9th Circuit to consider AZ repeal of domestic partner benefits for state employees

ObamaCare and the Bench – Why Federal Judges Matter More Now than Ever

Where Judicial Activism Morphs into Disregard

Supreme Court reversals deliver a dressing-down to the liberal 9th Circuit

9th Circuit refuses to delay DADT case

9th Circuit reinstates city’s adult bookstore ordinance

Prop. 8 opponents ask California high court to reject federal court’s request for ruling

Amended opinion issued, en banc review denied, in World Vision case

Supreme Court’s Reinhardt-watch continues

9th Circuit: Ignorance of religious doctrine does not support adverse credibility finding in asylum application

Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt Feels High Court’s Wrath

Video: Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial rally

Judge Stephen Reinhardt: Our Constitution and How It Grows

New plea on DADT case timing

Mega rally/protest Saturday in defense of Mt Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross, San Diego

Sense or sensitivity: Which will tip the balance in Mt. Soledad memorial cross case?

WORLD: Crossed up

Alan Sears: Mount Soledad decision underscores threat to U.S. war memorials

Atheist asks Supreme Court to strike down “In God We Trust”

9th Circuit reinstates workplace sexual orientation discrimination claims

Ed Whelan on Judge Reinhardt’s non-recusal in Prop. 8 case

“Why tear down a symbol of Christianity?”

Wendy Kaminer: “Let them eat chocolate,” but no crosses

Will the 9th Circuit demand San Diego change its name too?

“Appellate court looks to state for guidance on California gay marriage ban”

9th Circuit: Cross-sex jail strip searches ruled unconstitutional

Leftist judges declare Soledad cross “unconstitutional”

Mt. Soledad memorial cross is prohibited endorsement of religion, federal court says

9th Circuit to weigh in on “objective study of the Bible”

Fed. court punts Prop 8 case to Calif. court

Christians decry San Diego court’s ruling on memorial cross

John Culhane: Analysis of [yesterday's] Prop 8 ruling

    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.”


  • Posted: 01/05/2011
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family

  • Tags: , , , ,

FRC calls Mt. Soledad cross ruling an affront to religious liberty, American tradition

The Recorder: Prop 8 standing now in California Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog: Right-to-appeal issue looms in Prop 8 case

Appeals court turns to state for advice in Prop 8 case

Calif. war memorial cross unconstitutional, court rules

Federal court questions guv’s refusal to defend voters

U.S. court says Christian cross is unconstitutional

Court dumps Imperial County from Prop 8 case

What next for Prop 8?

Panel asks California high court for guidance on “gay-marriage” ban

Prop. 8 detour to state court could delay case or result in dismissal of appeal

Same-sex “marriage” issue to return to California Supreme Court

Federal appeals court sends Prop 8 case on detour to state Supreme Court

San Diego memorial cross ruled to be unconstitutional

Judges rule cross at Calif. park unconstitutional

Judge Reinhardt’s memorandum opinion explaining his decision not to recuse himself in Prop 8 case

9th Circuit: Mt. Soledad war memorial cross is unconstitutional

9th Circuit seeks guidance from Cal. Supreme Court in Prop 8 marriage case

Delay sought in DADT repeal litigation

Former Idaho charter school poised for Bible fight

Following hearing, Prop. 8 verdict a mystery

Idaho Press-Tribune: Let’s get resolution on NCA Bible suit

Law Review: Understanding the First Amendment’s (Non)Response to the Negative Effects of Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Games

    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.”


  • Posted: 12/29/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family

  • Tags: , , , ,

Nineteen judicial nominees confirmed in the last week

DADT lawsuits to remain active

9th Circuit: Cities may not ban federal military recruitment targeting minors

Kevin Theriot: Court affirms churches’ right to select pastor without gov’t interference

NCA Bible lawsuit continues in court

9th Circuit allows Nampa Classical Academy Bible lawsuit

Law Review: Has President Obama Abandoned His Promises? The Denial of Federal Health Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses of Ninth Circuit Employees

    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.”


  • Posted: 12/15/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family

  • Tags: , , , ,

En Banc 9th Circuit refuses to create test for who is covered by the ministerial exception

Michael Dorf: Viewer’s guide to the oral argument in the Prop 8 case

Mike Dorf: Perry v. Schwarzenegger v. Bush v. Gore

Heritage Foundation: Perry on appeal

Jordan Lorence: Eyewitness reactions from the Prop 8 oral arguments

Joe Infranco: “Taking away rights” argument holds no water in Prop 8 case

One News Now: Prop. 8 – all eyes on Ninth Circuit panel

Will 9th Circuit rule to protect marriage?

Prop. 8: Circuit Judge Reinhardt challenged