『Reporters Turned Away From the White House Despite a Court Order, the ABA Fights for Its Accreditation Power & New York Calls Polymarket Illegal Gambling』のカバーアート

Reporters Turned Away From the White House Despite a Court Order, the ABA Fights for Its Accreditation Power & New York Calls Polymarket Illegal Gambling

Reporters Turned Away From the White House Despite a Court Order, the ABA Fights for Its Accreditation Power & New York Calls Polymarket Illegal Gambling

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

【Amazonプライム会員限定】今ならプレミアムプランが4か月 月額99円。

10月19日まで。※適用条件あり
This Day in Legal History: Congress Proposes the Bill of RightsOn September 25, 1789, the First Congress agreed on twelve proposed amendments to the newly ratified Constitution and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of those twelve would be ratified by the states in December 1791, and we know them today as the Bill of Rights. It was the fulfillment of a promise—many states had ratified the Constitution only on the understanding that a bill of rights protecting individual liberties would swiftly follow.The amendments are the beating heart of American individual liberty. The First Amendment’s protections for speech, press, religion, and assembly; the Fourth Amendment’s shield against unreasonable searches; the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ guarantees of due process and fair trials; the Eighth’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. What’s remarkable is how the meaning of these spare, elegant clauses has been fought over and elaborated for more than two centuries—the words are fixed, but their application to new circumstances is a never-ending project. It’s worth remembering, too, that two of the original twelve weren’t ratified in 1789: one concerning congressional apportionment, and one on congressional pay—and that pay amendment was finally ratified in 1992, more than 200 years later, as the 27th Amendment.The significance of September 25, 1789 is that it created the framework of enumerated rights that Americans invoke against their government every single day—and never more directly than in today’s lead story, which is, at bottom, a First Amendment fight over freedom of the press playing out at the doors of the White House. On the anniversary of the day those freedoms were proposed, we watch a court try to enforce them in real time.We have a remarkable follow-up to a story we covered earlier this week: the White House barred reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from entering—just hours after a federal judge ordered their access restored and deemed the ban likely unconstitutional. Let me lay out the sequence, because it’s striking. Recall those three outlets sued after President Trump banned them over what he called their “negative stories.” This week, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled for the outlets, temporarily blocking the ban for 14 days and finding it likely unconstitutional—a clear First Amendment win. And then, hours later, when reporters from those outlets tried to enter the White House grounds, Secret Service officers turned some of them away and even confiscated a Politico reporter’s credentials. The outlets rushed back to court, requesting an immediate hearing, and by the end of the day the White House began readmitting the journalists. Now, here’s the legal significance, and it’s serious, because this brushes up against one of the gravest issues in our legal system: compliance with court orders. When a court issues an injunction, parties are legally bound to obey it—full stop. The rule of law depends on the understanding that when a judge rules, even the most powerful actors, including the executive branch, comply. When there’s a gap—even a few hours—between a court order and the government’s compliance with it, that’s not a small administrative hiccup; it raises the specter of defiance of the judiciary, which strikes at the foundation of the separation of powers. Now, the charitable read is that this was a logistical lag—word hadn’t reached the officers at the gate—and the fact that access was restored by day’s end supports that. But it happened against a backdrop of rising concern about executive compliance with court orders generally. The significance is that the First Amendment merits question—can a President ban outlets for critical coverage—now sits alongside an even more fundamental one: whether court orders enforcing those rights will be promptly obeyed. On the anniversary of the Bill of Rights, that’s a sobering pairing.Politico denied access to White House after judge’s order, news outlet says | Reuters · Washington Post · CNBCThe American Bar Association is fighting to hold onto one of its most consequential powers: its role as the federally recognized accreditor of the nation’s law schools. This week, the ABA’s legal-education council was set to meet with a federal advisory committee to defend that role, after the Department of Education recommended in August that the government withdraw recognition of the ABA as the official law-school accreditor. Let me explain why this is a big deal, because accreditation is quiet but enormously powerful. In most states, you have to graduate from an ABA-accredited law school to even sit for the bar exam—so the ABA’s accreditation standards effectively shape what every law school in America must teach, how it must operate, and who can ultimately enter the profession. That’s a tremendous amount of gatekeeping authority concentrated in a private ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません