Brickbat: Lawn Sign Litigation
Marvin Peavy, a homeowner in Walton County, Florida, won a lawsuit against the county after officials tried to fine him for hanging giant political banners on his house along Scenic Highway 30A. Peavy first put up signs in 2020 to support Donald Trump's first presidential reelection campaign, but the county said they violated property maintenance rules and started charging him $50 a day, totaling over $63,000 in fines. Peavy fought back, saying his right to free speech under the First Amendment allowed it, and after years of legal battles, a judge agreed, ruling that the county was infringing on his free speech. The judge also ordered the county to pay Peavy $42,000 to cover his legal fees.
The post Brickbat: Lawn Sign Litigation appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
CBS blasts Trump's lawsuit as ‘meritless' despite recent $15 million settlement offer
CBS attorneys blasted President Donald Trump's lawsuit as "meritless" on Monday despite recently offering $15 million to make it go away. Trump is seeking $20 billion from CBS News and its parent company, Paramount Global, for what he alleged was election interference with how the network edited its interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris before the presidential election. "CBS is up against the wall and is in the desperation zone. The last thing they want is for this case to go to trial," a source close to Trump told Fox News Digital. Trump Rejects Paramount's $15 Million Offer To Settle Cbs News Lawsuit, Demands Apology While the two sides have been in mediation in hopes of reaching a settlement, CBS lawyers have continued to simultaneously claim the lawsuit is bogus. "This is a meritless lawsuit," attorneys for CBS and parent company Paramount Global wrote Monday in a reply to Trump's motion to deny CBS' request to dismiss the lawsuit. Read On The Fox News App CBS suggested the plaintiff's opposition indicated it was targeting a news organization for "editorial decisions Plaintiffs dislike," and asked the court to dismiss Trump's amended complaint. "The chilling effect of Plaintiffs' meritless assault on the First Amendment compels dismissal now," CBS attorneys argued. Fox News Digital confirmed last month that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle. He is seeking a larger payout and an apology from CBS News. "President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, hoaxes, and lies to account. CBS and Paramount targeted the President in an attempt to harm his reputation while committing the worst kind of election interference and fraud in the closing days of the most important presidential election in history. President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion," Trump attorney Ed Paltzik told Fox News Digital. Cbs News Staffers Rattled By Ceo's Abrupt Exit As Trump Lawsuit Looms Over Network The months-long legal saga stems from an exchange Harris had in October with "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration. Harris was widely mocked for the "word salad" answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on "Face the Nation." However, when Whitaker asked the same question during the primetime special, Harris had a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield the then-vice president from further backlash leading up to Election Day. Earlier this year, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr ordered CBS News to hand over the unedited transcript of the interview as part of its investigation into whether the network violated the FCC's "news distortion" policy after a complaint was filed. CBS had refused to release the unedited transcript when the controversy first began. '60 Minutes' Kamala Harris Interview At The Center Of Trump's Cbs Lawsuit Receives Emmy Nomination The released raw transcript and footage showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the "Face the Nation" preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. In the months since, CBS News has faced ongoing turmoil. Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder who is battling thyroid cancer, is in favor of settling the lawsuit with the president, but recused herself from settlement discussions. Media observers believe a settlement would pave the way for Paramount's planned merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the multibillion-dollar transaction. Fox News Digital's Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report. Original article source: CBS blasts Trump's lawsuit as 'meritless' despite recent $15 million settlement offer
CNN
8 hours ago
- CNN
Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers
A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump's effort to terminate the collective bargaining rights for more than a million federal employees. Judge James Donato of the US District Court in San Francisco granted the preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of unions whose members would be stripped of their collective bargaining rights under Trump's executive order. However, Donato's decision clashes with a May ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted a different judge's block on Trump's order pertaining to another union's members. Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the unions that brought the case before him had 'demonstrated a serious question as to whether their First Amendment rights have been violated.' The judge said he was blocking the executive order pending a trial over the order's constitutionality. 'Plaintiffs have raised serious questions under the First Amendment that warrant further litigation,' he wrote, adding that the unions have shown they would face 'a strong likelihood of irreparable harm from the loss of their collective bargaining and allied rights.' The Trump administration has the option of appealing Donato's ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is Trump's unprecedented executive order from March that seeks to abolish multiple agencies' union contracts in the name of national security. It would apply to departments including State, Veterans Affairs and Justice, as well as smaller agencies such as the National Science Foundation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions who have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It claimed the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers' union, has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' The unions, led by AFGE, argue that Trump's actions are retaliation and violate the right to engage in constitutionally protected speech. Also, the suit alleges the administration is attempting to apply the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are not related to national security. Donato said in his 29-page ruling that the White House fact sheet was 'solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction.' 'The Fact Sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the President and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the President,' he wrote. Also, while Donato wrote he would not second guess the president's national security determinations, 'a claim of national security does not, of course, automatically negate the Constitution, particularly with respect to the First Amendment.' The ruling by Donato follows a defeat for federal workers in a separate lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union, which argued that Trump's directive would strip union rights from about two-thirds of its members and deprive it of critical union dues that are deducted from members' paychecks. The 2-1 order from the DC Circuit last month said that the NTEU had not shown that it would be irreparably harmed without a court order blocking the executive order. The panel's majority — made up of a President George H.W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee — said the harms alleged by the union were 'speculative,' in part, because the Trump administration had directed agencies not to terminate collective bargaining agreements before litigation over the order concluded. A President Joe Biden appointee who dissented from the appellate decision said that self-imposed restriction showed the Trump administration would not be harmed if the preliminary injunction issued by the district judge was left in place.
CNN
9 hours ago
- CNN
Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers
A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump's effort to terminate the collective bargaining rights for more than a million federal employees. Judge James Donato of the US District Court in San Francisco granted the preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of unions whose members would be stripped of their collective bargaining rights under Trump's executive order. However, Donato's decision clashes with a May ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted a different judge's block on Trump's order pertaining to another union's members. Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the unions that brought the case before him had 'demonstrated a serious question as to whether their First Amendment rights have been violated.' The judge said he was blocking the executive order pending a trial over the order's constitutionality. 'Plaintiffs have raised serious questions under the First Amendment that warrant further litigation,' he wrote, adding that the unions have shown they would face 'a strong likelihood of irreparable harm from the loss of their collective bargaining and allied rights.' The Trump administration has the option of appealing Donato's ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is Trump's unprecedented executive order from March that seeks to abolish multiple agencies' union contracts in the name of national security. It would apply to departments including State, Veterans Affairs and Justice, as well as smaller agencies such as the National Science Foundation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions who have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It claimed the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers' union, has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' The unions, led by AFGE, argue that Trump's actions are retaliation and violate the right to engage in constitutionally protected speech. Also, the suit alleges the administration is attempting to apply the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are not related to national security. Donato said in his 29-page ruling that the White House fact sheet was 'solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction.' 'The Fact Sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the President and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the President,' he wrote. Also, while Donato wrote he would not second guess the president's national security determinations, 'a claim of national security does not, of course, automatically negate the Constitution, particularly with respect to the First Amendment.' The ruling by Donato follows a defeat for federal workers in a separate lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union, which argued that Trump's directive would strip union rights from about two-thirds of its members and deprive it of critical union dues that are deducted from members' paychecks. The 2-1 order from the DC Circuit last month said that the NTEU had not shown that it would be irreparably harmed without a court order blocking the executive order. The panel's majority — made up of a President George H.W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee — said the harms alleged by the union were 'speculative,' in part, because the Trump administration had directed agencies not to terminate collective bargaining agreements before litigation over the order concluded. A President Joe Biden appointee who dissented from the appellate decision said that self-imposed restriction showed the Trump administration would not be harmed if the preliminary injunction issued by the district judge was left in place.
