Some judges show courts aren’t always shields against excess

Bill Knight column for Thurs., Fri. or Sat., Sept. 6, 7 or 8, 2018

Courts can safeguard against legislative or executive powers and overreach, but judges can’t be relied on, especially when the Trump administration is packing courts at the federal level – from local districts to the Supreme Court.

Sometimes, judges stand up for justice, of course, like the ultimately doomed effort to derail President Trump’s travel ban. In fact, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington on Aug. 24 overturned key parts of three executive orders Trump issued that would have made firing federal workers easier.

Trump’s orders “conflict with congressional intent in a manner that cannot be sustained,” she said.

However, Americans can no more count on judges than they can on lawmakers, who too often put politics above the public interest, whether it’s congressional Republicans reluctant to criticize the president or state lawmakers resorting to “preemption” laws that overrule local ordinances.

For instance, the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals on Aug. 17 blocked Austin’s ordinance requiring private employers to provide paid sick leave to workers, which had been scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.

Among 22 wealthy countries, the United States is the only nation with no guaranteed paid sick-leave policy beyond what’s provided in union contracts. Therefore, states or communities must pass their own laws on the issue, if they think it’s in the public interest.

Amid a legal challenge from a Right-wing business group, Austin’s ordinance requiring employers to provide their employees with paid sick leave was shelved for the moment.

Austin’s city council in February voted to allow workers at most private businesses to accumulate up to 64 hours (eight days) of paid sick leave annually. The ordinance doesn’t seem unreasonable. Small businesses with 15 or fewer employees could have paid sick days up to 48 hours (six work days), and businesses with five or fewer employees wouldn’t be required to offer any paid sick leave until October 2020.

At a Council meeting where more than 200 people came to testify (most supporting the measure), the council approved the law 9-2. But within hours, State Rep. Paul Workman, an Austin Republican, said, “It’s not the role of the government to mandate for employers to do this,” and other Texas’ lawmakers pledged to pass legislation to block such local progressive laws, a preemption like other states have done to disallow ordinances approved by less-conservative local representatives, from laws on ride-sharing and plastic bags to fracking, increasing minimum wages, and becoming “sanctuary cities” where police need not do immigration enforcement more appropriately handled by federal officials.

Austin Councilman Greg Casar, the author of the sick-leave ordinance, said, “The fact of the matter is basic protections for working Texas families are essential to making sure that we have an economy that works for everyone. When all of us do better, all of us do better.”

As for state lawmakers, Casar added, “We’ll just fight them tooth and nail at the legislature.”

Besides opposition from the legislature, the ordinance faces a lawsuit filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, part of the Koch-backed State Policy Network.

Still, the city of Austin stresses that the judges’ ruling is just a temporary delay in implementing the ordinance. Spokesman Andy Tate said the court “has not yet made any ruling on the validity [of paid sick leave].”

The court’s decision came a day after San Antonio became the second Texas city (and the 33rd U.S. municipality) to approve such an ordinance, also by a 9-2 vote. That measure, scheduled to be enacted Jan. 1, built on advocates gathering more than double the required 70,000 signatures to compel the council to act on the issue.

“Unfortunately, we have a state leadership that is determined to interfere with our cities’ ability to do what’s best for their citizens,” Michelle Tremillo, director of the Texas Organizing Project community group told In These Times magazine.

“We have a state leadership that is not at all concerned about improving conditions for working people,” she added.