Connect with us

Politics

Civil rights groups file lawsuit to block Newsom’s plan for treating people with mental illness

Published

on

Civil rights groups file lawsuit to block Newsom’s plan for treating people with mental illness

A coalition of incapacity and civil rights advocates filed a lawsuit Thursday asking the California Supreme Courtroom to dam the rollout of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s far-reaching new plan to deal with extreme psychological sickness by compelling remedy for 1000’s of individuals.

Of their submitting, representatives from three organizations — Incapacity Rights California, Western Middle on Regulation and Poverty and the Public Curiosity Regulation Venture — requested the state’s excessive courtroom to strike down as unconstitutional this system often known as CARE Courtroom (for Neighborhood Help, Restoration and Empowerment). The teams argue that the sweeping new courtroom system will violate due course of and equal safety rights beneath the state structure, whereas “needlessly burdening elementary rights to privateness, autonomy and liberty.”

Newsom introduced CARE Courtroom in March as a brand new technique to assist an estimated 7,000 to 12,000 Californians fighting extreme psychological well being issues like schizophrenia entry housing, remedy and psychological well being providers. It was signed into legislation in September as Senate Invoice 1338.

Advertisement

In a press release, Newsom’s deputy communications director Daniel Lopez mentioned efforts to delay or block the legislation’s implementation “would needlessly prolong the struggling of those that desperately want our assist.”

“The governor — together with nearly all of Californians — are past pissed off by the circumstances seen day by day on our streets. There’s nothing compassionate about permitting people with extreme, untreated psychological well being and substance use issues to undergo in our alleyways, in our felony justice system, or worse — face demise,” Lopez mentioned. “Whereas some teams wish to delay progress with arguments in favor of the failing established order, the remainder of us are coping with the chilly, exhausting actuality that one thing should urgently be accomplished to deal with this disaster.”

CARE Courtroom is scheduled to be rolled out in two phases: Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Stanislaus, Glenn and Tuolumne Counties have till Oct. 1 of this 12 months to start implementation, with Los Angeles County on observe to affix two months later. The remainder of the state has till December 2024.

A funding measure for CARE Courtroom initially put aside $88 million to start implementation. Newsom included an extra $52 million in his funds proposal this 12 months to assist counties and courts kick begin this system, with the eventual plan to ramp up funding to $215 million by fiscal 12 months 2025-2026.

The governor’s workplace has additionally pointed to billions of {dollars} extra obtainable in present state spending accounts for housing, homelessness, behavioral and psychological well being packages, although counties have lengthy questioned whether or not that will probably be sufficient.

Advertisement

Dozens of cities and mayors supported the plan, together with enterprise organizations and teams representing households of affected family members who mentioned CARE Courtroom may lastly supply them another choice for assist.

The brand new legislation will permit members of the family, first responders, medical professionals and behavioral well being suppliers, amongst others, to petition a decide to order an analysis of an grownup with a recognized psychotic dysfunction. If an individual qualifies, a CARE plan may embody remedy and remedy providers and housing if wanted. Newsom has been cautious to tell apart CARE Courtroom from the extra restrictive conservatorship, as a result of those that qualify may nonetheless technically refuse to take part.

However these caveats have accomplished little to assuage sturdy opposition from the coalition that filed the lawsuit, which joined the ACLU and a number of other different racial and civil rights teams, homeless advocates and reasonably priced housing organizations in making an attempt to dam the measure final 12 months. Critics argued that CARE Courtroom was a misguided method for fixing a problem that wanted extra important investments in everlasting housing and voluntary remedy providers.

“The proposed answer is courtroom orders that rob unhoused Californians of their autonomy to decide on their very own psychological well being remedy and housing and threatens their liberty,” the submitting said. “This ‘answer’ is not going to work and can deprive 1000’s of individuals of their constitutional rights.”

The coalition mentioned they filed the lawsuit on to the state Supreme Courtroom in an effort to expedite timing for a choice. Lawsuits initially filed in decrease courts can take extra time provided that rulings are sometimes appealed.

Advertisement

However the teams may nonetheless refile their petition in a decrease courtroom ought to the Supreme Courtroom resolve to not take the case, mentioned Sarah Gregory, senior legal professional at Incapacity Rights California.

“[Disability Rights California] has thought of all choices on the desk for the reason that starting,” Gregory mentioned, “and it’ll proceed to contemplate all choices relying on what the Supreme Courtroom decides.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Advertisement

“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (iStock)

In this case, U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, the court considered whether people who enter the country illegally can be banned from owning firearms.

Advertisement

Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 

In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuit that considered whether people convicted of non-violent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms. 

CONGRESS POISED TO ROLL BACK ‘VETERAN GUN BAN,’ WITH RELUCTANT BIDEN BACKING

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman presents award to attorney Paula E. Litt

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman, left, presents an award for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service to attorney Paula E. Litt, on May 1, 2019. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division)

Upon review, Coleman concluded that Carbajal-Flores’ illegally present status was not sufficient to deny him Second Amendment rights. The judge said the “plain text” of the Constitution “presumptively protects firearms possession by undocumented persons.” 

“Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”

Advertisement

The court determined that because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Carbajal-Flores is a danger to society, there is no historical analogue that would permit the federal government to deny him his gun rights. 

NRA SLAMS BIDEN’S SOTU SPEECH AS ATTACK ON ‘THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN FREEDOM’

Gun store customer

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the gun rights of illegal immigrants. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

The ruling has divided gun rights activists, with some arguing that noncitizens should not have rights protected by the Constitution.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital his group “has historically recognized the dangers unchecked illegal immigration presents, chiefly of which is a serious potential to swing the balance of power into the hands of anti-gun politicians.” 

Advertisement

Pratt reiterated GOA does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. 

“In this underlying ruling, the Second Amendment community undoubtedly has mixed feelings, because while illegal aliens are most certainly not part of ‘the People,’ everyone has a God-given right to defend themselves against violent acts like rape and murder,” he said. 

“Of course, the courts wouldn’t have to decide this question if Joe Biden and the Democratic Party would simply secure our borders.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Published

on

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Former President Trump is suing TV journalist George Stephanopoulos and ABC News for defamation for saying he raped advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

On a March 10 edition of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the anchor said Trump was “liable for rape” during his interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Stephanopoulos was pressing Mace, a rape victim herself, on how she could rationalize supporting Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Miami, said the jury in the Carroll case found him liable for sexual abuse — not rape — and that Stephanopoulos defamed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by using the term.

A jury ruled in January that Trump must pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation, the second case related to a 1996 incident that occurred when the two met in a New York department store.

In May, jurors rejected Carroll’s allegation that she was raped but found Trump responsible for the lesser charge of sexual abuse, along with defamation, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump, who denied that the incident occurred, repeatedly mocked Carroll over her claims.

Advertisement

Trump’s suit cites how Stephanopoulos himself reported that Trump was not liable for rape when he reported on the verdict of the previous Carroll case on May 10.

The suit also noted that the headline on an ABC News online story on the Mace interview first used the word “rape” and was later changed to “sexual abuse.”

Trump’s suit is asking for unspecified damages.

ABC News has not issued a comment on the matter.

The tense “This Week” interview was widely shared on social media. Mace took umbrage at Stephanopoulos’ question, claiming he was “rape-shaming” her by bringing up her own experience as a victim, which she has publicly discussed.

Advertisement

Trump has previously sued media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN, with no success.

Trump sued the Times over its investigation of his finances, which led to the recent New York civil court ruling that has him on the hook for $454 million. The suit was dismissed in March and Trump had to reimburse the Times legal cost.

In 2022, Trump sued CNN for $475 million claiming the news network was waging a campaign against him by booking guests critical of his policies and speeches. The case was dismissed in 2023.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Published

on

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday for the first time since retiring, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Joining Milley will be retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who served as United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander during the 2021 withdrawal. The pair have appeared before Congress to discuss failings in the operation before, but Republicans say they may have been more tight-lipped then because they were still serving under President Biden.

Advertisement

Both Milley and McKenzie testified in 2021 that they had advised Biden to maintain a small U.S. force in Afghanistan, rather than committing to a full U.S. withdrawal. Milley himself has described the operation as a “strategic failure,” saying he has “lots of regrets.”

“It didn’t end the way I wanted it. That didn’t end the way any of us wanted it,” he told ABC News in September. “In the broader sense, the war was lost.”

OBAMA LIED TO AMERICANS ABOUT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: BOOK

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, left, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee for the first time since retiring on Tuesday, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The Tuesday afternoon hearing comes after months of Republican investigations into Biden’s handling of the withdrawal. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas., has repeatedly demanded the State Department turn over documents relating to the operation.

Advertisement

BIDEN’S BOTCHED AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL HAUNTS 2024 ELECTION AS BOOK CLAIMS ‘13 AMERICANS NEVER HAD TO DIE’

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has so far refused to offer interview notes relating to the Afghanistan after action report, which blamed senior officials for failing to prepare for all outcomes in the operation.

General McKenzie Afghanistan Pentagon

Retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, former commander of the United States Central Command, listens during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan. (Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book.

THINK THE US EXIT FROM AFGHANISTAN WAS BAD? LOOK WHAT’S BREWING IN THE PACIFIC

Following the withdrawal, “no one offered to resign, in large part because the president didn’t believe anyone had made a mistake. Ending the war was always going to be messy,” author Alexander Ward writes in the book, “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore Foreign Policy After Trump.”

Advertisement
President Joe Biden

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, President Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Biden allegedly told his top aides, including White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, that they had done their best given the situation and vowed to stand by them.

Fox News’ Nikolas Lanum contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending