|
|
|
Experts: Marriage ban's path to high court unclear
Legal Network |
2012/02/08 17:43
|
Conservative critics like to point out that the federal appeals court that just declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional has its decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than other judicial circuits, a record that could prove predictive if the high court agrees to review the gay marriage case on appeal.
Yet legal experts seemed to think the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals struck down the voter-approved ban on Tuesday purposefully served up its 2-1 opinion in a narrow way and seasoned it with established holdings so the Supreme Court would be less tempted to bite.
The appeals court not only limited the scope of its decision to California, even though the 9th Circuit also has jurisdiction in eight other western states, but relied on the Supreme Court's own 1996 decision overturning a Colorado measure that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people to argue that the voter-approved Proposition 8 violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
That approach makes it much less likely the high court would find it necessary to step in, as it might have if the 9th Circuit panel had concluded that any state laws or amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal treatment, several analysts said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah high court to hear posthumous benefits case
Legal Network |
2012/02/07 18:09
|
Utah's Supreme Court is deciding whether a sperm donor contract is proof that a man wanted to be a father, even after his death.
The question stems from a dispute between Gayle Burns and the Social Security Administration, which denied survivor benefits to the son Burns conceived after her husband died from cancer.
Oral arguments are set Tuesday in Salt Lake City.
Michael Burns had contracted with medical providers to preserve his sperm before he died of cancer in 2001. Gayle Burns became pregnant in 2003.
Social Security denied a 2005 benefits petition, saying federal law doesn't allow for payments to posthumously-conceived children.
Gayle Burns challenged the ruling in Utah's federal court.
A federal judge asked Utah's Supreme Court to address the issue first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norway mass killer demands medal at court hearing
Legal Network |
2012/02/06 18:03
|
The right-wing extremist who has admitted killing 77 people in the worst peacetime massacre that Norway has ever seen told a court Monday that he deserves a medal of honor for the bloodshed and demanded to be set free.
Anders Behring Breivik smirked as he was led in to the Oslo district court, handcuffed and dressed in a dark suit, for his last scheduled detention hearing before the trial starts in April. He stretched out his arms in what his lawyer Geir Lippestad said was "some kind of right-wing extremist greeting."
Reading from prepared remarks, the 32-year-old Norwegian told the court that the July 22 massacre — carried out with a bomb, a rifle and a handgun — was a strike against "traitors" he said are embracing immigration to promote "an Islamic colonization of Norway."
Like in previous hearings, Breivik admitted to setting off the bomb outside the government headquarters in Oslo and opening fire at a Labor Party youth camp on Utoya island, outside the capital, but denied criminal responsibility and rejected the authority of the court.
About 100 survivors and relatives of victims watched in disbelief, as Breivik asked to be released, and told the judge he should receive a military honor for Norway's most deadly peacetime attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judges skeptical of Texas in redistricting case
Legal Network |
2012/02/01 17:38
|
Three federal judges weighing the legality of Texas' new political maps reacted with skepticism Tuesday when the state's lawyer suggested the intent of the redrawn boundaries was to maximize the influence of Republicans, not to minimize the influence of minorities.
The U.S. Justice Department and a coalition of minority groups contend the legislative and congressional maps the Texas Legislature drew last year recut districts in a way meant to dilute the state's burgeoning minority voting population. They say the maps violate a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires states with a history of racially discriminatory voting practices to get so-called "pre-clearance" from the Justice Department before making electoral changes.
Texas is gaining four congressional seats this year due to population readjustments made in the 2010 census. That has increased the redistricting stakes, with Hispanics and Democrats often clashing with the GOP-controlled Legislature about how the lines should be drawn.
John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, which is seeking to keep the maps in place, said during closing arguments before a Washington federal court panel that the maps were the result of partisan gerrymandering that didn't violate federal law. He argued that "a decision based on partisanship" is not based on race, even if it results in minority voters having less political influence. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
