Tag Archives: Court: 9th Circuit

Inside the Issues: “Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel [Joseph Infranco] and ADF-allied attorney Charles S. LiMandri spoke on Saturday, January 15, 2011 at a rally in support of protecting the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial . . . ‘War heroes have earned the right to be remembered,’ Infranco said. ‘The memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom shouldn’t be dishonored because the ACLU claims several people were merely offended.’”

Life to Death: Our Constitution and How It Grow
44 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 391 (2010)

“[T]he Constitution is a ‘living’ document that primarily guarantees rights and privileges to the inhabitants of contemporary America, rights and privileges that may expand as our nation continues to develop. For those of us who believe in a ‘living’ Constitution, the Constitution itself is much more than a mere historical text to be parsed for its literal, original meaning . . .”

SCOTUSblog: “The Justice Department on Friday asked the Ninth Circuit Court either to put on hold the constitutional case on gays in the U.S. military, or else give it more time to file its written arguments — a plea that would stretch out the briefing schedule another month. The request came in a new filing (found here) after a gay rights advocacy group had opposed any further delay in the appeals court process.”

ChristianNewsWire: “Hundreds maybe thousands of patriotic citizens along with local and national leaders will rally tomorrow 10am PST in San Diego in relentless defense and support of the Mt Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross atop Mt Soledad near La Jolla, Ca . . . ‘It’s tragic that the court chose a twisted and tired interpretation of the First Amendment over the common sense idea that families of fallen American troops should be allowed to honor these heroes as they choose. No one is harmed, constitutionally or otherwise, by the presence of a cross on a memorial. The memorial cross should stand in honor of the sacrifice made by American troops.’ said [Joe Infranco], Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund.”

Speak Up Movement / Church: “So, on one side we have long-standing tradition, Congress and the President, local residents, and veterans. What could possibly be placed on the opposite side of the scale to tip the balance? The answer is a handful of individuals who claim to be ‘offended’ by the sight of the memorial. This is not a misprint or misstatement, and now, if this three judge panel has its way, it will be the law for much of the country.”

WORLD Mag: “The second controversial cross stands in La Jolla, Calif., on land that the federal government took through eminent domain in 2006 after a district court judge ruled that the cross violated the California State Constitution . . . [Joe Infranco], senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), said that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language in Salazar v. Buono makes ADF hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the cross standing.”

ADF President and CEO Alan Sears writing at Inside the Issues: “Paul warned the Christians of Corinth that the cross would always be ‘a stumbling block’ and ‘foolishness’ (1 Corinthians 1:22) to the people around them. He told the Philippians that there were many who act as ‘enemies of the cross of Christ (Philippians 3:18).’ That opposition took a significant new legal hold in a ruling issued January 4th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The court ruled 3-0 that the memorial cross that has stood at Mount Soledad since 1954 violates the U.S. Constitution.”

Pacific Justice Institute: “Prominent atheist Michael Newdow is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ is unconstitutional. Pacific Justice Institute is a co-defendant in the lawsuit, alongside U.S. government officials.”

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Dawson produced circumstantial evidence of retaliatory discharge and sexual orientation hostile work environment, such that resolution of this action by summary judgment was error. We reverse and remand.

Ed Whelan has a five part analysis of Judge Reinhardt’s memorandum opinion explaining his decision not to recuse himself in Prop 8 case. | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

California Catholic Daily: “[Joe Infranco], senior counsel of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, criticized the ruling. ‘It’s tragic that the court chose a twisted and tired interpretation of the First Amendment over the common sense idea that the families of fallen American troops should be allowed to honor these heroes as they choose,’ he said.”

Wendy Kaminer writing in The Atlantic: “[I]t’s not entirely surprising to hear a lawyer for the conservative Christian Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) assert that commemorating a public war memorial with a giant cross is merely a ‘common sense idea.’ He was protesting a 9th Circuit ruling (PDF) that a Latin cross is a sectarian religious symbol, maintained by the state in violation of the First Amendment. Whether the cross is a secular or religious symbol is indeed a question that can be answered with reference to common sense, and the Court answered it correctly, to ADF’s dismay.”

Bruce Walker writing at The New American: “The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Arizona, had been fighting efforts to remove the cross. [Joe Infranco], senior counsel for the group, urged that the cross be left, saying: ‘There memory of those who sacrificed their lives shouldn’t be dishonored because the ACLU finds a small number of people who are merely offended’ . . . Why should cities with such profoundly religious names be allowed to tax people to support them? Maybe that could be the next stage in the taxpayers’ revolt.”

SEO Law Firm: “Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Counsel [Jim Campbell] said of the issue, ‘The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law. Otherwise, the governor and attorney general will succeed in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly.’”

San Francisco Chronicle: “A female jail guard’s strip search of a male inmate was a ‘humiliating event’ that violated his rights, a divided federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday.” | Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, No. 07-16640 (9th Cir. Jan 5, 2011)

ADF attorney Jordan Lorence appeared on the Georgene Rice Show to discuss the issue of standing in the Proposition 8 litigation. | MP3 audio 11:57 mins

Gina Miller writing at Dakota Voice: “‘”Unfortunately, the decision does not surprise me based on the philosophical beliefs and records of the judges on the panel. The decision was more likely than not,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Joe Infranco. ADF filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the American Legion.’”

CNA: “‘It’s tragic that the court chose a twisted and tired interpretation of the First Amendment over the common sense idea that the families of fallen American troops should be allowed to honor these heroes as they choose,’ [ADF attorney Joe Infranco] said.”

OneNewsNow: “The ongoing fight over whether the Bible and other religious texts should be allowed in Idaho’s classrooms is about to go before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals . . . ‘The Supreme Court has ruled several times already that it’s consistent with the Establishment Clause to study the Bible as part of history or literature objectively in public schools,’ the [ADF Attorney David Cortman] notes. ‘So some interesting questions are presented here.’”

Crosswalk religion summaries: “Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel [Joe Infranco] labeled the ruling in Trunk v. City of San Diego a tragedy.”

Michael Foust reports at Baptist Press: “‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it,’ Alliance Defense Fund attorney [Jim Campbell] said.”

Charisma: “Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel [Joe Infranco] says war heroes have earned the right to be remembered. As he sees it, the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom shouldn’t be dishonored because the ACLU finds a small number of people who are merely offended.”

John Culhane, Professor of Law at Widener University, writing at 365Gay.com: “Second, it’s very clear now that the panelists really want to answer the monumental constitutional issue put before them. They have just made it much harder for the Supreme Court to dodge the question on the basis of standing, as would have been likelier had the judges simply ruled – one way or the other – on standing. In that case, the losing side would have appealed that ruling to the high court, which could simply have decided there’s no standing and thereby allowed same-sex marriages in California – but only there – to continue.”

Family Research Council: “Family Research Council (FRC) today called on the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to take up the Mt. Soledad Cross case, Trunk v. San Diego. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Mt. Soledad war memorial is unconstitutional.”

Ginny LaRoe writing in The Recorder (Law.com): “At oral argument, David Boies said state law should have no effect on the court’s Article III standing analysis, but the judges in their per curiam order seemed to disagree . . . [i]f the state justices agree to answer the question — they don’t have to — it could detour the appeal for months.”

Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSblog: “The issue is whether the backers of so-called ‘Proposition 8′ have any right, under state law, to defend the measure’s validity when state officials refused to do so. Only if the state court answers ‘yes’ to that question would the backers of Prop. 8 have a realistic chance of being allowed to pursue the appeal of a federal judge’s ruling striking down the ban. The question sent to the state court, the court said, ‘is dispositive of our very ability to hear this case.’”

The Christian Post: “‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it,’ [ADF Attorney Jim Campbell] said in a statement. ‘The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law.’”

The Christian Post: “The Circuit Court’s three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that the memorial cross at Mt. Soledad violates the U.S. Constitution . . . ‘It’s tragic that the court chose a twisted and tired interpretation of the First Amendment over the common-sense idea that the families of fallen American troops should be allowed to honor these heroes as they choose,’ [ADF Attorney Joe Infranco] expressed in a statement following yesterday’s ruling.”

WorldNetDaily: “Judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today turned over to the California Supreme Court a question that ultimately could determine whether a homosexual judge’s decision to revoke voters’ definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman only stands or falls . . . ‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it,’ said ADF Litigation Counsel Jim Campbell. ‘The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law.’”

WorldNetDaily: “‘Unfortunately, the decision does not surprise me based on the philosophical beliefs and records of the judges on the panel. The decision was more likely than not,’ said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel [Joe Infranco]. ADF filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the American Legion.”

Sacramento Bee: “In a key double ruling, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges on Tuesday rejected Imperial County’s request to defend Proposition 8 in federal court – and asked the California Supreme Court for advice on whether the measure’s private proponents should have that right . . . ‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people’ by refusing to defend it, said Proposition 8 attorney [Jim Campbell] of the religious-rights Alliance Defense Fund.”

California Catholic Daily: “‘With this recent development, the Alliance Defense Fund and the rest of the Protectmarriage.com legal team remain confident that the right of the people of California to protect marriage in their constitution will ultimately be honored,’ said [Jim Campbell].”

Carol J. Williams reports in the Los Angeles Times: “‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it,’ said Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Counsel [Jim Campbell]. ‘The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law. Otherwise, the governor and attorney general will succeed in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly.’”

San Francisco Examiner: “Another lawyer for the sponsors, [Jim Campbell] of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, said, ‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it.’”

Mercury News: “In a procedural order, a federal appeals court on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to tackle whether Proposition 8 backers have a legal right to appeal . . . ‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people,’ said [Jim Campbell], an Alliance Defense Fund attorney.”

SF Appeal: “Another lawyer for the sponsors, [Jim Campbell] of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, said, ‘Politicians should not be able to nullify a democratic act of the people by refusing their duty to defend it. The people of California have the right to be defended, and thus the official proponents of Proposition 8 must have standing to defend that law.’”

Washington Times: “A cross perched atop San Diego’s Mount Soledad for nearly a century is unconstitutional and must be removed, according to a federal court ruling Tuesday . . . ‘War heroes have earned the right to be remembered,’ said ADF senior counsel [Joe Infranco]. ‘The memory of those who sacrificed their lives for freedom shouldn’t be dishonored because the ACLU finds a small number of people who are merely offended.’”

Associated Press: “A war memorial cross in a San Diego public park is unconstitutional because it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a two decade old case . . . ‘It’s tragic that the court chose a twisted and tired interpretation of the First Amendment over the common sense idea that the families of fallen American troops should be allowed to honor these heroes as they choose,’ [ADF Attorney Joe Infranco] said.”

Memorandum regarding motion to disqualify in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10-16696 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010) | Excerpt: “My wife has no tangible interest in this case’s outcome, and I do not believe that my impartiality in this case can reasonably be questioned on the basis of either her public statements or the ACLU/SC’s involvement in any judicial proceedings. For these reasons, I deny Proponents’ motion.”

The Supreme Court’s framework for evaluating monuments on public lands and for resolving Establishment Clause cases under the First Amendment leads us to conclude that the district court erred in declaring the Memorial to be primarily non-sectarian, and granting summary judgment in favor of the government and the Memorial’s supporters.

“In a brief order filed Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to decide if the backers of ballot propositions can step in to defend voter-approved measures in court when state officials refuse to do so.”

SCOTUSblog: “The Obama Administration has asked the Ninth Circuit Court to put on hold, for 90 days or more, its review of the constitutionality of the 1993 federal law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. In a motion filed Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers said the Pentagon needs time to implement the new law that will repeal the ban but not immediately.”

My San Antonio (AP): “‘I have never been aware of any case that includes such a broad-based censorship,’ said [David Cortman], senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘In our opinion, it violates the federal constitutional rights of the teachers and the students.’”

OneNewsNow: “[Jordan Lorence] of Alliance Defense Fund was there for arguments in early December before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ‘It was a very vigorous argument, and I feel that Chuck Cooper and Bob Tyler did an excellent job explaining why this was a rational decision and a constitutional decision by the voters to define marriage as one man and one woman,’ said the senior counsel.”

Idaho Press-Tribune: “Founders of the now-defunct Nampa Classical Academy can take some consolation in the fact that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently refused to kill at least a portion of their lawsuit to use religious texts in schools. On Sept. 1, 2009, the Alliance Defense Fund, a private, conservative group, filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to block enforcement of the Idaho Public Charter School Commission’s ruling that prohibited NCA from using the Bible in classrooms.”

From Research Conclusions to Real Change: Understanding the First Amendment’s (Non)Response to the Negative Effects of Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Games
Renee Newman Knake, 63 SMU L. Rev. 1197 (2010)

“Woodhouse’s proposal offers an appealing perspective for those who support regulation of children’s access to harmful media. The real issue, however, is whether ecogenerism will evolve from academic theory to actual practice. This article tests her theory by revisiting the line of violent video game cases to evaluate whether her ecogenerist perspective can achieve any real change in the courts’ decisions. Particular attention is devoted to challenges presented by First Amendment free speech protections with a primary focus on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Schwarzenegger to invalidate a California statute prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a case that the Supreme Court is poised to soon decide. While some speculate that the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision given the uniform position of other courts on this issue, this article reveals that an ecogenerist perspective demands a reversal by the Court precisely for that reason. Should the Court affirm the Ninth Circuit’s invalidation of the statute, the article concludes by proposing recommendations for future research and regulatory efforts from an ecogenerist perspective.”

Orin Kerr writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “Nineteen judicial nominees have been confirmed in the last week. By my count, those nineteen confirmations include five circuit court confirmations: 1) Mary Murguia for the Ninth Circuit; 2) Scott Matheson Jr. for the Tenth Circuit; 3) Kathleen O’Malley for the Federal Circuit; 4) Raymond Lohier Jr. for the Second Circuit; and 5) Albert Diaz for the Fourth Circuit.”

Video is here.

Associated Press: “Pending lawsuits against the military ban on openly gay troops will remain in place for now, even though Congress has voted to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”

The Volokh Conspiracy: “So the Ninth Circuit holds today in United States v. City of Arcata . . . ‘The cities also raise the Tenth Amendment as a defense, arguing that the ordinances represent a valid exercise of the cities’ general police powers . . . But regulating the federal government’s military recruitment efforts is not a power reserved to the states . . . And the Supreme Court has made clear that the federal government “can determine, without question from any State authority, how the armies shall be raised.”‘”

ADF Attorney Kevin Theriot writing at Speak Up Movement / Church: “This [9th Circuit's] en banc opinion [in Rosas v. The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, No. 09-3500], which has more precedential value than opinions from 3 judge panels, first confirmed the vitality of the ministerial exception to prohibitions on employment discrimination. It explained that ‘[t]he Free Exercise Clause rational for protecting a church’s personnel decisions concerning its ministers is the necessity of allowing the church to choose its representatives using whatever criteria it deems relevant. Indeed, the ministerial relationship lies so close to the heart of the church that it would offend the Free Exercise Clause simply to articulate a religious justification for its personnel decisions.’”

Idaho Press-Tribune: “Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed the lawsuit against the Idaho Public Charter School Commission on behalf of the academy, which was threatened with the revocation of its charter if it used the Bible or any other religious documents or text as part of its curriculum.”

KHQ (AP): “A federal appeals court has ruled that a lawsuit by the defunct Nampa Classical Academy against the state of Idaho can proceed . . . Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, are representing the academy.”

Has President Obama Abandoned His Promises? The Denial of Federal Health Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses of Ninth Circuit Employees
Shannon Shafron Perez, 32 U. La Verne L. Rev. 105 (2010)

“This Comment explores the resulting decisions from Mr. Levenson’s and Ms. Golinski’s challenges and evaluates the potential success of the arguments employed by the parties and judges as tactical steps toward expanding the rights of same-sex married couples. Part I provides background information about the EDR Plan for the Ninth Circuit, DOMA, and FEHB plans. Part II summarizes the Levenson and Golinski decisions by the EDR panels and the current status of Mr. Levenson’s and Ms. Golinski’s claims. Part III analyzes the EDR panel decisions, predicts how these matters will ultimately be resolved, and describes a current partial remedy available for similarly-situated employees.”

Religion Clause: “In an en banc opinion in Alcazar v. Rosas, (9th Cir., Dec. 10, 2010), the full 9th Circuit vacated the portion of the 3-judge panel’s decision that adopted a new definition for who is a minister for purposes of the ‘ministerial exception’ doctrine.”

Michael C. Dorf writing at FindLaw: “[I]n this column I will consider what the oral argument revealed about four issues: (1) Whether there is jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; (2) whether the fact that California’s Proposition 8 took away a right that had been previously recognized is constitutionally significant; (3) what standard of scrutiny applies to state laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and (4) whether a summary decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 controls the outcome of the case.”

Mike Dorf writing at Dorf on Law: “The plaintiffs are arguing on appeal that Judge Walker’s ruling is narrow in scope, binding only on the California Governor, Attorney General, two other state officials, and the County Clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles counties. That may seem odd, given that usually victorious parties want the ruling they have obtained to be binding as broadly as possible. But the fewer people who are bound by the ruling, the fewer people have standing to appeal.”

Chuck Donovan writing at The Heritage Foundation / The Foundry: “As has become clear in other recent cases in federal court involving claims of irrational discrimination involving homosexual persons, the failure of the executive branch to perform its duties to defend duly enacted laws, or identify and support parties who will do so, is crucial not only to just outcomes but to the maintenance of public trust. Judicial activism coupled with executive malfeasance is a formula for national cynicism and fruitless furor.”

ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Stephen Reinhardt presided as head judge for the panel. Judge Reinhardt clearly indicated by his questions and statements that he wants a final ruling that says (1) the proponents (supporters) of Prop 8 have Article III standing to pursue the appeal (meaning that the appeal will not be dismissed because of procedural objections raised by the other side and that (2) Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution because people could enter into same-sex ‘marriages’ for almost 5 months in 2008, but then had those rights ‘stripped away’ by the passage of Prop 8.”

ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco writing at Speak Up Movement / Church: First, the ballot process was started well before the state high court decision redefining marriage . . . the people pursuing the amendment were concerned with the definition of marriage, and not ‘taking away rights’ that did not even exist at the time the effort began . . . How about the ballot summary that supposedly demonstrates the voters’ bad motives? It was changed from its prior neutral description (‘Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment’) to the ‘eliminates right of same sex couples . . .’ language by Attorney General Jerry Brown – yes, the same Jerry Brown who refused to defend Prop 8.”

One News Now: Reinhardt . . . stated he will be able to rule impartially on this appeal. [Jordan] Lorence contends that if Reinhardt actually does that, Prop. 8 may be able to stand in court. “We believe that if he gives a fair reading of the Supreme Court precedent that he will see that he has binding precedent on him as a lower-court judge to affirm Prop. 8,” the ADF attorney remarks, “and that there is no basis in the case law to invalidate Prop. 8 the way that the district court did in this case.”

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund who are part of the ProtectMarriage.com legal defense team will be available for media interviews Monday before and after oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The Order.

“In a motion for disqualification, the supporters of the ban called for recusal of Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt.”

Fox 10 News Phoenix quotes Jeremy Tedesco on a proposed policy for opposite-sex roommates at the University of Arizona. Video is here.

Ginny LaRoe writing at Law.com / The Recorder: “Reinhardt is seen as friendly to gay rights, most recently issuing a published directive granting a federal public defender pay to cover the cost of private insurance because his same-sex partner’s benefits had been denied.”

“I would think it is bad news for opponents of Prop 8 in the long term . . . the word ‘Reinhardt’ is radioactive at 1 First Street.”

ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “The Ninth Circuit today announced the three judges that will hear the case challenging California’s Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman: Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter in 1979; Michael Hawkins, appointed by President Clinton in 1994, and Norman Randy (NR) Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007. The order announcing the panel can be found here. To learn more about this case go here.”

Vikram David Amar writing at FindLaw: “On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral argument in the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 — California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage. While the identity of the three judges to whom the appeal has been assigned won’t be known until a week before the argument, the time is ripe to sketch out at least some of the possible outcomes of the Ninth Circuit proceedings.”

Legal Pad: “Two days ago, the Ninth Circuit revealed its time allotments for oral arguments in the gay-marriage case. Today, Theodore Olson, told the court how he wanted things to go down.”

San Francisco Chronicle (AP): “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal announced Wednesday that it had granted C-Span permission to carry the Dec. 6 proceedings in San Francisco live.”

“The 9th Circuit on Wednesday refused to consider a Christian student group’s claim that a public law school selectively enforces its nondiscrimination policy, saying the group ‘simply failed to raise this issue the first time around.’”

“Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said today that Democrats could move soon to end debate on the nominees. He said that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was lining up support this morning for what’s known as a cloture petition — the necessary paperwork before holding a vote to end debate.”

New York Times: “But to the media conglomerates, athletes, actors, First Amendment advocates and others who have recently weighed in on the case, Keller’s lawsuit is about much more than video games. The outcome of a recent appeal filed by Electronic Arts, their lawyers say, could rewrite the rules that dictate how much ownership public figures have over their images — and the extent to which outside parties, including media and entertainment companies — can profit from them.”

Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc, et al. No. 10-15387 (9th Cir.)

Complaint filed in Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al., No 4:09-cv-01967 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2009)

Law Office of Patricia Kane Williams, LLC: “This summer a divided Ninth Circuit held that World Vision, a noted humanitarian organization, could terminate employees on account of their religious beliefs. Although approved for publication, the case offers little guidance because each member of the three-judge panel provided a different analysis for his or her conclusion . . . As is to be expected for a case raising such hot issues, numerous organizations, such as the U.S. Department of Justice, the Christian Legal Society, Alliance Defense Fund, Association for Christian Schools International, etc., appeared as amici curiae.”