Politically charged emails sent to entire University I am an undergraduate student at Rutgers University, in New Jersey. Today I received the following email sent to my Rutgers address: Members of the Rutgers Community: We are writing to you in response to the Trump Administration’s announcement today regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented immigrants. The Administration today gave a six-month deadline to the Congress to legislatively enact a program for DACA-eligible immigrants, or the program will end. Obviously, we need to pull together to urge quick action in the House and Senate. Ending the program would be wrong, unwise, and inconsistent with American values. The young people who have applied for DACA protection in the hope of a productive and successful life in this country came forward and provided their personal information to the federal government in good faith. Rescinding this protection, after they have voluntarily identified themselves, is diametrically opposed to any sense of fairness, let alone compassion for their situation. We recognize the stress that this decision is having on our undocumented students and their families, and to these students we want to be very clear in saying that nothing has changed for you in regard to your relationship with Rutgers. You remain a vital and valued part of our community of scholars, and we will continue to do all we can to support your successful completion of a Rutgers degree. Those Rutgers students who are covered by the New Jersey DREAM Act, which has enabled many undocumented students who are longtime residents of our state to attend at in-state tuition rates, will continue to be eligible for this benefit. The university was successful in advocating for a NJ DREAM Act that did not rely on DACA, and it was the right decision. Rutgers will continue to employ admissions policies that do not consider immigration status, and will continue to protect the privacy of all our students. This means the university will not provide student records to anyone unless required by a warrant, subpoena, or court order, and we will continue to offer support and legal guidance to any student who seeks it. Unless Congress acts within six months, undocumented students who had been protected from deportation by DACA for a renewable two-year period will lose that protection and will, at that point, also no longer be eligible to receive a work permit. Even if the ultimate elimination of DACA does not lead to imminent deportation, it would be a very troubling decision that harms good people who have done nothing wrong, and we are determined to do all we can to advocate for action that preserves the protections offered by DACA. The most effective solution to this problem is to enact federal legislation, such as the BRIDGE Act, a bill with broad bipartisan support in Congress, with an amendment that would extend DACA protections until comprehensive immigration reform is enacted. As you may recall, our students’ advocacy efforts earlier this year led to more than 20,000 electronic letters being sent to members of the House and Senate urging enactment of the BRIDGE Act. Now is the time to redouble our efforts. You will be receiving a separate e-mail outlining how members of our community who want to help undocumented students can engage in this effort. In the meantime, let us again assure students that we are committed to supporting all of you as you make your way toward a Rutgers degree, and we wish all of you a rewarding academic year. Sincerely, Robert Barchi, President Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Rutgers University–Newark Deba Dutta, Chancellor, Rutgers University–New Brunswick Phoebe Haddon, Chancellor, Rutgers University–Camden Brian Strom, Chancellor, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences Politically, I feel that it should be illegal for a public university to send out an email like that to its students. But is it actually illegal? (Needless to say, all answers should avoid any discussions of the politics not strictly necessary for a sound legal analysis).
No, absent a state law to the contrary (and I am aware of no such law in this case) it is not illegal. Universities, as institutions, are permitted to express opinions on political issues, especially political issues that are pertinent to their operations. Indeed, they often do so. (Political candidates are arguably a different matter and certainly involve a more complex analysis to determine if the Johnson Amendment applies to a public university, but that isn't at issue in this case.) Governmental entities may not take religious positions, but may take political ones. Generally, even public colleges like Rutgers have this autonomy. Indeed, lobbying is frequently necessary for the survival of a public university - it has no choice but to lobby and a free hand regarding the issues upon which it does lobby.
The second statement is completely independent of the first. This is to certify that X is pursuing a Minor specialization in our department**.**[PERIOD] The courses offered by our department that have been taken by X are as follows:[...] As long as both of these statements are true, it is not deceptive, therefore not fraudulent.
It is probably illegal in all of the jurisdictions in the US where a fetus is legally declared to be a person and where the murder statutes are written to not explicitly exclude abortion: that is, in no jurisdictions. No law existing or proposed for Georgia specifically addresses "travel for the purpose of getting an abortion". The underlying theory behind the claim (advocated by some Georgia attorneys) is that a person may be open to a conspiracy charge for taking a woman to another state to get an abortion, which would be a crime if committed in Georgia. If a conspiracy exists in Georgia to do something illegal (in Georgia), that is a violation of OCGA 16-4-8 ("when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy"). The substantially same law exists in Washington, and most if not all other states. The theory is apparently that "conspire to commit a crime" means something like "conspire to perform an act which would be a crime if performed in in this jurisdiction", e.g. "purchase marijuana, or take a job at certain payday loan companies". No state has successfully claimed extraterritorial jurisdiction, where a Georgia resident can be prosecuted in Georgia for a legal act carried out in another state, so this theory is a bit of a stretch.
From the sound of it, you have stated that you gained access to school data, possibly including private information about other students, professors, schedules, grades, disciplinary information, financial tuition or salary info, etc., that you were not authorized to have. The question of whether it was properly secured is rather beside the point. The school will now need to know the precise scope of your snooping: whether you were able to modify any information (i.e. change grades), what purpose to your snooping, etc.
The most prominent argument that has been advanced surrounding this proposed action can be summarized as follows: There was a bill passed by Congress, in 1965, that authorizes the Secretary of Education to take this action. This theory holds that the executive branch was granted the authority to cancel federal student loan debt as part of the Higher Education Act, duly passed by Congress in 1965 (and encoded as USC 20 §1001 et seq.) Specifically, §1087hh states that: In carrying out the provisions of this part, the Secretary is authorized— to consent to modification, with respect to rate of interest, time of payment of any installment of principal and interest or any portion thereof, or any other provision of any note evidencing a loan which has been made under this part; to enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption; ... Further background on the legal theory under which this authorizes debt cancellation can be found in this memo from the Project on Predatory Student Lending, sent to Sen. Elizabeth Warren during her 2020 presidential campaign. They concluded that via this language, Congress has granted the Secretary [of Education] a more specific and unrestricted authority to create and to cancel or modify debt owed under federal student loan programs in the Higher Education Act (HEA) itself. That provision empowers the Secretary to execute the broad debt cancellation plan you have proposed. It should be noted that this argument is not universally accepted. It should also be noted that it is questionable whether anyone could have standing to challenge this action, so whether or not it is allowable may not be testable in court. And finally, it is not yet clear (at least not to me) what the details of this particular executive action are; I'm not even sure they have been released. It could be that they're based on an entirely different legal theory.
there was absolutely nothing in the letter. You could hold it up to the sunlight and see that it was empty. There is no legal reason to do this. Somebody screwed up. Office workers are not infallible. It happens. I've seen government officials with no grudge against my client do it too now and then. Taken together with the spelling errors in your name it reflects general administrative incompetence and not some nefarious plot. The cautious thing to do would be to call them and tell them that you got a misaddressed letter with nothing inside it. A judge might frown at your conduct if you had some inkling they were trying to communicate with you and did nothing. Save the empty envelope to prove that they didn't send you a security deposit letter as they claimed if there is a dispute or litigation down the road.
The Board of Estimates still gave small boroughs like Staten Island more representatives per voter than large boroughs like Manhattan. Therefore it violated the one man, one vote principal which is evaluated with respect to all representatives having votes in a body, not just those that hold a majority. The analysis is to take all at large seats that don't violate the one man, one vote rule off the table and look at the fairness of the allocation of the remaining seats. This was an easy case, not a hard one, for the U.S. Supreme Court. The leading case are: First, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (holding that malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were not exempt from judicial review under Article IV, Section 4, as the equal protection issue in this case was separate from any political questions). As Wikipedia explains (links to selected full text opinions added): The "one person, one vote" doctrine, which requires electoral districts to be apportioned according to population, thus making each district roughly equal in population, was further cemented in the cases that followed Baker v. Carr, including Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) which concerned state county districts, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) which concerned state legislature districts, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) which concerned U.S. Congressional districts and Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) which concerned local government districts, a decision which was upheld in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989). Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) said states may use total population in drawing districts (as opposed to eligible voters).
if they do admit to to such fraudulent behavior, either in writing or over the phone, what legal action can I take against them? First of all, the intermediary with whom you are dealing will not admit fraud in writing or over the phone. Most likely the intermediary knows where, when, and how to give a candidate or employee directions that are sought to advance the intermediary's fraudulent purposes. The intermediary's practices sound in violation of Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), OCGA 10-1-390 et seq. The Attorney General is in charge of receiving and processing/channeling all complaints pursuant to the FBPA. See 10-1-395(c). Apropos of your mention of scamming and "foreign nationals", you might want to report the intermediary with the USCIS if you reasonably suspect the intermediary's fraudulent practices extend to obtaining visas for its employees. 18 USC § 1546 sanctions the act of "procur[ing] by means of any false claim or statement" any document of authorized stay or employment in the US. You will have standing to sue the intermediary only if it does something unlawful to you. Even if you end up suing the intermediary, there is a chance that your case would be presided by some corrupt judge/narcofelon whose "philosophy" in court consists of favoring "employers and [...] anybody who's powerful". In line with one of the comments, you might also want to consider denouncing the intermediary publicly. When doing so, you need to ensure that you prove or are able to prove the statements of fact you make about the intermediary. In this publication, I made statements of fact that I can readily prove by showing evidence, such as excerpt(s) of a contract with the crooked intermediary as well as excerpts of his deposition. The only reason why I refrained from disclosing other fraudulent practices this intermediary incurred is that neither these were not recorded nor did he reflect them in writing (your evidence need not be in the form of sworn/notarized documents or court filings; records such as emails would be fine). It is comforting that you are not planning on dealing further with that kind of employer. On paper the intermediary might assure you that you retain full control of your resume, yet that will not prevent him from pressing you in ways you could hardly prove later on.