Oregon
Lawsuit filed over man killed in Portland protests dismissed
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit filed against the city of Portland, the mayor and the Multnomah County district attorney by the estate of a man who was shot and killed after a pro-Trump car rally.
The suit had alleged that negligence around increasingly violent clashes between competing groups in Portland created an environment that encouraged lawlessness and led to Aaron “Jay” Danielson’s killing.
But U.S. Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You found that the city and the mayor took no specific action that placed Danielson in greater danger on Aug. 29, 2020, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported. She dismissed the lawsuit’s due process and negligence claims.
The judge noted that members of the public have no constitutional right to sue public employees who fail to protect them from harm inflicted by third parties.
A “state-created danger exception” to that rule applies when government employees affirmatively place the plaintiff in a position of danger, but that didn’t happen in this case, the opinion said.
The lawsuit did not allege, for example, that the city government or mayor directed Danielson to the place where he was shot, prevented him from leaving, had any contact with him or were aware of his presence downtown, You wrote.
Michael Reinoehl, a self-described anti-fascist who said he provided security for racial justice protests in Portland, appeared to have targeted Danielson, according to surveillance camera video of the shooting. Reinoehl, 48, fired two gunshots as Danielson was walking downtown after the rally, according to a police affidavit.
Danielson, 39, died from a bullet to the chest, an autopsy found. Danielson had been with friend Chandler Pappas and both were wearing Patriot Prayer hats, signifying their support of the far-right group based in Vancouver, Washington.
Reinoehl was shot and killed days later outside a Washington apartment complex by officers from a multi-agency federal task force who moved in to arrest him on a murder warrant.
Attorney Christopher L. Cauble, representing Danielson’s estate, had argued that the city failed to keep demonstrators and counter demonstrators separated. He also argued that the mayor urged police to avoid engaging with crowds “unless a life safety situation” developed.
The judge found that wasn’t enough to back the lawsuit’s claims.
“At best, those actions may have increased the general risk inherent to anyone in downtown at the time; however, the state-created danger doctrine requires showing that government actors created a particular risk specific to the harmed individual,” You wrote.
The suit also alleged that the city and mayor, by providing only a “skeletal police presence” with directions to officers to stay out of sight and apart from demonstrators, emboldened people to engage in violent behavior.
Yet the judge said such actions were not specific to Danielson but instead “aimed at the public-at-large.”
The lawsuit’s allegations are unlike a case brought in Seattle when that city “abruptly deserted” the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct in the Capitol Hill neighborhood amid civil rights protests in June 2020, the judge noted.
Seattle is accused of encouraging the participants of the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, or CHOP, to wall off the area and “agreed to a ‘no response’ zone within and near CHOP’s borders” — allegations sufficient to support a claim that the city’s actions “foreseeably placed the plaintiffs in a worse position than they would been” without any city intervention, You said in her ruling.
In this suit, the judge also ruled that District Attorney Mike Schmidt’s decision not to prosecute cases that “don’t involve deliberate property damage, theft or threat of force against another person” was protected by prosecutorial immunity.
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon Thursday adopted You’s findings and ordered the suit against the city, the mayor and Schmidt dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled.
Montana
Biden taps law professor to be 9th Circuit judge
MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) — President Joe Biden nominated has nominated a University of Montana law professor to be a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Anthony Johnstone is a former solicitor for the state of Montana who has taught at the University of Montana since 2011. He previously worked at a private firm and clerked for Judge Sidney Thomas, who stepped down last year as chief judge for the 9th Circuit.
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester said in a statement that Johnstone had a track record of applying the law without personal bias.
His nomination must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
The 9th Circuit has 29 judgeships and is one the busiest federal appeals courts in the nation.
It handles thousands of cases annually from federal judicial districts in nine western states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Washington
Court: Meta violated state campaign finance law
SEATTLE (AP) — A judge ruled on Friday that Facebook owner Meta repeatedly and intentionally violated Washington campaign-finance law, and must pay penalties, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office said.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office said the penalties will be determined at a later date and that the court also denied Meta’s effort to invalidate Washington’s law on political ad transparency.
The oral ruling happened during a hearing before King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North, The Seattle Times reported.
In a statement, Ferguson said his office defeated Facebook’s “cynical attempt” to gut Washington’s campaign-finance transparency law.
“On behalf of the people of Washington, I challenge Facebook to accept this decision and do something very simple – follow the law,” Ferguson said.
California-based Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the newspaper.
Washington’s transparency law, passed by voters about 50 years ago, requires ad sellers such as Meta to disclose the names and addresses of those who buy political ads, the target of such ads and the total number of views of each ad. Ad sellers must provide the information to anyone who asks for it.
The social media giant, which also owns Instagram and other social media platforms, has repeatedly objected to the requirements, and argued in a summary judgment motion that Washington’s law “unduly burdens political speech” and is “virtually impossible to comply with.”
The law allows financial penalties of $10,000 per violation, which can be tripled when violations are deemed intentional. The Attorney General’s Office asserts Facebook has committed hundreds of violations since 2018.
