Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Portion Of FL Stop WOKE Act

On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, issued a Permanent Injunction Blocking Restrictions on Race-Related iIsues in Workplace Training, which were part of the Controversial 2022 Law known as the "Stop WOKE Act" championed by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and Republican Lawmakers.

The Ruling comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld a Preliminary Injunction Walker had issued in 2022, finding that the Restrictions Violated First Amendment Rights.

The blocked Law listed Eight Race-related Concepts and stated that any Mandatory Training Program or Activity that "espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels" Employees to believe these Concepts constitutes Discrimination based on Race, Color, Sex, or National Origin.

The Law was Challenged by Entities including: Primo Tampa, LLC, a Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream franchisee; Honeyfund.com, Inc., a Clearwater-based technology company that provides Wedding Fegistries; and Chevara Orrin and Her company, Collective Concepts, LLC, which offers Consulting and Training on Diversity, Equity, and Iinclusion.

Additionally, Judge Walker has issued a separate Preliminary Injunction against a part of the Law that would Limit how Race-related Concepts can be Taught in Universities.

The Appeals Court held a Hearing on that Case in June.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Supreme Court Schedules First Cases For 2024-25 Term

The Supreme Court will hear a Challenge to the Biden Administration’s efforts to Regulate so-called “Ghost Guns” in the First week of the 2024-25 Term in October, followed the next day by an unusual Death-Penalty Case, in which the State’s Attorney General Supports the Condemned Man’s efforts to Overturn His Conviction and Sentence.

Garland v. VanDerStok and Glossip v. Oklahoma Headline the Supreme Court’s October Argument Calendar, which was Released on Friday morning.

The November Argument Calendar, released at the same time, includes Cases brought under the Medicare Act, Immigration Law, and Securities Fraud Laws.

The Justices will hear Nine Arguments over Five days in October, followed by Seven Arguments over Five days in November.

Although the Court was initially Slow in Granting Petitions for Review for the 2024-25 Term, those numbers mean that the Justices will hear more Cases in October and November 2024, than they did in the same Months in 2023, when they heard Six Arguments over Five days in October and Seven Arguments over Six days in November.

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Justices will consider a Challenge to a Rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF) that Regulates “Ghost Guns”, Firearms without Serial Numbers that almost anyone can Assemble from Parts, often purchased in a Kit.

Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Upheld a Decision by a Federal District Judge in Fort Worth, Texas, concluding that the Law was Inconsistent with Federal Firearms Laws.

The Biden Administration then came to the Supreme Court, which had already agreed to Allow the Federal Government to Enforce the Rule, while the Challenge continued, asking the Justices to Review the 5th Circuit’s Decision. The Justices agreed in April, to take up the Case, which is a Statutory Question and does Not Iinvolve the Second Amendment.

Glossip v. Oklahoma, the Jjustices will Review the Case of Richard Glossip, who was Convicted and Sentenced to Death for the 1997 Murder of Barry Van Treese, the Owner of the Oklahoma City Motel where Glossip worked.

Glossip asked a State Court to set-Aside His Conviction and Sentence last year, arguing that He had received New Information that the Key Witness against Him had Testified Falsely about the Witness’s Mental Health.

In April 2023, an Attorney Appointed by the State’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond (R), to conduct an Independent Investigation of Glossip’s Case concluded that Glossip should Receive a New Trial, but even with Drummond’s Support, the Oklahoma Courts Declined to set aside His Conviction and Sentence.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to put Glossip’s Execution On-Hold to give them more time to consider His Appeals, and in January, 2024, they agreed to take up His Case. The Justices Appointed Christopher Michel, a former Clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts who has Argued 10 Cases before the Court, to Defend the State Court’s Decision to leave Glossip’s Conviction and Sentence in place.

The October Argument Schedule:

Williams v. Washington (Oct. 7) – Whether Exhaustion of State Administrative Remedies is necessary to bring Federal Civil Rights Claims in State Court.

Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger (Oct. 7) – Whether a Plaintiff (a dog owner alleging that the designation of specialized dog food as “prescription” dog food is misleading) whose State-Court Lawsuit has been Transferred by the Defendants to Federal Court can seek to have the Case sent back to State Court by Removing All References to Federal Law.

Garland v. VanDerStok (Oct. 8) – Whether the Rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulating “Ghost Gguns” is consistent with Federal Firearms Laws.

Lackey v. Stinnie (Oct. 8) – Whether a Olaintiff who obtains a Preliminary Injunction is a “Prevailing Party” for purposes of receiving an Award of Attorney’s Fees, when there is No Final Ruling on the Merits of the Plaintiff’s Claim.

Glossip v. Oklahoma (Oct. 9) – Whether Oklahoma Violated a Defendant’s Constitutional Rights when Prosecutors suppressed Evidence that their Key Witness was under a Psychiatrist’s Care.

Medical Marijuana v. Horn (Oct. 15) – Whether a Commercial Truck Driver who Lost His job after He Failed a Drug Test, can bring a Claim under Federal Racketeering Laws against the Makers of the Product that He says was responsible for that Failed Test.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Oct. 15) – Whether Courts can Review a Decision to Revoke Approval of a Petition for an Immigrant Visa on the Ground that the Government had initially Misapplied Nondiscretionary Criteria during the Approval Process, and when the Applicant would have had a Right to Review of an Initial Decision denying Review of the Application.

Bufkin v. McDonough (Oct. 16) – Whether, when Federal Law instructs the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to “take due account of the” Application of the Idea that Veterans should receive the benefit of the doubt on close issues involving veterans’ law, the Veterans Court is required to review the factual findings of the Veterans Administration for clear error, or whether it must conduct a more thorough review that considers whether the veteran actually received the benefit of the doubt.

San Francisco v. EPA (Oct. 16) – Whether the Limitations in the Permit issued to San Francisco for its Discharges of Wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, Vviolate the Clean Water Act

The November Argument Schedule:

Wisconsin Bell v. United States ex rel. Heath (Nov. 4) – Whether Reimbursement Requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission’s E-rate Programs are “Claims” under the False Claims Act.

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra (Nov. 5) – Whether the “entitled … to benefits” means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera (Nov. 5) – What Burden-of-Proof applies to an Employer Arguing that it is Exempt from the General Requirement, imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, to Pay Employees Overtime when they work more than 40 hours per week.

Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank (Nov. 6) – Whether Risk Disclosures are False or Misleading when they do Not Disclose that a Risk has materialized in the Past, even if that Post does Not present any known Risk of Ongoing or Future Business Harm.

Velazquez v. Garland (Nov. 12) – Whether, when the time for a Noncitizen to Voluntarily leave the Country ends on a Weekend or Holiday, the Noncitizen who Files a Motion to Reopen Iimmigration Proceedings can Avoid Penalties for Failing to leave the Country by Filing that motion on the following Business day.

Delligatti v. United States (Nov. 12) – Whether a Crime that Requires Proof-of-Bodily Injury or Death, but can be Committed by Failing to take Action, has as an Element the use, attempted use, or threatened use, of Physical Force.

Nvidia Corp v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB (Nov. 13) — What Pleading Standards apply to show Knowledge or Intent for Securities-Fraud Claims, that rely on Internal Company Documents.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

ID AG Lawsuit To Remove Open Primaries Initiative From November Ballot

In November, Idahoans will have the chance to Vote on Changing Primary Elections, as an Initiative has made it to the Ballot. A Lawsuit has been filed to have it Removed before it's printed on a Ballot.

Idaho's current Primary Voting allows Political Parties to Close their Primary, that the Republican Party has chosen to do. This is a System that "Idahoans for Open Primaries" said is leaving a Large Group of People out.

"We want to give every voter the right to participate in every taxpayer funded election," Luke Mayville with Idaho for Open Primaries told KTVB Thursday. "And we also want to give voters better choices when they show up to vote."

Although the Initiative received enough Signatures and received the Stamp-of-Approval from the Secretary-of-State's Office, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) filed a Lawsuit against the Office to remove the Open Primaries Initiative from the Nov. 24th Ballot.

The Initiative proposes a Non-Partisan Primary Election, where the Top Four Vote-Getters, regardless of Political Party, would Advance to the General Election.

The General Election would use Ranked-Choice-Voting (RCV). Voters would Rank the Candidate in Order of their Preference.

If No Candidate wins with more than 50% of the Vote after the First-Choice Rankings are Counted:

The Last-Place Candidate would be Eliminated, and each Vote for that Candidate would go to the Voter's Second Choice. That Process would Repeat until One Candidate gets at-least 50%+1 of the Vote, and is Declared the Winner.

Labrador has two problems with the initiative.

"In my opinion, they deceive the public by calling it an open primary," Labrador told KTVB Thursday. "But they also deceived the public when they didn't talk about the two parts of the initiative."

In the Lawsuit Labrador alleges Volunteers who explained the Initiative while they were Collecting Signatures, provided a "Lack of Information," about the Initiative.

Something Mayville said is Not True. "The claim that volunteers who are collecting signatures somehow deceived the public... It's a baseless claim," Mayville said. "It's frankly insulting to the thousands of ordinary Idahoans who spent hours of their time talking to their neighbors talking to their friends about this initiative. People worked hard to collect these signatures. And they discussed every aspect of this initiative very carefully."

Mayville said the Idahoans for Open Primaries Group feels Labrador is Interfering with the Election. "We do not believe this lawsuit is going to be taken seriously by the court," Mayville said.

When asked why, Mayville said: "At the heart of it, there is nothing unconstitutional about giving all voters the right to participate."

Labrador said He's just following the Law. "My duty and my responsibility as the Attorney General of the State of Idaho is to ensure that the laws are followed in the state of Idaho, and that's what I'm doing with this lawsuit," he said.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Justice Kagan Wants Enforcment Of Supreme Court Ethics Code

Justice Elena Kagan said Thursday, that She would Support the Creation of a Committee of Judges to examine potential Violations of the Supreme Court’s New Ethics Code.

Kagan suggested that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could Appoint an outside Panel of highly respected, experienced Judges to Review Allegations of Wrongdoing by the Justices, some of whom have faced Questions in recent years, over:

- Unreported Gifts of Luxury Travel and Book Deals.

- Potential Conflicts of Interest in Key Cases.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

48 States Say Harris On Ballot

The Election Authorities of at least 48 States, say there are No Obstacles that would prevent Vice President Kamala Harris from getting on Election Ballots, if She becomes the Official Democratic Presidential Nominee.

The Findings of a CNN Survey of All 50 States, undercut the Claims of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA, 4th District), who said both before and after President Biden Dropped-Out of the Race on Sunday, that there are Legal “Impediments” in some States to a Party switching Presidential Candidates as the Democrats did.

48 State's Election Authority said that Harris would Not face a Ballot Issue as the Official Nominee.

Election authorities in Two States, Florida and Montana, did Not respond to Requests for Comment.

But a Review of the States’ Ballot Access Rules, suggests Harris is Not likely to face an Issue there either.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

NYC Universal School Dress Code

In accordance with New York City Department of Education (DOE) Policy, Students have the Right to determine their Own attire, except where the Dress is Dangerous, Interferes with the Teaching and Learning process, or Violates the DOE’s Anti-Discrimination Policy.

All Schools are strongly advised to Re-Examine any existing Dress Code practices using these Guidelines. Before developing a New Dress Code or Re-Examining an existing one, Schools should consult with their School Leadership Team, Parents, and various Members of the Student Body, in order to ensure that different Perspectives and Identities are considered and respected.

Dress Codes must be implemented Equally and in a Non-Discriminatory manner. Schools must ensure that All Staff, Students, and Parents are advised in writing of the Dress Code, Students’ Rights with respect to their Attire, and Consequences for Students wearing Clothing that Violates the Dress Code.

Dress Code Guidelines

When developing Dress Codes, Schools must examine the reasoning and justification for each Requirement and consider evolving Generational, Cultural, Social, and Identity-Norms. Requirements should Not Reflect or Promote Generational, Cultural, Social, or Identity biases.

Dress Codes must Not prohibit a Student from wearing clothing consistent with their needs based on their Protected Identities or from Maintaining or Wearing Natural Hair or Hairstyles that are closely Associated with these identities. For example, Dress Codes should allow: Headwear worn for Religious Observance or Disability-related attire or: Head Scarves, Do-Rags, Beads, and other Hair accessories, Short or Long Hair, Locs, Braids, and Twists.

Dress Codes must be Gender Neutral and Applied Uniformly. Dress Codes may Not Prohibit a Specific Gender from wearing particular Attire. A School Cannot require Gender-Specific Attire for DOE or School sponsored Programs or Activities.

Dress Codes may Not:

- Prohibit Students who identify as Male from wearing Skirts, Jewelry, or Nail Polish.

- Require only Students who identify as Male to wear Neck Ties for Yearbook Photos.

- Require only Students who identify as Female to wear Dresses at Graduation.

Schools also may Not Prohibit “Distracting” Clothing or certain types of Clothing that is Stereotypically associated with One Gender. For example, Dress Codes may Not only Prohibit Miniskirts or Camisole Tank Tops, which are Predominantly worn by Students who identify as Female. As an Alternative, Schools may Prohibit All Students from wearing Revealing Clothing that does Not provide Full Coverage of Private Body Parts.

In order to maintain a Positive, Safe, and Inclusive Learning environment, DOE Policy prohibits Students from wearing Clothing in School, on School Buses, or during any DOE or School-sponsored Programs or Activities that take place on or off School Property, which contains Language including Slurs, Images, or References: which Discriminate on the basis of: Race, Color, Creed, Religion, Religious Practices, Ethnicity, National Origin, Citizenship/Immigration status, Gender, Gender identity, Gender expression, Sexual Orientation, Disability, or Weight; to Profanity, Obscenity, Nudity, or Sexual acts; to Threats of Violence, Injury or Harm, or Gang affiliation.

Dress Code Violations:

Students who do Not adhere to the Dress Code may be provided with appropriate Supports, Interventions, and possible Disciplinary responses, as set forth in the DOE Discipline Code, and any appropriate Adjustments to their Clothing. In determining and implementing Supports and Interventions, the School should consider the Totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors: the Student’s Family, Home, or Community situation; the Student’s Age and Maturity; whether there have been prior Incidents regarding the Dress Code and what steps were previously taken to address them; and the Social Emotional Status and Needs of the Student.

If a Student comes to School wearing Clothing Prohibited by the Dress Code or DOE Policy:

The School must notify the Student and their Parent(s), and Discuss the importance of following the Dress Code and the Expectation that the Student will adhere to the Dress Code going forward.

In those Situations where the School determines that an immediate Adjustment of the Student’s Clothing is Warranted prior to the End of the School Day (e.g., clothing contains discriminatory language), the School must Advise the Parent and Student and discuss Options for Conforming with the Dress code.

Adjustments offered should be Appropriate and should Not be used in a Punitive Manner or in a way which makes the Student feel Uncomfortable. Schools can consider asking the Student to turn a Shirt inside out, Cover or Replace the Clothing until the End of the School day, or Offering the Student Clean alternative Clothing if the School has such Clothing on hand.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Out Of CNN Debate

Trump Exits the September Debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on CNN.

The Trump Campaign told media Outlets in a Statement Thursday night: "There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party - namely Barack Hussein Obama - that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone 'better.' Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds," the Statement said.

Barack Obama and Michelle Obama then Endorsed Kamala Harris for President.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker