by dap | Apr 24, 2024 | Daily Signal
For more than 20 years, Alex Smith has worked for the Atlantic City,
, Fire Department, dedicating his life to serving his hometown.
In his current position as air mask technician, he fits masks and refills air tanks for firefighters engaged in fire suppression—an important role to ensure their safety while fires are raging.
For more than 20 years, Smith has also served as an ordained minister. He leads
, a vibrant local ministry dedicated to showing the love of
to the community. He and his church host a food pantry and tend a community garden to offer food and fresh produce for the elderly and financially struggling families.
They also maintain a beautiful “tiny house” on church property for those in need of shelter.
His compassion also carries over to his fellow employees in the fire department. Smith serves as a chaplain in a program he started to provide a listening ear and spiritual support to those who regularly risk their lives to save others.
Smith’s religious beliefs and conscience require him to wear a beard to set a godly example for his congregation and follow the examples of the prophets and Jesus in Scripture.
Fire department policy, however, prohibits beards of any length.
Because Smith is an air mask technician and does not fight fires himself, he asked the city for a religious accommodation regarding his beard. After the city denied his request, he sued.
In 2023, a district court in New Jersey ruled for the city, concluding that accommodating Smith would be an “undue hardship” for the fire department because Alex could—hypothetically—be needed to fight a fire in the future. The district court ignored evidence that Alex had successfully passed a mask-fit test with his beard multiple times and that the masks used by the fire department are positive pressure masks, meaning that even if there were a slight leak, the firefighter still would not inhale any air contaminants.
But what constitutes an “undue hardship”?
The
unanimous landmark ruling last year in Groff v. DeJoy determined “undue hardship” means a “substantial increased cost” to an operation or business, far more than the old de minimis standard courts often relied on.
Here, the city cannot show any increased costs because Smith’s beard would have no impact on his co-workers or his ability to safely do his job filling air tanks.
Other fire departments and the military have found ways to safely provide religious or medical accommodations to otherwise clean-shaven requirements. So, why does the city still deny Smith’s request for a religious accommodation, refusing to even engage him in discussions about how he could faithfully live out his beliefs on the job?
Smith has appealed the district court decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
He’s not alone in his conviction that he should not have to choose between his faith and his job. Recently, individuals and organizations representing a broad array of minority faiths filed six friend of the court briefs at the 3rd Circuit in Smith’s support, presenting the views of three Jewish organizations, the American Hindu Coalition, and two Sikh groups, as well as
and Christian law professors and advocacy groups.
These briefs not only pointed out how the district court misapplied the law; they also highlighted a trend in other military, police, and fire department contexts toward safely accommodating religious beards, rather than excluding Sikhs, Muslims, and others from entire career paths.
Also voicing their support for Smith were four firefighters and paramedics—Jewish and Muslim—who in 2007 won a permanent injunction prohibiting
, from enforcing a requirement that they be clean-shaven. Now recently retired or nearing retirement, each worked for the District of Columbia’s fire department for more 30 years.
Some of these D.C. first responders regularly donned protective face masks and entered hazardous situations—something that Smith’s role does not even require. Their brief recounted their experience that first responders need not compromise their religious convictions to serve in the fire department.
Even though Alex doesn’t need to wear a mask to perform his job, Atlantic City still requires that he shave every day to keep his job. All the city’s concerns are hypothetical, but the harm to Smith from the city’s refusal to respect his faith is very real.
Given the robust protections of federal law and the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the experience of other fire departments safely offering religious accommodations to bearded employees, Smith should be allowed to continue to serve his community as an air mask technician while enjoying the religious freedom the law guarantees.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Apr 24, 2024 | Daily Signal
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in two
, Moyle v. Idaho and Idaho v. United States, to determine whether a federal law governing emergency rooms may be used to
and impose a nationwide mandate for abortions.
In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or
, to address the problem of hospitals that refuse to treat indigent patients in emergency rooms.
The law requires hospital emergency departments that accept Medicaid funds either to provide available treatment required to “stabilize” a patient’s emergency medical condition or transfer that patient to another medical facility.
abortions except when a physician determines “in his good faith medical judgment … that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”
These two cases before the Supreme Court are about whether Idaho’s
conflicts with U.S. law, and if so, what happens. The Constitution’s
requires that in the event of a conflict between federal and state law, a conflicting state law is preempted by federal law.
The Biden administration argues that state and federal laws are in conflict because the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act allows doctors to perform abortions to address risks to a woman’s health, which the Idaho law doesn’t allow.
If this is the right reading, then EMTALA preempts state law.
Idaho contends that its law and the federal law are in sync because EMTALA doesn’t mandate a particular treatment for particular medical conditions. The federal law leaves that to doctors, who must exercise their best medical judgment in the context of laws and regulations of the states in which they practice.
If that’s the right view, then EMTALA does not preempt Idaho law.
The Biden administration
, seeking an injunction to prevent the state from enforcing its pro-life law. A U.S. District Court granted the injunction and the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the
.
During Wednesday’s
at the Supreme Court, liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor asked attorney Joshua Turner, who argued on behalf of Idaho, whether the state law would allow an abortion in situations when a woman’s health, but not her life, is at risk.
These questions, however, had less to do with what the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act says—the real issue in this case—and more to do with what the liberal justices think the Idaho law should have said.
The three liberal justices peppered Turner with hypotheticals about women who may be experiencing complications that would “impair a bodily function” but not imperil her life—would Idaho allow an abortion then?
Sotomayor in particular seemed keen to address every conceivable outcome in an effort to stump Turner and prove that EMTALA preempts the Idaho law, even though the Idaho law explicitly gives doctors the power to make medical judgments in emergency situations.
A key issue seemed to be what EMTALA means when it requires that hospitals provide “available” stabilizing treatment. Kagan argued that this was limited to physical availability, specifically whether staff and equipment are available to stabilize a patient’s emergency medical condition.
If so, then doctors must provide whatever treatment, including abortion, they choose. Idaho argues that a treatment may be unavailable not only because of insufficient staffing or equipment but, as in the case of most abortions, because doctors’ medical licenses don’t allow them to provide it.
Arguing for the United States, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the justices to accept the government’s view that EMTALA could impose a national standard of care. This was because EMTALA is a federal law enacted pursuant to the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows the federal government to put conditions on those who receive federal funding.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Prelogar: “Could the federal government essentially regulate the practice of medicine of the states through the spending clause? The answer, I think, is yes, Congress could prohibit gender reassignment surgeries across the nation, it could ban abortion across the nation, through the use of its spending clause authority, right?”
Prelogar answered: “Congress does have broad authority under the spending clause. And, yes, if it satisfies the conditions that the spending clause themself—itself requires, then I think that that would be valid.”
Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act almost 40 years ago to ensure better treatment of indigent emergency room patients, not to take over the practice of regulating the practice of medicine or to mandate a national abortion policy.
In 2022, the Supreme Court lifted the blockade against pro-life laws by overruling its decisions creating a right to abortion, but the Biden administration will not stop trying to impose its abortion agenda on the nation.
The version of EMTALA that the Biden administration and the Supreme Court’s liberal justices describe is fiction; it doesn’t dictate how medicine should be practiced and doesn’t prevent pro-life states from protecting the unborn.
If the Supreme Court is guided by the actual language of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, as well as the general presumption against federal preemption of state law, it will lift the injunction and allow Idaho to enforce its pro-life law. A decision is expected on the case sometime in June.
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Apr 24, 2024 | Daily Signal
The
finalized a rule Wednesday that bans the use of natural gas in new federal buildings.
The
the final rule, which requires federal agencies to “phase out” and ultimately eliminate the on-site use of fossil fuels starting in 2030. New federal buildings constructed after 2030 will not be allowed to have the natural gas hookups required to power gas stoves and other appliances under the final rule.
“The Biden-Harris Administration is practicing what we preach,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said of her agency’s rule. “Just as we are helping households and businesses across the nation save money by saving energy, we are doing the same in our own federal buildings.”
Ahead of the 2030 mandate, the rule will require new buildings and those undergoing significant renovation between 2025 and 2029 to reduce fossil fuel use by 90%, according to the DOE.
The Biden DOE has regulated aggressively to push more energy-efficient appliances, which are often more expensive up front and powered by electricity rather than fossil fuels. The DOE and other agencies have pushed regulations targeting items like
,
,
,
, and
under the watch of Granholm and
.
The agency also has billions of dollars to spend on consumer
programs for those who would like to replace their existing eligible appliances with the administration’s preferred
, and it has
hundreds of millions of dollars to work with state and municipal governments to craft building codes designed to decarbonize buildings.
Earlier in April, the DOE
a report detailing its long-term vision for sharply reducing the emissions of America’s entire building stock over the coming decades. Among other means, the report highlighted electric appliances, “smart control systems” that moderate energy demand, and advancement of the administration’s
as key tools to realize its goal of reducing building emissions by 75% by 2050 relative to 2005 levels to fight climate change.
Over the next three decades, the DOE projects that the rule announced Wednesday will reduce emissions by an amount comparable to what 310,000 homes generate in a year.
Neither the
nor the DOE responded immediately to requests for comment.
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Apr 24, 2024 | Daily Signal
The pervasive and open antisemitism that has
our academic institutions, such as Columbia University, with the chants of “Death to America”; rabid support for
, a designated terrorist organization; and gleeful approval of the Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli civilians makes me feel as if we are experiencing the 1930s all over again.
The fact that this is happening in the United States is shocking and disgusting. It is especially horrifying to me, given the stories I heard from my German grandmother about the rise of antisemitism that she saw during the 1930s, such as Kristallnacht in 1938.
Over the weekend, I received an email from a friend who asked me what could be done, if anything, about the college students engaged in this behavior. Is this, he asked, protected free speech under the First Amendment, or is there a legitimate way to protect America from those “who openly advocate its destruction?”
This was my answer.
First, it’s important to remember that individuals who are not citizens have limited rights in this country, a principle the courts have upheld on numerous occasions. For example, federal laws ban aliens from contributing money to, or making any expenditure on behalf of, any candidate in any federal, state, or local election, a clear restriction on First Amendment protections that doesn’t apply to citizens.
In 2011, in
, an opinion affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, then-Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh cited the Supreme Court’s “long held” view that the government can exclude aliens “from activities that are part of democratic self-government.”
That includes, for example, not only banning them from participation in our political and election process, but excluding them from “voting, serving as jurors, working as police or probation officers, or teaching at public schools.”
Under that logic, arguably any of those racist, antisemitic Hamas agitators at those universities and elsewhere who are aliens—whether they are here illegally or legally—do not have a First Amendment right that prevents them from being deported, particularly given their approval of mass murder by a terrorist organization in Israel.
Those here illegally should be immediately removed from the country.
Those aliens here legally should have their visas revoked and should also be immediately thrown out of the country. That’s well within the power of the federal government. Under
, visas can be
“at any time” at the “discretion” of State Department officials.
Second, any of those hooligans who destroy or deface property, impede traffic, physically intimidate anyone, threaten police or Jews, or commit other crimes, and who are local, state or federal employees, should be terminated from their jobs.
If they hold a security clearance, it should be revoked forthwith. Racist supporters of terrorism should not be
in government at any level, and certainly should not have a security clearance, since they are an obvious threat to our national security.
Third, many of those agitators cover their faces so they cannot be identified. The videos speak for themselves. In some instances, they can be seen intentionally and deliberately obstructing and blocking public roads and bridges, such as their recent
of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
The Federalist reports that those actions are being undertaken to “identify and blockade major choke points in the economy, focusing on points of production and circulation with the aim of causing the most economic impact” in order to “disrupt and blockade economic logistical hubs and the flow of capital.”
Such behavior potentially violates
, which creates a civil cause of action for anyone victimized by persons who “conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving … any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws … whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
These are not victimless crimes. The victims of these terrorist supporters who are losing educational and economic opportunities—as well as being threatened, intimidated, or assaulted—have a cause of action against those arrested by law enforcement.
If so-called civil rights organizations like the ACLU weren’t denizens of the far Left these days, they would
representation of these victims to go after the perpetrators.
Moreover, such lawless behavior is a criminal violation of
, which prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” or to “go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured.”
That is clearly going on here, and the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice should open up investigations under Section 241 of those organizing and participating in these conspiratorial intimidation and blockade tactics.
Fourth, as my colleague Joel Griffith at The Heritage Foundation has
out, “
protects Jews—just as every other race, color, national origin, and ethnicity—from discrimination at taxpayer-funded universities … When [antisemitic] activity breaches the bounds of free speech, universities must comply with their obligations under the Civil Rights Act.
“University-sponsored or enabled discrimination—including toleration of [antisemitic] behavior breaching the bounds of free speech—violates this Act.” That’s certainly what’s happening at universities across the country. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Fifth, Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department since 1997. Providing “material support” to a terrorist organization is a violation of federal criminal law,
.
Are those organizing and participating in these protests, economic blockades, and intimidation otherwise providing “material support” for Hamas? That should be part of any Section 241 investigation.
Finally, bloggers, reporters, and other members of the public should do everything they can to identify and publicize the names of the individuals involved in this reprehensible, despicable misbehavior, especially those arrested, so that we know who they are.
They should be fired from their jobs, not hired by anyone, nor issued professional licenses such as by state bar licensing authorities, or associated with in any way.
In other words, they should be shunned by society. If not, we will be repeating the mistakes of the 1930s that my grandmother told me about when society stood by in many countries and did nothing to protect their Jewish citizens and allowed the terrorists of that time to prevail.
The post
appeared first on
.
