Ashleigh Barber, Author at Close Up Foundation

U.S.-Iranian Relations Following the Death of Qasem Soleimani

Posted on January 13, 2020February 13, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On January 2, 2020, it was announced that an air strike ordered by President Donald Trump had successfully targeted and killed Qasem Soleimani, chief of the Quds Force, at Baghdad International Airport. The Quds Force is regarded as the elite unit of Iran’s military; it handles overseas operations and is classified as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. Soleimani and his troops have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members, as well as the wounding of thousands more.¹

Soleimani’s killing follows an Iranian attack on December 27, 2019, against a U.S. military base in Iraq, and a coordinated assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Both of these attacks were commanded by Soleimani.² In a statement, the Department of Defense explained that the strike was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”³ The day after Soleimani’s death, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that there was an imminent threat of attack, plotted by Soleimani, that would have put many American lives at risk.⁴

The news of President Trump’s order to kill Soleimani has received both praise and criticism from members of Congress. Republican lawmakers have largely applauded the strike, arguing that it brought justice to many American military families; they also insist that the Quds Force would be to blame for any escalation that comes.⁵ Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, has stated that the administration’s action risks provoking further escalation of violence around the world.⁶ Many Democrats fear that the consequences of the strike could lead to another war in the Middle East.⁷ The divided response from Congress on the legality of the attack has also reignited a debate on presidential war powers.

There has been criticism from congressional Republicans as well. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) said that the administration’s effort to explain the attack was “probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.” Senator Lee added, “What I found so distressing about the briefing is one of the messages we received from the briefers was, ‘Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran,’ and that if you do, ‘You will be emboldening Iran.’”⁸ Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “I think it’s sad when people have this fake sort of drape of patriotism, and anybody that disagrees with them is not a patriot. … For him to insult and say that somehow we’re not as patriotic as he is—he hasn’t even read the Constitution … he insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism.”⁹

Even with those questions and critiques from President Trump’s fellow Republicans, it is unlikely that the Senate will take actions to curb the president’s authority. On January 9, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution to restrict the administration’s authority to strike Iran without congressional approval. The resolution now heads to the Senate, but it is less likely to pass in that chamber. Meanwhile, House leadership is considering further action to reduce the president’s authority to act without the input of Congress.¹⁰

While U.S.-Iran relations have long been tense and unsettled, those relations have become have become increasingly contentious in recent years. With the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions in 2018, and Iran’s recent attacks on U.S. personnel, the hope for improved relations still seems distant.

Discussion Questions

Do you think the United States was right to kill Soleimani? Why or why not?
Was the attack on Soleimani a proper response to the December attacks on Americans? Why or why not?
Why do you think members of Congress are so divided in their response?
How does this impact U.S. troops abroad?
Do you think the killing of Soleimani has lessened or heightened the risk of an Iranian attack against the United States?
What should the balance of power be between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to military action?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200102230543-qassem-soleimani-file-2016-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/asia/soleimani-profile-intl-hnk/index.html

[2] The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/476632-soleimani-is-dead-but-the-enemy-still-stands

[3] Department of Defense: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/

[4] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-target/iranian-commander-soleimani-had-been-in-pompeos-sights-for-years-idUSKBN1Z21UT

[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/us-iran-war.html

[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-killed.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/08/most-disturbing-part-mike-lees-broadside-against-trump-administrations-iran-briefing/

[9] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/09/why-dont-mike-lee-rand-paul-have-support/

[10] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-powers-resolution-house-votes-to-limit-trumps-ability-act-against-iran/

The Death Penalty: A Just Punishment?

Posted on December 4, 2019August 8, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On November 15, 2019, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended the execution of Rodney Reed and sent his case back to trial, due to new witness testimony that pointed to his innocence and raised concerns about how evidence was handled during the initial trial.¹ Since 1977, at least 166 inmates have been released from death row after new evidence came forward or problems were found in the trial procedures.²

Currently, 29 states have death penalty laws, and the federal government recently announced that it would resume executions after a 16-year hiatus. Attorney General William Barr has scheduled five death sentences to be carried out by the end of the year, all in cases involving horrifying murder (and, in some cases, sexual assault as well). Seven states have carried out 20 executions this year,³ the lowest number since 1976, when the Supreme Court found in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.⁴ Among the factors hindering the pace of federal executions are the difficulty of obtaining the drugs necessary for lethal injection, as well as declining support for the death penalty among the public,⁵ possibly due to lower rates of violent crime and the recent exoneration of some death row inmates.⁶

On November 25, 2019, Gallup released the results of a new survey indicating for the first time that Americans now prefer life in prison with no possibility of parole over the death penalty when a person is convicted of murder. Support for life in prison rose from 45 percent in 2014 to 60 percent in the most recent survey; support for the death penalty dropped from 50 percent to 36 percent. However, 56 percent of Americans still broadly support the death penalty, even if they prefer life in prison as a just punishment for convicted murderers.⁷

Although capital punishment has been a controversial issue for decades, researchers from the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks death penalty statistics, noted that “[t]his year has had an extraordinarily high percentage of cases in which there is very serious evidence that people who did not commit the killing are being subjected to death warrants.”⁸ As such, policymakers are considering and reconsidering whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate way to deliver justice.

Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty are vehemently opposed to any innocent person being put to death. But supporters insist that some crimes are so terrible that death is the only suitable punishment. They also argue that the possibility of a death sentence helps prevent crime from happening in the first place.⁹ In response to Attorney General Barr’s decision to schedule executions for five federal prisoners, victims’ advocates pointed out that some families find it extremely painful to wait years or decades for an execution that they see as closure and justice for their loved one(s).¹⁰ For his part, President Donald Trump supports the death penalty and has called for using capital punishment for mass shooters and drug traffickers.¹¹

Opposing opinions on the death penalty point to inmates like Reed, who was convicted and sentenced to death even though his blood did not match the blood found under the victim’s fingernails and observers have contested the legitimacy of the central evidence in his case.¹² Critics argue that the justice system can be flawed, and that there is always a risk that an innocent person could be executed. Opponents also note that even when guilt is certain—as it was in the case of Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted of murdering a couple and their child—judgments of who receives the death penalty can be arbitrary and unfair. For example, Lee’s co-conspirator, Chevie Kehoe, received a life sentence even though most accounts point to Kehoe as instigating the violence.¹³

For further reading on the death penalty, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

Do you support the death penalty? Why or why not?
What type(s) of crime, if any, should warrant the death penalty?
How should policymakers respond to the problem of potentially innocent people serving on death row?
How should public opinion factor into death penalty decisions made by judges and justices?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Associated Press

[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html

[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-idUSKBN1XN046

[4] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257

[5] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-idUSKBN1XN046

[6] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx

[7] Ibid.

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html

[9] BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml

[10] The Gazette: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/execution-for-iowa-mass-killer-dustin-honken-on-hold-20191121

[11] WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-mass-shootings-texas-ohio/

[12] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html

[13] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-12/rod-reed-ray-cromartie-kardashian-injustice-capital-punishment

Political Ads on Social Media

Posted on November 25, 2019January 30, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On October 30, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that, effective November 22, Twitter would ban all political advertising on its platform. Dorsey justified the decision by explaining that political ads present “entirely new challenges to civic discourse.”¹ Twitter’s sweeping decision was not an arbitrary one; it was the result of a new wave of scrutiny and criticism over the way social media companies manage political advertising, especially when the ads in question are false or misleading.

This past month, President Donald Trump’s campaign ran ads baselessly accusing his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Biden’s son, of a corruption conspiracy in Ukraine. The videos were viewed millions of times and allowed to stay up on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media websites.² When the Biden campaign asked Facebook to remove the ads, the company refused, citing the “newsworthiness” of the political statements, even though they were not supported by evidence.³ Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, explained, “Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.”⁴

Facebook was previously reluctant to police content back in May, when it allowed a doctored video of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—one that was slowed down and made her appear drunk—to remain on the website. The company has also faced intense criticism for its failure to both prevent and acknowledge the distribution of Russian propaganda during the 2016 election. Russian state agents were able to buy thousands of ads, target specific users, and spread fake news to sow confusion, discord, and division.⁵ Facebook responded with fact-checks to accompany dubious posts and made ad information—such as the purchaser, the amount paid, and the audience reach—publicly accessible. Still, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that he sees the value of not moderating ad content, noting, “In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for private companies to censor politicians, or the news.”⁶

To criticize Facebook’s ad policies, Senator Elizabeth Warren ran an intentionally false ad on the website, claiming that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had endorsed President Donald Trump.

Twitter’s ban on political advertising includes all “ads that refer to an election or a candidate” and “ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance.” However, the site will still allow ads that promote voter registration information.⁷ While Facebook does not require political ads to be accurate, it has removed several ads by the campaigns of President Trump, Biden, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) due to unrelated policy violations, such as the use of profanity, misleading links, and/or fake buttons.⁸ This shows a willingness by Facebook, however small, to regulate and reject ads by using some standardized criteria.

Social media has become an increasingly effective tool for politicians to reach and influence voters. According to Advertising Analytics, about $152 million has been spent on digital ads by the 2020 presidential candidates thus far, with online advertising making up 57.5 percent of their total ad spending.⁹ This isn’t surprising, considering the fact that people increasingly rely on their social media accounts as sources of news and information. Twitter has approximately 126 million daily users, while Facebook has over 1.2 billion daily users worldwide.¹⁰

The decisions of Twitter and Facebook have highlighted the tensions regarding content regulation and the partisan divide that accompanies them. Warren has derided Facebook as a “disinformation-for-profit machine,” and her campaign even created a purposely false Facebook ad to underscore the point.¹¹ Facebook’s inaction concerns those who fear a repeat of what happened in 2016.

Likewise, Twitter has attracted criticism for banning political ads altogether. Brad Parscale, the manager of President Trump’s 2020 campaign, called it “yet another attempt to silence conservatives, since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known.”¹² Many lesser-known candidates at the grassroots level are also concerned that they may be inadvertently suppressed, as they often turn to online advertising for its broad reach and relatively small costs.

Discussion Questions

How frequently do you see political ads online?
How pressing of an issue do you believe fake news and disinformation on social media to be?
Should politicians be required to make sure everything they post is accurate?
What action(s) should social media companies take regarding political ads? (Banning them completely like Twitter, allowing them to say anything like Facebook, something in between?)
Should there be laws or campaign regulations that hold candidates’ advertising to a standard of truth?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: WFAE/Twitter

[1] Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634369016586240

[2] Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/9/20906612/trump-campaign-ad-joe-biden-ukraine-facebook

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/technology/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ad.html

[4] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technolog y/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html

[5] House Intelligence Committee: https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/

[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/facebooks-earnings-and-revenue-jump-topping-forecasts.html?module=inline

[7] Twitter: https://twitter.com/vijaya/status/1189664481263046656

[8] BuzzFeed News: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-warren-biden-trump-ads-take-down-profanity

[9] Axios: https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-campaign-advertising-online-tv-8e036c37-68cc-48e4-861e-52ab26b42b6d.html

[10] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/02/07/twitter-reveals-its-daily-active-user-numbers-first-time/

[11] Elizabeth Warren via Twitter: https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1183019880867680256

[12] Trump Campaign via Twitter: https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1189656652250845184

Vaping: Free Market vs. Consumer Safety

Posted on November 19, 2019July 23, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

On September 11, 2019, President Donald Trump told reporters that his administration was considering a ban on flavored vaping products.¹ This announcement came after a sometimes-fatal, vaping-related illness began appearing across the United States. On November 18, the Trump administration seemed to reverse course under pressure from constituents² and corporate donors,³ announcing that no new regulations would be put in place at this time.

Vaping is the use of electronic cigarettes (often stylized as e-cigarettes). E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that heat a liquid into a vapor that is inhaled.⁴ E-cigarettes can contain an assortment of substances, including nicotine and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active compound in marijuana). E-cigarettes can also come in various flavors that mimic candies, soft drinks, or fruits. The flavoring of e-cigarettes has sparked nationwide discourse about the free market and consumer safety principles.

Opponents of flavored e-cigarettes claim that such products add to the influx of adolescents becoming addicted to nicotine. Prior to the rise of e-cigarettes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported downward trends in tobacco consumption. However, “since 2014, e-cigarettes have been the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. middle and high school students. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, the number of youth who used e-cigarettes went up by 1.5 million. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General has called e-cigarette use by youth an ‘epidemic,’ and warned that it threatens decades of progress toward making sure fewer young people use tobacco.”⁵

Supporters, on the other hand, view e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to cigarettes—one that has helped many people break their addiction to smoked tobacco products. Proponents of flavored e-cigarettes believe that banning flavors would not discourage people from the risks of vaping; rather, it would make them turn to the black market, where they could come into contact with unregulated, potentially dangerous products.⁶ Advocates of flavored e-cigarettes also argue that over-regulation of flavored tobacco products would hurt small businesses. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative advocacy group, noted, “Eliminating all but one or two of these options [of e-cigarette flavors] for adults would destroy thousands of small businesses, force many adult vapers to return to smoking, and force some to seek out products on the black market.”⁷

However, as a result of the vaping-related hospitalizations and deaths, state governments and some private businesses have begun implementing new restrictions. Juul Labs Inc., one of the largest e-cigarette providers in the United States, announced on October 17, that it would suspend sales of all non-tobacco- and non-menthol-based flavors of its e-cigarette products.⁸ As of October 28, the state governments of Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have issued temporary bans on flavored vaping products, and other states are considering implementing bans. Massachusetts has instituted the most restrictive ban—a four-month ban on the sale of all vaping products, regardless of whether or not products are flavored.⁹

As the conversation about flavored e-cigarettes continues, individuals on both sides of the debate are taking a closer look at this social phenomenon and its impact on American society.

For further reading on e-cigarette bans, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

How much have you heard about the addictiveness of nicotine and other stimulants?
Should companies be allowed to knowingly cause addiction in consumers? Why or why not?
Do you think vaping is a health crisis? Why or why not?
Who should be responsible for managing the risks of using e-cigarettes: government or consumers?
Is limiting access to flavors a legitimate way to discourage vaping? Why or why not?
When do government regulations begin to encroach on individual liberties?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters via theatlantic.com

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/donald-trump-vape-e-cigarette-flavors/index.html

[2] Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/trump-reversal-flavored-e-cigarette-vape-ban.html

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/health/trump-vaping-ban.html

[4] National Institutes of Health: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2019/02/vaping-rises-among-teens

[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/features/back-to-school/e-cigarettes-talk-to-youth-about-risks/index.html

[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2019/09/30/dont-make-the-vaping-crisis-worse-with-hasty-new-regulations/#1fca1e53169f

[7] Forbes: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/464470-trump-takes-heat-from-right-over-vaping-crackdown

[8] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/17/771098368/juul-suspends-sales-of-flavored-vapes-and-signs-settlement-to-stop-marketing-to-

[9] Associated Press: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/washington-joins-other-states-in-flavored-vaping-ban.html#targetText=New%20York%2C%20Michigan%20and%20Rhode,vaping%20products%20%E2%80%94%20flavored%20or%20not.

How the Supreme Court Could Reshape Discrimination Lawsuits

Posted on November 15, 2019February 13, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media.¹ The Court’s decision will determine how difficult it will be to bring future cases regarding possible discrimination and racial bias to trial.²

Facts of the Case

Byron Allen, an African American, owns Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which operates channels including JusticeCentral.TV and Pets.TV.³ Cable provider Comcast declined to carry ESN channels, citing capacity constraints and lack of demand.⁴ Allen alleges discrimination, claiming that Comcast offered untruthful excuses and added white-owned networks instead of his.⁵ Comcast calls the case frivolous, pointing out that a Carter-appointed district judge dismissed the case three times.⁶ The Supreme Court will decide if Allen’s case merits discovery and trial.⁷

Legal Arguments and Ramifications

Allen cites one of the first U.S. civil rights laws,⁸ the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866,⁹ which was intended to help former slaves overcome discriminatory “Black Codes” by guaranteeing them equal rights to make and enforce contracts.¹⁰ Allen calls it “an economic pathway for former slaves”¹¹that should ensure “equal access for economic opportunity for all Americans.”¹²

But does the law require Allen to prove that race was one motivating factor or the only factor in Comcast’s decision-making?¹³ Allen claims that the higher threshold would encode discrimination.¹⁴ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce asserts that the lower threshold would force businesses to settle costly nuisance suits¹⁵ rather than risk negative publicity and an onerous discovery process.¹⁶

Civil rights lawyers call¹⁷ the stricter test a “near-impossible”¹⁸ standard that would block victims’ suits¹⁹ and deter lawyers from taking their cases²⁰by precluding tactics like depositions.²¹ Drexel University law professor David S. Cohen summarizes, “Today very few people are openly racist, so they hide behind other reasons. A law that requires someone to say that race is the only reason for discrimination will be very hard to prove.”²²

Comcast states that it isn’t advocating a major legal change,²³ just a narrow ruling²⁴ that won’t have far-reaching effects.²⁵ Comcast touts its progressive diversity record²⁶ in programming and in developing African-American ownership²⁷ (which Allen disputes²⁸). Comcast calls the discrimination allegations a “preposterous”²⁹ business tactic.³⁰

Political Involvement

The Department of Justice took Comcast’s side (despite President Trump’s derision of Comcast-owned channels),³¹ advocating the higher standard³² with 10 minutes of Comcast’s argument time.³³ Some congressional Democrats have called for Comcast to be broken up,³⁴ while others have joined some 2020 Democratic presidential candidates³⁵ and over 20 civil rights organizations³⁶ (including the NAACP³⁷) in siding with Allen’s legal interpretation.

Some analysts see the conservative-leaning Supreme Court as unfriendly to civil rights plaintiffs³⁸ and guarding of higher pleading standards.³⁹ Though the justices appeared to favor Comcast during the hearing, Allen still expressed hope.⁴⁰ The Supreme Court decision is expected in June 2020.

Suggested Further Reading

READ: Explanation of the “But-for” legal test that will decide this case (from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute)

READ: Text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with historical context and study questions (from TeachingAmericanHistory.org, a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University)

READ: Analysis of the hearing from SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe

VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?

Discussion Questions:

Is it important to have diverse actors and characters on screen? Why or why not?
Is it important to have diversity among writers, directors, and producers of shows and movies? Why or why not?
Is it important to have diversity among owners of media companies? Why or why not?
Is the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still relevant over 150 years later? Why or why not?
In a discrimination trial, should Allen win if he can prove that Comcast was partially motivated by racial bias, or should he have to prove that bias is the only reason Comcast didn’t do business with him?
Respond to this quote from Allen’s lawyer (in a Washington Post article): “Imagine somebody goes to a hotel to rent a room and the clerk says, ‘We’re not renting a room to you because we don’t have rooms available and we don’t rent rooms to black people,’” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California’s Berkeley School of Law, who will argue on Allen’s behalf. “Under Comcast’s theory, that wouldn’t be enough to prove discrimination.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals thinks that if Comcast is partially motivated by racial bias, it doesn’t matter if the company also has legitimate business reasons not to carry Allen’s channels. The Ninth Circuit says that Allen should get a chance to gather more evidence by looking at Comcast documents and interviewing their employees, and then there should be a trial. Do you agree or disagree with the Ninth Circuit? Why?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Steve Helber, Associated Press, via https://images.wsj.net/im-123817?width=1260&size=1.5

[1] Oyez Project: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1171

[2] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/supreme-court-race-discrimination-comcast/index.html

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-comcast/supreme-court-to-hear-comcast-appeal-in-byron-allen-racial-bias-suit-idUSKCN1TB1QR

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Fox Business: https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/byron-allen-case-supreme-court-civil-rights

[7] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[8] U.S. House of Representatives History, Art, and Archives: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-Civil-Rights-Bill-of-1866/

[9] Federal Judicial Center: https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/civil-rights-act-1866

[10] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[11] American Bar Association ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/scotus-considers-whether-comcast-discriminated-against-entertainment-mogul-in-denying-cable-tv-slots

[12] Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byron-allen-comcast-supreme-court-case-135904187.html

[13] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/c2f708547aa04b65b68ecf571a0236b1

[14] NewsOne: https://newsone.com/3891953/everything-to-know-about-bryon-allens-20-billion-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-against-comcast/

[15] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[16] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[17] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/13/race-discrimination-standards-hang-balance-supreme-court-takes-up-comcast-suit/

[18] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcast-naacp-supreme-court-discrimination-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

[19] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/comcast/comcast-byron-allen-lawsuit-naacp-civil-rights-laws-20191002.html

[20] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[21] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcast-naacp-supreme-court-discrimination-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

[25] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447704-supreme-court-to-hear-racial-discrimination-case-against-comcast

[26] Ibid.

[27] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/11/comcast-breakup-threat-congressman-letter-byron-allen-lawsuit-1202781178/

[28] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447704-supreme-court-to-hear-racial-discrimination-case-against-comcast

[29] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/c2f708547aa04b65b68ecf571a0236b1

[30] Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byron-allen-comcast-supreme-court-case-135904187.html

[31] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[32] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/08/byron-allen-comcast-civil-rights-lawsuit-supreme-court-filing-reaction-doj-donald-trump-1202671369/

[33] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/11/comcast-breakup-threat-congressman-letter-byron-allen-lawsuit-1202781178/

[34] Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-11/comcast-faces-call-for-breakup-in-legal-fight-with-byron-allen

[35] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/10/kamala-harris-cory-booker-civil-rights-donald-trump-comcast-lawsuit-byron-allen-supreme-cout-1202751831/

[36] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/comcast/comcast-byron-allen-lawsuit-naacp-civil-rights-laws-20191002.html

[37] NAACP: https://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-statement-comcast-corporations-partnership-trump-administration-eviscerate-civil-rights-protections/

[38] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[39] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[40] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/13/comcast-poised-to-beat-20-billion-discrimination-case-at-supreme-court.html

What We Can Learn From the 2019 Elections

Posted on November 12, 2019October 5, 2020 by Ashleigh Barber

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, voters in eight states went to the polls to vote in local and statewide elections. Competitive gubernatorial and state legislative races were held in Kentucky, Mississippi, and Virginia.¹ These were the last elections before the 2020 census, which could result in the redrawing of political boundaries in each state. Furthermore, the results of these elections could be potential indicators of voter behavior and turnout in the 2020 election.

What Was at Stake in These Races?

In Kentucky, Republican Governor Matt Bevin, a strong supporter of President Trump and conservative policies, faced a strong challenge from state Attorney General Andy Beshear, a Democrat. Despite the fact that Kentucky is considered to be a strong Republican state (President Trump won the state by over 30 percentage points in 2016, and it’s the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), Democrats have found success in gubernatorial races there.² The unpopularity of Governor Bevin allowed the race to become highly competitive, giving Attorney General Beshear a jump in the polls.³ Many Democrats were hoping that seeing one of their own win in a state like Kentucky, which overwhelmingly votes Republican in national elections, would indicate the state’s voting behavior for 2020.

Ultimately, the gubernatorial race in Kentucky has been ruled too close to call, and Governor Bevin has formally asked for a recanvassing of the election. The recanvassing is currently scheduled for November 14.⁴ All other elections in the state were won by Republicans.⁵

In Virginia, which has become more of a purple state in recent years, the scandals among the top three officials (all Democrats) that unfolded earlier in 2019 had Republicans hoping that they would gain momentum in this year’s election, and allow them to hold onto control of the state Senate and House of Delegates.⁶ Despite the scandals, Democrats seized full control of the state legislature, marking the first time that Democrats have controlled the entire state government in over two decades.⁷

Mississippi’s gubernatorial election, although more competitive than elections in years past, saw Republican Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves defeat Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat. The heavy turnout from both parties shows how engaged voters are in the political scene, both locally and in anticipation of the 2020 election.⁸ However, even with this heightened sense of engagement from both sides, Democrats did not claim any statewide office or function of government in Mississippi last Tuesday.⁹

The 2019 elections reflected a higher sense of political engagement across both parties, but the effects of voter turnout and engagement moving towards the 2020 election remain unknown. In the coming weeks, strategists from both major political parties will attempt to find patterns in last week’s elections as they look ahead to the presidential race.

Discussion Questions:

Do any of these election results surprise you? Why or why not?
What do you think these results might tell us about voter behavior in the upcoming 2020 election?
Do you think elections before a census year are more important? Why or why not?
How might voter turnout in local elections be different than turnout in national elections?
Do you believe these elections received more national attention than usual? If so, why do you think that might be?
How closely linked do you think local and state elections are to national elections?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Steve Helber, Associated Press, via https://images.wsj.net/im-123817?width=1260&size=1.5

[1] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776208910/its-election-day-2019-here-s-what-to-watch

[2] Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/polls-open-in-states-facing-tests-of-party-control-11572951600

[3] Fivethirtyeight.com: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-2019-elections/

[4] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776937037/kentucky-gop-gov-bevin-officially-requests-recanvass-of-election-results

[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/05/us/elections/results-kentucky-governor-general-election.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/virginia-election-democrats-control/index.html

[8] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tate-reeves-mississippi-governor-race

[9] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2019/11/07/tuesdays-results-leave-democrats-controlling-nothing-in-state-government/

Eliminate Illegal Immigration; Make Immigration Work for the Economy

Posted on October 9, 2019August 16, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

Immigration policy and enforcement continues to be a major area of conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Currently, Congress is considering many bills related to immigration, asylum, migrant detention, and family separation. This week, we will look at two proposals that Republicans are advancing; two weeks ago, we examined two bills that Democrats are advancing.

Republicans have two main goals for immigration policy: to drastically reduce illegal immigration and to ensure that immigration is good for the U.S. economy.

In May, President Trump proposed sweeping changes to the U.S. immigration system. In addition to boosting border security and securing funding for a wall on the southern border, President Trump aims to reduce the number of poor or unskilled immigrants in favor of immigrants with education or expertise that will contribute to the U.S. economy.¹

Border security, and especially the proposal for a border wall, has received ample attention and is a central focus in two of our earlier posts (see: The Shutdown: It’s Over! … Isn’t It? and State of Uncertainty: Emergency Declaration on the Border). In this post, we will take up two proposals to change legal immigration in ways that Republicans believe will help the U.S. economy.

Secure and Protect Act of 2019

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced this bill in May; it reached the full Senate in August. The bill addresses many aspects of immigration related to seeking asylum or refugee status and to the treatment of undocumented migrants. The bill would make several key changes to the system, including:

Lengthening the amount of time the government is permitted to hold children away from their families, from 20 days to 100 days;
Making immigration officers the sole authority on whether or not a minor is capable of making their own decisions in the immigration process;
Establishing refugee processing centers in certain countries (designated by the secretary of Homeland Security), especially in Central America; and
Barring people from countries with those processing centers from seeking asylum.²

These changes would allow the Trump administration to automatically reject asylum claims made by migrants from Central America; their only paths to entry would be legal immigration or the refugee process.

LISTEN: What is the difference between refugees and asylum seekers?

Deny Visas to Immigrants Who Cannot Afford Health Insurance

The Trump administration has plans to implement a policy of rejecting visa applications from immigrants who cannot prove that they could afford health insurance or other health-related costs.³ President Trump signed a proclamation on October 4 stating that the new practice will begin in November 2019.

Explaining the shift in policy, Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute said, “The administration is on-the-record wanting to cut legal immigration, and particularly wanting to cut legal immigration of lower-skilled, lower-paid immigrants who are probably less likely to have health insurance coverage.”⁴

Supporting his proclamation, President Trump said, “Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our health care system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.”⁵

Summary

These two proposals, and the two Democratic proposals examined two weeks ago, show the different priorities of the two major political parties on the issue of immigration. While Republicans want to limit both legal and illegal immigration, Democrats are attempting to check the president’s power and to ensure humane treatment of undocumented migrants.

Discussion Questions

When you think of immigration, what do you see as the most serious issue?
Should the United States take steps to reduce numbers of legal immigrants? Why or why not?
When you compare the four proposals (two from Democrats and two from Republicans), whose vision for immigration do you most support?
What do you think the United States’ big-picture immigration goals should be?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Handout/Reuters, via the Washington Post

[1] PBS Newshour: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/whats-in-trumps-immigration-proposal

[2] Library of Congress’ Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1494

[3] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-immigrants-who-cant-prove-they-can-pay-for-health-care/

[4] Ibid.

[5] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767453276/trump-bars-immigrants-who-cannot-pay-for-health-care

The Global Climate Strike

Posted on September 25, 2019July 9, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

To help students explore the climate change debate, please see our resource on climate change policy here.

Over one million workers, students, and others engaged in the global climate strike on Friday, September 20, in an effort to call for more significant action to combat climate change.¹ This was the third in a series of worldwide strikes organized by students; the rally was planned to coincide with the United Nations Climate Action Summit.²

What are the students’ demands?

The organizers of the strike state their demands as follows:

“The climate crisis is an emergency – we want everyone to start acting like it. We demand climate justice for everyone. Our hotter planet is already hurting millions of people. If we don’t act now to transition fairly and swiftly away from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy for all, the injustice of the climate crisis will only get worse. We need to act right now to stop burning fossil fuels and ensure a rapid energy revolution with equity, reparations, and climate justice at its heart.”³

At the New York City rally, marchers chanted, “You had a future, and so should we.”⁴

Why strike?

Many young people in the United States and many people the world over are upset that policymakers are not seriously addressing climate change. Recent reports from the UN and the U.S. government, among others, have called attention to the dire challenges of climate change. The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment declares, “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.”⁵ The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that “[f]uture climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak, and duration of warming,” and that it is too late to avoid some, but not all, of the impacts of climate change.⁶

Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish activist, spoke for many young people when she said, “You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you. … You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”⁷

WATCH: Greta Thunberg speaks at the Climate Action Summit

What else is being done?

In the United States, there is a court case, Juliana v. United States, that argues that there is a fundamental right to a stable, livable climate and that the U.S. government is denying young people that right.⁸ The case began in 2015, with the most recent action taking place in June 2019. There will likely be continued climate efforts in the courts, as many are frustrated with elected officials’ lack of progress.

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Handout/Reuters, via the Washington Post

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/world/global-climate-strike-september-intl/index.html

[2] MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614419/climate-activism-is-now-a-global-movement-but-its-still-not-enough/

[3] Global Climate Strike website: https://globalclimatestrike.net

[4] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/climate/global-climate-strike.html

[5] Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 2: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov

[6] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

[7] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-09-22/un-climate-summit-youth-activists-disappointed

[8] Our Children’s Trust: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us

[9] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/climate-crisis-town-hall-august-2019/index.html

Reparations and the Demands of Justice

Posted on August 27, 2019July 9, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

In January 2019, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) introduced H.R. 40: The Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans Act.¹ Reparations for slavery, Jim Crow, and systematic segregation and racism in major U.S. institutions is not a new idea, but it has never gained the type of traction that it currently has. In June, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings to begin exploring the idea.²

This bill would not automatically establish reparations. Instead, the bill would “establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies.”³

WATCH: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responds to the bill

WATCH: Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of “The Case for Reparations,” testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

Discussions about race, racism, and racial justice are becoming more central parts of our political discourse. The rising tide of white nationalism and white supremacy,⁴ including their increasing visibility in public spaces,⁵ has helped spur discussion about the legacy of racism in the United States. Movements and organizations such as Black Lives Matter and the Equal Justice Initiative, as well as publications such as Between the World and Me, The New Jim Crow, and the 1619 Project, have focused attention the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, economic exclusion, and mass incarceration.

In this social and political environment, the debate over reparations is taken more seriously—but is also more contentious—than it has been at other times.

Arguments in support of the bill:

The text of the bill contains arguments—findings—that support passage of the bill. Among those findings are:

Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865.
The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the government of the United States from 1789 through 1865.
The slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor.
Following the abolition of slavery, the U.S. government, at the federal, state, and local levels, continued to perpetuate, condone, and often profit from practices that continued to brutalize and disadvantage African Americans, including sharecropping, convict leasing, Jim Crow, redlining, unequal education, and disproportionate treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system.
As a result of the historic and continued discrimination, African Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships, including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than 1/16th of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time.⁶

Arguments opposing the bill:

Charles Lane, a columnist for the Washington Post, argues that reparations may be unconstitutional because black people living today cannot show direct injury from slavery in the same way that other groups—such as Japanese Americans who lived through internment—have been able to do.⁷
Kevin Williamson, writing in National Review, argues that reparations would not accomplish what they are intended to accomplish and that the policies that would most help African Americans, and all Americans, would be economic and educational reform aimed at creating a dynamic and growing economy.⁸
Coleman Hughes, an African-American writer and student, argued against reparations before a congressional subcommittee, saying that reparations “would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors. If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today.”⁹
Representative Mike Johnson (R-La.) has spoken of “the injustice of monetary reparations from current taxpayers for the sins of a small subset of Americans from many generations ago.”¹⁰

The debate over this issue is taking place in the primary campaigns of Democratic presidential hopefuls, and Congress will continue to consider and possibly vote on the bill.

Discussion Questions

What do you view to be the strongest arguments for and against the idea of reparations?
If you were a member of Congress, what more would you want to know before voting on this bill?
Setting aside the question of reparations, do you think that establishing a commission to investigate the impacts of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism is a good idea? Why or why not?
If you are opposed to the idea of reparations in the form of cash or a check, do you think something else should be done to address the legacy and injustice of slavery and segregation? If so, what? If no, why not?

How to Get Involved

Students can continue to follow the bill on GovTrack.

Students can weigh in—as a group assignment or individually—by visiting this page.

Students can also research their member of Congress to see which committees they sit on. If their representative sits on the Judiciary Committee, they should consider contacting that member while the bill is still in committee.

Further Reading

The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates, in The Atlantic
The 1619 Project, a series of essays, articles, and podcasts produced by the New York Times
Would Reparations for Slavery be Constitutional? by Charles Lane, in the Washington Post

Sources

Featured Image Credit: 19th Century Engraving via New York Public Library Digital Collection (Public Domain) and Wikipedia

[1] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-supremacy-white-nationalism-entered-political-conversation/story?id=64998396

[5] Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/27/white-nationalist-propaganda-rise-college-campuses

[6] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/40/text

[7] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-reparations-for-slavery-be-constitutional/2019/08/12/76677182-ba10-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

[8] National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/case-against-reparations-kevin-d-williamson/

[9] BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48665802

[10] Ibid.

Religious Freedom or the Right to Discriminate?

Posted on August 22, 2019August 22, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

On August 15, the Department of Labor published proposed changes that would expand federal contractors’ ability to claim a religious exemption to equal opportunity and anti-discrimination rules.¹ The proposed rule change, as written, could allow employers with federal contracts to fire or refuse to hire LGBTQ employees, and could even be used to fire unmarried pregnant women if an employer claimed that it was against their religion to support having sex out of wedlock.

The Department of Labor cites recent Supreme Court cases, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)²and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).³ In each of those cases, the Court allowed businesses to claim that the U.S. right to religious freedom exempted them from certain state or federal regulations. (Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided on narrow grounds and the Court cautioned that it should not necessarily be read as precedent.)

Drawing on opinions expressed by the Supreme Court in those cases and in other cases, the Department of Labor’s rule change would allow groups and companies with federal contracts that identify as religious to “make employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs without fear of sanction by the federal government.”⁴

The proposed rule is stirring controversy, as many civil rights activists see the change as discriminatory. Patricia Shiu, who oversaw the federal contracting office under President Barack Obama, told Vox that the new rule has the potential to be interpreted very broadly. As Shiu explained to Vox: “The new rule would gut anti-discrimination protections in a ‘major and transformational way.’ While the rule seems to target LGBTQ individuals … it’s so broad that it creates a loophole for employers to discriminate against anyone. … [Companies] could ask for a religious exemption so they don’t have to hire women, by saying that their religion dictates that women cannot work outside the home.”⁵

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), warned that the rule “authorizes discrimination in the name of religion.”⁶ The ACLU also tweeted, “Nearly one-quarter of employees in the United States work for an employer that has a contract with the federal government. This rule seeks to undermine our civil rights protections and encourages discrimination in the workplace—and we will work to stop it.”⁷

Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the LGBTQ rights advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, called the rule “a license to discriminate.”⁸

An official with the Department of Labor defended the rule, explaining to ABC News: “The Department’s regulations for a long time have allowed religious organizations to take applicants’ and employees’ religion into account when making employment decisions, that’s not new. This proposal only seeks to clarify who qualifies as a religious organization and what religion means under the law. That’s it.”⁹

In addition, acting Secretary of Labor Patrick Pizzella told The Christian Post, “Today’s proposed rule helps to ensure the civil rights of religious employers are protected. As people of faith with deeply held religious beliefs are making decisions on whether to participate in federal contracting, they deserve clear understanding of their obligations and protections under the law.”¹⁰

Discussion Questions

Do you think that business owners and employers should have the right to refuse to hire someone on religious grounds? Why or why not?
Are there some types of organizations (such as religious charities) that should have the right to use religion in their hiring and firing practices? Should that same right extend to all employers?
How does this controversy connect to other issues you have heard about in the news? In history?
Do you think the Department of Labor should adopt this new rule? Why or why not?

How to Get Involved

This proposed rule change is open for public comment until September 16, 2019. Anyone can submit a comment, and these comments must be reviewed and considered by the executive branch before it makes the change official.

Read the full proposed rule and submit a comment here:

Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption

Consider having students work in small groups or individually to submit a comment supporting or challenging the proposed rule.

Other Resources