Mocking ACL's Lyle Shelton and parodying anti-same sex marriage advertising is about to reach peak viral

Here are the latest in my timeline – enjoy!

Concerned mums.
My @smh cartoon. pic.twitter.com/UfCisZmN6W

— The Cathy Wilcox (@cathywilcox1) August 30, 2017

The Australian Lapsed Catholic Lobby reveals the truth about Marriage Equality— pic.twitter.com/LFtaQB45tB

— Dan Ilić  (@danilic) September 1, 2017

Boo chicken little! pic.twitter.com/TmMboUTWMw

— Geoff Koop (@GeoffKoop) August 22, 2017

Legality of Same-Sex Marriage voluntary postal survey to be decided by High Court of Australia on 5 September 2017

On the question of whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry…..

On 8 August 2017 the Turnbull Government announced it would proceed with a voluntary postal plebiscite if the Senate again refused to pass the Bill for a compulsory attendance plebiscite.

On 9 August the Finance Minister announced that the Australian Bureau of Statistics would conduct a voluntary postal survey of citizens registered to vote.

On 10 August proceedings were commenced in the High Court challenging the minister’s power to expend monies to conduct this survey.

High Court of Australia, August 2017:

Wilkie & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors

Documents*

10/08/2017 Application for an order to show cause

10/08/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)

11/08/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/ link Melbourne)

14/08/2017 Amended Application for an order to show cause

16/08/2017 Appearance (Defendant 4, Submitting)

17/08/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Melbourne & Sydney)

23/08/2017 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)

23/08/2017 Chronology

30/08/2017 Written submissions (Defendants)

01/09/2017 Reply

05/09/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Melbourne)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Related matter:

M106/2017 – Australian Marriage Equality Ltd & Anor v. Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann & Anor

  Documents*

10/08/2017 Writ of summons

10/08/2017 Statement of claim

10/08/2017 Notice of constitutional matter (Plaintiffs)

11/08/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney v/link Melbourne)

14/08/2017 Amended Statement of claim

16/08/2017 Defence (First Defendant)

16/08/2017 Submitting Appearance (Second Defendant)

17/08/2017 Hearing (Single Justice, Brisbane v/link Melbourne & Sydney)

21/08/2017 Special case

23/08/2017 Written submissions (Plaintiffs)

23/08/2017 Chronology

30/08/2017 Written submissions (First Defendant)

01/09/2017 Reply

05/09/2017 Hearing (Full Court, Melbourne)

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only. 

Fate of politicians referred to the High Court over the citizenship saga will not be known until at least mid-October.

It appears that on Day One before the High Court of Australia there is to be no united defence by those sitting politicians defending their election as members of parliament and stories appear to be changing.

ABC News, 24 August 2017:

The fate of politicians referred to the High Court over the citizenship saga will not be known until at least mid-October.

The court held its first hearings on the cases in Brisbane today, and Chief Justice Susan Kiefel has ordered the matter be heard in Canberra on October 10-12.

It is not clear yet how long it could take the court to decide on the case and announce its decision on the five cases currently before it — those of Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, former Nationals Minister Matt Canavan, One Nation's Malcolm Roberts and former Greens senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam.

Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue QC, acting for the Commonwealth, had urged the hearings be scheduled in mid-September to ease any concerns about the validity of decisions made by the 45th Parliament.

In another twist, Mr Joyce's political nemesis, Tony Windsor, has been given permission to join the citizenship challenge in the High Court.

Mr Windsor will argue Mr Joyce has breached the constitution, as he was a dual citizen of New Zealand.

Mr Windsor's lawyers, appearing by videolink from Melbourne, also argued for the right to cross-examine Mr Joyce if they needed it for their case.

Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue QC, acting for the Commonwealth, urged the court to hear the matters by mid-September.

Chief Justice Kiefel said she understood the "unusual circumstances" of the challenges, and the "high level of urgency", given it would have an impact on the current make-up of the Parliament.

However, she raised concerns whether the matters could be dealt with that quickly, particularly when Deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon's cases were awaiting formal referral to the court.

Chief Justice Kiefel asked the solicitor-general whether there was a "real practical difficulty in terms of governance" if the court waited until October to hear the cases, to which Mr Donaghue replied there was not.

Lawyers for Senator Canavan also said the Commonwealth had "underestimated the complexity of their case", given the nature of his Italian citizenship.

They also suggested the highly publicised story he had presented about his mother signing him up for Italian citizenship was "irrelevant", rather arguing that there had been retrospective changes to Italian laws that had led to the strife.

Mr Donaghue said the cases of Senator Canavan, Mr Joyce and Ms Waters were different to those of Senator Roberts and Mr Ludlam.

He argued Senator Canavan, Mr Joyce and Ms Waters had no knowledge they could be considered dual citizens under foreign law.

The solicitor-general but suggested Senator Roberts and Mr Ludlam knew or should have known.

Lawyers for Senator Roberts criticised the initial timing of the full hearings, suggested by the Commonwealth.

They also took issue with the Attorney-General's offer to get the same British QC enlisted to give expert evidence on other citizenship cases to also draft a report about Senator Roberts' status.

The argument was that they should have the chance to brief the legal expert themselves, and have the opportunity to find their own experts if they did not agree. [my highlighting]

The Australian, 24 August 2017:

Barrister Robert Newlinds SC, for India-born Senator Roberts, said his client did not concede to being a citizen of any country other than Australia.

However, Mr Newlinds said Senator Roberts made contact with the British Home Office before the election, but received no response. He then sent another email before the election and “renounced” any foreign citizenship.

However, Senator Roberts did not receive any acknowledgement from the Home Office until after the election, the court has heard, when they sent him a renunciation form to fill out.

He later was told by the Home Office that his renunciation of British citizenship had been accepted – but Mr Newlinds said it was not clear whether that acceptance was in relation to the pre-election email or the post-election form……

Attorney-General George Brandis says the government is “grateful” the High Court agreed to hear all eligibility cases in the one hearing.

Senator Brandis said the hearing, to be held in the first fortnight of October, was scheduled as early as possible, despite the government asking for an earlier date on the 13th and 14th of September.

“We are very grateful that the High Court has listed the matter at the next practicable opportunity, we were pressing the court to hear it even earlier in September but it just wasn’t practicably possible particularly since the matter was going to be set down for three days,” Senator Brandis said.

“By the standard of listing matters in the High Court it is a very swift hearing, it gives all the parties a full opportunity to be ready, to present both written submissions and of course oral argument….. [my highlighting]

Matters for judgment by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns:

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Senator Matthew Canavan

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Mr Scott Ludlam

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Ms Larissa Waters

NOTICE - Reference by the Senate to the Court of Disputed Returns - Senator Malcolm Roberts 

NOTICE - Reference by the House of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns - The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP

Who's Who in Charlottesville "Unite The Right" Rally litigation

Eighteen far right groups and every single person who marched as part of the “Unite The Right” Rally on 11-12 August 2017 is being sued by two female Charlottesville residents injured when a car allegedly driven by a rally participant crashed into the back of their car.

This driver, James Alex Fields Jr., was charged with second degree murder, malicious wounding and hit and run by Charlottesville police on 12 August 2017.

Unite The Right Rally Lawsuit: Tadrint Washington and Micah Washington v James Alex Fields Jr. et al by clarencegirl on Scribd

This may not be the last lawsuit in relation to this violent white supremacist rally.

Why are we still refusing to fully honour the spiritual and cultural relationship that traditional owners have to the land in Australia?

It doesn’t matter to the Turnbull Government that science declares that Aboriginal Australia has existed since time immemorial or that indigenous culture has existed on this continent longer than any other culture which is now part of multicultural Australia -  it stubbornly refuses to genuinely honour the spiritual and cultural relationship that traditional owners have with the land.

Native Title law now tainted by Adani

June 15, 2017

MEDIA RELEASE
14 June 2017

Traditional Owners slam passage of Native Title amendments

Traditional Owners fighting Adani’s proposed coal mine have expressed profound disappointment at the passage of Attorney General Brandis’ amendments to the Native Title Act, stressing that while Mabo’s legacy has been diminished they will continue to fight for their rights.

Senior spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, says, “Adani’s problems with the Wangan and Jagalingou people are not solved this week. The trial to decide the fate of Adani’s supposed deal with the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners is scheduled for the Federal Court in March 2018.

“Our people are the last line of legal defence against this mine and its corrosive impact on our rights, and the destruction of country that would occur.

“Senator Brandis has been disingenuous in prosecuting his argument for these changes to native title laws, while the hands of native title bureaucrats and the mining lobby are all over the outcome.

“This swift overturning of a Federal Court decision, without adequate consultation with Indigenous people, was a significant move, not a mere technical consideration as the Turnbull Government has tried to make out.

“It is appalling and false for George Brandis to pretend that by holding a ‘workshop’ with the CEOs of the native title service bodies, he has the unanimous agreement of Traditional Owners across Australia. No amount of claimed ‘beseeching’ by the head of the Native Title Council, Glen Kelly, can disguise this.

“The public were not properly informed about the bill, and nor were Indigenous people around the country, who were not consulted and did not consent to these changes.

“We draw the line today. We declare our right to our land. There is no surrender. There is no land use agreement. We are the people from that land. We’re the rightful Traditional Owners of Wangan and Jagalingou country, and we are in court to prove that others are usurping our rights”, he said.

Spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, Ms Murrawah Johnson, says, “Whatever else this change does, we know that the Turnbull Government went into overdrive for Adani’s interests.

“Brandis’ intervention in our court case challenging the sham ILUA was about Adani. Most of what Senator Matt Canavan had to say in argueing his ill-informed case for native title changes was about Adani. The Chairman of Senate Committee inquiring into the bill, Senator Ian McFarlane, referring to the native title amendments as “the Adani bill” was about Adani. And the PM telling Chairman Gautam Adani that he’d fix native title was about Adani”.

“We are continuing to fight Adani in court and our grounds are strong. If anyone tells you this is settled because the bill was passed, they are lying”, she said.

Adrian Burragubba says, “The Labor Opposition seems to understand this, even though they supported passage of the bill. Senator Pat Dodson went so far as to say this bill does not provide some kind of green light for the Adani mine, as some suggest.

“Pat Dodson acknowledged that W&J have several legal actions afoot against Adani and we are glad that in the midst of this dismal response to the rights of Indigenous people some MPs, including the Greens who voted against the bill, recognise the serious claim we have to justice.

Mr Dodson said in the Senate that: “most of this litigation will be entirely unaffected by the passage of this bill. In particular, there are very serious allegations of fraud that have been made against Adani regarding the processes under which agreements with the Wangan and Jagalingou people were purportedly reached. And those proceedings, which may impact on the validity of any ILUA, will only commence hearings in March next year. Other legal action is also underway, including a case challenging the validity of the licences issued by the Queensland government.”

This week researchers from the University of Queensland released a report titled ‘Unfinished Business: Adani, the state, and the Indigenous rights struggle of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council‘.

For more information and to arrange interviews:  Anthony Esposito, W&J Council advisor – 0418 152 743.

Australian Government guide to when it is extinguishing our traditional freedoms, rights and privileges

In 2015 Australian Attorney-General and Liberal Senator for Queensland George Brandis thoughtfully provided voters with a guide to assist them with analysing whether federal legislation rides roughshod over traditional rights, freedoms and privileges.

This guide can be found in the Australian Law Reform Commission Report 129, Traditional Rights and Freedoms— Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws:

The Terms of Reference, provided by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, state that laws that encroach on traditional rights, freedoms and privileges should be understood to refer to laws that:

interfere with freedom of speech;

interfere with freedom of religion;

interfere with freedom of association;

interfere with freedom of movement;

interfere with vested property rights;

retrospectively change legal rights and obligations;

create offences with retrospective application;

alter criminal law practices based on the  principle of a fair trial;

reverse or shift the burden of proof;

exclude the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination;

abrogate client legal privilege;

apply strict or absolute liability to all physical elements of a criminal offence;

permit an appeal from an acquittal;

deny procedural fairness to persons affected by the exercise of public power;

inappropriately delegate legislative power to the executive;

authorise the commission of a tort;

disregard common law protection of personal reputation;

give executive immunities a wide application;

restrict access to the courts; and

interfere with any other similar legal right, freedom or privilege

WARNING: Don’t attempt a drinking game with this list as you may succumb to acute alcohol poisoning before reaching the end.

Yindjibarndi People granted exclusive native title over their traditional lands

A short entry by the Federal Court of Australia heralds exclusive native title for the Yindjibarndi People over their traditional lands in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

Original Word Document (1.6 MB)

2017FCA0803-summary

Link to case history

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Warrie (formerly TJ) (on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People) v State of Western Australia [2017] FCA 803

File number:	WAD 6005 of 2003
Judge:	RARES J
Date of judgment:	20 July 2017

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The parties consult and seek to agree and prepare a draft determination of native title for the Court to make under s 225 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to give effect to the reasons for judgment delivered today.

2.    The proceeding be listed for case management on 17 August 2017 at 11.30am.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

In the judgment Justice Rares stated in part:

54    I am satisfied, having considered all of the evidence, that this explanation of spiritual connection reflects both important traditional laws, that the Yindjibarndi acknowledged, and traditional customs, that they observed, at the time of sovereignty and continue to acknowledge and observe today. The explanation neatly captures the essence of the relationship of the Yindjibarndi to their country and their spiritual obligation, embedded in their traditional laws and customs, to protect that country, including from the presence and activities on it of strangers (or manjangu) unless the stranger(s) first obtain(s) permission from Yindjibarndi people.

55    In addition, I am satisfied that, if a stranger were free to enter Yindjibarndi country without permission, under those Yindjibarndi normative laws and customs that have continuously applied over the same time period, he or she could “hurt” the country by violating the Birdarra law, even if unintentionally; for example, by entering a sacred or restricted place, or taking something, such as a resource or animal, from the country. And, those laws and customs thus require the Yindjibarndi to protect their country from a manjangu gaining access to it or its living or inanimate resources without permission of a Yindjibarndi elder.

56    Moreover, I am satisfied by all of the evidence that the Yindjibarndi have continuously (since before sovereignty) acknowledged traditional laws and observed traditional customs relating to the presence, role and power of the spirits of the Marrga and “old people” in and over Yindjibarndi country.

149    I am satisfied that, on the evidence before me, the Yindjibarndi continue to acknowledge their traditional laws and observe their traditional customs that have existed since before sovereignty that a manjangu must seek and obtain permission from an elder before entering on Yindjibarndi country or carrying out activity there (except if the person is simply driving through).

150    Moreover, that conclusion is supported by the evidence of Dr Palmer, which I accept. He concluded that the Yindjibarndi had the right to exclude others who are not Yindjibarndi “and are consequently identified as manjangu”, but he also found that they had abandoned the pre-sovereignty right to put a trespasser to death.

151    Accordingly, I find that the Yindjibarndi have the exclusive right to control access to Yindjibarndi country and, in particular, to the claimed area.

PHOTO: The Yindjibarndi land extends across an inland section of the western Pilbara, including parts of the Millstream National Park. (ABC North West WA: Joseph Dunstan)
The response of that right-wing warrior Andrew Forest of Fortescue Metals was not long in coming.

The Australian, 21 July 2017:

A landmark court decision could set a new template for the way the mining industry approaches ­native title negotiation, after ­Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group lost a long running claim over its Pilbara mining hub.

Fortescue could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in past and future royalties, following the biggest native title ruling to hit an Australian miner for years.

Even so, Fortescue yesterday moved to hose down concerns about the impact of a native title ruling over its Solomon mining hub, noting that it did not expect the ruling to have any “material” financial impact on or inhibit current or ­future operations.

The ruling gives the Yindjibarndi exclusive native title rights over Fortescue’s Solomon mining hub in Western Australia that ­accounts for at least 70 million tonnes of the company’s annual iron ore output.

While the ruling does not prohibit Fortescue from continuing to operate the Solomon mines, it does potentially leave Fortescue exposed to a compensation claim over the hundreds of millions of tonnes of iron ore mined at the project to date as well as possible royalties over future production.

The Guardian, 21 July 2017:

Fortescue Metals Group is likely to appeal against a determination of exclusive native title for Yindjibarndi people over land in the Pilbara which encompasses its Solomon Hub mine.

On Thursday the federal court ruled in favour of the Yindjibarndi traditional owners, awarding exclusive rights and interests over about 2,700 sq km of unclaimed crown land, which encompasses FMG’s $110bn mine.

The company responded on Thursday that it had “no commercial concerns and do not anticipate any material financial impact following the court’s determination,” but on Friday its chief executive suggested it would appeal.

Nev Power told ABC local radio he thought the court’s decision was wrong.

“I think we are likely to appeal,” he said. “It’s a very unusual decision in that the judge has found exclusive native title possession on this land, which we think is unlikely to be the case. So we will be looking at it definitely and considering an appeal.”

Following the decision on Thursday FMG shares dropped 19c to $5.19, and opened at $5.05 on Friday.

Aboriginal Australia seeks more than the symbolic recognition of first peoples status on offer from the Liberal-Nationals Federal Government

“The Australian story began long before the arrival of the First Fleet on 26 January 1788. We Australians all know this. We have always known this.”

Final Report of the Referendum Council, 30 June 2017:

Recommendations

The Council recommends:

1. That a referendum be held to provide in the Australian Constitution for a representative body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament. One of the specific functions of such a body, to be set out in legislation outside the Constitution, should include the function of monitoring the use of the heads of power in section 51 (xxvi) and section 122. The body will recognise the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia.

It will be for the Parliament to consider what further definition is required before the proposal is in a form appropriate to be put to a referendum. In that respect, the Council draws attention to the Guiding Principles that emerged from the National Constitutional Convention at Uluru on 23–26 May 2017 and advises that the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in terms of both process and outcome, will be necessary for the success of a referendum.

In consequence of the First Nations Regional Dialogues, the Council is of the view that the only option for a referendum proposal that accords with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is that which has been described as providing, in the Constitution, for a Voice to Parliament.

In principle, the establishment by the Constitution of a body to be a Voice for First Peoples, with the structure and functions of the body to be defined by Parliament, may be seen as an appropriate form of recognition, of both substantive and symbolic value, of the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australian history and in contemporary Australian society.

The Council recommends this option, understanding that finalizing a proposal will involve further consultation, including steps of the kind envisaged in the Guiding Principles adopted at the Uluru Convention.

The Council further recommends:

2. That an extra-constitutional Declaration of Recognition be enacted by legislation passed by all Australian Parliaments, ideally on the same day, to articulate a symbolic statement of recognition to unify Australians.

A Declaration of Recognition should be developed, containing inspiring and unifying words articulating Australia’s shared history, heritage and aspirations. The Declaration should bring together the three parts of our Australian story: our ancient First Peoples’ heritage and culture, our British institutions, and our multicultural unity. It should be legislated by all Australian Parliaments, on the same day, either in the lead up to or on the same day as the referendum establishing the First Peoples’ Voice to Parliament, as an expression of national unity and reconciliation.

In addition, the Council reports that there are two matters of great importance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, that can be addressed outside the Constitution. The Uluru Statement called for the establishment of a Makarrata Commission with the function of supervising agreement-making and facilitating a process of local and regional truth telling. The Council recognises that this is a legislative initiative for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to pursue with government. The Council is not in a position to make a specific recommendation on this because it does not fall within our terms of reference. However, we draw attention to this proposal and note that various state governments are engaged in agreement-making.

Current Referendum Council members:

Pat Anderson AO

Mark Leibler AC

Megan Davis

Andrew Demetriou

Natasha Stott Despoja AM

Murray Gleeson AC

Tanya Hosch

Kristina Keneally

Jane McAloon

Noel Pearson

Michael Rose AM

Amanda Vanstone

Dalassa Yorkston

Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM

The Australian, 18 July 2017:

Two indigenous Labor MPs have expressed doubts about the Referendum Council’s proposal for indigenous constitutional recognition, saying the councils’ final report, delivered yesterday, does not provide a clear line of sight to constitutional change.

Malcolm Turnbull yesterday cautiously backed what he called “a very big new idea” put forward by the Referendum Council he and Bill Shorten appointed 18 months ago, namely their sole recommendation of a special indigenous advisory body to the parliament.

But WA Labor Senator Pat Dodson said the recommendation had surprised some people, while NSW Labor MP Linda Burney said the sole recommendation was “limiting”, and most Australians would be “shocked” to learn that it has ruled out addressing race powers in the constitution.

Prime Minister Turnbull yesterday promised to consider the Referendum Council’s proposal, but indicated he was cautious about putting it to a national vote.

“We do not want to embark in some sort of exercise of heroic failure. I have some experience in trying to change the constitution and know better than most how hard it is.”

Senator Dodson said he wasn’t sure that progress is being made on the recognition of indigenous Australians.

“Unfortunately I think we’re going in circles a bit at the moment,” he told 7.30.

“I don’t think we’ve got a clear line of sight as to where any constitutional change whether it’s going to take place or not. Certainly on our side of politics we’re open to that. I’m not sure whether the government side is quite open as we are to the proposition.”

UNSW Dean of Law George Williams said a strong process would be needed to convince the Australian electorate that the Referendum Council’s proposal is worth voting for.

The Guardian, 18 July 2017:

These powers, s.51xxvi, were inserted into the constitution as part of the 1967 referendum and give the commonwealth power to make laws for “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.

That allowed for the construction of laws such as native title and Aboriginal heritage laws but it also allowed the federal government to make discriminatory laws.

Burney said while the idea of an Indigenous voice to parliament was huge and important, it was limiting to consider it as the only option.

“I think that is very limiting,” Burney told the ABC. “I think that is more of a minimal approach when ... they don’t want us to address the issues of the race powers and recognition of first peoples in the constitution.

“I think the Australian community would be shocked to think that we are not going to deal with the archaic race powers in the constitution but that is what the Referendum Council is instructing the parliament.”

Burney underlined that it was unclear what the Indigenous voice would do, its structure or how people would be elected. 

She said the Coalition and Labor needed to consider the report. Labor’s Indigenous caucus meets on Wednesday. She warned that any idea needed to be passed in the parliament and the idea of enshrining a national body would be a “challenge for some people”.

Sky News, 20 July 2017:

Indigenous Liberal MP Ken Wyatt has expressed disappointment at the decision to abandon the push for constitutional recognition, saying the timeline for a referendum has now been pushed back to beyond this term of government.

Notes

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51

(xxvi)  the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 122

Government of territories

                   The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

The American Resistance has many faces and tweeters are just some of them (11)

In the matter of KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; REBECCA BUCKWALTER; PHILIP COHEN; HOLLY FIGUEROA; EUGENE GU; BRANDON NEELY; JOSEPH PAPP; and NICHOLAS PAPPAS, Plaintiffs, v DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; SEAN M. SPICER, White House Press Secretary; and DANIEL SCAVINO, White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President, Defendants, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Filed 11 July 2017.

The New York Times, 11 July 2017:

WASHINGTON — A group of Twitter users blocked by President Trump sued him and two top White House aides on Tuesday, arguing that his account amounts to a public forum that he, as a government official, cannot bar people from.

The blocked Twitter users, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, raised cutting-edge issues about how the Constitution applies to the social media era. They say Mr. Trump cannot bar people from engaging with his account because they expressed opinions he did not like, such as mocking or criticizing him.

“The @realDonaldTrump account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another,” the lawsuit said.

By blocking people from reading his tweets, or from viewing and replying to message chains based on them, Mr. Trump is violating their First Amendment rights because they expressed views he did not like, the lawsuit argued.

It offered several theories to back that notion. They included arguments that Mr. Trump was imposing an unconstitutional restriction on the plaintiffs’ ability to participate in a designated public forum, get access to statements the government had otherwise made available to the public and petition the government for “redress of grievances.”

Filed in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit also names Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, and Dan Scavino, Mr. Trump’s director of social media, as defendants. It seeks a declaration that Mr. Trump’s blocking of the plaintiffs was unconstitutional, an injunction requiring him to unblock them and prohibiting him from blocking others for the views they express, and legal fees.

The fight continues in US Court of Appeal against Trump's 'Muslim Travel Ban'

Business Insider, 29 June 2017:

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The state of Hawaii asked a federal judge in Honolulu on Thursday to clarify a US Supreme Court ruling that reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, arguing that the Trump administration had interpreted the court's decision too narrowly.

In a court filing, Hawaii said the US government intended to violate the Supreme Court's instructions by improperly excluding from the United States people who actually have a close family relationship to US persons.

The 90-day ban took effect at 8 p.m. ET along with a 120-day ban on all refugees.

On Monday, the Supreme Court revived parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries, narrowing the scope of lower court rulings that had blocked parts of a March 6 executive order and allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States.

The court agreed to hear arguments during its next term starting in October to decide finally whether the ban is lawful.

The Supreme Court exempted from the ban travelers and refugees with a "bona fide relationship" with a person or entity in the United States. As an example, the court said those with a "close familial relationship" with someone in the United States would be covered.

The Trump administration decided on the basis of its interpretation of the court's language that grandparents, grandchildren and fiancés traveling from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be barred from obtaining visas while the ban was in place.

In its court filing, Hawaii echoed criticism from immigrant and refugee groups that the Trump administration had defined too narrowly who should be exempted.

Hawaii called the refusal to recognize grandparents, fiancés, and other relatives as an acceptable family relationship " a plain violation of the Supreme Court's command."

The State of Hawaii’s  latest motion is Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00050- DKW-KSC EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Motion to clarify President Trump's travel ban by Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Scribd

Around the same time this motion was filed, the Trump administration announced on the US State Department website that it was removing “fiancé” from the list of relationships not considered bona fide:

Upon further review, fiances are now included as close family members.

UPDATE

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is reported in The Guardian to have ruled on 7 July 2017 that it did not have jurisdiction to weigh in on this particular aspect of the matter:

In a statement, Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin said the ruling “makes clear that Judge Watson does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s order, as well as the authority to enjoin against a party’s violation of the Supreme Court’s order placing effective limitations on the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction.”