DOJ Backs Effort to Repeal California Law Requiring Pro-Lifers to Promote Abortion

The Department of Justice filed an amicus (or “friend-of-the-court”) brief at the Supreme Court Wednesday, urging the justices to overturn a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about state-funded abortions.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the law in November.

dcnf-logo

The law, called the Reproductive FACT Act, requires crisis pregnancy clinics to post a bulletin informing patients that the state offers subsidized abortion access. The FACT Act requires that the advisory appear in large font in a “conspicuous place” within the clinic.

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women,” the bulletin reads. “To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [phone number].”

The law also requires unlicensed clinics to post a second disclosure informing clients that they do not have a state license.

Lawmakers say the law “ensures that California residents make their personal reproductive health care decisions knowing their rights and the health care services available to them.”

A coalition of pro-life clinics challenged the law, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in 2016.

The department grounds its argument on a different legal rationale than the clinics. The clinics argue the FACT Act should be subject to “strict scrutiny,” the most penetrating level of judicial inquiry. The department argues the court need not use strict scrutiny, as the law fails even more relaxed standards.

“Licensed clinics have a strong interest in refraining from speech that advertises third-party services they find morally repugnant,” the brief says of the first requirement. “California has not substantiated any particularized interest in having licensed clinics themselves disseminate the notice.”

However, the department argues that the second requirement is lawful, since California may legally require providers to disclose uncontroversial information related to a significant state interest—in this case, licensing medical professionals.

“It merely requires service providers to disclose an accurate, uncontroversial fact about their own services: that they are not provided by a state-licensed medical professional,” the brief reads.

The Trump administration has previously intervened in similar controversies in favor of religious objectors. The DOJ filed a brief supporting a Christian baker seeking a First Amendment exemption to Colorado’s public accommodations law in 2017. That case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, was argued in December. A decision is expected by June.

The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, has not yet been scheduled for argument at the high court.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post DOJ Backs Effort to Repeal California Law Requiring Pro-Lifers to Promote Abortion appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Wasting No Time: DOJ Wants SCOTUS to Review DACA Decision Immediately

In a remarkable filing, the Department of Justice formally asked the Supreme Court to overturn a federal judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to continue administering the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The petition is highly unusual, as the government bypassed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the justices to hear the case in the near future—but the administration argues the move is justifiable, as the lower court order “requires the government to sanction indefinitely an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by nearly 700,000 aliens.”

dcnf-logo

“The government respectfully submits that the most suitable and efficient way to vindicate the law in these unique circumstances is to grant certiorari before judgment and resolve the dispute this term,” Francisco wrote.

The department announced it would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court Tuesday.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Jan. 9 that the administration must continue the DACA program, which provides legal status to 700,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the country as children.

The judge concluded that the program’s rescission was based on a flawed legal premise, rendering the action “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and] otherwise not in accordance with law.”

In its petition to the Supreme Court, the DOJ countered that the decision to end DACA “is a classic determination that is committed to agency discretion by law.”

Alsup’s order does not require the administration to process new applicants for the program.

The appeal comes as President Donald Trump is attempting to negotiate a DACA deal with congressional Democrats to avoid a government shutdown.

The University of California system brought the suit challenging DACA’s termination. The system is led by Janet Napolitano, the former secretary of Homeland Security who presided over DACA’s original promulgation during the Obama administration.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Wasting No Time: DOJ Wants SCOTUS to Review DACA Decision Immediately appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Lawsuit Claims Rank Internal Bias At Google, Sweeping Commitment To Identity Quotas

James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired after criticizing the company’s diversity policies, filed a class action lawsuit against the tech giant Tuesday.

The lawsuit describes a corporate culture in which managers and employees alike conspire to stifle conservative views and retaliate against conservative employees, while implementing race and gender based hiring and advancement criteria that may be unlawful.

Damore was fired in August 2017 for disseminating a memo critical of the ideologies that prevail among most Google employees and managers. The document attracted significant press attention.

“Portions of the memo violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a company-wide email that attended his termination.

“We look forward to defending against Mr. Damore’s lawsuit in court,” the company told Fox News by email.

Other conservative Google employees joined Damore’s lawsuit. They are represented by Harmeet Dhillon, an employment discrimination and civil rights lawyer. Dhillon was interviewed for a senior post in the U.S. Department of Justice in the early days of the Trump administration.

Google-sanctioned hostility to conservative employees

The complaint opens with an animated description of company culture, alleging that Google is an “ideological echo chamber” impatiently hostile to conservative views. It reads:

Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers — and they did so.

The alleged harassment is recounted in detail.

Damore’s lawsuit elicited intense antagonism from the ranks of Google employees, who style themselves “Googlers,” in internal communications. Googlers in upper management allegedly shared this vitriol. One Google director, George Sadlier, sent a mass email Aug. 3, 2017 condemning Damore as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest.” He went on to promote posts threatening violence against Damore.

A torrent of belligerent communications followed the email. One Google engineer named Alex Hidalgo sent Damore a message the following day, promising to “hound him” until corporate leadership intervened.

“You’re a misogynist and a terrible person,” the message read. “I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

The lawsuit includes screenshots of other Google employee messages agitating for the dismissal of conservative personnel:

A Google employee threatens to quit if conservative personnel are not fired.

A Google employee promises to silence internal conservative views.

Several employees were apparently awarded “peer bonuses” for disparaging Damore’s views. A “peer bonus” is one of Google’s peer-to-peer recognition systems, through which employees recognize one another for exemplary work with small cash bonuses.

The lawsuit cites one such bonus, in which an employee named Matthew Sachs recognized a colleague named Simone Wu for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo].” The Google Recognition Team approved the bonus.

A second employee who joined Damore’s suit, David Gudeman, was terminated after voicing dissent from an August 2015 memo conflating the marginalization of minorities with white privilege. Kim Burchett, a manager, wrote and circulated the memo among staff.

Gudeman openly criticized the document through company channels, occasionally using hyperbolic rhetoric that compared Burchett’s directive to slave codes. Burchett reported Gudeman to HR, which assessed a verbal warning against him in September 2015.

One year later in December 2016, Gudeman was fired after he expressed skepticism toward a colleague who claimed that the FBI profiled him on the basis of his Muslim identity. The exchange began after the colleague urged Google to “take a public stand to defend minorities and use its influence,” following Donald Trump’s election to the presidency.

A third group of unnamed employees cited as potential class members included their own allegations in the complaint. The employees requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

One employee received a final warning letter from human resources that repudiated his attempts to establish a permissive political environment at Google. The letter says the employee’s statements to fellow Googlers compromised their commitment to a respectful culture. Examples of offending statements include:

Offensive statements made by an unnamed Google employee.

A final warning letter is the last administrative penalty before termination, per company policy. The statements included in the complaint do not appear to be a comprehensive list of every sanctioned statement.

Another unnamed employee who holds socially conservative political views complained to HR about a particularly bitter manager who falsely alleged the employee was involved in a “doxxing” campaign to expose an unidentified party to harassment. The same manager later suggested that the Employee Relations department review emails sent on the “conservatives@” listserv, and apply the company speech code against employees discussing politics outside the workplace.

The “conservatives@” list is an internal email list used by conservative or libertarian employees.

The same manager further threatened that any employee supporting the Damore lawsuit would be terminated.

Google HR allegedly reviewed the manager’s conduct and agreed that he acted inappropriately, but took no serious punitive action.

Another trio of managers — Adam Fletcher, Jake McGuire and Nori Heikkinen — endorsed “blacklisting” conservative employees on an internal message board in August 2015.

“I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever,” Fletcher wrote with respect to conservatives. “I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

McGuire and Heikkinen expressed agreement in subsequent messages. The sequence was precipitated when a “Republican employee” complained about disparate advancement opportunities for openly conservative personnel.

During this same period, another manager, Paul Cowan, relayed his support for blacklists, announcing that he kept a mental blacklist of colleagues who hold “dunderheaded opinion[s] about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’” on an internal message board.

“If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit,” he wrote.

The complaint also speaks of pervasive but informal practices through which employees “block” colleagues with heterodox political views on company social media and communications platforms. Such “blocking” is detrimental to advancement, since employees are not placed on project teams with other Googlers who have “blocked” them.

All told, the problem was serious enough to provoke a meeting between conservative employees and Paul Manwell, chief of staff to Google CEO Sundar Pichai on Sept. 8, 2017. The meeting appears to have yielded little by way of results, while other Googlers revealed that senior vice presidents sanctioned unofficial blocking and blacklisting during an October 2017 meeting, though the lawsuit is not specific as to what was said during the October meeting.

Hypersensitivity to race, gender and sexuality in company culture

The complaint also alleges that Google fosters an HR architecture obsessively attentive to race, gender, and sexuality. The suit claims the company relies on illegal racial or gender quotas in personnel decisions, and promotes a work culture deeply intertwined with identity politics.

Most seriously, Damore alleges that the company uses illegal hiring quotas to meet desired numbers of female and minority employees in every facet of the hierarchy.

Such racial and gender preferences are communicated during company-wide events. During a Google-wide meeting March 30, 2017, two senior corporate officers, CFO Ruth Porat and HR chief Eileen Naughton, allegedly berated company units where women compromise less than 50 percent of employees. They also announced the company would consider gender and ethnic demographics in awarding promotions and leadership opportunities.

At a subsequent “diversity summit” in June 2017, Google leadership reiterated its commitment to racial and gender preferences. Presenters allegedly described employment policies that place minority applicants in “high priority” queues for hiring or advancement, treat minority applicants differently during interviews, and place new hires in specific environments on the basis of gender or ethnicity.

The company also maintains diversity programs meant to improve technical proficiency for minority employees or interns. Such programs are allegedly open only to employees with specific immutable traits. One such program, “BOLD,” is an internship offered only to women and minorities. Another class, “Stretch,” is only open to women.

Such ethnic or gender specific programs may be unlawful.

The company’s interest in diversity allegedly encourages a culture of extreme identitarian commitments.

For example, Google curates email lists for employees with fringe lifestyle characteristics like polygamists, furries, and pluralists. Furries interact sexually while dressed as animals. Examples of “pluralist” Google employees include one Googler who sexually identifies as “a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin,” according to the complaint. Said employee gave a presentation at a company event called “Living as a Plural Being,” with a colleague who sexually identifies as “an expansive ornate building.”

Employee social and political views are allegedly so extreme that “a large number of Googlers” use the antifa insignia as their corporate profile picture. The complaint only produces one such example.

Google will respond to Damore’s complaint in the coming weeks.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Lawsuit Claims Rank Internal Bias At Google, Sweeping Commitment To Identity Quotas appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Judge Orders Trump Administration To Maintain DACA

A federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to maintain the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program late Tuesday, an Obama-era amnesty policy that extends legal status to 800,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. as children.

The ruling could ensures DACA’s security as President Donald Trump attempts to reach an immigration deal with Democratic lawmakers. The program was scheduled to phase out in March.

Judge William Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued the ruling.

“Tonight’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley. “As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DACA.”

“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation,” he added.

The administration justified DACA’s termination on separation of powers grounds, arguing only Congress could authorize such a program.

Alsup strongly rejected this view, pointing to a 2014 Justice Department memo purporting to show that DACA’s features are rooted in Supreme Court case law or related powers granted by Congress.

Since Alsup concluded the program’s rescission was based on a flawed legal premise, he said the action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and] otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Alsup further noted that Trump himself has determined DACA serves the public interest, citing two September 2017 tweets in which the president expressed support for so-called “Dreamers.”

“We seem to be in the unusual position wherein the ultimate authority over the agency, the chief executive, publicly favors the very program the agency has ended,” the judge wrote.

The order does not require the administration to process new DACA applications, and allows law enforcement to remove any DACA recipient believed to pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Trump administration can ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Alsup’s decision.

The Supreme Court recently lifted a sweeping discovery order Alsup issued in the DACA litigation. The judge ordered the Trump administration to release all internal documents relating to the program’s cancellation, despite the government’s insistence that many such records were privileged. The justices concluded that Alsup’s order was overly broad, and ordered him to reconsider the administration’s arguments.

The University of California system brought the suit challenging DACA’s termination. The system is led by Janet Napolitano, the former secretary of Homeland Security who presided over DACA’s original promulgation during the Obama administration.

The ruling can be viewed here.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Judge Orders Trump Administration To Maintain DACA appeared first on The Daily Signal.