Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

2. They are apparently giving the players the option to not come out on the field for the Anthem.

Reply to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2018, 02:26 PM

May 2018

So they aren't required to "stand for the anthem".

And Rendell-Baker v. Kohn held that the dismissials were allowed...

Respondent school did not act under color of state law when it discharged petitioner employees, and hence petitioners have not stated a claim for relief under 1983. Pp. 837-843.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/457/830.html

And Blum v. Yaretsky held that the action didn't rise to the level of "state actions":

2. Respondents failed to establish "state action" in the nursing homes' decisions to discharge or transfer Medicaid patients to lower levels of care, and thus failed to prove that petitioners have violated rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 457 U. S. 1002-1012.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/991/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The NFL rule requiring players to stand for the National Anthem could be a First Amendment violation [View all] EffieBlack May 2018 OP

Hope they get sued, might teach them not to listen to the fool's self important edicts. Thomas Hurt May 2018 #1

They are apparently giving the players the option to not come out on the field for the Anthem. PoliticAverse May 2018 #2

If you are an attorney, you know your argument is irrelevant to my point. EffieBlack May 2018 #7

Effie -- RandomAccess May 2018 #3

If it weren't for Fox News, people would not be giving a shit about this. Initech May 2018 #4

While the Court has held that there can be circumstances in which private action is treated as state onenote May 2018 #5

The Court holding there was no state action in one case does not mean that state action was not EffieBlack May 2018 #8

Plus they offered an out Bluesaph May 2018 #6

An "out" isn't enough - in fact, it exacerbates the free speech violation EffieBlack May 2018 #9

That is how it used to be before the military started pumping money into the NFL. Caliman73 May 2018 #10

This is another reason the NFL will have difficulty arguing they are not engaging in state action EffieBlack May 2018 #11

Agreed. Hopefully someone will take it up. Caliman73 May 2018 #12

I heard a commentator say that First Amendment lawyers are already looking into this EffieBlack May 2018 #13