Supreme Court – Sandy Rosenberg

Waiting for the Court

February 26, 2024 | by delsandy | Uncategorized | No Comments

When the Supreme Court issues an opinion that requires a change in Maryland law, I often introduce a bill.

I did so this session after the court’s decision modified the standard for when a verbal threat is a criminal offense, no longer protected by the First Amendment.

Today, the nine justices heard a challenge to a Florida statute that prevents websites from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state and a Texas law that prohibits removing any content based on a user’s viewpoint.

Until the court issues its opinion, most likely in June, the state of the law is in flux.

A provision in my House Bill 333 would regulate the posting of incorrect or misleading information about election procedures, election results, or voting rights in Maryland on major web platforms.

That portion of the bill needs to be set aside until next session, when we will know the legal standard resulting from today’s case.

However, HB 333 also provides for a portal maintained by the State Board of Elections where voters can submit examples of misinformation about the above topics.

This evidence will help us build the case that we need to regulate misinformation, consistent with the state’s ability to do so.

Gun Safety – No Longer Settled Law

June 3, 2022 | by delsandy | Uncategorized | No Comments

We used to have a Handgun Permit Review Board in Maryland.

Starting in 1972, if you wanted to carry, wear, or transport a handgun outside of your home, you sought a permit from the State Police. You could appeal that decision to the Handgun Board.

In most instances, the State Police allowed individuals to carry a gun only when on the job. Over the years, there were few reversals of those holdings, until Governor Hogan’s appointees rejected 83% of those decisions in 2018 for being too restrictive.

The next year, Delegate Atterbeary and I introduced legislation eliminating the Handgun Board.

In its place, administrative law judges now hear appeals from the decisions of the State Police. The full-time job of these judges is to hear appeals from actions taken by state agencies.

However, this structure is in the cross hairs of the Supreme Court. By the end of June, the court is widely expected to rule that a similar New York law violates the Second Amendment.

What should we do if that happens?

We should seek legal advice from Attorney General Brian Frosh. What action, if any, regulating handguns can the Governor take by executive order? When the General Assembly returns in January, what action can the new legislature and the new Governor take?

During his term in office, Governor Hogan has stated that both gun regulation and abortion are matters of settled law.

That is no longer the case.

—

A Celebration of Life for my Mother, Babette Hecht Rosenberg, will be held on Sunday, June 12 at 2:30 at the Har Sinai – Oheb Shalom, 7310 Park Heights Av.

You are welcome to join us.

January 11 – Acting Before the Supreme Court Does

January 11, 2022 | by delsandy | Uncategorized | No Comments

Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore City), the longest-serving current member of the General Assembly, said the level of activity in any legislative session — including in election years — is often dictated by outside forces.

He observed that even though the legislature is expected to take action on abortion rights and gun control legislation this session, pending Supreme Court rulings on abortion and guns, depending on when they’re delivered, could galvanize lawmakers into more aggressive action.

“I think the circumstances are such that a lot of issues will get an airing this year and we may be addressing more than we would normally do in an election year,” Rosenberg said.

(Above is from article in MarylandMatters.org)

It’s not until June that the Supreme Court usually issues its opinions in the most important and controversial cases.

Our 90-day legislative session in Annapolis ends on April 11.

Consequently, our bill drafting on abortion and guns has to anticipate what action we should require after we adjourn.

This year, those decisions will also have an effect on the state-wide elections.

Maryland General Assembly Set to Convene in Another Session Shaped by COVID

A First Time on a First Amendment Case

January 28, 2021 | by delsandy | Uncategorized | No Comments

I was prepared for today’s hearing, or so I thought.

The Consent of the Governed Act would severely limit the Governor’s power to act in an emergency.

I prepared a question for the bill’s sponsor, Delegate Cox, that compared his legislation to a recent Supreme Court case.

The court held that a New York regulation limiting the number of people who could attend a religious service violated the 1st Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion.

There are “less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services,” the court held.

“As I read your bill,” I asked Delegate Cox, “it would not allow for the limitations on attendance at services that the court would permit.”

The delegate said I was misreading his bill.

That was mild, compared to what happened next.

Delegate Saab requested that someone’s written testimony be removed from the official record because it did not speak to the issues raised by the bill.

In my 30+ years as a legislator, I don’t recall anyone else making such a request.

As fate, and my chairman’s discretion, would have it, I was chairing today’s hearing.

I had to respond to this unique request.

“This testimony is exercising an individual’s First Amendment right to petition the government,” I replied “I suggest that you ask the Attorney General’s Office if your request is permissible.”

Same thing for Supreme Court decisions

May 21, 2013 | by delsandy | featured, Sandy's 2013 Legislative Diary | No Comments

Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote that in the majority opinion in Brady v. Maryland, where the Supreme Court held that the government cannot withhold evidence favorable to an accused, upon request, where the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.

As a legislator, I know that enacting a bill isn’t the end of the process. You have to make sure it’s correctly implemented.

Same thing for Supreme Court decisions, according to an editorial in Sunday’s New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinion/sunday/beyond-the-brady-rule.html

Prosecutors don’t always inform a defendant’s lawyer of evidence that could be favorable to the accused. The Brady rule has been limited by subsequent rulings of the court, and there is virtually no punishment for prosecutors who flout the rule.

A North Carolina statute requires prosecutors in felony cases, before trial, to make available to the defense “the complete files of all law enforcement agencies, investigatory agencies and prosecutors’ offices involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant.”

Yesterday, I asked the lobbyist for the Office of the Public Defender if he was interested in pursuing a similar law in Marylam was interested in pursuing a similar law Maryland.

“We would be very interested in discussing this,” he responded.

We’re meeting next week. Other lawyers will be joining us.

One of them is Clint Bamberger, my lead paint and legal adviser and mentor.

He represented John Brady before the Supreme Court fifty years ago this month.

Counting, on the bench and in the House

March 28, 2012 | by delsandy | Sandy's 2012 Legislative Diary, Uncategorized | No Comments

At the Supreme Court today, much of the discussion dealt with what I do for a living.

The legal question was this: If the Court finds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, what is the effect on the other provisions of the health care law?

Are all of the other parts of the law nullified? Some? None?

Phrased another way, should the judiciary revise the legislation or should the Congress, which wrote it in the first place?

None of the justices has ever run for office or had to count to a number higher than five to reach a majority.

The late Justice William Brennan reportedly said that counting to five is the most important principle of constitutional law because five votes constitute a majority on the Supreme Court.

Several of the Justices spoke today of their need for a test, an objective standard that would apply to similar cases in the future. (They also made clear their less than favorable view of the legislative process, as today’s transcript demonstrates.)

In Annapolis, our guiding principles are our assessment of sound public policy and how to address the ideological and political needs of 71 members, a majority of the House of Delegates.

My Key Issues:

Tag: Supreme Court