NYC Mayor Adams Signs Executive Order on Antisemitism

On June 8, New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed Executive Order No. 52, Defining Antisemitism (full text), which instructs New York City Agencies to "consider as appropriate, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism ... as well as the 11 contemporary examples." The Forward, reporting on Mayor Adams' action, said in part:

Mayor Eric Adams is getting the jump on his rivals in the November mayoral race by adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism, a key issue in the crowded campaign....

Adams has made combating antisemitism central to his campaign. Elected as a Democrat in 2021, he has since left the party and is running for reelection on an independent line dubbed “End Antisemitism.”...

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, former Controller Scott Stringer and investor Whitney Tilson pledged to adopt the IHRA definition if elected. Others, including Brad Lander, who is Jewish, have argued that the definition would suppress criticism of Israeli policy.

Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and a vocal critic of Israel who identifies as anti-Zionist, has spoken out against the use of measures which he says silence Palestinian voices and their allies. Mamdani is running second behind front-runner Cuomo.

Voting Fraud Alleged in World Zionist Congress Elections

The World Zionist Congress elections continue until May 4. The Congress, with representatives from Jewish communities around the world, allocates funds to various programs and organizations in Israel and elsewhere.  JFeed reports that the Area Election Committee overseeing the election in the United States has launched a fraud investigation into voting irregularities that benefit two of the 21 slates of candidates seeking representation. JFeed explains:

Voting in the World Zionist Congress requires a name, address, email, and a modest fee, safeguards meant to ensure authenticity. Yet the AEC uncovered patterns that defy innocence: half the flagged registrations looped back to 50 email variants, often appended with numbers, while 430 traced to a single K-8 yeshiva in Brooklyn. Six addresses, spanning New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, overlapped suspiciously, and the prepaid cards, all from TransPecos Bank and Pathward, suggested a coordinated financial effort.

“This isn’t mischief by overzealous supporters,” the AEC chairs asserted. “It’s a carefully orchestrated, costly scheme to manufacture votes and defraud the process.”

Ballot Measures to Watch in Tuesday's Elections

Tuesday's elections around the country will feature an unusually large number of ballot measures of particular interest to Religion Clause readers. According to Ballotpedia, there will be eleven proposals on abortion rights:

• Arizona Proposition 139
• Colorado Amendment 79
• Florida Amendment 4
• Maryland Question 1
• Missouri Amendment 3
• Montana CI-128
• Nebraska Initiative 434 and Initiative 439 (competing proposals)
• Nevada Question 6
• New York Proposal 1 (also includes sexual orientation, gender identity and other issues)
• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G

Voters in three states will cast ballots on repeal of now unenforceable bans on same-sex marriage: California, Colorado, Hawaii. The California proposal would also affirmatively guarantee the right to marry.

Colorado proposal would guarantee the right to school choice and parental control of their children's education. A Kentucky proposal would allow state funding for students in non-public schools. A Nebraska referendum asks voters whether to repeal a state law providing for an educational scholarship program for students in non-public schools.

American United's magazine Church & State discusses Tuesday ballot measures relating to church-state separation that will be presented to voters in eleven states.

Missouri Supreme Court: Abortion Rights Issue Must Appear on November Ballot

 The Missouri Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the Missouri's Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment must appear on the November ballot, reversing a decision by a trial court last week. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Ashcroft, (MO Sup. Ct., Sept. 10, 2024) said in part in its Order:

By a majority vote of this Court, the circuit court’s judgment is reversed. Respondent John R. Ashcroft shall certify to local election authorities that Amendment 3 be placed on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot and shall take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot. Opinions to follow. ...

Pursuant to section 116.150.3, the secretary of state must certify a petition as sufficient or insufficient by 5:00 p.m. on the thirteenth Tuesday before the election.  Respondent Ashcroft certified the petition as sufficient prior to that deadline, and any action taken to change that decision weeks after the statutory deadline expired is a nullity and of no effect....

Missouri Independent reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Nebraska Abortion Rights Ballot Proposal

On August 23, the Nebraska Secretary of State certified two competing abortion related petitions for inclusion on the November ballot-- the Protect the Right to Abortion amendment and the Protect Women and Children amendment. On Aug. 30, an anti-abortion proponent filed a petition in the Nebraska Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State to exclude the Protect the Right to Abortion proposal from the ballot. On the same day, the state Supreme Court granted petitioner leave to commence the action and set an extremely rapid hearing schedule. The state must file an answer by today, September 4, and a hearing is set for September 9. The petition (full text) in State of Nebraska ex rel LaGreca v. Evnen, (NE Sup. Ct., filed 8/30/2024) alleges as its only claim that the initiative proposal violates the single subject rule of the Nebraska constitution. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

Churches Challenge Constitutionality of Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment which prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations from supporting or opposing political candidates was challenged this week as being unconstitutional as applied to churches. The complaint (full text) in National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel, (ED TX, filed 8/28/2024) alleges in part:

Churches are placed in a unique and discriminatory status by the IRC. Under § 508(c)(1) of the IRC, churches need not apply to the Internal Revenue Service [“IRS”] to obtain recognition of their 501(c)(3) status. The IRC places them automatically within the ambit of 501(c)(3) and thereby silences their speech, while providing no realistic alternative for operating in any other fashion. Churches have no choice; they are automatically silenced vis-à-vis political candidates.

Hundreds of newspapers are organized under § 501(c)(3), and yet many openly endorse political candidates....

Many 501(c)(3) organizations engage in electoral activities that are open, obvious, and well known, yet the IRS allows some, but not all, such organizations to do so without penalty. Again, Plaintiffs believe that such churches have the constitutional right to engage in such participation; they simply want the same right for themselves. ...

The IRS operates in a manner that disfavors conservative organizations and conservative, religious organizations in its enforcement of § 501(c)(3). This is a denial of both religious freedom and equal protection....

Plaintiffs contend that the Johnson Amendment, as written and as applied by the IRS, violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Void for Vagueness), the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Equal Protection), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Catholic News Agency reports on the lawsuit.

Arkansas Supreme Court Keeps Abortion Rights Measure Off November Ballot

 In Cowles v. Thurston,(AR Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2024), the Arkansas Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that the Secretary of State properly refused to count signatures collected by paid canvassers on petitions to have an abortion rights amendment submitted to the voters in November. Proponents failed to submit paid canvasser training certifications along with the petitions, and there were insufficient signatures collected only by volunteer canvassers. Proponents claimed that an employee in the Secretary of State's Office told them that filing the certifications was unnecessary.

Chief Justice Kemp dissented contending that the Secretary of State should complete counting the signatures and grant a provisional cure period.  Justice Baker, Joined by Justice Hudson dissented contending that proponents later filing of certifications adequately complied with the filing requirements, saying that "nothing in the statute requires that the certification and the petition be filed simultaneously." She said in part:

In my view, the majority has reconfigured the relevant statute in order to cater the initiative process to the preference of the respondent while this process is the first power reserved for the people. In fact, despite the majority’s acknowledgment that “[t]his court cannot rewrite the statute[,]” the majority has done just that multiple times to achieve a particular result.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Arizona Supreme Court Keeps Abortion Initiative on the Ballot

In Arizona Right to Life v. Fontes, (AZ Sup. Ct., Aug. 20, 2024), the Arizona Supreme Court rejected challenges to the ballot description of the Arizona Abortion Access Act that will appear on the November ballot. This keeps the abortion rights initiative on the ballot. Politico reports on the decision.

New Report on Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

The Pew Research Center yesterday published the results of an extensive survey on Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election. The 80-page report (full text) deals with attitudes on various topics, including religious values, sexual orientation and gender identity, and issues of family and reproductive rights. The Report says in part:

Voters who support Joe Biden and Donald Trump have starkly different views of the role religion should play in the U.S. government and politics. 

Across several measures, Trump supporters are much more likely than Biden supporters to favor an expansive government role in support of religion. Biden and Trump supporters differ on government support for religion and the Bible’s influence on the nation’s laws.

At the same time, larger shares of Trump supporters than Biden supporters also say religion – and particularly the Bible – should have influence on government policy....

 A majority of Trump supporters (56%) say religion should be kept separate from government policy, while 43% say government policies should support religious values. By more than six-to one (86% vs. 13%), Biden supporters say religion should be kept separate from government. 

These views differ by race and ethnicity and – especially among Trump supporters – by religious affiliation.

Florida Supreme Court Clears Abortion Rights Proposal for November Ballot

 In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re: Limiting Government Interference with Abortion, (FL Sup. Ct., April 1, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, rejected challenges to placing a proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The proposed amendment provides:

Limiting government interference with abortion.—Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

The court said in part:

We decline to adopt a standard that would effectively vest us with the power to bar an amendment from the ballot because of a supposed ambiguity in the text of the amendment.  We decline to encroach on the prerogative to amend their constitution that the people have reserved to themselves.

Chief Justice Muniz filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Canaday and Couriel concur, saying in part:

... [Q]uestions of justice are appropriately at the heart of the voters’ assessment of a proposed amendment like the one under review.  With its reference to the existence of “inalienable rights” in all persons, our constitution’s Declaration of Rights assumes a pre-constitutional, objective moral reality that demands our respect—indeed, a moral order that government exists to protect.  The proposed amendment would constitutionalize restrictions on the people’s authority to use law to protect an entire class of human beings from private harm.  It would cast into doubt the people’s authority even to enact protections that are prudent, compassionate, and mindful of the complexities involved.  Under our system of government, it is up to the voters—not this Court—to decide whether such a rule is consistent with the deepest commitments of our political community.

Justice Grosshans filed a dissenting opinion in which Justic Sasso concurs. Justice Francis filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sasso filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Grosshans and Francis concur, saying in part:

I agree with the majority that, at a very high level, the voters will understand that this amendment creates a broad right to abortion in Florida.  However, our precedent has consistently required that the summary explain more than the amendment’s general aim.  Indeed, we have said that ballot summaries must explain the “material legal effect,” so that the electorate is advised of the “true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment” and is thereby “adequately informed.” 

The summary here does none of this.

In a separate decision yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's Privacy Clause does not protect abortion rights. (See prior posting.) Orlando Sentinel reports on the two decisions.

Arkansas AG Certifies Abortion Amendment Proposal; Signature Collection May Begin

After rejecting two prior proposals as being unclear or misleading (1 , 2 ) on Tuesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin certified the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment that, if adopted by voters, will liberalize abortion rules in Arkansas.  The ballot proposal describes the changes as follows in part:

... [T]his amendment changes Arkansas law by amending the Arkansas Constitution to provide that the government of the State of Arkansas, its officers, or its political subdivisions shall not prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion services (1) in cases of rape, (2) in cases of incest, (3) in the event of a fatal fetal anomaly, or (4) when, in a physician’s good-faith medical judgment, abortion services are needed to protect a pregnant female’s life or to protect a pregnant female from a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury; to provide that the government of the State of Arkansas, its officers, or its political subdivisions shall not prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion services within 18 weeks of fertilization....

As reported by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Attorney General's approval allows proponents to begin to collect 90,704 signatures needed to get the proposal on the November 2024 ballot.

Montana AG Says Abortion Rights Initiative Cannot Go on Ballot

In a Memorandum dated January 16, Montana's Attorney General has ruled that proponents of an abortion rights amendment to the Montana Constitution may not begin to collect signatures to get the proposal on the ballot because the proposal is legally insufficient. (Full text of AG's ruling.) Montana's Supreme Court in Armstrong v. State (1999) has previously held that the state Constitution's privacy provisions protect the right to pre-viability abortion. The proposed Amendment as summarized by the Secretary of State would explicitly protect that right, would assure the right to abortion even post-viability when necessary to protect the pregnant person's life or health, and would prohibit the state from taking adverse action against patients, healthcare providers or anyone assisting someone in obtaining reproductive care. The Attorney General's Memorandum concludes that the proposed Amendment "logrolls multiple distinct political choices into a single initiative," in violation of the separate-vote provision of the state Constitution. Montana Free Press reporting on the Attorney General's action, says that Amendment proponents plan to challenge the Attorney General's action in court. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Disqualifies Proposed Nevada Reproductive Freedom Amendment From 2024 Ballot

In Washington v. Aguilar, (NV Dist. Ct., Nov. 21, 2023), a Nevada state trial court held that an Initiative Petition proposing a Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment could not be placed on the 2024 ballot. The court held that the initiative proposal violates the single subject rule, contains a misleading description of the Amendment's effect and contains an unfunded mandate.  The court said in part:

This Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling. Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care. Subsection 1 purportedly creates a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” but there is no limiting language in that section to circumscribe that right such that the section embraces a single and articulable subject....

The court found the description of the Amendment misleading because "it fails to mention that the law will bar the State from prosecuting, fining, or regulating any miscarriage or stillbirth"; it fails to mention that a medical provider can order a late term abortion to protect the pregnant person's health.; and it fails to explain that it affects equality and equal protection.

Finally, the court found that the proposed Amendment creates an unfunded mandate because a Panel or Board would need to be created to determine whether a healthcare provider acted within the standard of care.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

New Jersey Will Allow Candidates To File With Secular Alternative To Oath of Allegiance

As previously reported, in early October a suit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court challenging the New Jersey requirement that candidates filing to run for public office sign an Oath of Allegiance that ends with the phrase "so help me God." In response to this lawsuit, on Oct. 24 the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Elections circulated a Memo (full text) to County Clerks stating that now candidates have the option of filing a solemn affirmation or declaration in lieu of an oath, and when that option is chosen, the words "so help me God" are to be omitted. This led the Freedom from Religion Foundation which is counsel for plaintiffs in the October lawsuit to file for voluntary dismissal of the suit.  New Jersey Monitor reports on these developments.

Missouri Appeals Court Finds Secretary of State's Ballot Summary of Abortion Rights Initiatives Unfair

In Fitz-James v. Ashcroft, (MO App., Oct. 31, 2023), a Missouri state appeals court agreed with a trial court that ballot summaries prepared by the Secretary of State for six different abortion rights initiative proposals were insufficient and unfair.  Three of the offending summaries read as follows:

Do you want the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice;

• nullify longstanding Missouri law protecting the right to life, including but not limited to partial-birth abortion;

• allow for laws to be enacted regulating abortion procedures after Fetal Viability, while guaranteeing the right of any woman, including a minor, to end the life of their unborn child at any time; and 

• require the government not to discriminate against persons providing or obtaining an abortion, potentially including tax-payer funding.

The appeals court, with a few modifications, accepted the trial court's rewritten versions of the ballot summaries. For example, the appeals court prescribed the following rewrite for one of the proposals:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;

• remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;

• allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;

• require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and

• allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?

The Secretary of State issued a press release criticizing the decision and saying that he plans to appeal it.  AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Most of Ballot Board's Description of Reproductive Rights Initiative

In State ex. rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct., Sept. 19, 2023), the Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion concurred in fully by Justice Fischer and (with a short opinion) by Donnelly, upheld most of the ballot language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board to describe a Reproductive Freedom initiative that will be on the November ballot.  The Board substituted its description for the proponent's request that the full text of the amendment appear on the ballot. (See prior related posting.) The majority of the Court disapproved only the Ballot Board's substitution of "citizens of the State of Ohio" for the term "State" used in the proposed amendment.  One of the Ballot Board's changes approved by the majority was its substitution of the term "unborn child" for the term "fetus" in the text of the proposed amendment.  The majority said in part:

According to relators, “[o]ne’s judgment about the developmental stage at which the ethical status of ‘unborn child’ attaches has obvious implications for whether and how one believes abortion should be regulated.” Relators argue that the terms “fetus” or “fetal viability,” which appear in the proposed amendment’s text, are scientifically accurate and do not carry the same moral judgment as “unborn child.”

We reject relators’ argument. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific. But this argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.

Justice Stewart and Justice Brunner each filed an opinion finding all of the Ballot Board's language unacceptable. Justice Brunner said in part:

A majority of respondent Ohio Ballot Board’s members ... obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment. And they did this by completely recrafting simple and straightforward amendment language into a version that contains more words than the amendment itself. The evidence in the record makes clear that it was their intent to use their positions on the board to influence the outcome of the election with the ballot language the board certified for the proposed amendment.

Justice Deters, in an opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice DeWine, concluded that they would have upheld all of the Ballot Board's language, saying that it "does not mislead, deceive, or defraud voters."

NBC News reports on the decision.

Reproductive Rights Proponents Sue Ohio Ballot Board Over Ballot Language

On Monday, a suit seeking a writ of mandamus was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by backers of Issue 1, "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety." The suit challenges the Ohio Ballot Board's revised language describing the state constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot in the state. (See prior posting.) Instead of placing the text of the proposed Amendment on ballots, the Ballot Board drafted new language which plaintiffs say misrepresents the proposed amendment. The complaint (full text) in State of Ohio ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct. filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution requires the Ohio Ballot Board to prescribe ballot language for the Amendment that “properly identif[ies] the substance of the proposal to be voted upon” and does not “mislead, deceive, or defraud” voters. The language the Ballot Board adopted at its August 24, 2023, meeting flouts those requirements and aims improperly to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the Amendment. Accordingly, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt the full text of the Amendment as the ballot language. That remedy is appropriate because the Ballot Board’s prescribed language is irreparably flawed. In the alternative, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment, correcting the numerous defects in the existing language....

CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

Now Ohio Ballot Language On Abortion Rights Is The Issue

As reported by the Statehouse News Bureau, proponents of a reproductive rights amendment to the Ohio Constitution which will be voted on in November are considering a lawsuit against the Ohio Ballot Board which rejected the language proponents asked to be used on the ballot that voters will see. The Board replaced proponents' language with language drafted by Ohio's Secretary of State who is an abortion opponent. Proponents' Initiative Petition asked for the full 250-word text of the proposed Amendment to appear on the ballot.  Secretary of State Frank LaRose, saying that this was too long, instead drafted a 203-word Summary which uses the term "unborn child" four times in describing the effect of the proposed Amendment.

Results From Election Day on Ballot Issues of Interest

Here are Tuesday's vote results for the ten ballot issues of interest to those following law and religion developments.  More details and updated information are available at Ballotpedia.

Arkansas Issue 3: Constitutional amendment that would provide "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Losing 49.56%- 50.44% with 97% of precincts reporting.

California Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. Passed 65%- 35%.

Colorado Amendment F: Constitutional amendment to allow operators of charitable gaming activities to be paid and authorize the legislature to determine how long an organization must exist to obtain a charitable gaming license. Defeated 39%- 61%.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2:  Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution to provide that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion. Defeated 48%- 52%.

Michigan Proposal 3: Constitutional amendment to provide a right to reproductive freedom. Passed 57%- 43%

Montana LR-131: Referendum on statute that states infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons, and requires medical care for infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, or attempted abortion. Losing 48%- 52% with 85% of precincts reporting.

Nevada Question 1: Constitutional amendment to prohibit the denial or abridgment of rights on account of an individual's race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin. Winning 57%- 43% with 77% of precincts reporting.

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 4: Amendment to repeal section of the Tennessee Constitution that disqualifies religious ministers from being elected to the state General Assembly. Passed 63%- 37%.

Vermont Proposal 5: Constitution amendment that would protect the right to personal reproductive autonomy and prohibit government infringement unless justified by a compelling state interest. Passed 77%- 23%.

West Virginia Amendment 3: Amendment to remove the state constitution's prohibition on incorporating religious denominations and churches and to authorize the state legislature to pass laws providing for such incorporations. Defeated 45%- 55%.

Student Statement Opposing Reproductive Rights Issue Must Be Read During School Announcements

 In Nielson v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, (ED MI, Nov. 4, 2022), a Michigan federal district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring a public high school to read an announcement from the school's Republican Club in opposition to the Reproductive Rights constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.  The school contended that reading it would violate the Michigan Campaign Finance Act which bars the school from advocating for ballot issues.  However, the school was permitting students who favor the ballot proposal to take part in a walkout sponsored by the National Organization for Women.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim....

The Court finds that Defendants seek to silence Plaintiffs’ appropriate speech as to Proposal 3 by refusing to broadcast it with their morning announcements, while permitting students in favor of Proposal 3 to cut classes, and to demonstrate on school property in favor of Proposal 3.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision (with links to pleadings in the case as well).