June 14 Military Parade in D.C.
Leads to Concerns about Damage
Cost estimates are rising along with liability concerns over President Donald Trump’s planned military parade June 14 through the streets of Washington, D.C.
The latest Defense Department estimate shows it would cost as much as $45 million.
A separate Defense Department estimate says damage to the streets from rolling tanks and other heavy equipment over them could add $16 million.
In addition to 6,700 soldiers in the parade, there will be 28 M1 Abrams tanks. Each of them weighs 70 tons.
There also will be 28 Stryker armored personnel carriers and more than 100 other military vehicles.
Among government officials expressing concern is Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser. She said in April while the Trump administration was firming up plans for the parade that tanks rolling through the city’s streets “would not be good.”
“If military tanks were used, they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads,” she said.
Trump says the parade is important as a point of national pride to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. The parade route will stretch nearly four miles, from the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., to the White House.
Trump said in a recent “Meet the Press” interview that the cost of the parade would be “peanuts compared to the value of doing it.”
He added, “We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we’re going to celebrate it.”
June 14 also is Trump’s 79th birthday and Flag Day.
Pentagon officials previously advised against it to avoid the risk of entangling the military in partisan politics.
After the parade passes in front of a viewing stand for Trump and his guests near the White House, a big celebration and fireworks display is planned for the nearby National Capital Mall.
Before the parade, the troops will be housed in two governmental buildings, where they will sleep on cots or in their sleeping bags.
The parade is unlikely to go off completely with the celebratory emphasis the president seeks. Protests are scheduled in Washington and nationwide by activists.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Supreme Court Lets Bans Stand
Against Semi-Automatic Weapons
The Supreme Court last week upheld a ban on assault weapons but avoided a detailed explanation of the constitutional issues involved.
The dispute arose from a Maryland law that bans weapons like the AR-15, whose high-muzzle bullet speed and easy accessibility at gun shops have made it a common gun used in mass shootings.
The ban was challenged by gun rights advocates. They said it violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban. The Richmond, Va.-based court said AR-15s are most similar to the military M-16 machine guns, which the Supreme Court has ruled are not protected by the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided to let the lower court ruling stand. It declined to hear an appeal that challenged both the Maryland assault rifle ban and a Rhode Island ban on high-capacity gun magazines.
Maryland’s General Assembly prohibited some semi-automatic rifles during the public outrage over the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
A young man with Asperger’s syndrome shot and killed 26 people with a high-powered gun at the school. Twenty of them were children between six and seven years old.
The Maryland law – which is similar to laws in eight other states and the District of Columbia – makes it illegal to to possess, sell, transfer or purchase an "assault long gun" or a "copycat weapon."
Private Maryland residents, a gun dealer and several Second Amendment advocacy groups filed a lawsuit trying to overturn the law.
The 4th Circuit’s opinion said an assault weapons ban did not violate the Second Amendment because rapid-firing long guns “are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”
The majority’s opinion also said Maryland’s law is consistent with states’ traditions of regulating dangerous weapons. They described the law as a response to a public safety threat but one that preserves gun ownership for self-defense.
While the lawsuit was pending, two people were killed and 28 injured on July 2, 2023, during a mass shooting in the Brooklyn Homes neighborhood of Baltimore.
Although several guns were used when young people fired at each other during a block party, one gun that police found at the scene was an AR-15. It was the biggest mass casualty shooting in the city’s history.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore used the shooting to emphasize the state's commitment to combating gun violence.
Gun rights advocates like the Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms argued in a court filing that although AR-15s are one of the nation’s most popular guns, the Maryland ban "turns a firearm possessed for lawful purposes by millions of Americans into an item with not even presumptive constitutional protection."
The Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court’s ruling stand means the higher court has not separately ruled on AR-15s.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted that will not last long. He said the Supreme Court "should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two."
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Supreme Court Says Secular Nonprofits
Can Receive Religious Tax Exemptions
The Supreme Court ruled last week that a religious charitable foundation can opt out of paying taxes for unemployment compensation in a decision that threatens to revamp part of the federal-state insurance program.
Unemployment compensation provides financial benefits to workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
A key issue in the Supreme Court ruling was a Wisconsin law that requires employers to pay payroll taxes that cover the cost of the insurance. Religious organizations are exempt.
The Supreme Court said forcing Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. to pay the taxes violates the separation of church and state required under the Constitution. The nonprofit organization provides assistance to disabled persons and persons needing mental health care.
The unanimous decision focused on a lawsuit filed by Catholic Charities in northern Wisconsin but it applies equally to religious institutions in all other states.
There are about 109,000 nonprofits with a religious mission operating in the United States, according to a 2023 Indiana University report.
Catholic Charities also operates nonprofit organizations in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission justified its refusal to grant Catholic Charities the tax exemption it gave other religious groups by saying there was a fundamental difference between them.
Other religious organizations provided charitable services directly by their clergy or staff while promoting religious beliefs. Catholic Charities offers secular services through a separate church-controlled nonprofit.
As a result, the nonprofit – although it was a charitable organization – was not operated primarily for religious purposes, attorneys for the Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission argued.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the Review Commission but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state court’s decision. It also sent the case back to a lower court for a new ruling.
The ruling could affect taxing decisions on religious-affiliated schools and hospitals, which employ hundreds of thousands of workers.
The unanimous Supreme Court decision written by Justice Elena Sotomayor said the fine distinction between the church and its nonprofit is too small of a difference to create tax liability.
By distinguishing between churches and whether they operate separate nonprofit organizations, the state was discriminating among religions “based on theological differences in their provision of services,” she wrote.
Such discrimination is forbidden by the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
"It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'” Sotomayor wrote.
The case is Catholic Charities Inc. et al. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission et al. in the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Employment Lawyer Diane Seltzer
Wins as D.C. Bar President-Elect
Employment lawyer Diane A. Seltzer was announced this week as the new president-elect of the D.C. Bar.
She beat out Dan Bondi, brother of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, by a nearly 10-to-1 margin amid a record turnout among D.C. Bar voters.
Seltzer said in a statement that the election shows “we have a Bar full of lawyers who care about making sure their leadership reflects their values, which are maintaining the rule of law, being able to practice law without fear of retaliation, and having a leader who is experienced and has the qualifications to be in that position.”
Her reference to “retaliation” appears to be a reference to Dan Bondi, who created concerns that he might mimic a style similar to his sister. She has largely remained silent on President Donald Trump’s revenge against law firms that criticized him.
In addition, the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel has accused Trump allies like former Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark and one-time Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani with ethics violations for their efforts to overturn former President Joe Biden‘s election win in 2020.
Seltzer is taking over a three-year tenure that replaces Shaun Snyder, the current D.C. Bar president and chief executive of the National Association of State Treasurers. She will be tasked with presiding over board meetings and attending committee meetings.
Seltzer has volunteered for the D.C. Bar for more than two decades and spent the past five years on its board of governors.
Seltzer is an American University Washington College of Law graduate who started her own firm, called the Seltzer Law Firm, in 1997. She also was an adjunct law professor at American University from 2003 to 2023.
D.C. Bar members also elected Amanda C. Molina, corporate counsel at Microsoft Corporation, as treasurer-elect.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Blind People Sue D.C.
Over Traffic Signals
A group of blind people are suing the District of Columbia over what they describe as a lack of adequate pedestrian signals to let them know when it is safe to cross streets.
Their lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court alleges a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“While the District has installed visual pedestrian signals at more than 1,600 intersections to ensure the safety of its sighted pedestrians, only a fraction of those intersections have devices with auditory, tactile, and vibrotactile cues—Accessible Pedestrian Signals (“APS”)—to make them accessible to blind pedestrians,” the lawsuit says. “Equally problematic, the modest number of signals equipped with APS are plagued by installation and maintenance issues.”
Accessible Pedestrian Signals refer to signals that use nonvisual cues, such as a soft tone and a raised metallic arrow to indicate the button blind people can push to stop traffic at an intersection. They are notified when it is safe to cross by verbal commands that either say “wait”or by rapid beeps indicating it is safe to walk across the intersection.
Some of the signalized intersections are located near traffic circles or angled intersections, creating even more confusion for blind and low-vision pedestrians, the plaintiffs say.
In addition, “the District programs its pedestrian signals to give all pedestrians less time to cross the street than required by national standards, exacerbating the dangers of crossing intersections for blind pedestrians who need more time to cross streets safely,” the lawsuit says.
A lack of street accessibility devices means blind pedestrians often “wait alone at intersections for several cycles until other pedestrians arrive, start crossing the street only to be pulled back or shouted at by others, or avoid pedestrian travel altogether by paying for transportation or staying home,” the lawsuit says.
The plaintiffs call the extra time they need to travel as pedestrians or money they must pay others for transportation a “blindness tax.”
The five lead plaintiffs are seeking class certification for the approximately 14,000 blind or severely visually impaired people in Washington.
The case is District of Columbia Council of the Blind v. District of Columbia.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.