in sexual abuse scandals has abruptly fired a tenured professor who criticized the handling of those controversies and alleged that the university’s president and chair of its Board of Trustees made anti-Semitic comments…. On Tuesday, Linfield ousted professor Daniel Pollack-Pelzner after he lambasted the college’s handling of sexual abuse allegations and accused college president Miles K. Davis of making anti-Semitic remarks, which Davis denies. Two other faculty members have subsequently come forward with allegations that Davis made similar remarks….

Pollack-Pelzner, a tenured English literature professor and Shakespeare scholar, is one of many Linfield faculty members and students who have pushed back against the allegedly poor handling of sexual abuse and [harassment] claims by the administration. In one such case, a longtime trustee resigned in 2019 (for “health reasons,” the university said) after being accused of sexually abusing a student. (He has since been indicted.)

On March 29, Pollack-Pelzner posted a Twitter thread claiming that the school failed to protect the college community from the sexual abuse of multiple trustees. He also said he was threatened with “public humiliation” by the board if he continued to report incidents of sexual misconduct. The thread goes on to detail several incidents of anti-Semitism on the part of college employees, including Davis, who allegedly remarked on the size of Jewish people’s noses. In April, the Oregon Board of Rabbis called on Davis to resign, and Linfield’s arts and sciences faculty gave Davis a 59-11 vote of no confidence.

On Monday, the Linfield administration shut down faculty email lists. The following day, Pollack-Pelzner was fired and the university issued a public statement within an hour afterward. In an email to college faculty, aptly titled “Extraordinary step,” Linfield provost Susan Agre-Kippenhan announced the termination for “false public accusations that have, sadly, harmed the university.” Two university spokespeople also sent an email stating Pollack-Pelzner was fired because he “propagated false and defamatory statements.”

Linfield’s faculty handbook states that before being terminated, tenured professors are entitled to a statement of charges and to a faculty hearing, during which the administration bears the burden of producing “clear and convincing” evidence of misconduct. The handbook also declares that “[d]ismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.”

Pollack-Pelzner was afforded neither due process nor protection from the university for his speech.

“Instead of adhering to the bright lines in the handbook, Linfield’s administration has drawn its own,” said [FIRE attorney Adam] Steinbaugh. “By skipping out on the part where it would have to actually prove its accusations, Linfield’s administration signals that the accusations can’t be proven. Giving yourself the authority to decide your critic is wrong — and then firing him without a hearing — is an obvious conflict of interest.”

Though Linfield is a private institution not bound by the First Amendment, it is required to live up to its promises of free expression and due process.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gNCzZL
via IFTTT

This School Punished a Cheerleader for an Off-Campus Snapchat. Does That Violate the First Amendment?


s-l300

Can a public school punish a student for an off-campus social media post? Or does the First Amendment protect student speech that occurs outside of school grounds and school-sponsored functions?

The U.S. Supreme Court tackled those questions this week during oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The case arose in 2017 when a high school freshman and junior varsity cheerleader who had failed to make the varsity squad vented her frustration on the social media site Snapchat. The student—known by the initials B.L.—posted a picture of herself and one of her friends with their middle fingers raised. The post went up on a Saturday and was accompanied by the message “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” B.L. was kicked off the team for a year after a coach saw the post and took offense.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court said that school officials may not interfere with students’ First Amendment rights on school grounds unless the speech “would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline and in the operation of the school.”

Lisa Blatt, the attorney for the Mahanoy Area School District, urged the Supreme Court to apply the Tinker standard to student speech that occurs off-campus if the speech may cause an “on-campus disruption.” According to Blatt, “the internet’s ubiquity, instantaneous and mass dissemination, and potential permanence make the speaker’s location irrelevant.”

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer David Cole, the attorney for B.L. and her parents, told the Court that the school’s approach “would require students to effectively carry the schoolhouse on their backs in terms of speech rights everywhere they go.” For example, Cole said, “a father shouldn’t have to worry that if he brings his daughter to a Black Lives Matter protest about mistreatment of a black student at school, and she posts a photo on Facebook, she might be suspended based on potential disruption at the school.”

Several justices seemed to be concerned about that very thing, asking whether the school’s approach would result in students getting punished for talking about politically controversial topics. Justice Samuel Alito offered this hypothetical:

A student believes that someone who is biologically male is a male, and there is a student who is biologically male but identifies as a woman, has adopted a female name, but the student who has the objection refers to this person by the person’s prior male name and uses male pronouns. Can the school do something about that?

Justice Elena Kagan made a similar point while questioning Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, who appeared as an amicus in support of the Mahanoy Area School District. Say a student emails her classmates “that they should refuse to do any work for English class until the teacher changes the syllabus to include more authors of color.”

That’s “school speech,” Stewart answered. “So that can be punishable,” Kagan replied, sounding surprised. It can be punished “if it causes substantial disruption” at school, the government attorney answered.

ACLU lawyer Cole came in for his share of grilling too. In particular, several of the justices seemed concerned that his preferred approach would leave school officials with no tools to stop online bullying and similarly abusive behavior among students.

Cole responded by stressing the need for “clear definitions of off-campus bullying and harassment consistent with First Amendment principles.” He concluded by reminding the Court that the school punished this particular student “for a momentary expression of frustration on a weekend out of school.” To let that be the rule, he said, “would teach students they can never speak candidly with their friends without worrying that a school official will deem their views potentially disruptive and suspend them or punish them. That is exactly the wrong lesson to teach.”

A decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is expected by late June.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gLLlr9
via IFTTT