Connect with us

Courts

Foundation for Moral Law defends Little Sisters of the Poor from Obamacare mandate

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

The Foundation for Moral Law filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Catholic nuns against an Obamacare mandate that they say violates their freedom to express their religious beliefs.

The Little Sisters of the Poor have been battling Obamacare for years. The Catholic nuns argue that their religious freedoms have been violated by an Obama era mandate in the Affordable Care Act that requires that they provide coverage for contraceptive practices that they find morally reprehensible to their employees as part of their healthcare coverage.

The Foundation for Moral Law is a Montgomery based nonprofit dedicated to the defense of religious liberty. The Foundation filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court defending the Little Sisters and religious liberty.

Shortly after Congress passed Obamacare, religious employers sued, claiming that they should not have to pay for contraceptives (some of which induce abortion) if they had religious objections. One of those groups was the Little Sisters of the Poor, which is a group of Catholic nuns that serves the poor. In 2016, the United States Supreme Court gave the federal government a chance to create accommodations for the Little Sisters. In 2017, the Trump administration finalized those regulations, which protected groups like the Little Sisters.

A federal district judge struck down the Trump Administration regulations and issued a nationwide injunction barring the federal government from enforcing them. When the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, the Little Sisters and the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to take the case. The Foundation filed an amicus brief in their support.

“Religious freedom is an inalienable right given to us by God,” Foundation President Kayla Moore said in a statement. “The Trump administration should be commended for finding ways to protect the Little Sisters’ First Amendment rights instead of being dragged into yet another round of litigation.” Moore added, “It is the height of irony that the Obama mandate would require Catholic nuns to pay for contraceptive services that they do not and will not use.”

“In our brief, we argued that the Founders intended for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to protect religious liberty in cases like these,” Foundation staff attorney Matt Clark said. “We also argued that the Founders never intended to give a federal district judge the power to issue nationwide injunctions.”

“It has been six long years since we began our legal battle against government mandates that threaten our ministry,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor in a statement. “We hope we have finally reached the end of this arduous process, that the Supreme Court will reaffirm their previous decision, and that we will soon be able to keep our focus on the elderly poor.”

Advertisement

The Foundation for Moral Law was founded by former Chief Justice Roy Moore (R). Moore is married to Foundation President Kayla Moore and is a candidate for the Senate seat currently held by Doug Jones (D).

Advertisement

Courts

Alabama Parole and Probation Officers supervising nearly 9,000 violent criminals

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

The Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles released a report Thursday that was shared with state legislators and the media this week that shows Alabama’s 300 parole and probation officers are tasked with supervising 8,993 people convicted of violent crimes.

The officers are tasked with supervising more than 27,000 Alabama offenders as well as more than 3,600 offenders from other states who chose to move to Alabama following their incarceration in other states. Those are just the active cases.

There are an additional 22,947 inactive offenders for a total caseload of 50,055.

“The supervision of all these offenders that our officers provide daily is crucial to the safety of Alabamians and we are thankful for the selfless and dedicated work of these law enforcement officers,” said Bureau Director Charlie Graddick in a statement.

Graddick said that the Bureau put nine new officers into the field last week to begin supervising parolees and probationers and hopes to hire up to 138 more officers over the next three years — if the budget allows.

In the session that recently ended, the Legislature cut the bureau’s budget nearly in half.

“We are in need of more officers as we work to reduce caseloads,” Graddick said.

The report shows that 79 percent of the Alabama clients the bureau supervises were granted probation by judges throughout the state.

Advertisement

Sixteen percent of the Alabama offenders are parolees who were granted release from prison by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Of the 6,078 Alabama parolees being supervised, 58 percent are violent offenders, some requiring much more intensive supervision.

Alabama has historically underfunded and understaffed the aging prison facilities managed by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

The Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles is tasked with attempting to safely reintegrate parolees into society as well as to rehabilitate offenders sentenced to probation so that they do not re-offend and have to join the state’s prison population again.

A recent Department of Justice report claimed that Alabama’s prisons are among the most dangerous in the country.

The state has a critical need to increase prison capacity to reduce prison overcrowding and protect the public from crime and violence.

 

Continue Reading

Courts

DOJ’s dropping of charges against Flynn may raise question in Siegelman case

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Defenders of former Gov. Don Siegelman suggested that U.S. Attorney General William Barr’s dropping of federal charges against General Michael Flynn raises questions of the prosecution of Siegelman.

Flynn, a retired Lt. General, was President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser. He was investigated under the Logan Act as part of the wider Russian collusion investigation into the 2016 election, when Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A preeminent scholar in prosecutorial misconduct, Professor Bennett Gershman, has now proclaimed the prosecutors of former governor Siegelman are the ones who should have been charged with a federal crime.

“Yes, the prosecutors should be in jail,” Gershman said. “Of the thousands of prosecutorial misconduct cases I’ve written about, the government’s bad faith described in Stealing our Democracy stands out and may be without parallel.”

“Stealing our Democracy” is Siegelman’s new book. The new book raised more questions of prosecutorial misconduct.

David C. Iglesias is a former Republican U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. He is now an associate professor of Politics and Law at Wheaton College in Illinois.

“If you doubt that politics are the mortal enemy of justice, read Stealing Our Democracy,” Iglesias said. “This is a sobering reminder of the vast powers the federal government has wrongfully used as a sledgehammer to achieve a conviction at any cost. Terrible things happen when you mix politics with prosecutions.”

The White House maintains that the prosecution of Flynn was a political exercise. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany blasted the effort to prosecute Flynn.

Advertisement

“The FBI exists to investigate crimes. But in the case of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, it appears that they might have existed to manufacture one,” McEnany said at the White House press briefing. “As the motion filed by the Department of Justice yesterday explained, the FBI set out to interview General Michael Flynn, when they had no predigate [sic] — predicate for any investigation of any crime.”

“Over the past week, we learned, from a handwritten note, the true intent behind the FBI’s investigation of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn,” McEnany explained. “The very day that then-FBI Director Jim Comey sent agents to the White House to interview Flynn, the FBI discussed what their intent was beforehand. This is what they said: “What is our goal? Truth, admission? Or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” These notes, in addition to other evidence, raise serious questions about the handling of the — of the FBI’s handling of Michael Flynn’s case.”

Siegelman’s supporters maintain that is what happened to the former Governor.

Law Professor John Farmer is the former Dean of Rutgers Law School and seems to agree with Professor Gerhman.

“Don Siegelman’s story is nothing less than an American tragedy,” Farmer wrote. “Understanding the abuses he experienced may well be the first step to ending them and to healing our broken politics.”

Siegelman is the only Democrat to be elected as the Governor of Alabama since 1982’s election of George C. Wallace (D). Siegelman served as Governor from 1999 to 2003. He was narrowly defeated by then-Congressman Bob Riley, R-Ashland, in the 2002 election after just one term as Governor. Siegelman was mulling a run for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2004.

Siegelman claims that he was then targeted by President George W. Bush’s Department of Justice and claims that he was prosecuted on the orders of GOP strategist and top Bush White House political strategist Karl Rove.

Flynn’s guilty plea was overturned and the case against him lifted with the aid of AG William Barr and the Trump Department of Justice after being investigated and prosecuted by Barack H. Obama’s holdovers at the DOJ, whom some Republicans accuse of attempting a legal coup against the incoming Trump officials. Siegelman on the other hand was prosecuted during the 2006 election when he was running to regain the Governor’s mansion. Siegelman, then under a legal cloud, lost the Democratic primary to then Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley (D). Baxley was then trounced by Gov. Riley. Siegelman was convicted by a jury of his peers and his convictions were upheld by the federal court system, spending years in prison until 2017.

Siegelman claims that his new book raises more questions of prosecutorial misconduct in his case.

Continue Reading

Courts

Gov. Kay Ivey extends public health emergency, issues COVID-19 lawsuit protections

Eddie Burkhalter

Published

on

Gov. Kay Ivey on Friday extended the formal “public health emergency” for 60 days, beginning May 13. 

Ivey also issued another proclamation that provides liability protection for businesses and health care providers from being sued over COVID-19 matters if those businesses and health care providers “comply with or reasonably attempt to comply with applicable public health guidance.”

Ivey’s order also states that the emergency liability protections would cover businesses and health care providers unless they show “wanton, reckless, willful or intentional misconduct.” 

“I want to do everything within my authority to protect businesses as Alabama’s economy gets up and running again,” Ivey said in a statement. “As we resume operations, the very last thing a business owner needs to worry about is a frivolous lawsuit from responding to COVID-19. Let me be clear, this in no way shields them from serious misconduct. If someone knowingly abuses the public during a time of crisis, they should be held accountable and prosecuted as such.”

Ivey is to hold a press conference at 11 a.m. to discuss possible changes to her “safer-at-home” order. The new proclamations issued Friday morning are separate from the state’s public health orders.

The existence of the states of emergency simply allows the governor to take extraordinary steps to deal with an emergency situation.

Eighth proclamation summary:

  • The order provides safe harbor to health care providers, businesses, and other entities to encourage “reopening our state.”
  • The order protects health care providers from a frivolous lawsuit based on actions they took or failed to take as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The order protects businesses from frivolous lawsuits when they conduct COVID-19 testing or distribute PPE to help protect people from COVID-19.
  • The order “in no way shields these groups from claims of egregious misconduct. Claims based on egregious misconduct would be allowed to proceed,” according to the governor’s office.

Ninth proclamation summary:

  • One provision allows for probate judges to improve procedures for administering the July 14 primary runoff election.
  • Probate judges would be allowed to reduce the number of poll workers, if necessary. They would also be allowed to conduct poll-worker training remotely.
  • Another provision “cuts red tape for electric co-ops seeking to obtain emergency loans.” This will “help ensure that electrical cops are still able to provide electricity to their members during this public health emergency.”
  • A final provision will extend the formal “public health emergency” for 60 days, beginning May 13.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Courts

Appeals court refuses to lift injunction prohibiting Alabama from banning abortions

Chip Brownlee

Published

on

A federal appeals court Thursday refused to lift a preliminary injunction prohibiting Alabama from banning abortions during the COVID-19 epidemic.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday issued a ruling that denied the state of Alabama’s request to stay a preliminary injunction issued by federal district court Judge Myron Thompson.

The decision ensures that the injunction prohibiting the state from banning abortions as part of its COVID-19 response will remain in effect throughout the appeal. Abortion care will continue to be available.

“Today, the court refused to allow Alabama to use the COVID-19 crisis as a pretext to prevent patients from accessing abortion care,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “This is a critical victory that recognizes that government response to the pandemic must be grounded in public health, not politics.”

The decision comes after Attorney General Steve Marshall appealed Thompson’s partial blocking of the state’s temporary ban on abortions amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In his order, Thompson said of Alabama’s temporary ban on elective procedures, “for some group of women, a mandatory postponement will make a lawful abortion literally impossible. Under Alabama law, a woman’s window for seeking a lawful abortion is limited: abortion becomes illegal when the probable post fertilization age of the fetus is at least 20 weeks.”

Marshall and the state of Alabama have argued that State Health Officer Scott Harris’s order “covers all elective medical procedures, including abortions.  The purposes of the order are to promote social distancing and ensure that scarce healthcare resources—including personal protective equipment for medical providers—are available for the fight against COVID-19.”

“This ruling ensures that everyone in Alabama can continue to make the decision about whether to have an abortion for themselves,” said Randall Marshall, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “We will keep fighting to hold our politicians accountable to protecting the needs of our communities, rather than using the pandemic to further an anti-abortion agenda.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Authors

Advertisement

The V Podcast

Facebook

Trending

.