Month: August 2022

When officials in one Alabama town realized local law prevented them from firing two police officers, they dissolved their entire police department instead.

Last Thursday, the small town of Vincent—a hamlet outside Birmingham, Alabama, with a population of just under 2,000—decided to abolish its police department. The department, which employed three officers in total, was disbanded following a June incident that uncovered the exchange of racist text messages sent by at least one Vincent police officer.

In the messages, one officer, who remains unidentified by Vincent officials, asked an unidentified respondent “What do y’all call a pregnant slave?” to which the respondent replied with a string of question marks. “BOGO Buy one, get one free” texted the officer in response.

The messages, which were reported by Al.com on August 2, caused outrage throughout the small community. According to CNN, following the release of the messages, the City Council suspended the police chief and assistant police chief without pay, and the third officer resigned.

However, the City Council was unable to simply fire the officers. According to Vincent city law, police officers cannot be fired unless they receive two formal complaints and a verbal warning. With little other recourse, the Vincent City Council passed a resolution which temporarily dissolved the town’s small police department.

This incident isn’t the first time a small town has dissolved its police department for bad behavior. In particular, several small towns found to be engaging in illegal “speed trap” schemes have voted to disband their police departments.

In 2014, one Florida town, “only avoided the wrath of the state legislature by disbanding its police force, de-annexing the strip of highway, and accepting the resignation of every public official who held office when the [speed-trap] scandal broke,” wrote Reason‘s CJ Ciaramella. The particularly small town of Wilmer, Alabama, even disincorporated itself entirely after coming under fire for creating a speed trap.

Further, this story is the latest in a long string of incidents where cops have lost their jobs for bigoted text messages. While speech by government officials is generally protected by the First Amendment, it has a few important carve-outs. Speech by government employees is only protected when it is a matter of public concern, like an allegation of corruption, and when the public employee’s speech interests are more important than the employer’s ability to maintain order. 

“There’s no bright line here,” Popehat‘s Ken White notes. “But in general, an employee’s speech is most likely to be protected if it’s on the employee’s own time, on the employee’s own platform or a platform not run by the employer, involves policy issues rather than personal attacks on people in the government workplace, and the employer can’t show evidence of disruption of order or function.”

While it is unclear whether the officer’s text messages were sent while off-duty using their personal phones, Vincent officials regardless had interest in punishing the officers. In 2021, at least 85 criminal cases were thrown out after at least a dozen of Torrance, California, police officers were found to have exchanged racist, antisemitic, and homophobic text messages.

Even if public officials hadn’t been barred by a city statute from firing the two officers, it seems the First Amendment would have provided little protection for the officers’ racially charged jokes. In fact, their messages made them a legal liability.

The post Local Law Prevented an Alabama Town From Firing Two Cops. So They Dissolved the Police Department Instead. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/xrnoX7K
via IFTTT

I was going to write a post about the current debate over whether Western nations should bar all or most Russian migrants and visitors. But much of what I might have said has already been better stated in an article by Reason immigration policy writer Fiona Harrigan. Here is her summary of the ongoing debate:

In an interview with The Washington Post earlier this month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russians should “live in their own world until they change their philosophy.” In practical terms, he suggested that countries should “close the borders” to Russian citizens. “Whichever kind of Russian,” he said, “make them go to Russia.”

A number of nations have taken steps to prevent Russians from entering. So far, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Poland have decided to stop issuing certain visas to Russian citizens. Finland will be slashing its current level of Russian tourist visas by 90 percent….

European Union foreign ministers are expected to discuss the issue of Russian visas on August 31. Ahead of that meeting, many major figures—including people within the Zelenskyy administration—have argued against a blanket ban on visas for Russians. They recognize the ethical and practical issues that come with punishing civilians for the actions of an authoritarian government they can’t feasibly control.

Oleksiy Arestovych, a military adviser to Zelenskyy, told The Washington Post that he’s “not a supporter of collective responsibility [but of] individual.” While it might be reasonable to sanction those who overtly support Russian President Vladimir Putin, he said, he favored a “more selective” approach to visa denials for Russians.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz likewise has rejected the idea of an E.U.-wide ban on Russian tourists, arguing that such a measure “would undermine the purpose and effect of targeted sanctions that have been applied to those supporting the war,” explains Politico. “This is not the war of the Russian people, but it is Putin’s war,” Scholz said at a press conference last week. “It is important to us to understand that there are a lot of people fleeing from Russia, because they are disagreeing with the Russian regime.”

On this issue, Zelensky is wrong and Arestovych, Scholz, and others are right. Harrigan explains some of the reasons why:

Zelenskyy argues that limiting the movement of Russian travelers should be done “until they change their philosophy.” But keeping Russians in Russia isn’t the right approach to encourage them to change their views. For one, the Kremlin has censored all manner of information about the war. Back in March, it blocked access to Facebook. It’s cracked down on journalists and foreign websites, censoring sites like BBC, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Deutsche Welle. And in March, Putin signed a law that would dole out prison sentences of up to 15 years for those who circulate “false news” about the invasion. Russia arrested over 13,000 anti-war protesters in just the first two weeks after the war began.

Isolating Russians will be counterproductive. Allowing them to travel will surely bring them some measure of joy, but it will also give them access to views and insights on the invasion of Ukraine that they’d be hard-pressed to find at home. Fencing Russians off from freer nations will ensure that they’re kept in a hostile information environment, deprived of experiences that may make them more amenable to freedom and more hostile to their current regime. What’s more, it could keep certain vulnerable groups—like LGBT people or political dissidents—from leaving for safer places.

A sweeping visa ban would harm the Russian citizens that could very well benefit either from an escape route or exposure to ideas outside Russia’s borders. Keeping them isolated will only trap them in a country rife with censorship and risk alienating them from the West, playing directly into Putin’s hands.

Harrigan also notes that it would be a mistake to try to screen Russians in order to keep out those who support Putin, because it would “require visa-issuing authorities to make any number of subjective judgments” about visa applicants’ political views. More generally, imposing political viewpoint restriction on migration policy has much the same flaws as other government policies targeting people based on their political views. It’s reasonable to sanction and otherwise punish Russians (and others) for perpetrating injustices and human rights violations – including those associated with the Putin’s brutal war against Ukraine. But it’s wrong to restrict people’s liberty merely based on the fact that governments have concluded they have wrong political views. Restricting it merely because they have the misfortune of being born in a country with a horrible government is even worse.

In addition to the points made by Harrigan, it’s also worth emphasizing that letting Russians migrate freely to the West can impose a “brain drain” on Putin, while simultaneously bolstering our own economy. It would also strengthen our position in the war of ideas against his brand of authoritarian nationalism. The potential risk of espionage by Russian migrants is low and can be addressed by measures other than exclusion. Instead of making it harder for Russians to enter the West, we should be making it easier, thereby simultaneously helping people fleeing oppression and strengthening ourselves.

It might be argued that barring short-term visitors is less harmful than banning those seeking to live and work in the West long-term. Perhaps so. But even relatively brief visits can open people’s eyes to the fact that life in the West is happier, free, and more prosperous than in Russia, and thereby lead the visitors to question Putin’s regime. A short-term visit could also lead some to leave permanently. In addition, barring visits is still a restriction on the liberty of innocent people that serves no useful purpose.

The war against Putin is supposed to be a war for liberal democratic values. Imposing collective punishment on innocent civilians – including those who have no hand in the war and in many cases even oppose it – is the kind of thing Putin and other authoritarians do. Rejecting such measures is one of the ways the West can show we differ from our enemies.

In earlier posts (e.g. here and here), I addressed claims that opening the door to Russians and Ukrainians is unfair so long as the West is less open to those fleeing violence and tyranny elsewhere. While such arguments have a certain degree of merit, the right way to deal with the problem is through “leveling up” by being more open to others, not by barring Russians and Ukrainians. For those interested in consistency, I have a long record of also advocating refuge for victims of war and and oppression from elsewhere in the world, including in this recent post about Chinese fleeing that country’s brutal Covid lockdowns and other human rights violations. The Chinese government’s atrocities are at least as bad as Putin’s. If they do not justify barring Chinese from the West (and they don’t!), the same goes for the Russian case.

In sum keeping Western doors open to Russian migrants is the right thing to do for both moral and strategic reasons. If we forget that and ignore our principles, the main beneficiary will be Vladimir Putin.

The post Don't Play into Putin's Hands by Barring Russians from the West – Instead, let more in appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ytEX9xG
via IFTTT

Americans earning well over six-figure incomes would be eligible for a student debt forgiveness plan that President Joe Biden is reportedly set to unveil later this week.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, that means most of the benefits of the roughly $300 billion proposal would flow to wealthier American households, according to a new analysis of the proposal.

Biden and top White House officials have been promising action on student debt for months, and CNN reported Monday that an announcement is likely coming on Wednesday. Reportedly, the White House will announce plans to forgive up to $10,000 in student debt for Americans earning up to $125,000 this year—though important specifics about the plan, like whether it would be a one-time event or an ongoing entitlement, remain unclear.

Because the poorest Americans generally don’t have college degrees or the student debt that often accompanies them, the benefits of just about any student loan forgiveness program are likely to flow primarily to middle- and upper-income households. Placing income-based limits on who benefits is one way to prevent a student debt forgiveness effort from being a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans.

Nevertheless, according to a newly published analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a fiscal policy think tank based at the University of Pennsylvania, “about 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution” even after limiting the benefits to individuals earning less than $125,000 this year.

As you can see from Penn Wharton’s analysis, drawing different lines regarding eligibility or setting different amounts to be forgiven doesn’t change the fact that wealthier-than-average households stand to benefit the most from student loan forgiveness plans.

If Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is a one-time arrangement, the Penn Wharton analysis pegs the cost at $297 billion. In other words, it would consume just about all of the supposed “deficit reduction” measures included in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act, which is supposed to reduce the federal budget deficit by about $300 billion over the next decade. So much for that.

If the student loan forgiveness program becomes an ongoing part of the federal budget, it would cost an additional $3 billion to $4 billion annually. Costs will grow if the income-eligibility level rises or if larger amounts of debt are forgiven.

With America already on pace to run a $15 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, it’s hard to justify a massive handout to middle- and upper-income households as a matter of fiscal policy.

And there are plenty of other reasons why student loan forgiveness makes little sense. As Reason‘s Emma Camp has detailed, student loan forgiveness programs manage to be unfair to graduates who paid back what they borrowed while also making it harder to solve the actual underlying problem of providing easy loans to students who are unprepared for college (and, therefore, unlikely to be able to pay off the burden they accrue at a young age).

In fact, it might cause the exact opposite to happen.

“If student loan debt forgiveness is ongoing, students might eventually reorganize their financing toward additional borrowing,” the Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis concludes. “Moreover, more students might choose to attend qualifying education providers, including students who might otherwise have a harder time with repayment. The inclusion of these two effects could, to some extent, make the program a bit more progressive while increasing budgetary costs.”

And there could be one additional foreseeable consequence: “Some of the benefit from debt forgiveness might be captured by colleges themselves in the form of higher prices (both tuition and net).”

The Biden administration has already taken steps to forgive huge amounts of student debt from some borrowers. As Reason‘s Mike Riggs reported last year, the Department of Education has erased about $9.5 billion owed by about 563,000 borrowers who attended for-profit schools or are disabled.

That’s historic, but it’s not good enough for the progressive activists who are demanding more from the White House on this front. Indeed, some of those activists are already claiming that Biden’s plan to forgive only $10,000 in debt per borrower is not enough.

Canceling $10,000 in student debt when the average white borrower is $12,000 in debt, while Black women hold on average over $52,000 isn’t just unacceptable, it’s structural racism.

— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) August 23, 2022

The idea that taxpayers—including college grads who paid back what they borrowed—should have to finance a $10,000 giveaway to Americans earning more than six figures is absurd on its face. Well-paid professionals do not need welfare, and it makes little sense to blow another $300 billion hole in the federal budget to provide it to them.

The post Biden Reportedly Set To Forgive $10K Student Debt for Americans Earning Over Six Figures appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/sreFLXY
via IFTTT

From today’s order:

Upon further consideration of the court’s August 17, 2022 Order, the court finds it impracticable at this time to continue to proceed with the proposed unsealing of previously-identified cases. Specifically, the court finds that there will be insufficient time and considerable, unanticipated administrative difficulty to both the court and to counsel in providing an opportunity for counsel and parties in the previously-identified cases to permit a physical review of the identified cases by the National Archives and Records Administration’s December 31, 2022 deadline for the court to complete the accessioning of its remaining paper case records.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The court’s August 17, 2022 Order is hereby RESCINDED in full. Any impacted parties, counsel, and other interested parties are excused from any requirement to show cause pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1). Any filed responses to the court’s order are DENIED as moot.

(2) The cases identified in the Addendum to the August 17, 2022 Order shall remain under seal until further order of the court but without prejudice to a motion to unseal in an identified case consistent with the court’s rules.

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to accession the cases identified in the August 17, 2022 Order Addendum to the National Archives and Records Administration for permanent retention under seal….

Here’s my post from last Wednesday, about the order that has now been rescinded:

An interesting order today, from the Federal Circuit:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit intends to unseal certain paper case records in accordance with Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1) in order to accomplish accession to the National Archives and Records Administration. Parties, counsel, or other impacted individuals with an interest in keeping sealed records in any case identified in the court’s order must show cause no later than 60 days from the date of the order why those records must remain sealed. No response is needed unless parties or counsel intent to contest the unsealing. Please refer to the order for further details, including how to submit a response.

Notice of this order is being sent to all active members of the bar registered with the court’s electronic filing service as well as to original counsel of record in the identified cases. Questions concerning the order or the process for responding should be directed by phone to the Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office at (202) 275-8035.

From the linked-to order:

The court is in the process of accessioning its remaining paper case records to the National Archives and Records Administration for permanent retention. These records pre-date the court’s transition to its electronic case management filing system in 2012 and once transferred to the National Archives will remain in only paper format and will not be made available online. Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1), “[a]fter five years following the end of all proceedings in this court, the court may direct the parties to show cause why confidential filings (except those protected by statute) should not be unsealed and made available to the public.” Through the review of these records, the court has identified several cases containing confidential filings that remain under seal more than five years following the end of all proceedings.

The list in the order appears to include over 1000 cases. Note that, though NARA will apparently only store the records in paper format for now, I expect that anything publicly accessible at NARA could potentially end up getting scanned and placed online in the future.

Thanks to Michael F. Smith of the Smith Appellate Law Firm for the pointers both to the original order and to the rescinding order.

The post Federal Circuit re: Bulk Unsealing Plans — Never Mind appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Sq5VLAH
via IFTTT

Historically, incumbent politicians rarely seem to lose their bids for reelection. In New York’s primary elections today for the House of Representatives, one incumbent is likely to defy the odds by losing their seat. But unfortunately, the reason is not that voters wanted a change.

New York was scheduled to hold its primary elections on June 28. Then in April, the state’s court of appeals struck down its new district maps, determining that “the district lines for congressional races were drawn with an unconstitutional partisan intent.” As a compromise, primaries for state-level races remained on the same date, while races for Congress and the state Legislature were postponed until today.

Under the state’s new maps, district lines have shifted such that incumbent candidates are running against one another.

Rep. Jerry Nadler and Rep. Carolyn Maloney are both Democrats representing parts of New York City. Nadler currently represents the state’s 10th congressional district, which includes Manhattan’s Upper West Side; Maloney represents the 12th, which includes the city’s tony Upper East Side. Under the new court-imposed map, both areas are part of the 12th district, and both Nadler and Maloney are running in that primary to keep the seat.

The same thing happened in Georgia when Rep. Lucy McBath ousted fellow Democratic Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux after that state’s 6th district was redrawn to be more favorable to Republicans. Rather than running for reelection in the newly competitive 6th, McBath ran against Bourdeaux, who represented the nearby 7th, which was still favorable to Democrats.

But the race in New York is slightly different. While McBath and Bourdeaux were upstarts who had recently flipped seats, Nadler and Maloney have been in office for decades, each first elected in 1992. Nadler, head of the House Judiciary Committee, had a visible presence during former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trials. Maloney, meanwhile, touts a long history of firsts as the first woman elected to her city council district and the first woman to lead the House Oversight Committee. No matter what happens today, at least one long-serving member of Congress will be voted out of office.

One of the persistent themes of American elections is the power of incumbency. In any given election cycle, the overwhelming majority of officeholders seeking reelection will win their races. Even in “wave” elections that see one party achieve massive success and recapture control of Congress, the rate of incumbents winning reelection is still staggeringly high. House incumbents have not won reelection by a rate of less than 85 percent in at least six decades. Despite the fact that political turnover leads to greater economic growth and less corruption, and even as voters overwhelmingly say that the country is on the wrong track, a solid majority of the country will still pull the lever for the existing candidate when given the choice.

It seems that the only way most voters will fire an incumbent is by voting for a different one instead.

The post Redistricting in New York Will Cost a Longtime Democrat a House Seat appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/4AyHoR6
via IFTTT