Pats Vobiscum
@patrickdx.bsky.social
160 followers
150 following
96 posts
Full-time dad, full-time(ish?) lawyer. Nothing I say is advice—unless it’s to go outside and touch grass.
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
![This case, however, is about hate crimes, not hate speech. Violent physical assaults
are “not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First
Amendment.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 484 (1993). And it is well established
that Congress may account for racially discriminatory motives when penalizing criminal
conduct, as it did in the hate crimes laws at issue here. See id. at 487–88 (upholding a law
that imposed enhanced penalties for crimes committed “because of” race). While Hudak
was entitled to possess despicable Nazi symbols, the jury was entitled to consider that fact
when deciding whether he assaulted J.D. and J.S. because of their race, color, and national
origin.
How much meaning to assign the Nazi memorabilia was ultimately a question of
weight, not admissibility. But we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
conclusion that Hudak “opened the door to it[],” regardless of whether it would initially
have been admissible. Birchette, 908 F.3d at 61.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreif46umt23xjedtlfmzzcfoybeh7twc2w2tlge5fc5o24aiuk3gjoe@jpeg)
