The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reported yesterday on an odd case of a California prison refusing to deliver a copy of the magazine he works for to an inmate at Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California. Goldberg writes that the magazine received a letter from the prison saying that it refused to deliver the December issue of the magazine to an inmate because of a section in the California Code of Regulations that bars “warefare [sic] or weaponary [sic]” in the items mailed to inmates. (Read the full letter to The Atlantic here.)

The December issue featured photograph of a Pakistani militant on the cover. Here’s a snapshot:

Goldberg sent a letter back to the prison, defending the use of the photograph and the journalistic value of the article. The “photograph has great journalistic merit,” he wrote. “It vividly illustrates the challenges American leaders face in Pakistan and the surrounding region. The photograph and story do not glorify violence in any way. Quite the opposite: We published the article, and the accompanying images, in order to highlight the dangers of violence of South Asia.” When the Atlantic receives a response from the prison, they plan to publish it online.

Parents in Norcross, Georgia blasted school officials at Beaver Ridge Elementary School after teachers gave third graders a math worksheet that used examples of slavery in word problems. Following the uproar, district officials said the school’s principal will work with teachers to come up with more appropriate lessons, but that didn’t go far enough for parents who called for an apology and diversity training for teachers at Beaver Ridge, where a majority of the students are minorities.

Examples on the worksheet included “Each tree had 56 oranges. If 8 slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?” and “If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in 1 week?” Officials said teachers were trying to incorporate history into the math lesson as part of a cross-curricular activity based on a book the students had read about abolitionist Frederick Douglass. “Clearly, they did not do as good of a job as they should have done,” district spokeswoman Sloan Roach told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Roach said the school’s principal, Jose DeJesus, was collecting the assignments so they wouldn’t be circulated. She said the teachers were not intentionally trying to offend the students with the questions.

“It was just a poorly written question,” Roach said.

Under district policy, the worksheet should have been reviewed before being handed out to students, but that process was not followed in this situation. District officials said they would work with math teachers to come up with more appropriate questions. [...]

Parents told Channel 2 Action News, a reporting partner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that they were shocked that the assignment was dispersed to their children.

“It kind of blew me away,” Christopher Braxton, the father of a Beaver Ridge student, told Channel 2. “I was furious. … Something like this shouldn’t be embedded into a kid of the third, fourth, fifth, any grade.”

Braxton told FOX 5 that the questions were “at best, the questions were callous and, at worst, racist.” Roach said the questions would not be used again.

She told the AJC that she was not sure if the teachers and staff at Beaver Ridge Elementary had received diversity training recently. At the school, 62 percent of the students are Hispanic or Latino, 24 percent are black or African-American, and 5 percent are white, with 87 percent of the students qualifying for free or reduced lunch.

The 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals struck down Oklahoma’s ban on Sharia law today, declaring that the Sooner State’s move violated the United States Constitution.

In November 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative to prevent Sharia law from being used in the state, something that even the measure’s defenders could not identify ever happening. (To learn more about what Sharia law actually is, read this brief primer.) Following Oklahoma’s lead, Sharia hysteria soon made its way to other states – including Arizona, Louisiana, and Tennessee – orchestrated by a small group of anti-Muslims misinformation experts we profiled in a report entitled Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.

Before the Oklahoma law could take effect, however, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking the measure while courts considered its constitutionality. The 10th Circuit, which includes one George W. Bush appointee, a Carter appointee, and an Obama appointee, heard oral arguments in September 2011.

Today, the 10th Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower court’s permanent injunction. In a 37-page decision, the three-judge panel agreed that Oklahoma’s Sharia ban violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional. On page 32, the 10th Circuit identified the heart of the matter, that Oklahoma’s move had no basis in reality but simply singled out Muslims for discrimination.

Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma. See Awad, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1308; Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 67-68.

Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm Appellants seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.15 “To sacrifice First Amendment protections for so speculative a gain is not warranted . . . .” Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Co., 412 U.S. 94, 127 (1973).

The 10th Circuit is the highest court to date to strike down an anti-Sharia law. It is not yet clear if Oklahoma will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Today’s decision is a seminal moment in the ongoing battle against Islamophobia. As anti-Muslim individuals continue to push Sharia hysteria in other states, many legislators may think twice before passing a law deemed unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit.

Two such prominent individuals are David Yerushalmi, author of anti-Sharia legislation, and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and leading anti-Muslim advocate. In a July 2011 New York Times article, Gaffney noted that the two wanted to “engender a national debate about the nature of Shariah and the need to protect our Constitution and country from it.” In an ironic twist, today’s ruling ultimately concluded that it was the Constitution which needed protecting from the Islamophobia network.

An undocumented immigrant who came forward to help police solve a high-profile murder is being rewarded for his bravery by being deported.

Police informant Charbel Chehoud finds himself behind bars and may be sent back to Lebanon as early as tomorrow:

Currently being held at the Essex County Jail, Chaoud says federal immigration authorities ignored recommendations by New Jersey police and prosecutors that he be allowed to stay in the United States.

Chaoud, who fears for his life if forced to return to Lebanon, has resisted five previous attempts at deportation. In July 2011 his brother was killed in a suspicious auto-pedestrian accident in Beirut. [...]

According to a recent article in the NY Daily News, the murder of Michael Augulis in 1999 would have gone unsolved if it weren’t for Chehoud’s aid to law enforcement officials. Originally called an accidental drowning in Sandy Hook Bay, Chehoud told police that two men in a fishing boat had thrown Augulis overboard, knowing he couldn’t swim. New Jersey State Police later arrested the two men, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Chehoud’s fiancee, an American citizen from Jersey City, is leading a last-ditch effort to help him remain in the U.S. Her campaign on Change.org has already received over 6,000 signatures.

She points out that if her fiancee were released from detention, they would be free to marry, which would allow Chehoud to apply for legal permanent resident status and remain in the country.

New Jersey police and prosecutors have pleaded Chehoud’s case, telling federal immigration officials that he was so critical to solving the case that he should be allowed to stay, not punished for coming forward.

Undocumented immigrants often avoid reporting crimes against themselves or others precisely because they fear exposing themselves to law enforcement officials. Chehoud’s treatment is likely to solidify that impression and discourage the undocumented from seeking out help when they need it. Local police officials have testified that the deportation program Secure Communities has eroded the trust between them and immigrant communities and jeopardized public safety.

Last year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed an unambiguously unconstitutional bill nullifying a federal law signed by George W. Bush that gradually phases out older and less energy efficient light bulbs. As ThinkProgress has previously explained, state attempts to nullify federal laws run headlong into the Constitution, which provides that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Indeed, as James Madison wrote in 1830, allowing states to simply ignore the laws they don’t want to follow would “speedily put an end to the Union itself.”

Nevertheless, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R) has now decided to emulate Texas’ disdain for the Constitution by introducing a similar light bulb bill of his own:

The Manassas Republican introduced a bill to allow makers of incandescent lightbulbs to set up shop in Virginia after a federal ban on the bulbs went into effect Jan. 1. [...]

But even if the law passes, Virginia is unlikely to attract any new business, since energy companies have invested millions preparing for the bulb ban, said Joe Higbee, spokesman for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, or NEMA, an industry lobbying group based in Rosslyn.

“The traditional incandescent bulb is not being made anymore,” he said. “People are still able to purchase incandescent bulbs; they are more advanced and efficient because manufacturers are looking ahead.”

So Marshall’s bill isn’t just unconstitutional, it is also futile. Sadly, however, that is unlikely to stop Marshall’s effort to thumb his nose at the Constitution. Marshall was the lead sponsor of a similarly unconstitutional bill nullifying part of the Affordable Care Act. He responded to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by calling for a ban on “active homosexuals” in the Virginia National Guard. And he once claimed that children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who had abortions.