UNBIASED - SCOTUS Won't Intervene in Second Amendment Case, Montana Bans TikTok, Florida Executes Inmate, and More.

Episode Date: May 19, 2023

1. Quick Debt Ceiling Discussion Update (1:45)2. Supreme Court Refuses to Intervene in Second Amendment Case Involving Assault Weapon Bans (3:11)3. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Social Media Companies Re: Liability in Terrorist Attacks (8:56)4. Montana Becomes First State to Ban TikTok (14:31)5. Florida Executes Darryl Barwick Via Lethal Injection (16:38)6. U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Resigns; Reports State Violations of Hatch Act (20:34)7. CEO of CNN Parent Company States Intention to Air More Republicans (26:43)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. I hope you guys have a great weekend planned today. I have six stories for you, kind of a high number, but they're all great stories. Very interesting. A lot to talk about. So the first story is the first two stories actually have to do with the Supreme court. So the Supreme court released multiple opinions, decisions, orders, what have you this week,

but we're specifically going to focus on two of them. So in one of them, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere in a Second Amendment case, upholding some bans on assault weapons in Illinois. The second story we're going to cover is that the Supreme Court released two separate opinions, both surrounding the liability of social media when it comes to their liability in terrorist attacks. The third story is that Montana became the first state to ban TikTok completely. The fourth story is a recent execution out of Florida. The fifth story is that the U.S. attorney of Massachusetts resigned this week just one day before two separate reports came out from the federal government alleging various violations of the Hatch Act. And the last story is that the

Warner Brothers Discovery CEO, which owns CNN, says that they are looking to get more Republicans on the air and switch from being an advocacy network to a news network. So those are the six stories I have for you. And the other thing I wanted to mention before we get into the stories, it's not necessarily there wasn't enough there for it to be a story in today's episode. But I did want to mention that according to Speaker McCarthy, him and the president are actually getting closer to making a deal regarding the debt ceiling, something that just a few weeks ago was thought to be close to impossible. But McCarthy said he expects the House to vote on some sort of measure next week if an agreement is reached. As for the Senate,

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just announced yesterday, Thursday, that they will be taking a recess next week despite the current situation. But in the case that a deal is struck, the senators will get a 24-hour notice and they'll have to return to the floor to vote on any negotiated bill. So just keep in mind that in order for them to be notified that they have something to vote on, it first has to pass the house, which means there has to be a bill introduced in the house and then it has to pass and then it would go to the Senate. So that is the update on that. One final note before we dive into the stories, if you could please review my show on whichever platform you listen and also share my show with any of your families, friends,

colleagues, whoever it might be. Maybe you work with someone that's looking for a nonpartisan news source. That really helps me as well. Word of mouth is truly everything. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. The Supreme Court has decided not to interfere in a second amendment case. This lawsuit stems from challenges to both a city ordinance and a state law out of Illinois. The city ordinance was passed last August. It essentially made the commercial sale of assault rifles unlawful. The state law prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacture,

delivery, and importation of assault weapons. And it does define what an assault weapon is, but without getting too into the weeds of the definition because it is a long one. It includes things like semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine with a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds, etc. It gives a bunch of different examples of what classifies as an assault weapon under this law. It does specifically name the AR-15 and AK-47 as assault weapons.

But again, I don't want to get too far into the definition of what an assault weapon is because that's not the point of this story. However, if you are interested in what is classified as an assault weapon in this law, I do have the bill linked for you on my website. So that's always available. Those who already own the weapons defined in the law are grandfathered in, and it does create exceptions for law enforcement, military members, and other professionals with firearm training. So that's the Illinois state law in a nutshell. Now, the plaintiffs in this case were the National Association for Gun Rights, a local gun shop owner, and a corporation called Law Weapons Incorporated. And they sued both the

city and state under the Second Amendment. So they sued in district court, and what they sought was a preliminary injunction, something you guys have heard me talk about before, basically asking the court to enjoin the laws, so say that they cannot be enforced. Well, the district court denies the request for the preliminary injunction. It then gets appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But rather than waiting for the appeal to play out and be heard and a decision be made, the plaintiffs actually go ahead and file a motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal. So what that does is says, hey, while we're waiting for this appeal to play out,

can we just enjoin these laws now? And that way they won't take effect for the time being while we're waiting for this case to be heard? Well, that motion gets denied. So this doesn't mean that their request for a preliminary injunction is denied, but rather the injunction pending appeal is denied. So the appellate court still has to hear this case. However, because their motion for an injunction pending appeal was denied, they figured they'd go up to the Supreme Court and shoot their shot there. No pun intended, but the question at the Supreme Court level became, can the government ban the

sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines when there is no analogous historical ban as required by Supreme Court precedents? And basically what they're referencing in this question is prior Supreme Court precedent says that in order for a ban like this to take effect, there has to be some sort of history of this type of firearm being banned in the past. And they're saying, because there's no similar ban that has happened in United States history, can the government ban these weapons? And rather than answering this question,

the Supreme Court just says, look, we're not gonna get involved in this. We're gonna send it back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we're not dealing with this. So in a previous episode, you may have heard me talk about circuit justices. And this concept is that basically the Supreme Court justices all have circuits of courts

in the United States that they are in charge of, in a sense. So if an order gets appealed, it goes directly to the one justice that presides over those circuits. In this case, it was Justice Barrett. And when it goes up to the circuit justice, the justice could refer it to the entire court if they want, or they can make their own decision. In this case, Justice Barrett does refer it to the entire court, and the court rules on it, and that's what happened in this case. The order doesn't state which justices ruled which way.

That's not a requirement. It just states that the application for the injunction pending appeal is denied. So if this would have gone the other way, let's say hypothetically, and the justices would have granted the application for an injunction pending appeal, what that would have meant is that it's just temporary relief. So it wouldn't have been a binding decision on the merits of the case itself. Rather, it just would have said, yes, these bans can't take effect until a decision is made on the merits of the case. But of course, that didn't happen here. I just wanted to give you the alternative and what that would have meant. What happened here is that they said, we're not

getting involved. We're sending this back to the appellate court who already ruled that you're not getting the injunction pending appeal and the bans will take effect and you'll have to wait for the appellate court to make its decision. So that's where the case is at now. So it goes back to the Seventh Circuit who will render a decision on the original motion for a preliminary injunction. And if it gets granted, this means that both the ordinance and the state law will not take effect. However, if the preliminary injunction is denied and the appellate court upholds these bans, then the ordinance and state law remain in effect. And that's the end of that. Now, the executive director of the National Foundation for Gun

Rights has already said that if the Seventh Circuit rules against them and does uphold the laws, they will be appealing to the Supreme Court. And at that point, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether they want to hear this case on its merits. So now let's move on to some other decisions out of the Supreme Court that just came out yesterday on Thursday. In two separate cases, the Supreme Court declined just came out yesterday on Thursday. In two separate cases,

the Supreme Court declined to hold social media companies liable in terrorist-related incidents. So let's take this case by case. In one case, the American relatives of a Jordanian man who was killed in a 2017 New Year's attack in an Istanbul nightclub filed a lawsuit against Twitter, accusing Twitter of aiding and abetting ISIS by failing to police the platform for the group's accounts or posts in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act. And if you're wondering how American relatives can possibly sue when a non-American is killed in another country, the answer lies within the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows Americans to recover damages related to an act of international terrorism. And what the law specifically says is that U.S. nationals who are injured by an

act of intentional terrorism that is committed, planned, or authorized by a designated foreign terrorist organization may sue any person who aids and abets by knowingly providing substantial assistance or who conspires with the person who committed the act of intentional terrorism. So in this case, under the anti-terrorism law, any American who is injured in any way, whether it's indirectly or directly, if you lose a loved one, you can sue anyone who aids and abets a terrorist organization. Okay. So this case came down to whether the family's claim sufficiently alleged that Twitter knowingly provided substantial assistance to the act of international terrorism. In other words, did Twitter substantially assist or assist

enough ISIS to the point where they can be held liable? So initially, the lower court judge dismisses the lawsuit, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward in 2021. And what that court said is, look, Twitter basically refused to take any meaningful steps to prevent ISIS's use of the platform. And therefore, they could be liable in this situation. But in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held just yesterday that merely transmitting information to billions of people around the world is not sufficient to claim that Twitter gave substantial assistance and thereby aided and abetted ISIS's actions. Now, in the other case, kind of similar but kind of different,

the relatives of a 23-year-old woman who was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris sued Google, because Google owns YouTube, alleging that Google was both directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist attack. So again, it's a similar situation where the plaintiffs are saying Google aided and abetted and conspired with ISIS by allowing them to use the platform, essentially. The district court dismisses the lawsuit, though it did give the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint. They declined and instead just appealed to the Ninth Circuit. And the Ninth Circuit actually issues a consolidated opinion,

which covered the case we just talked about and this one. So it's the same opinion, said the same thing, that they are liable for this because they didn't take steps to remove them from the platform. Well, Google in this case then appeals to the Supreme Court who just sent it back to the Ninth Circuit. And what they said is, look, we just rendered our decision in the Twitter case that is now binding precedent. So now it's up to you, Ninth Circuit, to vacate your prior decision and re-decide the case and make a final decision based on the Twitter case, right? Because now the Twitter case becomes binding precedent on the

nation. So the Ninth Circuit will now have to apply that ruling, that rationale to the merits of this case, the Google case, and make a new decision. Now, one other interesting thing is that neither opinion out of the Supreme Court addressed Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This law protects social media companies from liability for content posted by its users. Now, the issue with this is that it's a little bit outdated, right? Because it doesn't take into account the modern day algorithm. So what Section 230 protects is social media liability when it comes to the content posted by its users. However, we've kind of entered into a different

era, right? Because now it's social media platforms recommending and suggesting products, content, posts. So it's a little bit different. But the Supreme Court skated around it and they didn't address it. So now it's kind of open. It's still an open issue. And social media companies and obviously big tech companies see this as a win, right? Because they kind of have this open realm of immunity still. So legal counsel for Meta and Google said in a statement following these opinions, he said, this decision leaving Section 230 untouched is an unambiguous victory for online speech and content moderation. While the court might once have had an appetite for reinterpreting decades of internet law, it was clear from oral arguments that changing Section 230's interpretation would create more issues than it would solve. So again, social media companies are quite happy that Section 230

wasn't necessarily addressed because they still have that level of immunity. Now let's move into story number three, which is that Montana has become the first state to ban TikTok. Outright ban TikTok. This is something we haven't seen yet. On Monday, Montana's governor signed a law banning TikTok from any operation in the state. It's the first state to do so. The law is very straightforward, very much to the point, but I'll give you a quick summary. So the ban takes effect January 1st of 2024, and it makes it unlawful for Google and Apple's app stores to offer the app in the state.

There's no liability for individual users, so as a user of TikTok, you can't be held liable in any way, but it does impose a fine on any entity that offers the ability to access TikTok. So entity in the law is defined as any mobile app store or the TikTok app itself. Now the fine is a $10,000 fine for each time a user is offered the ability to access the app. Plus on top of that, there's a $10,000 fine per day for each day after that the violation continues. One interesting component to the law is that the law is automatically declared void if TikTok is sold to any company not incorporated in a country designated as a foreign adversary under federal law. So while this law isn't super imposing, as you can see,

it is likely to kickstart the legal process of banning an app like TikTok, something that hasn't been done before. So obviously there's been a lot of talk surrounding the security concerns behind TikTok with, you know, it being owned by a Chinese company. And some states, as well as the federal government, have already issued bans on government devices. But this is the furthest we've seen a law go as far as banning the app for everyone. So it is almost certain that this law will be challenged, but it's definitely paving that, paving the way, if you will, for what the legality looks like as far as banning an app. Earlier this month, on May 3rd, Florida executed Daryl Barwick via the lethal injection. So Barwick was sentenced

to death for breaking into a woman's home in 1986 and stabbing her to death. The killing was only committed months after he was released from prison for a prior rape. 24-year-old Rebecca Wendt was tanning outside on May 31st, 1986, and little did she know, Barwick was watching her. He followed her back to her apartment where he killed her. And again, he hadn't even been out of prison for three months for raping a 21-year-old woman at knife point when he killed Rebecca. Barwick says that he only intended to rob her, but he ended up stabbing her 37 times when she fought back. Her bathing suit appeared as though he had tried to take it off. There was no evidence of sexual assault on her body, but medical examiners did report finding semen on a blanket where her body was found. And not only did Barwick confess to the killing, but he was

linked to it by way of the semen stain, a witness who saw him heading towards and leaving Rebecca's apartment, and footprints both inside and outside of the apartment. He was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery, and sentenced to death in a 9-3 jury recommendation. A couple of things to note about Florida, the death sentence hasn't always required a unanimous vote. Prior to 2017, Florida only required a simple majority to sentence a defendant to death but following a florida supreme court decision florida changed its law to now require a unanimous verdict however that did not apply retroactively so in this case the nine to three recommendation was

sufficient because it was back during the time when a unanimous verdict wasn't required and the judge upheld the jury's recommendation. Following his initial conviction, he appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and was granted a second trial. This was due to a constitutional error in the original trial's jury selection, but none of that mattered because in 1992, he was again found guilty, and this time it was a unanimous jury recommendation for death, even though it didn't necessarily have to be. But shortly before his execution, he petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to stay his execution due to lifelong mental illness and intellectual disability. This is something we see often with inmates as kind of a last-ditch effort or last-ditch attempt.

The Florida Supreme Court denied his request and then his attorneys really made a last-ditch effort with the Supreme Court of the United States, who also denied his request for a stay. Once he was brought into the death chamber, he said, quote, I can't explain why I did what I did. It's time to apologize to the family. I'm sorry. And another thing I would like to say, the state of Florida needs to show some kind of compassion and kindness for each other with so many kids in prison. There are 14 and 15 year olds serving life sentences, end quote. Now, Florida's lethal injection is a three drug cocktail. Typically, when you see three drug cocktails, it is some

sort of anesthetic or sedative and then a paralytic and then some sort of lethal dose of potassium chloride or something similar, which stops the heart. So in Florida specifically, they use etomidate, which is the anesthetic. Then they use rocuronium bromide, which is the paralytic, and then a lethal dose of potassium acetate, which stops the heart. This is then finished off with a saline solution. That's not included in the three drug cocktail. It's just something that happens when you flush out the line afterwards. But he chose for his last meal to have fried chicken, mac and cheese, black eyed peas, rice, cornbread, soda, and ice cream. And Florida's rule regarding

the final meal, just as a fun fact, is that it must be purchased locally and it cannot cost more than $40. One last fact worth mentioning is that the must be purchased locally and it cannot cost more than $40. One last fact worth mentioning is that the average time spent on death row nowadays is 19 years, but Barwick spent 36 years on death row. Moving on to story number five, the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, Rachel Rollins, has been accused by the DOJ of lying and election meddling. Rollins announced her resignation on Tuesday, and by Wednesday, two reports were released detailing the allegations. One report was from the Justice Department Inspector General. The other was from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Let's sum up both reports into one discussion. So the investigation into Rachel Rollins began shortly after a Democratic Party fundraiser

featuring Joe Biden on July 14th, 2022. It became known shortly thereafter that Rollins had attended that fundraiser. The reason her attendance was potentially a problem is because of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is a federal statute that puts limitations on what members of the executive branch can participate in as far as political activities go. Its purpose is really to maintain a federal workforce that is free from partisan political influence or any sort of coercion. The Hatch Act breaks down federal employees based on less restricted employees and further restricted employees. Rollins is considered a less restricted employee.

Less restricted employees encompass most federal executive branch employees, except obviously those that are considered further restricted. That's a different category. I'm going to give you some examples of some things that less restricted employees can't do. But if you want to see the full list, I do have it on my website. But for purposes of this story, less restricted employees cannot engage in political activity that's directed at the success or failure of a political party

or partisan political group. And they're not allowed to do this while they're on duty, in a federal room or building, while wearing a uniform, or using any federal vehicle. Now, the problem is that Rollins had allegedly used a government vehicle to get to the fundraiser. So the DOJ opens up this investigation to determine whether the policies and procedures under the Hatch Act were complied with. But once the investigation was opened, it kind of opened up a whole can of worms, if you will. So for the sake of time, I will sum these reports up to seven allegations. Number one, as U.S. attorney, she solicited 30 free tickets from the Boston Celtics for local youth basketball players to attend a Celtics game, accepted two tickets for herself,

and used a subordinate employee to help coordinate the event, which was contrary to ethics advice. Allegation number two, she accepted non-federal payment of travel expenses on two occasions without authorizing and without advising her office of the true purpose of her travel or her intention to accept the non-federal payments. Allegation number three, she called into a live local radio show and discussed a Massachusetts criminal case from which she had been recused from. Allegation number four. Allegation number four is that she participated in federal, state, and local elected officials from one political party in a press conference in response to the public reporting of the draft opinion in Dobbs, which was that decision that overturned Roe versus Wade. Allegation number five is that she routinely used her personal cell phone to send texts to her staff, including on

matters related to official Department of Justice business. Allegation number six is that she accepted donations to her campaign even after she was sworn in as U.S. attorney. And allegation number seven is that she attended that Democratic Party fundraiser without required approval, which I had already mentioned. Now, what the Office of the Inspector General says is the most concerning allegation, and I guess this is more than seven allegations, but what the Office of the Inspector General says is the most concerning allegation is that she had used her position as U.S. attorney to secretly disclose sensitive private DOJ information to different publications for various reasons. So first, she disclosed information to the Boston Herald about a potential DOJ investigation that would have given one of the candidates in a local election a bad look. And the Office of the Inspector General thinks that this was done to ensure that her desired candidate won the election.

So essentially, she was feeding dirt to the Boston Herald. Then the Office of the Inspector General received information that she had secretly disclosed a private DOJ letter about an ongoing DOJ civil rights matter to the same Boston Herald reporter, and then a month later sent that same private DOJ letter to a Boston Globe editor. The allegations really boil down to violations of the Hatch Act, and the departments that have investigated have called these violations willful. So Rollins has lawyered up, and her lawyer has said a few things. Regarding the Democratic Party fundraiser event, her attorney said Rollins was there for the sole purpose of a brief meet and greet with the first lady.

Ms. Rollins pledged no money, encouraged no one else to pledge money or make cash contributions, stayed for no speeches, and left immediately after she shook hands with the first lady. Regarding the various policy violations, the attorney says most of these allegations amount to minor process fouls. And the attorney also said, quote, Rachel has been profoundly honored to serve as U.S. attorney over the past 16 months and is incredibly proud of all her office has accomplished during that limited time, especially in areas of gun violence and civil rights. Though Ms. Rollins could have raised many facts and arguments and connections with these issues, she had no interest in litigating them further. She believed the better course was to step down. After the dust settles and she resigns, Rachel will make herself available to answer questions, end quote. As far as the penalties go for violating the Hatch Act,

it's really just removal from office. The statute does also provide for a reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for no more than five years, suspension, reprimand, fines. There's various punishments, but in practice, it usually just amounts to removal from office. But in this case, since she already resigned, I mean, I guess we'll see if there's any other penalties issued against her, but that's what it's looking like as of now. The last story I have for you is that the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery, which owns CNN, said that CNN is moving away from being an advocacy network and moving towards one representing both sides. So the statement came on Thursday. It was

during a conference in New York where he said, in part, our view is there's advocacy networks on either side. We have the best journalists in the world, and we need to show both sides of every issue, end quote. David Zaslav is the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery. That is the man that I am quoting here. And he goes on to say that it's going to take some time, but advertisers are interested in CNN again. Advertisers don't want to be part of an advocacy network. And during the message, he cited to a recent YouGov poll, which he says saw an 11-point improvement in United States viewers' trust in CNN. And he used it to argue the perception that CNN, a left-leaning network is starting to fade. However, what's interesting, and of course, he's not going to mention the other side of that statistic, right? Because it doesn't help what he's trying to say here. But to give a little bit of context, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC all had a higher increase in trust than CNN. So to illustrate this, the same poll, the same YouGov poll found that trust in Fox News had improved 17 points and trust in MSNBC improved 16 points.

He referenced a point in time during the McCarthy hearings earlier this year when over the course of four days, CNN had 75 Republicans on the air. And he says he believes that Republicans being back on the air on their network is helping the perception of the left-leaning network fade. Now, this whole conversation came about because he was standing by CNN's decision to host Trump's town hall after one of CNN's journalists challenged the decision. So on Wednesday, just the day before these statements, one of the CNN journalists, Christiane Amanpour, spoke at the Columbia Journalism School's commencement ceremony. And she challenged the idea of covering both sides of the political

spectrum if both sides aren't factual. And what she told the graduates is that her mantra is, quote, be truthful, but not neutral, end quote. She said that, quote, both sides-ism is not always objectivity. It does not get you to the truth. And she went on to say that she met with CNN's CEO to convey her disappointment with airing the Trump town hall in the format with which they did. She said that the audience should not have been allowed to cheer Trump's every sentence, and she called this behavior appalling. She said a better way to go about it would have been to tape an interview because it would have allowed CNN to better fight off Trump's disinformation and propaganda machine. But Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery, said during this conference in New York on Thursday, he still stands by the fact that we need to show both sides of every issue.

And it makes me wonder if networks are starting to realize that viewers are getting increasingly irritated at the polarizing nature of the media these days. But at the same time, it makes me question if the news networks have already dug themselves into too deep of a hole, and now it's going to be close to impossible to get out of. Because while you do have some people that do want to hear all sides and are tired of the division, there's still a lot of people who have become so divided that they're basically tied to their networks as if it's their religion, right? And this is a bit problematic because it doesn't allow people to hear both sides. So it doesn't encourage that substantive debate, that healthy conversation, so that we can all find ways to find a middle ground, if you will. And so now if networks try to air the other side of issues,

now that some of these networks have such a dedicated fan base, I wonder if viewers will be genuinely dissatisfied because they've become so acclimated to the constant confirmation bias. Just something to think about, and I implore you to think about that as well. So as always, check out my Spotify poll following this episode. If you listen on Spotify, I usually leave you guys a poll on there to get your insight and gather your input on a certain topic from my episodes. So don't forget to check that out once you're done listening. That concludes this episode. Please don't forget to leave me a review and share with your family, friends, and colleagues.

And I will talk to you next week. Have a good weekend.