State Supreme Court: Greenetrack owes $76 million in taxes
The Alabama Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Greenetrack owes $76 million in unpaid taxes and interest in a decision that accused the dog track of using charities as a sham for a profitable electronic gambling operation. Justices sided with the state Department of Revenue, which contended that Greenetrack’s bingo operation was not in compliance with the constitutional amendment authorizing charity bingo games in the county. Thus, they said, bingo receipts were subject to state sales tax and other taxes. A state constitutional amendment allows nonprofit organizations in Greene County to offer bingo games. Greenetrack leased parts of its bingo operation to charities— paying them $4,850 a day— while Greenetrack kept the rest of the profits, justices wrote. “For the low cost of $4,850 a day, Greenetrack was able to use the nonprofit organizations’ licenses as a fig leaf for its own illegal — but extremely profitable — bingo activities,” justices wrote. The decision reversed an earlier ruling by a state tax tribunal and a circuit judge that ruled in favor of Greenetrack. Circuit Judge William E. Hereford ruled in 2021 that a 1975 dog-racing statute exempted Greenetrack from certain taxes, and the state was trying to ignore that by speculating on legislative intent. A lawyer representing Greenetrack did not immediately return an email seeking comment. The ruling came after a more than decade-long fight with the state. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the decision. “Every day, all across our great state, the people of Alabama get up, work hard to make an honorable living, obey the law, and pay their taxes. And then there are the likes of Greenetrack, which scheme to make a dishonorable profit, break the law, and evade their taxes. Such a sordid state of affairs is more than merely unjust — it is hateful to the rule of law,” Marshall said in a statement. Bingo operators and the state attorney general’s office have been in a long-running legal battle over the legality of electronic bingo games. The state has argued the electronic games, which sometimes resemble slot machines, are not what was intended by the laws allowing charity bingo. Operators maintain the games are allowed by local constitutional amendments authorizing bingo, and it doesn’t matter if the game is played on paper or on a machine. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama bond sale for mega prisons falls $200 million short
Alabama officials said Thursday that they will move forward with plans to build two supersize prisons despite a bond sale falling more than $200 million short amid a volatile market and pressure from activists. The Alabama Corrections Institution Finance Authority hoped to sell $725 million in bonds for the construction project but was only able to sell $509 million. The bond issue is a key funding piece for the $1.2 billion construction price tag. State Finance Director Bill Poole told reporters that the state had hoped to “sell a little bit more,” but officials were pleased with the result. He said the outcome would not impact the construction, and the state still anticipated opening the prisons in 2026. He said the state will look at options for the remainder of the money, including seeking additional funding from the Alabama Legislature or conducting another bond issue when conditions are more favorable. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey called the bond sale a “significant and positive step forward in our prison construction process.” “Our job certainly is not done, however, and we will continue to take steps in the coming months and years to ultimately improve Alabama’s criminal justice system,” she said. While state officials blamed the result on a volatile market, a group of activists and impact investors had urged buyers to stay away from the bond offering. “They didn’t just fall short. They fell well, well, well short,” said Eric Glass, an adviser to Justice Capital, an investment fund that joined the call for a boycott. He said the state did face a volatile market, but there is also a recognition among investors that prison construction “is not a good thing to be investing in.” “I think it fell short because this has been a year-plus campaign around, uplifting and centering the idea that building prisons, whether private or public, shows a lack of creativity,” he added. “It shows inhumanity and cruelty, and we need to start thinking broadly and holistically around the things that lead to incarceration and improve those.” Alabama officials are pursuing construction of new prisons to replace aging facilities, calling that a partial solution to the state’s longstanding troubles in corrections. The U.S. Department of Justice has an ongoing lawsuit against the state over prison conditions and has cautioned that new buildings will not solve the problems. Critics of the construction plan argue that the state is ignoring the bigger issues — prison staffing levels and leadership — to focus on buildings. The two prisons would be located in Elmore and Escambia counties and would house up to 4,000 inmates each. The facilities would replace older prisons that would close. Dana Sweeney, a statewide organizer for Alabama Appleseed, said he was surprised to hear the state isn’t changing plans despite being $200 million short of the amount needed. “There are a lot of things that $200 million can be spent on, and I would be very, very interested to hear how lawmakers would react to being asked for hundreds of millions of dollars more,” he said. The Alabama Corrections Institution Finance Authority intends to finalize the bond sale on July 12. The U.S. Department of Justice has sued Alabama over a prison system it says is riddled with prisoner-on-prisoner and guard-on-prisoner violence. The Justice Department noted in an earlier report that dilapidated facilities were a contributing factor to the unconstitutional conditions but wrote “new facilities alone will not resolve” the matter because of problems in culture, management deficiencies, corruption, violence, and other problems. State officials maintain modern facilities will be safer for staff and inmates and help the prison system provide better health and vocational education services. Poole said those services are “very difficult to deliver in dangerous old facilities.” “We need to have safer facilities for the benefit of both the incarcerated population and for staff. It is very difficult to recruit staff to work in dangerous conditions,” Poole said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama cites abortion ruling in transgender medication case
Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths. The case marks one of the first known instances in which a conservative state has tried to apply the abortion ruling to other realms, just as LGBTQ advocates and others were afraid would happen. Critics have expressed fear that the legal reasoning behind the high court ruling could lead to a rollback of decisions involving such matters as gay marriage, birth control, and parental rights. The state is asking a federal appeals court to lift an injunction and let it enforce an Alabama law that would make it a felony to give puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors to help affirm their gender identity. In its historic ruling last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court said terminating a pregnancy is not a fundamental constitutional right because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” In a brief filed Monday, the Alabama attorney general’s office argued similarly that gender transition treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and thus, the state has the authority to ban them. Alabama contends such treatments are dangerous and experimental, a view disputed by medical organizations. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said this is the first case he is aware of in which a state cited the abortion ruling on another issue, but added, “It won’t be the last.” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said in the majority opinion that the abortion ruling should not cast “doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” But Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the same legal reasoning should be used to reconsider high court rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex, and contraceptives. “It is no surprise that Alabama and other extremely conservative states are going to take up that invitation as forcefully as they can,” Minter said. “Justice Thomas’ concurrence was a declaration of war on groups already under attack, and we expect the hostility to be escalated.” In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s so-called Dobbs decision, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in an interview with NewsNation, did not rule out defending a state law against gay sex if the GOP-controlled Legislature were to approve a new one. The previous one was struck down by the high court in 2003. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, Massachusetts lawmakers are looking to increase state protections for gender-affirming care, in addition to abortion, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall was unavailable for comment Thursday, a spokesman said. Jeff Walker, who has a 15-year-old transgender daughter, said this spring that it felt as if Alabama were attacking families like his with legislation targeting transgender kids’ medication and dictating their choice of school bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams. He said the state’s argument in this case is worrisome for everyone. “I think everyone should be concerned by the wording of this appeal. By this logic, any health care the state feels isn’t in line with its morals or beliefs should be banned,” Walker said. The Alabama case could become an early test of where judges stand on the scope of the abortion ruling. The appeals court granted the state’s request for an expedited schedule for submitting briefs, and a decision could come as early as this fall. While Alabama was already appealing the injunction in the transgender medication case, the state quickly incorporated the abortion decision into its filing. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey this spring signed the law making it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to dispense certain medication to minors to help with their gender transition. A federal judge in May issued a preliminary injunction blocking the measure, siding with parents who said the law violates their children’s rights and their own rights to direct their youngsters’ medical care. “What’s interesting about Supreme Court decisions is they tend to have a life of their own,” said Alison Gash, a professor of political science at the University of Oregon. Courts have generally supported the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children, including in cases where families don’t want to get cancer treatments recommended by doctors, Gash said. She said she is expecting to see more arguments like Alabama’s arising out of the Dobbs decision, and they could have a major effect on the right to make medical decisions. “A lot of us feel like the guardrails have completely fallen off, because there is no real predictability about how relevant Dobbs will be to a whole wide range of issues that affect so many different vulnerable communities,” Gash said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Kay Ivey blasts Supreme Court decision to halt “Remain in Mexico” policy
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Biden administration can end the Trump-era immigration policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols. The “Remain in Mexico” policy was at the center of efforts to deter asylum-seekers, forcing some to wait in Mexico. The legal fight in the immigration case was about whether U.S. immigration authorities, with far less detention capacity than needed, had to send people to Mexico or whether they had the discretion under federal law to release asylum-seekers into the United States while they awaited their hearings. The Department of Homeland Security began to implement the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in January 2019. Under MPP, certainnon-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings under section 1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Joe Biden suspended the program on his first day in office in January 2021. Lower courts ordered it reinstated in response to a lawsuit from Republican-led Texas and Missouri. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that an appeals court “erred in holding that the” federal Immigration and Nationality Act “required the Government to continue implementing MPP.” Brett Kavanaugh noted that in general, when there is not enough detention capacity, both releasing asylum-seekers into the United States and sending them back to Mexico “are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes.” Along with Justice Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan all ruled in favor of the Biden administration. Gov. Kay Ivey released a statement regarding the decision, saying that ending the policy only exacerbated the border crisis. “The Biden Administration’s decision to end President Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy is contributing to the full-blown crisis at the Southern Border and is having devastating effects on both U.S. citizens and migrants,”. Ivey stated. “This was reasonable, good policy, and ending this policy only exacerbates the problem, plain and simple. DHS does not have the capacity to detain the massive flow of individuals, and instead of choosing this clearly effective and legal option, they are releasing these people all across the country.” Ivey promised to continue to provide resources to border states. Ivey concluded, “Where the federal government has refused to secure the Southern Border, states like Texas, Alabama, and our neighbors have stepped up to provide resources. We will continue our fight to demand action from our government.”
Gary Palmer applauds SCOTUS decision to limit EPA authority to reduce plant emissions
Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision to limit actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law, The Clean Air Act, can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. Rep. Gary Palmer applauded the decision, arguing that the EPA is abusing its authority. “Today’s Supreme Court decision to rein in the EPA in regard to the agency’s overreach in regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is a long-overdue recognition by the Court that there are limits to the EPA’s authority to legislate through regulation,” Palmer stated. Palmer introduced legislation in 2017 to limit EPA overreach. “Former Rep. John Dingell, the Democrat who helped write the Clean Air Act, stated the EPA was outside of its authority by imposing new rules on greenhouse gas coming from power plants during the Obama Administration. This ruling is consistent with my Stopping EPA Overreach Act I introduced in 2017, which would make it clear the EPA does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and that would reassert the responsibility of Congress to make law.” Palmer concluded, “American families are struggling with inflationary regulatory costs imposed by unelected bureaucrats at the EPA and other federal agencies. Americans didn’t elect the bureaucrats at the EPA to issue inflationary regulations that destroy jobs, increase energy prices and drive up the cost of living. I am grateful for the Supreme Court’s decision reining in the EPA’s overreach.” President Joe Biden called the ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he would “not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.”
Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in, becomes 1st Black woman on Supreme Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court. The 51-year-old Jackson is the court’s 116th justice, and she took the place of the justice she once worked for. Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement was effective at noon. Moments later, joined by her family, Jackson recited the two oaths required of Supreme Court justices, one administered by Breyer and the other by Chief Justice John Roberts. “With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favor, so help me God,” Jackson said in a statement issued by the court. “I am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great Nation. I extend my sincerest thanks to all of my new colleagues for their warm and gracious welcome.” Roberts welcomed Jackson “to the court and our common calling.” The ceremony was streamed live on the court’s website. All the justices except for Neil Gorsuch attended the swearing-in, the court said. There was no immediate explanation for Gorsuch’s absence. Jackson, a federal judge since 2013, is joining three other women — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett. It’s the first time four women will serve together on the nine-member court. Biden nominated Jackson in February, a month after Breyer, 83, announced he would retire at the end of the court’s term, assuming his successor had been confirmed. Breyer’s earlier-than-usual announcement and the condition he attached was a recognition of the Democrats’ tenuous hold on the Senate in an era of hyper-partisanship, especially surrounding federal judgeships. The Senate confirmed Jackson’s nomination in early April, by a 53-47 mostly party-line vote that included support from three Republicans. Jackson had been in a sort of judicial limbo since, remaining a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., but not hearing any cases. Biden elevated her to that court from the district judgeship to which she was appointed by President Barack Obama. Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights for America, an organization that advocates for the growth of Black women’s political power, said the timing of Jackson’s swearing-in was bittersweet. “Although we celebrate her today, one Black woman or a cohort of Black women can’t save this democracy alone. We are a piece of it and we are doing our work, our part. She’s going to forever reshape and shape that court. But she’s just a piece of the work that needs to happen moving forward,” Carr said. Because of Jackson’s appointment, Judith Browne Dianis, a Black lawyer in Washington, said she intends to end her protest against joining the Supreme Court Bar. She started it when Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991. She said that even the series of conservative rulings from the court over the past week cannot take away from the significance of Thursday’s ceremony. “This is a momentous occasion and it’s still a beautiful moment,” said Dianis, executive director of the civil rights group Advancement Project. But, Dianis added, “she’s joining the court at a time when conservatives are holding the line and trying to actually take us back, because they see the progress that’s being made in our country. It’s like the Civil War that never ended. That’s the court that she’s joining.” Jackson will be able to begin work immediately, but the court will have just finished the bulk of its work until the fall, apart from emergency appeals that occasionally arise. That will give her time to settle in and familiarize herself with the roughly two dozen cases the court already has agreed to hear starting in October as well as hundreds of appeals that will pile up over the summer. She helps form the most diverse court in its 232-year history and is the first former public defender to be a justice. The court that Jackson is joining is the most conservative that it has been since the 1930s. She is likely to be on the losing end of important cases, which could include examinations of the role of race in college admissions, congressional redistricting and voting rights that the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will take up next term. Today’s court now is surrounded by fencing, and justices and their families have 24-hour protection by the U.S. Marshals, the result of a law passed days after a man carrying a gun, knife and zip ties was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland house after threatening to kill the justice. The bill was introduced in May shortly after the leak of a draft court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade and sharply curtail abortion rights in roughly half the states. The court issued final opinions earlier Thursday after a momentous and rancorous term that included overturning Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of the right to an abortion. One of Thursday’s decisions limited how the Environmental Protection Agency can use the nation’s main anti-air pollution law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a blow to the fight against climate change. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Jim Zeigler: Independence Day, 246 Years Ago
Many of us Alabamians will enjoy a long Independence Day holiday. Since July 4th is on Monday, it is a three-day weekend. Alabama families will enjoy barbecue, the lake or beach, fireworks, and the gathering of family and friends. 246 years ago, on the first Independence Day (though it was not called that), it was a different scene altogether. A little-known fact of history is that the Declaration of Independence was agreed to by the Continental Congress on July 2. Congress merely recessed and set the official signing for two days later. Shortly afterward, signer John Adams, later the second President, predicted that the nation would commemorate each July 2. He was right about everything except the July 2 date. “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more. You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means. And that posterity will triumph in that days’ transaction, even although we should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.” __John Adams, Massachusetts It was in Philadelphia at the Continental Congress on July 1, 1776. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that their signatures on that document might also be — literally — their own death sentences. They knew that soon the British army would be sailing across the Atlantic to occupy the mostly defenseless colonies. They knew the colonies did not yet have the soldiers or arms or training to stand against the British and send them packing back to England. Yet they put their signatures, and their lives, their families, and their destinies, on the Declaration of Independence. Against all odds, and even against reason, that Declaration told the world that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” Most of the people living in the colonies had had enough of British domination, of working and virtually existing at the pleasure of a king they didn’t know and who obviously considered them less than English citizens. They wanted to be free, to make their own decisions, to govern themselves, and to breathe the sweet air of liberty. The first celebration of American Independence took place in Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress was meeting. The ceremony began with a public reading of the Declaration of Independence. Then, from the tower of the State House, now called Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell rang out. The coat of arms of the king of England was taken down, and there was a parade. Cannons boomed. The people, though aware of what lay ahead, cheered! A new nation sprang to life. That’s what this day is meant to be about. So it began. A more elaborate celebration was held there in 1788 after the new Constitution had been ratified. Then there was a much larger parade, speeches, and a dinner. But between those two celebrations, in 1776 and 1788, there was much horrible fighting, rivers of bloodshed, the deaths and bankruptcies of many of the signers of the Declaration, families torn apart, and businesses and farms destroyed. The freedoms declared by the Declaration — and ushered into fact by the Constitution — were secured at a terrible cost. Soon, across the growing nation, at sunrise on July 4, salutes were fired, and bells were rung. Flags were flown from buildings, from homes, and along the streets. Shop windows were decorated with red, white, and blue. Churches held special services. What’s Independence Day like today? Do most people you know actually take time to purposely celebrate our independence in meaningful ways? Even while we are facing threats from inside and out. What are we fighting for now? Is it anything like what motivated our Revolutionary Army? Are we still one nation under God, with unalienable rights endowed equally to all — among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Surely this long weekend is a time for all of us who still cherish that original dream, the one for which so many have died, to individually and collectively re-declare our independence from tyranny, despotism, taxation without representation, and debts that no free society should ever bear. Independence from enemies within and without. And allegiance to the blood-bought foundation of the government of a Constitutional Republic, by, and for the people . . . people determined to live free. Jim Zeigler has been the State Auditor of Alabama since 2015.
