No images? Click here
17 JUNE
Pride over prejudice
US Supreme Court ruling protects LGBTQIA+ workers
In the peak of Pride Month, the US Supreme Court ruled to uphold the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals to not be fired for their gender or sexual orientation. To argue these protections should not apply, lawyers fro Clayton County, Georgia argued, “This case is not about whether Congress should enact a statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a matter of desirable public policy. Instead, the issue presented in this Petition is whether Congress did so more than 50 years ago when it enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
The majority opinion, written by President Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, unequivocally states, “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
Two conservative justices joined ranks with liberal justices to form a 6-3 majority. Moving beyond marriage equality and into the workplace is a significant threshold to ensure no one can be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation or transgender status.
On the eve of the 51st anniversary of the Stonewall riots, conservative Christians are now saying the tables have turned. A Southern Baptist spokesperson said it had “seismic implications” and Franklin Graham commented, “I don’t know how this is going to protect us.”
NEWS WRAP
LAW AND ORDER
DOJ tries to shelve forthcoming Bolton memoir
The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to prevent the release of former White House national security advisor John Bolton’s forthcoming book, accusing Bolton of violating his nondisclosure agreement. Will the book hit the shelves or will the court shelve it for good? READ MORE HERE
Attorneys file suit to block Trump Tulsa rally
Two Oklahoma, attorneys have filed a lawsuit in a bid to enforce coronavirus safety measures at a President Trump’s upcoming rally. With over 1 million ticket requests for the event already received and the venue able to support 19,000 attendees, questions are raised about how this can go ahead without compromising public health. READ MORE HERE
SCOTUS dodges tackling police immunity doctrine
The US Supreme Court has refused to tackle a controversial “qualified immunity” doctrine which would shield police and government officials from lawsuits over their conduct. The reforms are now up for debate in Congress, as widespread protests against police brutality rage across the US. READ MORE HERE
Two men use protests as cover to kill cops
Two men, including a US Air Force sergeant, are facing murder charges after being accused of shooting a federal officer during racial justice demonstrations in Oakland, California. The FBI allege the men were using the protests as a cover to “kill cops” as part of the anti-government “boogaloo” movement. READ MORE HERE
You have to understand that freedom derives so much of its meaning by what it means to be denied it.
Dr Jonathan Holloway
President of Rutgers University
USSC Webinar: Race relations and the making of the United States
16 June, 2020
ANALYSIS
A legal precedent? President Trump, the US military and protestors
Dr Jim Golby
Non-Resident Senior Fellow
Can the president use the military for domestic purposes, and will he?
Throughout US history, presidents have called on both the National Guard and active-duty military for domestic purposes, including for law enforcement, but their ability to do so remains subject to certain legal restrictions. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 as part of a compromise to remove federal troops that had been occupying Confederate states to enforce black enfranchisement and land rights in the decade following the Civil War. Today, Posse Comitatus is the primary law constraining the use of federal troops for law
enforcement. It prohibits the use of federal forces for police functions unless otherwise authorised by law. President Trump threatened to use one such law, known as the Insurrection Act, on 1 June.
Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 as an update to an earlier law to strengthen the power of the president to call forth state militias in response to local rebellions and insurrections that challenged the ability of the young nation to impose federal law in outlying areas and along the frontier. The act was updated in 1871, just after the Civil War, to authorise the federal government to use the act to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which extended additional protections to emancipated slaves.
Constitutional scholars agree this law grants the president broad authority to federalise the National Guard or call on active-duty troops for domestic law enforcement. Trump’s ability to do so would be strongest if a state governor were to request federal support, as California Governor Pete Wilson did in 1992 – the last time the law was invoked – in response to the Los Angeles riots. These riots exploded after the police officers involved in the arrest and assault of Rodney King were acquitted, and Wilson asked President George HW Bush to send federal assistance when he deemed that the California National Guard did not have the capacity to get the situation under control. Historically, however, governors have been hesitant to request federal troops. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, for example, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco insisted that the Louisiana National Guard would remain under the direction of state authority. At least so far, it seems unlikely any state governor will request such support from Trump to address the current situation.
Even absent a state request, or perhaps even in the face of a state challenge, two other broad provisions of the Insurrection Act allow the president to direct federal troops to quell protests, leaving opponents with few legal remedies to challenge his decision. Although military units typically cannot participate in searches or seizures or arrest American citizens, normal restrictions do not apply if the president “lawfully orders them to enforce law, aid civil authorities, or suppress an insurrection.” If the president orders active-duty troops to do so, they can be used on domestic soil in ways that are indistinguishable from police officers.
This article is an excerpt from Dr Jim Golby's recent USSC explainer The role of the US military in quelling domestic protests
COVID-19: BY THE NUMBERS
Total Cases: QLD 1,065 | OK 7,848
Premature praise for Oklahoma’s success in flattening the coronavirus-curve was laid bare after their largest surge to date with 591 new cases on Monday, but President Trump’s first rally since the pandemic is still scheduled for 20 June. Oklahoma’s 7.7 per cent increase is the highest in the US.
Oklahoma’s population is closest to that of Queensland. However, even with more than one million fewer people, its total number of coronavirus cases is more than seven times higher.
VIRTUAL EVENT
The Quad: Will it ever work?
At a time when the world is struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party has become more coercive and disruptive. The Australia-India-Japan-United States security quadrilateral – known as the Quad – has resultingly assumed greater importance and relevance because it consists of the four countries in the Indo-Pacific who are the most forward-leaning and capable of challenging Beijing’s destabilising efforts.
Yet, India continues to formally eschew alliances and formal commitments, even as strategic, economic and intelligence cooperation between the other three members are as close as they have ever been.
Given these dynamics, what ought we expect from the Quad? What successes should we expect from the Quad in countering undesirable Chinese assertiveness? What can and should Australia and the United States do — and expect of one another — in realising those successes?
To discuss these issues, please join us for a webinar event featuring Lt General H.R. McMaster, Japan Chair at the Hudson Institute, Washington DC; Dr Charles Edel, Senior Fellow at the US Studies Centre; Dr John Lee, Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the US Studies Centre, and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Washington DC; and Dr Lavina Lee, Senior Lecturer at Macquarie University and author of the recently published report, Assessing the Quad: Prospects and Limitations of Quadrilateral Cooperation for Advancing Australia’s Interests.
WHEN:
Friday 19 June 2020, 10:30am AEST
COST:
Free, but registration is essential
VIDEO
Pete Buttigieg: LGBTQ Supreme Court ruling a 'big step forward'
THE WEEK IN TWEETS
#HappyBirthdayMrPresident?
Manage your email preferences | Forward this email to a friend
United States Studies Centre
Institute Building H03
University of Sydney NSW 2006
