Trump’s recent fury showed how much he expects top officials in federal law enforcement to carry out his retribution.
He was enraged when Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, decided there was insufficient evidence to charge two people Trump regards as enemies: former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“I want him out,” Trump angrily told reporters on Sept. 19, 2025. Siebert resigned, although Trump claimed he had fired him.
Trump’s most recent demands for retribution came soon after top adviser Stephen Miller’s vow to prosecute leftists in the “vast domestic terror movement” – that the administration blames, without evidence, for Charlie Kirk’s assassination – using “every resource we have.”
As the director of the FBI, Patel will likely be in charge of the investigations of perceived enemies generated by the Department of Justice and the White House. He already has sacrificed the bureau’s independence, making it essentially an arm of the White House.
This isn’t the first time an FBI director has been driven by a desire to suppress the rights of people perceived to be political enemies. Hoover, director until his death in 1972, operated a secret FBI within the FBI that he used to destroy people and organizations whose political opinions he opposed.
FBI Director Kash Patel reacts to Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. AP Photo/Ben Curtis
A burglary’s revelations
Hoover’s secret FBI was revealed, beginning in 1971, when a group of people called the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI office and removed files.
This group suspected Hoover’s FBI was illegally suppressing dissent. Given Hoover’s enormous power, they thought it was unlikely any government agency would investigate the FBI. They decided documentary evidence was needed to convince the public that suppression of dissent – what they considered a crime against democracy – was taking place.
A historical marker commemorates the site of the burglary that exposed COINTELPRO. Betty Medsger
The files they stole and made public confirmed the FBI was suppressing dissent. But they revealed much more: Hoover’s secret FBI and the startling crimes he had committed. These secret operations had become so extensive that they eventually diminished the bureau’s capacity to carry out its core mission: law enforcement.
Hoover, one of the most admired and powerful officials in the country, had secretly conducted a wide array of operations directed against people whose political opinions he opposed.
The files revealed that agents were instructed to “enhance paranoia” and make activists think there was an FBI agent “behind every mailbox.” Questioning Vietnam war policy could cause anyone, even a U.S. senator, Democrat J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, to be placed under FBI surveillance.
It was the revelation of Hoover’s worst operations, COINTELPRO – what Hoover called The Counter Intelligence Program – that made Americans demand investigation and reform of the FBI. Until the mid-1970s, there had never been oversight of the FBI and little coverage of the FBI by journalists, except for laudatory stories.A video chronicle about the 1971 break-in at an FBI office in Media, Pa., that uncovered vast FBI abuses.
‘Almost beyond belief’
The COINTELPRO operations ranged from crude to cruel to murderous.
Antiwar activists were given oranges injected with powerful laxatives. Agents hired prostitutes known to have venereal disease to infect campus antiwar leaders.
Many of the COINTELPRO operations were almost beyond belief:
· The project conducted against the entire University of California system lasted more than 30 years. Hundreds of agents and informants were assigned in 1960 to spy on each of Berkeley’s 5,365 faculty members by reading their mail, observing them and searching for derogatory information – “illicit love affairs, homosexuality, sexual perversion, excessive drinking, other instances of conduct reflecting mental instability.”
· An informant trained to give perjured testimony led to the murder conviction of Black Panther Geronimo Pratt, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He served 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He was exonerated in 1997 when a judge found that the FBI concealed evidence that would have proved Pratt’s innocence.
· The bureau spied for years on Martin Luther King Jr. After it was announced King would receive the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover approved a particularly sinister plan that was designed to cause King to commit suicide.
A letter sent anonymously by the FBI to Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964 urging him to commit suicide. Wikipedia
· What one historian called Hoover’s “savage hatred” of Black people led to the FBI’s worst operation, a collaboration with the Chicago police that resulted in the killing of Chicago Black Panther Fred Hampton, shot dead by police as he slept. An FBI informant had been hired to ingratiate himself with Hampton. He came to know Hampton and the apartment very well. He drew a map of the apartment for the police on which he located “Fred’s bed.” After the killing, Hoover thanked the informant for his role in this successful operation. Enclosed in his letter was a cash bonus.
· Actress Jean Seberg was the victim of a 1970 COINTELPRO operation. In a memo, Hoover wrote that she had donated to the Panthers and “should be neutralized.” Seberg was pregnant, and the plot, approved personally by Hoover – as many COINTELPRO plots were – called for the FBI to tell a gossip columnist that a Black Panther was the father. Agents gave the false rumor to a Los Angeles Times gossip columnist. Without using Seberg’s name, the columnist’s story made it unmistakable that she was writing about Seberg. Three days later, Seberg gave birth prematurely to a stillborn white baby girl. Every year on the anniversary of her dead baby’s birth, Seberg attempted suicide. She succeeded in August 1979.
There was wide public interest in these revelations about COINTELPRO, many of which emerged in 1975 during hearings conducted by the Church Committee, the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat.
At this first-ever congressional investigation of the FBI and other intelligence agencies, former FBI officials testified under oath about bureau policies under Hoover.
“Never once did I hear anybody, including myself, raise the questions: ‘Is this course of action which we have agreed upon lawful? Is it legal? Is it ethical or moral?’ We never gave any thought to that line of questioning because we were just pragmatic. The one thing we were concerned about: will this course of action work, will it get us what we want.”
As for Patel, fired FBI Officials stated in their recent lawsuit over those dismissals that Patel had told one of them it was “likely illegal” to fire agents because of the cases they had worked on, but that he was powerless to resist Trump’s demands.
The recent statements from both Trump and top aide Miller suggest the FBI’s independence, and broader constitutional requirements that the administration remain faithful to the law, are meaningless to them. They suggest that, like Hoover, they would criminalize dissent.
What will happen at the FBI after the internal purge ends? Will retribution fever wane? Will Patel refocus on the bureau’s chief mission, law enforcement? And will the questions asked in Congress in 1975, as the bureau was being forced to reject Hoover’s worst practices, be asked now: Is what we are doing ethical? Is it legal?
“Get him off the table,” the doctor recalled telling the surgical team at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital as the team cleaned Black’s chest and abdomen. “This is my patient. Get him off the table.”
At first, no one recognized Zohny Zohny in his surgical mask. Then he told the surgical team he was the neurosurgeon assigned to Black’s case. Stunned by his orders, the team members pushed back, Zohny said, explaining that they had consent from the family to remove Black’s organs.
“I don’t care if we have consent,” Zohny recalled telling them. “I haven’t spoken to the family, and I don’t agree with this. Get him off the table.”
Black, his 22-year-old patient, had arrived at the hospital after getting shot in the head on March 24, 2019. A week later, he was taken to surgery to have his organs removed for donation — even though his heart was beating and he hadn’t been declared brain-dead, Zohny said.
Black’s sister Molly Watts said the family had doubts after agreeing to donate Black’s organs but felt unheard until the 34-year-old doctor, in his first year as a neurosurgeon, intervened.
Today, Black, now 28, is a musician and the father of three children. He still needs regular physical therapy for lingering health issues from the gun injury. And Black said he is haunted by what he remembers from those days while he was lying in a medically induced coma.
“I heard my mama yelling,” he recalled. “Everybody was there yelling my name, crying, playing my favorite songs, sending prayers up.”
He said he had tried to show everyone in his hospital room that he heard them. He recalled knocking on the side of the bed, blinking his eyes, trying to show that he was fighting for his life.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free weekly newsletter, “The Week in Brief.” Your Email Address
Organ transplants save a growing number of lives in the U.S. every year, with more than 48,000 transplants performed in 2024, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which oversees the nation’s transplant system. And thousands die awaiting donations that never come.
But organ donation has also faced ongoingcriticism, including reports of patients showing alertness before planned organ harvesting. The results of a federal investigation into a Kentucky organ donation nonprofit, first disclosed by The New York Times in June, found that during a four-year period, medical providers had planned to harvest the organs of 73 patients despite signs of neurological activity. Those procedures ultimately didn’t take place, but federal officials vowed in July to overhaul the nation’s organ donation system.
“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.”
Even before this latest investigation, Black’s case showed Zohny that the organ donation system needed to improve. He was initially hesitant to talk to KFF Health News when contacted in July about Black. But Zohny said his patient’s story had stuck with him for years, highlighting that while organ donation must continue, little is understood about human consciousness. And determining when someone is dead is the critical but confusing question at play.
“There was no bad guy in this. It was a bad setup. There’s a problem in the system,” he said. “We need to look at the policies and make some adjustments to them to make sure that we’re doing organ donation for the right person at the right time in the right place, with the right specialists involved.”
LJ Punch, a former trauma surgeon who was not involved with the case but reviewed Black’s medical records for KFF Health News, questioned whether Black’s injury — from gunfire — possibly contributed to how he was treated. Young Black men like Larry Black are disproportionately victims of gun trauma in the United States, and research on such violence is scant. His experience exemplifies “the general neglect” of Black men’s bodies, Punch said.
“That’s what comes up for me,” Punch said. “Structurally, not individually. Not any one doctor, not any one nurse, not any one team. It’s a structural reality.”
The hospital declined to comment on the details of Black’s case. SSM Health’s Kim Henrichsen, president of Saint Louis University Hospital and St. Mary’s Hospital-St. Louis, said the hospital system approaches “all situations involving critical illness or end-of-life care with deep compassion and respect.”
Mid-America Transplant, the federally designated organ procurement organization serving the St. Louis region, does not comment on individual donor cases, according to Lindsey Speir, executive vice president for organ procurement. She did tell KFF Health News that her organization has walked away from cases when patients’ conditions change — though not as late as when they are in the operating room for harvesting.
“Let me be clear about that. It happens way before then,” she said. “It definitely happens multiple times a year where we get consent. The family has made the decision, we approach, we get consent, it’s all appropriate, and then a day or so later they improve and we’re like, ‘Whoa.’”
But Speir said the recent media stories about the nation’s donation system are prompting a lot of questions about a process that also does a lot of good.
“We’re losing public trust right now,” Speir said of the industry. “And we’re going to have to regain that.”
Blink Twice for a Chance at Life
Larry Black Jr. and his sister Molly Watts are still trying to process everything that happened to him while he was hospitalized in 2019 at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital.
It was a Sunday afternoon when gunshots rang out in downtown St. Louis. Black had been on his way to his sister’s apartment.
“I didn’t know I was shot at first,” Black said, sitting in his living room six years later. “I literally ran like a block or two away.”
He collapsed moments later, he said, crawling to the back door of a woman’s home, where he asked for help. He said he asked the woman to give him two large towels, one covered in rubbing alcohol and another soaked with hydrogen peroxide. He wrapped those towels around the back of his head.
When his sister Macquel Payne found him, he was lying on the ground near the leasing office of her apartment complex, a crowd gathered around him.
Before an ambulance took him to the hospital, Black told his sister not to worry about him.
Black said he went in and out of consciousness on the way to the hospital and once he was there.
“I got to hitting my hand on the side of the ICU bed,” Black said. “They was like: ‘That’s just the reaction, the side effects of the medicine. Ask him some questions.’”
Payne said she asked her brother to blink twice if he could remember his first pet, a dog named “Little Black” that looked like the Chihuahua from the Taco Bell commercials.
Black said he remembers blinking twice. His sisters remember the same.
Payne asked him another question. This time she wanted to know whether her brother recognized their family. Black said he blinked twice when he saw his mom and sister standing nearby.
Black said his sister then asked him “the main question” that everyone needed him to answer.
“She’s like, ‘If you want them to pull a plug, if you tired and you giving up, blink once,’” Black recalled. “‘If you still got some fight in you, blink more than once.’”
Black said he started blinking and hit the bed to let his family know that he was still with them.
The sisters said hospital staffers told them the movements were involuntary.
‘Not Right Now’
In a waiting room steps away from the hospital’s intensive care unit, a woman carrying brochures explained to Payne and the rest of the family that Black had identified himself as a possible organ donor on his ID.
The woman wanted to know whether the family wished to move forward with the process if Black died, Payne said.
“I remember my mom saying, ‘Not right now,’” Black’s sister recalled. “‘It’s kind of too soon.’”
Payne said the woman persisted.
“She was like, ‘Well, can I at least leave you some brochures or something?’” Payne recalled. “Then my mom got a little agitated because it felt like she was being, like, pushy.”
The family was already acquainted with the organ donation process. In 2007, Black’s teenage brother Miguel Payne drowned at a local lake. His organs were donated, Macquel Payne said, noting the family was told that his body parts and tissues helped multiple people.
“I believe in saving lives,” Payne said. “But don’t be pushy about it.”
Zohny Zohny recently started a medical research company called Zeta Analytica to explore ways of quantifying consciousness, inspired in part by his experience with Larry Black Jr. in 2019. He also will be joining the West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute in October.
Mid-America Transplant handles the organ transplant process for 84 counties in parts of Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri, including St. Louis. Like the Kentucky organization, it is one of 55 federally designated nonprofits that facilitate organ donations throughout the country.
The nonprofit has never pressured a family into organ donation, Speir said. Registering to be an organ donor is legally binding, she said, but Mid-America has walked away from cases when families didn’t want to move forward.
She said her staff tries to dispel myths about organ donation and alleviate concerns. “We want to have the families leave with a positive experience,” Speir said.
Despite the family’s initial ambivalence, they ultimately consented to moving forward with donating Black’s organs. Watts said members of her brother’s care team had told the family that her brother was at “the end of the road.”
The family was told to prepare for Black’s “last walk of life,” Payne said. Also known as an honor or hero’s walk, the tradition honors the life of an organ donor before the harvesting process begins.
At the time, Payne said, she thought her brother still had a fighting chance. She asked the hospital staffers to take another look at him before he was wheeled down the hall.
“I’m like, ‘My brother’s in there tapping on the bed,’” Payne said. “They said, ‘That’s just his nerves.’ But I’m like, ‘No, something’s not right.’ It’s like he was too alert. He was letting us know: ‘Please don’t let them do this to me. I’m here. I can fight this.’ They were saying that’s what the medicine will do, it affects his nerves.”
After the family had agreed to move forward with the organ donation process, the two sisters said, an especially helpful member of Black’s medical team no longer treated them the same way. She became standoffish, they said.
“You could tell the dynamics had changed,” Watts said.
‘#RIPMyBrother’
The family put on blue jumpers for the walk of life. “We just walked around the floor, and everybody was, like, acknowledging him,” Payne said. “We just thought this was the end.”
A friend Black went to high school with filmed part of the ritual. In a short clip, Black is seen being wheeled on a stretcher down a hallway in the hospital. His eyes are half-open. People are crying.
False rumors then started to swirl outside the hospital.
Macquel Payne was among the family members at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital when her brother Larry Black Jr. was being prepped to have his organs harvested in 2019.
Lawrence Black Sr. says he refused to believe that his son, Larry Black Jr., was dead in 2019 when he heard a rumor that his son’s body was being taken to the SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital morgue. He says he prayed for his son to live. Today, his son is walking, talking, and the father of three children.
Brianna Floyd said she went into shock when she heard that her friend was dead. She knew that Black had been shot in the head. But a few days earlier, a local newspaper had reported that he was in stable condition.
Floyd checked Facebook to see whether the news of his death was true. Her timeline was flooded with farewell posts for Black, so she decided to write one, too.
“I Love You So Much Brother,” Floyd wrote. “#RIPMyBrother. Never Thought I Would Say That.”
Black’s father rushed to the hospital when he heard a rumor that his son was being wheeled to the morgue.
“‘He’s gone,’” Lawrence Black Sr. recalled being told. “‘He’s going to the freezer now.’”
Black Sr. said he refused to believe that his son was dead. The thought was devastating. He had already experienced that kind of loss to gun violence.
“You wake up and nothing’s the same,” Black Sr. said. “The spirit is lingering for about a week, and you can feel it, you know?”
Overwhelmed with emotion, he prayed for his son to live.
‘I Can’t Kill Your Son’
Zohny, the neurosurgeon, said he heard an announcement about a “hero’s walk” over a loudspeaker in the hospital. He wasn’t familiar with the term, so he asked about it. Medical residents in the hospital explained and told Zohny that the walk was possibly for his patient Larry Black.
“No, that can’t be my patient,” Zohny said he told them. “I didn’t agree.”
That’s when Zohny called the ICU to check on Black’s status. A person who answered the phone told him that Black was being wheeled to an operating room, he said.
“This is my first year,” Zohny said. “Your first year out as a neurosurgeon is the riskiest time for you. Any mistakes, anything small, basically derails your career. So the moment this happened, my legs went weak and I was very nervous because, at the end of the day, your job as a doctor is to be perfect.”
KFF Health News, Zohny, and Punch all reviewed the medical files given to Black from his hospitalization. It’s not clear from the records what led to that moment.
“In every case, the patient must be declared legally dead by the hospital’s medical team before organ procurement begins. This is not negotiable,” Mid-America Transplant’s CEO and president, Kevin Lee, wrote in an Aug. 21 blog post on the nonprofit’s website, responding to the news and federal comments about the investigation centered in Kentucky. “Mid-America Transplant strictly follows all laws, regulations, and hospital protocols throughout the process.”
He said in a statement to KFF Health News that a person can be pronounced dead in two ways. A person is legally dead if their heart stops beating and they stop breathing, which is when donation after cardiac death can occur. A person can also become an organ donor if their brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly ceased functioning, which is when brain death donation can occur.
Zohny Zohny (left), a neurosurgeon, stands with his patient Larry Black Jr. and Black’s sister Molly Watts in a photograph taken at a follow-up medical appointment in 2019. Black was shot in the head in St. Louis earlier that year.
“Every hospital has their own process in declaring both types of death,” Speir said in a statement. “Mid-America Transplant ensures hospitals follow their policies.”
But Black didn’t fall into either category, Zohny said. And, he said, Black hadn’t had what is known as a brain death exam.
Zohny said he immediately informed his chairman about the situation, then started running to the operating room. Black’s family was waiting in the hallway, unaware of the drama happening behind a set of closed silver doors.
Then Zohny emerged, pulling Black’s family into an empty operating room that was nearby.
“I remember he told my mama, ‘I can’t kill your son,’” Payne recalled. “She said, ‘Excuse me?’”
Zohny put an image of Black’s brain on a screen. Then he circled the part of his brain that was damaged. He explained that Black’s gunshot wound was something that he could possibly recover from, though he might need therapy. He asked the family whether they were willing to give Black more time to heal from the injury, instead of withdrawing care.
“In my opinion, no family would ever consent to organ donation unless they were given an impression that their family member had a very poor prognosis,” Zohny said. “I never had a conversation with the family about the prognosis, because it was too early to have that discussion.”
Zohny knew that he was taking a professional risk when he ran into the operating room.
“The worst-case scenario for me is that I lose my job,” he recalled thinking. “Worst-case scenario for him, he wrongfully loses his life.”
Later, Zohny said, a hospital worker who transported Black from the ICU to the operating room told Zohny that something had seemed off.
“I remember him looking at me and saying, ‘I’m so glad you stopped that,’” Zohny recalled. “And I said, ‘Why?’ And he said: ‘I don’t know. His eyes were open the whole time, and I just felt like he was looking at me. His eyes didn’t move, but it felt like he was looking at me.’”
‘Back From the Dead’
After Zohny’s intervention, Black was wheeled back to the ICU. Zohny said the medical team held back all medications that caused his sedation.
Black woke up two days later, Zohny said, and started speaking. Within a week, the neurosurgeon said, he was standing.
“I had to learn how to walk, how to spell, read,” Black said. “I had to learn my name again, my Social, birthday, everything.”
Zohny continued to care for Black during what remained of his 21 days in the hospital. During a follow-up appointment, he posed for a photo with Black and his older sister, Watts. Next to Zohny, Black is standing up, a brace on his leg.
“It’s a miracle that despite flawed policy we were able to save his life,” Zohny said. “It was an absolute miracle.”
To help Larry Black Jr. process his gunshot injuries and an aborted surgery to harvest his organs in 2019, he makes music under the name BeamNavyLooney. “I am back from the dead,” he recently wrote in a song about his experience.
Zohny, who was working as a fellow and assistant professor at the time, left Saint Louis University Hospital for another job later that year when his fellowship ended. He said Black’s story made him question what we know about consciousness.
He’s now working on a new method that quantifies consciousness. Zohny said it could possibly be used to help measure consciousness from brain signals, such as with an electroencephalogram, or EEG, a test that measures electrical activity in the brain. Zohny said his method still needs rigorous validation, so he recently started a medical research company called Zeta Analytica, separate from his work at the West Virginia University Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, which he’ll begin in October.
“We don’t understand the brain to the level that we should, especially with all of the technology we have now,” Zohny said.
Today, Black is trying to move forward. He said he has seizures if the bullet fragments in his head move around too much. He said he easily overheats because of the injury.
He doesn’t blame his family for their decision. But he questions the organ transplantation process. “It’s like they choose people’s destiny for them just because they have an organ donor ribbon on their ID,” Black said. “And that’s not cool.”
To help him process everything that happened to him in 2019, he makes music under the name BeamNavyLooney. “I am back from the dead,” he recently wrote in a song about his experience.
Earlier this year, Black celebrated the birth of another son, who was sleeping peacefully at home as Black recounted his story.
“He doesn’t really cry,” Black said. “He just makes noises.”
Black sat with a firearm within reach. He said he keeps the gun close to protect his family. It’s still hard for him to sleep at night. Nightmares about what happened — both on the street and in the hospital — keep him awake.
He said he no longer wants to be on the organ donor registry.
Republished with permission under license from KFF HealthNews.
We’re excited to announce the release of the 3rd Edition of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers – a major 2025 update designed to make legal self-help clearer, faster, and more effective.
For years, Legal Research for Non-Lawyers has helped people across the country understand how to research the law, represent themselves in court, and protect their rights when hiring a lawyer wasn’t an option. This new edition takes things even further.
🔑 What’s New in the 3rd Edition
An entire chapter on using AI tools to speed up legal research and break down complex legal concepts.
Updated resources for 2025 with clearer guidance and practical checklists.
Expanded examples and forms to help you draft pleadings, motions, and objections.
⚖️ Why This Book Matters
Attorney fees can cost hundreds of dollars per hour, putting justice out of reach for many people. This book gives you the knowledge and tools to:
Respond effectively to lawsuits.
Fight debt collectors and predatory practices.
Research state and federal law with confidence.
Prepare for hearings, trials, and even appeals.
💡 Instant Access
The 3rd Edition is available now as a PDF download for just $19.95. 👉 Get your copy here
Don’t let the cost of legal help keep you from justice. With preparation and the right tools, you can represent yourself with confidence.
Understanding First Amendment Protections in Public Schools
Introduction
by R. Randall Hill
High profile firings as a result of comments made about the murder of Charlie Kirk was the primary motivation for this article.
Prior to his murder, I wasn’t familiar Charlie Kirk, however, his rhetoric was described as divisive, racist, xenophobic, and extreme by groups that studied hate speech, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Freedom of speech is an important contributor to critical thinking because it presents ideas and different points of view that might not be considered otherwise. Below is video of Shahid King Bolson, responding to the killing of Charlie Kirk, which in my opinion is one of the best responses I have seen!
As a public school teacher, you are both a government employee and a private citizen with constitutional rights. This dual status creates a complex legal landscape where your First Amendment right to free speech intersects with your professional obligations and your employer’s authority. Understanding these boundaries is crucial in today’s digital age, where a single social media post can have career-ending consequences.
It’s important to note that your First Amendment protections against your school district employer exist because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Originally, the Bill of Rights only protected citizens from federal government actions, not state or local governments. Through a legal doctrine called “incorporation,” the Supreme Court has gradually applied First Amendment protections to state and local government actions, including those by public school districts. This means that while you work for a state entity, you retain constitutional protections that can be enforced in federal court.
This guide will help you navigate the intricate balance between your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a public educator, providing you with the legal knowledge needed to make informed decisions about your speech both inside and outside the classroom.
The Legal Foundation: Key Supreme Court Cases
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968): The Foundational Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pickering v. Boardof Education established the basic framework for public employee speech rights that remains in effect today. Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher in Illinois, was fired for writing a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds between athletics and academics.
The Court ruled that Pickering’s dismissal violated the First Amendment, establishing that public employees do not surrender their free speech rights simply by accepting government employment. However, the Court also recognized that the government has interests as an employer that differ from those it has as sovereign.
The Pickering Test weighs:
The employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern
The state’s interest in promoting effective and efficient public services
Connick v. Myers (1983): Defining “Public Concern”
In Connick v. Myers, the Court refined the Pickering standard by establishing that speech must address a “matter of public concern” to receive First Amendment protection. Sheila Myers, an assistant district attorney, was fired after distributing a questionnaire to colleagues about office policies and morale.
The Court held that speech on matters of purely personal interest (like workplace grievances) receives less protection than speech on issues of broader public significance. This case established the critical first step in analyzing public employee speech: determining whether the speech addresses a matter of public concern.
Key Factors for “Public Concern”:
Political, social, or other concerns of the community
Issues that would be of legitimate news interest
Matters relating to political, social, or other concerns of the community
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006): The Official Duties Exception
The Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos significantly narrowed First Amendment protection for public employees. Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, faced retaliation after writing a memo questioning the truthfulness of a search warrant affidavit.
The Court ruled that when public employees speak pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens and therefore have no First Amendment protection. This created what’s known as the “official duties exception.”
Critical Impact for Teachers:
Speech made as part of curriculum, lesson plans, or official communications may lack protection
The line between personal and professional speech becomes crucial
Academic freedom arguments may apply differently than general free speech protections
Rankin v. McPherson (1987): Context Matters
In this case, Constance McPherson, a deputy constable, was fired for saying “If they go for him again, I hope they get him” after learning of an assassination attempt on President Reagan. Despite the shocking nature of the comment, the Court found her dismissal unconstitutional.
The Court emphasized that the content, form, and context of speech must all be considered, and that even offensive speech on matters of public concern may be protected if it doesn’t disrupt workplace operations.
Modern Applications and Social Media Challenges
The Digital Transformation of Teacher Speech
Social media has fundamentally changed how teacher speech cases arise and are analyzed. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok blur traditional boundaries between public and private expression, creating new legal challenges.
Key Social Media Considerations
1. Audience and Accessibility
Public posts are more likely to be considered matters of public concern
Privacy settings may not provide legal protection
Students, parents, and administrators may have access to “private” content
2. Professional vs. Personal Identity
Using your real name or school affiliation strengthens the connection to your employment
Professional photos or school-related content blur personal/professional lines
Time of posting (during school hours vs. personal time) matters
3. Impact and Disruption
Did the post cause actual disruption to the school environment?
Did it undermine your effectiveness as a teacher?
How did the school community respond?
Common Scenarios and Their Legal Analysis
Scenario 1: Political Expression
Example: A teacher posts on Facebook supporting or opposing a political candidate, tax levy, or controversial policy.
Legal Analysis:
Political speech typically addresses matters of public concern
Protection is strongest when posted on personal accounts during non-work hours
Risk increases if posts attack specific school officials or policies
Context matters: a post supporting higher education funding may be viewed differently than one attacking local school leadership
Protection Level: Generally HIGH, but depends on specific content and context
Scenario 2: Curriculum and Educational Policy Criticism
Example: A teacher criticizes standardized testing, curriculum changes, or educational policies on social media.
Legal Analysis:
Educational policy is clearly a matter of public concern
May be protected even if critical of employer’s policies
Risk increases if speech is made pursuant to official duties (e.g., as part of committee work)
Consider whether criticism is constructive vs. purely negative
Protection Level: MODERATE to HIGH, depending on role and context
Scenario 3: Student-Related Posts
Example: A teacher posts about challenging students, difficult parents, or classroom incidents without naming individuals.
Legal Analysis:
Generally receives less protection as it’s more about personal job grievances
Risk of privacy violations and professional ethics concerns
May not constitute “public concern” under Connick standard
High risk of disrupting school operations and relationships
Protection Level: LOW to NONE
Scenario 4: Personal Lifestyle and Off-Duty Conduct
Example: A teacher posts photos from social events, discusses personal relationships, or shares lifestyle choices.
Legal Analysis:
Personal lifestyle typically not a matter of public concern
Protection depends on whether conduct affects job performance
Community standards and local values may influence analysis
Higher risk in small communities where teachers are public figures
Protection Level: LOW, varies by community
Scenario 5: Social Justice and Controversial Issues
Example: A teacher posts about racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, religious issues, or other socially divisive topics.
Legal Analysis:
Social issues typically constitute matters of public concern
High potential for community controversy and disruption
Balance between First Amendment rights and professional obligations
Consider school policies and community demographics
Protection Level: MODERATE, highly fact-dependent
Scenario 6: Criticism of School Administration
Example: A teacher publicly criticizes the principal, superintendent, or school board decisions.
Legal Analysis:
May be protected if addressing matters of public concern (policy, budget, educational quality)
Less protection for personal attacks or grievances
Consider whether alternative channels for complaints were available
Risk of workplace disruption and undermined authority
Protection Level: MODERATE, depends on nature and basis of criticism
Best Practices for Protecting Your Rights
Social Media Guidelines
Maintain Separate Professional and Personal Accounts
Use privacy settings consistently
Consider using a pseudonym for personal accounts
Avoid connecting with current students on personal accounts
Think Before You Post
Consider how content might be perceived by different audiences
Ask: “Would I be comfortable if this appeared in the local newspaper?”
Remember that screenshots can make “private” content public
Understand Your District’s Policies
Review social media and technology use policies
Understand reporting and discipline procedures
Know your union contract provisions
Document Everything
Save copies of posts that might be controversial
Document any retaliation or adverse employment actions
Keep records of policy violations alleged by administration
Professional Communication Strategies
Focus on Issues, Not Personalities
Criticize policies and practices, not individuals
Use constructive rather than inflammatory language
Propose solutions alongside criticisms
Choose Appropriate Forums
Consider internal channels before going public
Understand when union representation is appropriate
Know the difference between protected speech and insubordination
Understand Timing and Context
Be especially cautious during contract negotiations
Consider the impact on ongoing school issues
Respect sensitive periods (crises, investigations, etc.)
When Protection May Not Apply
The Garcetti Exception in Schools
Speech made pursuant to official duties receives no First Amendment protection. For teachers, this includes:
Curriculum-related communications
Grade reports and student evaluations
Committee work and professional development
Official school communications
Disruption and Efficiency
Even protected speech can be restricted if it:
Materially disrupts school operations
Undermines working relationships
Interferes with educational mission
Creates safety or security concerns
Professional Ethics and Standards
Teachers are held to higher standards than other public employees regarding:
Student confidentiality and privacy
Professional conduct and morality clauses
Community role model expectations
Fitness to teach determinations
State Law Variations and Additional Protections
Academic Freedom Statutes
Some states have specific academic freedom protections that may provide broader rights than federal constitutional protections. Research your state’s specific laws.
Whistleblower Protections
Many states have whistleblower statutes that protect employees who report illegal activities, safety violations, or misuse of public funds.
Union Contract Provisions
Collective bargaining agreements may provide additional procedural protections and substantive rights beyond constitutional minimums.
What to Do If You Face Retaliation
Immediate Steps
Document the situation thoroughly
Contact your union representative
Preserve all evidence (posts, emails, witness statements)
Follow grievance procedures if applicable
Consult with an employment attorney
Legal Options
Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits
State court wrongful termination claims
Administrative grievances and appeals
EEOC complaints if discrimination is involved
Recent Trends and Future Considerations
Technology and Privacy
Courts are still grappling with how traditional First Amendment analysis applies to:
Disclaimer: This guide provides general legal information and should not be considered legal advice. First Amendment law is complex and highly fact-specific. Laws vary by state and jurisdiction. If you’re facing employment action related to your speech, consult with an experienced employment attorney who specializes in public employee rights and First Amendment law. Your union representative can also provide valuable guidance and support.
Remember: The best protection is prevention. Think carefully before you post, understand your district’s policies, and when in doubt, consult with knowledgeable advocates before taking action that could jeopardize your career.
Imagine waking up in a world where schools no longer exist, history books are banned, and even memory is policed. That’s the chilling reality of The Erasure Protocol, the new dystopian novel by R. Randall Hill, author of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers and founder of Court.Rchp.com.
A Glimpse Inside the Story
“When they erase the truth, remembering becomes rebellion.”
In a near-future America where mass education has ended because of AI, citizens are divided into rigid classes:
Dependents, pacified with meaningless “comfort learning.”
Productives, trained only for repetitive labor.
Essentials, groomed to rule.
But one young woman, Maya, refuses to forget. With a hidden tablet and fragments of forbidden knowledge, she discovers that memory itself can be a weapon. As she connects with underground “Memory Keepers,” Maya must risk everything to challenge a system built on ignorance and control.
While fictional, the book is rooted in documented history:
From Roman “bread and circuses,”
To Bacon’s Rebellion,
To slave codes and the systematic exclusion of minorities from education.
These examples show how knowledge has been manipulated to maintain power. The novel’s warning feels urgent today, when schools and libraries face renewed pressure to restrict curricula or sanitize history.
Why This Story Matters Now
At Court.Rchp.com, our mission has always been to empower ordinary citizens with access to legal knowledge. The Erasure Protocol carries that mission into fiction, reminding us that access to truth is never guaranteed—it must be protected.
As the story makes clear: the most dangerous phrase in any language may be “Don’t worry about it.”
A Tribute to Teachers and Knowledge Keepers
This novel is also a tribute to the educators, librarians, and ordinary citizens who preserve and share knowledge, often at great personal cost. They are the heroes who stand between truth and erasure.
About the Author
R. Randall Hill is the author of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers and the founder of Court.Rchp.com, a free self-help legal website. His work is dedicated to empowering ordinary citizens to access knowledge and defend their rights.
Get Your Copy
The Erasure Protocol is available now in PDF, and Kindle formats. Teachers, administrators, and school staff can receive a 50% discount as a thank-you for their dedication to education.
If this story resonates with you, please share this article with a teacher, librarian, parent, or student who believes that education is freedom.
Closing Thought: The most dangerous phrase in any language may be: “Don’t worry about it.” The Erasure Protocol challenges us all to worry about it—to remember, to resist, and to keep the truth alive.
by Jean Lantz Reisz, University of Southern California
People hold signs on April 4, 2025, supporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
The Supreme Court on April 10, 2025, unanimously upheld the lower court order directing the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.
The Supreme Court also directed the lower court to clarify aspects of the order.
“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego García’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court order states.
The Justice Department admitted to deporting Abrego García to a maximum security prison in El Salvador even though an immigration judge in 2019 ordered that he not be deported. The judge did so under an immigration law called “withholding of removal,” which is a protection, like asylum, for people facing persecution in their home country.
According to the Trump administration, such an order would be “constitutionally intolerable.” The government has compared the court order to return Abrego García to an order to “‘effectuate’ the end of the war in Ukraine or return hostages from Gaza.”
Abrego García should not have been deported
Abrego García received this protective legal status six years ago. That’s when he proved to the court he was highly likely to be persecuted by the government or gangs in El Salvador due to a specific reason, as required under immigration law.
Unlike asylum or refugee status, the status known as “withholding of removal” is not a pathway to citizenship. It allows a person to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely and not be deported to their country of nationality if they face persecution there.
That’s important, because the government failed to follow proper procedure to deport Abrego García based on gang membership. When someone is in “withholding of removal” status, the law requires the government to reopen immigration proceedings based on new evidence and seek to formally terminate the legal withholding status.
Abrego García should have been notified of the government’s desire to deport him, and he should have had the opportunity to make his case at a court hearing. His summary deportation to El Salvador likely violated his right to due process under immigration law and the Constitution.
The crux of the government’s position is that a court does not have the power to order the release of a person in a foreign prison. That would interfere with the separation of powers among the executive and judicial branches. The president has the sole power to conduct foreign relations with El Salvador, and the government has argued that ordering the return of Abrego García interferes with that power.
Prisoners watch as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visits the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26, 2025.Alex Brandon/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
The court cannot order the Salvadoran government to do anything, but it can order the U.S. government to take steps to return García Abrego if he was unlawfully arrested and deported. That’s because the judiciary has the power to determine whether the president’s actions are lawful.
The district court’s order was based on its determination that the president has likely violated immigration law and the Constitution in arresting and deporting Abrego García. The appellate court agreed.
The Supreme Court has now said the order to facilitate Abrego García’s return is proper. But the high court also said the district court judge should further clarify its order, being mindful of the president’s authority when it comes to conducting foreign relations.
Trump administration lawyers have suggested in their briefing to the Supreme Court that there could be reasons under El Salvador law for Abrego García’s imprisonment. The government has not identified any reasons and has not provided any evidence that Abrego García is charged with a crime in El Salvador, or that he is being held under Salvadoran law.
The district and appellate courts determined in this case that the U.S. is using the Salvadoran prison like any other detention facility. Under those circumstances, the U.S. government, not El Salvador, has ultimate control over Abrego García.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government should facilitate Abrego García’s return.Drew Angerer/Getty Images
In fact, other appellate courts have ordered the government to return immigrants who had been removed from the U.S. but later won their appeals of their removal orders. Those people were not in foreign prisons.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has created a formal policy for aiding the return of immigrants who were deported while their appeals were pending and then subsequently won their appeals.
The government has argued that those situations are different. Here, it claims the court cannot demand the return of Abrego García, who is imprisoned in another country. The problem with the government’s argument is that it is the Trump administration that put Abrego García in a foreign prison.
The Trump administration has also argued that Abrego García is not entitled to return to the U.S.. It has argued that even though it was a mistake to deport him to El Salvador under his withholding of removal status, Abrego García could have been removed to another country and has no right to return to the U.S..
This would be true if Abrego García voluntarily left the U.S. or was deported to a country other than El Salvador, but that is not what happened. The government removed Abrego García to El Salvador in violation of U.S. law.
The White House’s position in this matter is troubling because the president is supposed to enforce the law, not circumvent it.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a separate statement published with the order and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson: “The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
What steps the government will take to return Abrego García is unclear. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves open the question of how far the court can go to enforce his return.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
Fueled by the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling that bans affirmative action in higher education, conservative lawmakers across the country have advanced their own state bans on diversity initiatives, especially those that might make students feel shame or guilt for past harms against people of color.
This effort encompasses medical schools.
Despite clear and persistent gaps between white and Black doctors – and recent efforts to reckon with racial disparities within the medical profession – lawmakers have tried to advance policies to prohibit diversity initiatives in medicine.
U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy of North Carolina introduced one such bill to restrict diversity initiatives. “American medical schools are no place for discrimination,” said Murphy, a Republican, in March 2024. “Diversity strengthens medicine, but not if it’s achieved through exclusionary practices … of prejudice and divisive ideology.”
But the gaps in racial representation in medicine go beyond a professional numbers game. Modern research shows that the lack of Black doctors helps explain why about 70% of Black people don’t trust their doctors, and why Black people tend to die younger than their white peers.
The evidence is clear: America needs more Black doctors.
To that end, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg pledged on Aug. 6, 2024, to donate US$600 million to four historically Black medical schools. The gifts to Howard University College of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Morehouse School of Medicine and Charles Drew University of Medicine & Science are among the largest donations to any historically Black college or university. Xavier University, located in Louisiana, will also receive a $5 million grant to support its new medical school.
“This gift will empower new generations of Black doctors to create a healthier and more equitable future for our country,” Bloomberg said in a statement before the annual convention of the National Medical Association, an organization that advocates for Black physicians.
A limited landscape
According to a 2022 survey of 950,000 doctors by the Association of American Medical Colleges, 63.9% reported their ethnicity as white, and just 5.7% Black or African American. But according to 2023 estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, Black people make up 13.6% of the population, while white people represent 58.9%.
Starting in 1906, the AMA has published directories of all qualified physicians in the U.S. These directories were created to be comprehensive records that excluded “quack” physicians and unqualified graduates of fraudulent medical schools.
Each physician’s record included a variety of details, including their place of practice and when and where they completed medical training.
Between 1906 and 1940, the AMA also insisted on publishing the race of Black doctors. Beside each entry appeared the label “col.” for “colored.”
Most Black doctors in the South were trained by a handful of Southern medical schools established to educate African Americans. Over half – 57% – of Southern Black physicians attended Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee, or Howard University Medical School in Washington, D.C. – schools that are still in existence.
But nearly a third – 29% – of Southern Black physicians attended schools that would be closed a few years after the 1906 directory’s release. In 1910, at the behest of the AMA, educator Abraham Flexner released a report after studying the standards of medical schools in the U.S. and Canada.
The results of the Flexner report was devastating to the number of Black doctors. Citing low admissions standards and poor quality of education, Flexner recommended closing five of the seven historically Black medical schools that trained the vast majority of Black doctors.
By 1912, three Black medical schools were shut down. By 1924, only two remained in operation – Meharry and Howard.
The consequences of this extremely limited educational landscape for aspiring Black physicians are reflected in the data. In most Southern states, the distance between medical school and practice locations was significantly greater, even before the closings, for Black doctors compared with their white counterparts.
The deep roots of inequalities
To help interpret where Black doctors established practices in the South, I also linked directory data to other historical sources, including the U.S. Census.
What I found was that places with larger Black populations were more likely to have a Black doctor, as were places that were closer to a Black medical school.
Many contemporary scholars and activists are looking to the past in order to increase the public’s understanding of how race has played a historical role in the health outcomes of Black Americans.
She was one of the first, for example, to warn health officials about the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color. As she wrote in 2020: Black Americans were more vulnerable during the pandemic “because of several manifestations of structural racism, including lack of access to testing, a higher chronic disease burden and racial bias within health care institutions.”
Without an accounting of how racial disparities in medicine were formed, it’s much more difficult to determine which kinds of progressive measures are needed to provide redress.
Future analyses will help unpack these racial disparities in greater detail. But for now, both academic researchers and the public can use our data to explore the importance of historically Black medical schools and the lives of Black physicians during the Jim Crow era.
It’s my belief that their legacies deserve to be a better-known part of the history of American medicine.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
The facts and the law behind New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s successful prosecution of Donald Trump could be argued at length. But as a government prosecutor for 30 years, I have been most interested in the ethics of prosecuting that case.
Outside the courthouse after the verdict, Trump said, “This was a disgrace.” That echoes comments made over the year since his indictment in the case in which Trump repeatedly claimed the prosecution was “political persecution.”
There’s merit to his point.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a press conference to discuss his indictment of former President Donald Trump on April 4, 2023.Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
No one better outlined the important ethical standards that have enabled state and federal prosecutors to maintain an image of integrity and honesty than Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. In a speech to the nation’s federal prosecutors on April 1, 1940, he noted that prosecutors should select cases where the offense is “most flagrant and the public harm the greatest,” while warning that the prosecutor’s ability to choose defendants is the “most dangerous power.”
Choosing defendants, Jackson said, requires judgment. It is a power that can be abused.
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone,” Jackson said. In certain cases, he said, “it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”
It is when the prosecutor “picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies,” Jackson warned.
For years, as a federal prosecutor, I had been proud to stand up before the juries and announce, “Ron Sievert for the United States.” I believed that the majority of those in the courtroom understood that the federal government traditionally prosecuted cases that were the “most flagrant.” These were cases where, as Jackson said, “the public harm” was “the greatest.”
We prosecutors preserved our reputation of not prosecuting cases for political reasons by only pursuing cases where there were real victims, in the sense of bodily harm or financial loss. The U.S. Department of Justice had an unwritten but long-understood policy of never indicting and trying a politician for a nonviolent crime within one year of an election.
New York’s prosecution of Donald Trump can be, and has been, characterized long before today by some as a “political prosecution” because of the strong belief that a case on an allegedly false record would never have been brought if Trump were not running for president.
Justice Jackson warned that such a case, without an apparent victim, could undermine the public’s perception of the prosecution’s legitimacy. This prosecution may have upset Trump, but the real question is: Will it damage the good faith – both in the United States and internationally – that has been earned for decades by American public prosecutors?
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
Donald Trump leaves the Manhattan courtroom after being found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush money trial on May 30, 2024. Justin Lane-Pool/Getty Images
After the May 30, 2024, conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York, what comes next?
Trump’s legal team will likely appeal the verdict. “We will fight for our Constitution,” Trump said following the jury’s announcement. “This is long from over.” A sentencing hearing for Trump is set for July 11.
The Conversation U.S.‘ politics and society editor Amy Lieberman spoke with Gabriel J. Chin, a scholar of criminal law and procedure, to better understand the verdict.
A courtroom sketch depicts Judge Juan Merchan, Donald Trump, prospective jurors and other court and legal personnel.Christine Cornell via AP Pool
1. Why were there so many different felony counts in this case?
The essence of the offenses Trump was convicted of is falsifying documents or records. Accordingly, each check, invoice or other document that the jury found had been falsified was a separate offense, which can be the basis of a separate count and punished separately. The prosecution wanted to make sure that the jury saw the full scope of the scheme it alleged had occurred – which is that Trump covered up the fact that he paid hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels by disguising the payment as a legal fee to his lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen then allegedly used Trump’s money to pay Daniels to stop her from talking about her alleged affair with Trump.
2. What is most important for people to understand about this conviction?
It is historic and groundbreaking for a former or future president to be convicted of felonies in the United States. There will be debate, and people will have to judge whether this prosecution is an example of the principle that no person is above the law, or whether this is an example of political persecution.
As a technical legal matter, this conviction has a significant effect on all of Trump’s other criminal and civil cases. At a minimum, it means that if Trump takes the stand to testify in any case, opposing lawyers will be able to attack his credibility with this conviction. Lawyers can argue that any witness with a felony conviction might well be lying.
Practically speaking, this verdict also means that Trump – who is registered to vote in Florida – cannot vote there until completion of his sentence. Under federal law, he cannot possess a firearm. But he can still run for president and serve in office, because nothing in the Constitution disqualifies people with convictions – or who are in prison – from running for, or serving as, president.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a news conference about former President Donald Trump’s arraignment on April 4, 2023.Kena Betancur/Getty Images
3. What can we know, if anything, about what his sentence might look like?
New York judge Juan Merchan will decide the sentence alone, without a jury.
It is not surprising that sentencing has been set for July, rather than sooner. As in other cases, the probation office will prepare a report that lays out Trump’s background and history, and the facts and circumstances of this case. Trump has no criminal record, which is generally a favorable sentencing factor. On the other hand, he does have negative results from lawsuits, including a civil finding in 2023 that determined he committed sexual assault. One issue to look out for is whether the prosecution or the probation department argues that Trump’s other criminal charges and civil cases should be considered in sentencing.
One sentencing factor which sometimes comes into play is lack of remorse; it is often a reason judges impose a more severe sentence. It certainly does not seem that Trump has in any way acknowledged that he did something regrettable, or committed a crime. Trump’s violation of the gag orders in this case, which the judge has already punished him for, could also be a factor used to argue for or impose a higher sentence.
4. Given this verdict, is it likely that Trump will serve time in prison?
The offense of falsifying business records is deemed a “Class E” felony in New York state – and each felony has a potential sentence of up to four years. Probation is available instead of incarceration, or probation plus a short term of incarceration. Sentences may be imposed concurrently or consecutively, so theoretically Trump could get a sentence of 136 years if maximum sentences on all counts are imposed consecutively. But, while the sentence is up to the judge, based on past practice it is reasonable to speculate that Trump will not be sentenced to a long prison term, and may well receive no incarceration time at all.
A not-guilty verdict would have been final because of the Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy – meaning a person cannot be convicted, acquitted or punished more than once for the same offense.
This conviction will undoubtedly be challenged for years, and the appeals process could have at least two chances to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether this case was appropriately tried in state court will also be an issue – federal authority over federal elections and election crimes is likely to be examined on appeal.
In other words, this case is not over by a long shot. It is likely that even were Trump sentenced to incarceration, he would be allowed to remain free, pending appeal. This practice is not uncommon in complex and high-profile cases, at least where there are reasonable legal claims of error.
5. What made the evidence so strong in this case that it persuaded jurors?
It is in part the breadth of the New York law which, unlike the law in many states, criminalizes falsifying internal business records even when they are private and not used to cheat the tax system or defraud anyone. But even in New York, generally falsifying private business records is a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony only if, as the jury found here, the actions are used to cover up or conceal a crime.
In this case, the jury may well have been persuaded by the prosecution’s argument that the crime covered up was essentially a scheme to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
Because Trump was alleged to have deceived voters, perhaps the jury was unwilling to simply shrug this off as business as usual. Another factor is the remarkable investigation that went into preparing this case. The prosecution had so many witnesses and documents that it could tell the story in highly specific detail.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
by Anupam Chander, Georgetown University and Gautam Hans, Cornell University
TikTok users worry about losing their social media platform, but First Amendment rights are on the line, too. AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey
TikTok, the short-video company with Chinese roots, did the most American thing possible on May 7, 2024: It sued the U.S. government, in the person of Attorney General Merrick Garland, in federal court. The suit claims the federal law that took effect on April 24, 2024, banning TikTok unless it sells itself violates the U.S. Constitution.
The law names TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., specifically. It also applies to other applications and websites reaching more than a million monthly users that allow people to share information and that have ownership of 20% or more from China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. If the president determines that such applications or websites “present a significant threat to the national security,” then those apps and websites, too, must either be sold or banned from the U.S.
TikTok’s suit says that the law violates the First Amendment by failing to provide evidence of the national security threat posed by the app and for failing to seek a less restrictive remedy. Despite legislators’ claims to the contrary, the law forcing the divestiture of TikTok – the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act – implicates First Amendment interests. In our view, it does so in ways that ripple beyond this specific case.
As a company incorporated in the United States that provides an online publishing platform, TikTok has a right protected by the First Amendment to select what messages – in this case, user videos – it chooses to publish.
A ban appears to us, scholars who study lawand technology, to be a massive prior restraint, which is generally barred by U.S. courts. Prior restraint is action by the government to prevent speech, typically some form of publication, before it occurs.
The First Amendment limits what the government can do to censor speech.
Speech in the crosshairs
The law’s backers say that it is not a ban – all TikTok has to do is sell itself. These supporters describe the bill as a divestiture, a purely economic regulation that they say should insulate it from First Amendment challenge. After the sale, users could happily keep on using TikTok, not caring who owns the company. But the law seems to us an attempt to control speech by mandating a change in ownership.
Changing the speech content on the app is the express goal of some of the law’s backers. The principal author of the bill, former U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, who stepped down from office in April to join a venture capital firm partly backed by Microsoft, explained to The New York Times that he was principally concerned about the potential for the Chinese Communist Party to spread propaganda on the app. The Times and The Wall Street Journal have reported that Congress passed this bill in part because of unsubstantiated accusations that TikTok was unfairly promoting one side in the Israel-Hamas war.
Imagine if the government told Jeff Bezos that he had to sell The Washington Post because it was worried that he might push a particular agenda using his control of the newspaper. Or to use a digital analogy, what if the government told Elon Musk that he had to sell X, formerly Twitter, because it didn’t like his content moderation of legal speech? Those scenarios clearly have a connection to First Amendment protections.
Ownership matters
Transferring TikTok’s ownership from one company to another matters greatly for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan observed during oral arguments in a case unrelated to TikTok’s ownership that ownership can make a difference in an app. She noted that the sale of Twitter to Elon Musk changed the character of the app. Kagan said, “Twitter users one day woke up and found themselves to be X users and the content rules had changed and their feeds changed, and all of a sudden they were getting a different online newspaper, so to speak, in a metaphorical sense every morning.”
Indeed, The Washington Post found a rightward tilt after Twitter changed hands.
By forcing the sale of TikTok to an entity without ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Congress’ intent with the law is to change the nature of the platform. That kind of government action implicates the core concerns that the First Amendment was designed to protect against: government interference in the speech of private parties.
U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, co-sponsor of the House bill on TikTok, pointed to another instance where the U.S. government ordered a Chinese company to sell a U.S. app. In 2019, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ordered the new Chinese owners of Grindr to sell the dating app, which the Chinese owners did the following year. In that case, the foreign owners could not assert First Amendment rights in the United States, given that they were outside the U.S., and thus no court considered this issue.
TikTok is claiming First Amendment protection against the law forcing its sale or ban.
National security claims
The government hasn’t disclosed to the public the national security concerns cited in the TikTok law. While such concerns, if accurate, might warrant some kind of intervention, some Americans are likely to decline to take claims of national security urgency on good faith. To address skepticism of secret government power, particularly when it involves speech rights, the government arguably needs to present its claims.
U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn, both of whom supported the TikTok law and have seen the government’s secret evidence, called for the declassification of that information. We believe that’s a vital step for the public to properly consider the government’s claim that a ban is warranted in this instance. In any case, the courts will ultimately weigh the secret evidence in determining whether the government’s national security concerns justified this intrusion upon speech.
What seems likely to happen, absent judicial invalidation or legislative repeal of the law, is a world in which TikTok cannot effectively operate in the United States in a year’s time, with mobile app stores unable to push out updates to the software and Oracle Corp. unable to continue hosting the app and its U.S. user data on its servers. TikTok could go dark on Jan. 19, 2025, in the United States.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.