Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Latter-day Saints lawsuits raise questions over Mormon tithing – can churches just invest funds members believe are for charity?

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Three men have filed a lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – also known as the LDS or Mormon church – and its investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc.

Key Points:

Three men have filed a lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – also known as the LDS or Mormon church – and its investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc.
LDS church doctrine requires its members to tithe – that is, give 10% of their income to the church.

3 kinds of relief

The men are seeking three forms of relief.
They’re also requesting other monetary relief, including that the LDS church pay their legal fees.
In February 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission found that Ensign Peak, the church’s investment arm, had failed to make required disclosures of its securities portfolio.
By a whistleblower’s estimate, it may be as high as $100 billion.

Donors generally have no say

Charitable donations, generally of money or property, are often deductible for tax purposes because churches qualify as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
While donors cannot get their money back when they are disappointed by a charity, they will probably stop making donations.

Fiduciary duty – for the institution

They argue that the church breached its fiduciary duties to its members – all of whom are also its donors.
Fiduciary duties encompass a special duty to act in the best interests of someone or something, based on certain legal relationships.

Allegations of fraud

In Utah, plaintiffs must file fraud suits within three years of when they discover or should have discovered fraudulent behavior.
And the Ensign Peak allegations first surfaced in 2019 – four years before the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.
Their lawyers argue that the statute of limitations does not bar the case, because the LDS church hid how it used the money and plaintiffs could not have discovered the alleged fraud until recently.

Seeking relief

But they are also asking for the court to order the LDS church to make periodic financial disclosures and to appoint an independent authority outside the church to oversee the church’s finances.
Appointing somebody to oversee how the LDS church raises and spends its money would violate this doctrine.

Samuel Brunson is practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

NCLA Amicus Brief Asks Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging NLRB’s Unfair Injunction Standard

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, November 7, 2023

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney case, reverse the Sixth Circuit’s error, and overturn the injunction.

Key Points:

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney case, reverse the Sixth Circuit’s error, and overturn the injunction.
Yet, five federal circuit courts, including the Sixth Circuit, apply a far more relaxed standard when NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction against an employer.
This judge-made departure from the usual preliminary injunction standard amounts to systematic judicial bias in favor of injunctions being sought by NLRB.
NCLA asks the Supreme Court to eliminate this coercive dynamic, which exemplifies many deep-seated problems in the Administrative State.

Public schools and faith-based chaplains: Texas’ new combination is testing the First Amendment

Retrieved on:

Thursday, October 26, 2023

Beaumont Independent School District recruited volunteer clergy to counsel K-12 students on topics such as self-esteem, peer pressure and violence.

Key Points:

Beaumont Independent School District recruited volunteer clergy to counsel K-12 students on topics such as self-esteem, peer pressure and violence.
The goal, officials said, was to create volunteer opportunities, encourage conversation about civic values and morality, and enhance safe learning environments.
Local boards have until March 1, 2024, to choose whether to allow chaplain programs in their schools.

Lone Star State

In fact, Texas ranks 23rd in the nation in student-to-counselor ratios, with almost 400 students for every counselor.
One bill requiring officials to display a 16-by-20-inch copy of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom was passed in the state Senate but died on the floor of the House in May 2023.

Shifts at SCOTUS

The most famous of these was often called “the Lemon test,” referring to the court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman.
According to the endorsement test, a policy is permissible if a “reasonable observer” would not think it was endorsing or disapproving of religion.
Finally, in 1992, the court abandoned a test it applied only once, in Lee v. Weisman: coercion.
The justices invalidated prayer at a public school graduation ceremony on the basis that it coerced people present into listening.

Crossing the line?

Even so, SB 763 raises at least three thorny issues about how to assess whether a policy violates the First Amendment.
Having faith-based chaplains – a move many Texas chaplains themselves oppose – arguably puts the power of the state behind their actions.
Third is the question of which faiths will be represented and whether the chaplain program would appear to endorse some religions over others.

Votes ahead

Boards have begun to vote on whether to allow chaplains in their schools.
SB 763 raises serious questions about what crosses the line toward establishing religion that, I believe, will likely result in litigation.
Thus, both sides – whether in favor of or opposed to having chaplains in schools – should be mindful of the aphorism to “be careful what you wish for.”

Charles J. Russo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

NCLA Amicus Brief Decries SEC’s Administrative Denial of Jury Trial Rights, ALJ Removal Protections

Retrieved on:

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Supreme court, Executive (government), Security (finance), Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Government, NCLA, Bab Mansur al-'Alj, Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Congress, Constitutional Convention (United States), Law of the United Kingdom, ALJ, Executive branch of the government of Honduras, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Fifth, Seventh Amendment, Supreme

Worse yet, the proceeding denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Key Points:

Worse yet, the proceeding denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
Dodd-Frank empowers SEC to obtain a jury trial by suing in federal court or avoid a jury trial by initiating an administrative proceeding.
Hence, the law unfairly deprives them of the same right to demand a jury trial that SEC has—a blatantly discriminatory rule.
In April, the Supreme Court upheld NCLA client Michelle Cochran’s right to challenge the constitutionality of her ALJ’s removal protections in federal court before undergoing an administrative adjudication.

Supreme Court opinion lays a pathway for government to rectify environmental impact assessment act: WWF-Canada

Retrieved on:

Friday, October 13, 2023

Flood, Legislation, WWF-Canada, Impact assessment, Law of the United Kingdom, Supreme, Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act, Nature, Wildfire, Supreme court, Biodiversity, Federation, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Government, Industrialisation

WWF-Canada intervened in this reference to the Supreme Court to emphasize the importance of federal involvement and accountability in matters related to the global issue of biodiversity and nature loss.

Key Points:

WWF-Canada intervened in this reference to the Supreme Court to emphasize the importance of federal involvement and accountability in matters related to the global issue of biodiversity and nature loss.
The Supreme Court gave clear direction on what is necessary to save this legislation.
We urge the federal government to act quickly to amend the Impact Assessment Act to reflect this ruling.
In the meantime, we urge all provincial and territorial governments to ensure that their environmental assessment legislation holds new projects to the highest standards."

Saskatchewan’s revised policy for consulting Indigenous nations is not nearly good enough

Retrieved on:

Monday, October 2, 2023

The Government of Saskatchewan announced its revised framework for consultation with First Nation and Métis communities in August 2023.

Key Points:

The Government of Saskatchewan announced its revised framework for consultation with First Nation and Métis communities in August 2023.
This framework sets out the provincial government’s latest approach to fulfilling its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples.
Some Canadian jurisdictions are making efforts to break away from colonial mentalities by developing policies in true partnership with Indigenous Peoples.

Sticking with the status quo

Timelines have been tweaked, a new chart has been added and a central role for the Ministry of Government Relations has been clarified.
Yet stepping back from the minutiae, the provincial government’s approach to Indigenous consultation largely preserves the status quo — a standard that is out-of-step with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and broader trends in Canadian and international law.
It also fails to acknowledge or make any concessions to the distinct perspectives of the Indigenous Peoples of this land.

Leaving it up to the courts

But the framework purports to serve a more ambitious goal: facilitating “mutually beneficial relationships” with Indigenous Peoples.
Case law and legal precedent reflect specific disputes based on the specific facts that give rise to them.
When it comes to the duty to consult and accommodate, the courts define the minimum legal standards within which other branches of government must operate.
Courts cannot and will not design the laws and policies that are required for a positive, just political relationship.
It is up to the federal and provincial governments to work with Indigenous Peoples to build a harmonious relationship or miyo-wîcêhtowin.

Implementing UNDRIP

The case law it relies on shifts and the policy itself can be challenged before the courts.
For example, the Métis Nation—Saskatchewan is actively challenging the policy’s restriction against consultation on Aboriginal title claims.
Saskatchewan can follow B.C.’s lead by negotiating nation-specific, consent-based processes in line with UNDRIP.
UNDRIP reflects key principles of customary international law, which are directly binding in Canadian courts and therefore highly relevant to Canadian policymaking.

Menendez indictment looks bad, but there are defenses he can make

Retrieved on:

Monday, September 25, 2023

Reactions came quickly to the federal indictment on Sept. 22, 2023, of New Jersey’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Bob Menendez.

Key Points:

Reactions came quickly to the federal indictment on Sept. 22, 2023, of New Jersey’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Bob Menendez.
What did you think when you first read this indictment?
In addition, as judges routinely instruct juries in these cases, the indictment is not evidence and the jury may not rely on it to draw any conclusions.
The average reader will look at the indictment and say, “These guys are toast.” But are there ways Menendez can defend himself?
There are a number of complex issues presented by these charges that could be argued by the defense in court.
First, while the indictment charges a conspiracy to commit bribery, it does not charge the substantive crime of bribery itself.
In the Abscam case, seven members of the House and one Senator were all convicted in a bribery scheme.

NCLA Asks U.S. Supreme Court Not to Stay Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Surgeon General’s office from pressuring social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

Key Points:

Surgeon General’s office from pressuring social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.
On September 8, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld the most significant components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the aforementioned officials from pressuring, coercing, or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The government has failed to present a single convincing argument for staying the injunction any further.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s injunction against such abridgment of the First Amendment.

NCLA Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Rein in Qualified Immunity for Officials Who Violate Speech Rights

Retrieved on:

Monday, September 18, 2023

Supreme, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Immunity, Research, Rhode Island Superior Court, Judge, Government, Social work, Congress, RIC, Supreme court, Rhode Island College, Law of the United Kingdom, NCLA, Court, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Legislation

The officials had expelled NCLA’s client, William Felkner, for refusing to parrot the school’s progressive ideological perspective on social work.

Key Points:

The officials had expelled NCLA’s client, William Felkner, for refusing to parrot the school’s progressive ideological perspective on social work.
In particular, Felkner’s petition asks the justices to decide whether deskbound officials, who have time to consider the law and to consult legal counsel, deserve qualified immunity for violating people’s rights.
However, on remand, the Rhode Island Superior Court granted the RIC officials “qualified immunity” because it was not “clearly established” ahead of time that their conduct would violate Mr. Felkner’s free speech rights.
Hence, the Court should discard the doctrine, at least as applied to officials with ample time to research the law before violating someone’s rights.

Many don't know key facts about U.S. Constitution, Annenberg study finds

Retrieved on:

Thursday, September 14, 2023

Only 1 in 20 U.S. adults can name all five freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

Key Points:

Only 1 in 20 U.S. adults can name all five freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
The Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey is a nationally representative survey conducted annually in advance of Constitution Day by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.
This year's survey of 1,482 U.S. adults was conducted for APPC by independent research company SSRS from August 9-15, 2023.
The online survey, conducted as part of a wave of our Annenberg Science and Public Health knowledge study, was self-administered, meaning that respondents completed it without an interviewer's assistance.