In Caldwell v. United States and Caldwell v. Barr, the intent and title of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 are the basis of this protection claim against military electronic surveillance.
14 Statute-at-Large Chapter 31 is described as “An Act, to Protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights and furnish the Means of their Vindication;” this is an important distinction. Without the Act’s protection, a person could be rendered (113 years later by a subsequent act, say 50 US Code 1801) an “enemy of the state” or simply an enemy without cause.
Carter Page, in 2016, was surveilled by F.B.I. agent Robert Steele who created a dossier that a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney [similar to Chief Judge of Federal Claims Margaret Sweeney who worked as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)-DOJ attorney from 1999 to 2003] would craft into an application submitted to the FISC. Page’s application was not only approved, it was renewed three times.
It is The Civil Rights Act of 1866 that protected Page’s right to his civil stature. FISC’s FISA approval attempted to strip Page of his citizenship and reassign his status from citizen to “enemy.” An enemy of the United States is subject to electronic surveillance. In Department of Defense and specifically Navy terminology, that means Warfare Support. You become target practice.
Comcast, upon losing both appeals to Byron Allen in the Ninth Circuit of California, contested the use of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 in its later rendition as USC 1983. The company petitioned the Supreme Court in order to apply the “but for” standard to the Act. Now why would the Court do that on the stage of US law?
Upon returning Allen’s defeated case to the Ninth Circuit, Comcast easily and happily handed over multiple contracts to Entertainment Studios. So why did Comcast, The Supreme Court and the Department of Justice all get together to unanimously demolish portions of The Civil Rights Act?
Because The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is the nation’s first civil rights law and it protects the civil rights of all people.
Due to this legal defeat, now only exclusive and proven discrimination warrants application of the Act. So if an employee with perfect attendance, excellent evaluations, and a stellar performance on the job by chance, happens upon a memo from the CEO stating that this is employee is not to be promoted because he is Black, then The Civil Rights Act’s protections can be applied. In other words, “but for” an elusive and exclusive smoking gun of discrimination (a letter from the CEO) and no other mitigating circumstances (tardiness), then and only then does the Act apply.
The Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch did for The Civil Rights Act what Roger Taney and his Court did for Dred Scott; flaw the law. For this desecration both “justices” and their courts are accountable to God.