Started By
Message

re: Christian Students Sue Smithsonian for Kicking Them Out over Pro-Life Hats

Posted on 2/9/23 at 8:22 am to
Posted by BayouBlitz
Member since Aug 2007
15870 posts
Posted on 2/9/23 at 8:22 am to
The Smithsonian is not an executive branch agency and does not exercise regulatory powers, except over its own buildings and grounds. Thus, courts have held that the Smithsonian is not an agency or authority of the Government as those terms are used in certain laws applicable to executive branch agencies such as the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, the U.S. Attorney General has concluded that the Smithsonian is so "closely connected" to the federal government that it shares the immunity of the United States from state and local regulation. In accordance with this doctrine, local zoning regulations, ABC licensing provisions, sales and use taxes, and real estate taxes are not applicable to the Smithsonian absent a specific federal statute. (There are several instances in which Congress has required federal entities to comply with state and local laws, so questions about the applicability of specific state and local laws to the Smithsonian should be directed to the Office of General Counsel.)

Courts have also held that the Smithsonian enjoys the immunity of the United States from lawsuits, unless such suits are authorized by Congress under specific statutes, such as the Federal Torts Claim Act (torts), the U.S. Copyright Act (copyright infringement), the Tucker Act (contracts), and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).
Posted by Meauxjeaux
98836 posts including my alters
Member since Jun 2005
40493 posts
Posted on 2/9/23 at 9:07 am to
quote:

and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).


Well there you go.
Posted by elposter
Member since Dec 2010
25104 posts
Posted on 2/9/23 at 10:48 am to
quote:

Courts have also held that the Smithsonian enjoys the immunity of the United States from lawsuits, unless such suits are authorized by Congress under specific statutes, such as the Federal Torts Claim Act (torts), the U.S. Copyright Act (copyright infringement), the Tucker Act (contracts), and Title VII the Civil Rights Act (discrimination).


Look up 42 USC 1983 and get back to us, professor.
Posted by Sun God
Member since Jul 2009
44874 posts
Posted on 2/9/23 at 11:19 am to
You don’t think it’s fricked up that kids got kicked out for wearing pro-life hats? You’re that dug in on a fringe issue? God you must be pathetic irl
Posted by Miketheseventh
Member since Dec 2017
5891 posts
Posted on 2/9/23 at 1:47 pm to
If they take federal dollars from us taxpayer’s then they sure as hell ought to be sued. I bet if they thought they were going to loose federal funding they would act right

Edit to include I don’t care if it’s republican or Libtard’s that are treated like this it is absolutely wrong. Although I would have to give hell to someone wearing a pussy hat
This post was edited on 2/9/23 at 1:58 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram