Tag Archives: Court: 9th Circuit

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.”

Religion Clause: “On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro. An audio recording of the oral arguments is available from the court’s website.”

ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “[A]udio recording of an ADF attorney arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 1, 2010 in Pasadena, California. This was the first appellate court to hear a case on the right of campus religious groups to select their own members and officers since the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision last June in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.”

“I haven’t yet read through the reply brief, but am pleased to post substantial excerpts from its excellent introduction . . . ”

Washington Post: “[Judge John T. Noonan Jr.] took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument . . .  ’I've read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument,’ Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. ‘We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.’”

Oral arguments can be viewed on YouTube.

Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSblog: “A federal appeals court in California voted to allow the U.S. military to continue enforcing the 1993 law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. One judge of the three-judge panel would have stopped any discharges under that policy, but otherwise would have allowed it to remain in effect.” | Order, Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S. (Nov. 01, 2010)

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the U.S. government’s request for a stay while it challenges the trial court’s ruling that the ban on openly gay service members is unconstitutional.

Arizona Republic: “In an hour-long hearing Monday, three federal judges peppered lawyers on both sides of Senate Bill 1070 with testy rapid-fire legal questions as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began considering whether to keep portions of Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect.”

Arizona Daily Star: “Three federal judges will hear arguments today by attorneys for the governor on why Arizona should be allowed to start enforcing SB 1070 . . . Technically speaking today’s hearing . . . concerns whether U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton acted properly in enjoining the state from enforcing several sections while the case makes its way through the legal system . . . But the panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will need to reach at least a preliminary decision on arguments by the Obama administration that Arizona acted illegally in usurping power reserved for the federal government.” | News round-up from How Appealing.

Andy McCarthy writing at National Review Online: “The decision in the case, Gonzalez v. Arizona, was not actually rendered by Ninth Circuit judges, only one of whom agreed with it . . . the deciding vote was cast by the supposedly retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor claims the power to sit by designation on cases in the federal appellate and district courts, despite the fact that she is now an overt political activist . . . The 62-page majority opinion is about as willful as it gets.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “In a friend-of-the court brief, Americans United advised the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that opposition to marriage equality for gay couples reflects the same baseless and inappropriate considerations that once were used to deny marriage rights to slaves and interracial couples.”

The Recorder (Law.com): “With the judges split into unusual voting blocs, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued an 8-3 ruling (pdf) in an Establishment Clause case that is thought to be prime for Supreme Court review . . . But in what’s seen as a possibly more important outcome of the case, a separate majority said the plaintiffs had standing to sue.”

“. . . the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, en banc, dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Catholic League and two individual Catholics challenging on Establishment Clause grounds a resolution passed by the San Francisco (CA) Board of Supervisors . . . ”

SCOTUSblog: “A hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 — a state constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage — has been set for 10 a.m. (Pacific time) on Monday, Dec. 6, the Court announced Thursday.”

“In court documents filed in San Francisco, California, the administration asked that the status quo prevail with the policy known as ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

Lyle Denniston writing at SCOTUSblog: “Supporters of same-sex marriage have urged a federal appeals court to end the constitutional fight over ‘Proposition 8′ by ruling that no one still in the case has any right to pursue an appeal. In a lengthy new brief (found here) filed Monday, the same-sex couples also sought a ruling that a federal judge had authority to strike down Proposition 8, and to do so throughout California. The city and county of San Francisco also filed a new brief against Proposition 8 (found here). In addition, the same-sex couples filed a brief opposing a separate appeal by officials of California’s Imperial County; that document is here.”

International Business Times: “Judge Virginia Phillips of California’s federal court rejected the U.S. government’s request to stay her injunction, Monday, a move which is likely to prompt the government to turn to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court to overturn her ruling.”

“Justice Department lawyers wrote they will take their emergency request for a stay to the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals if the judge denies it.”

“A federal appeals court upheld Washington state’s campaign-disclosure laws Tuesday, saying the requirements don’t violate the First Amendment rights of a group that didn’t want to reveal its donors in a 2008 opposition campaign to an assisted-suicide ballot measure.”

Edward Whelan has posted the Ethics and Public Policy Center amicus brief in Prop. 8 appeal online here.

Bruce Hausknecht writing at CitizenLink: “I want to highlight an interesting friend-of-the-court brief [in Perry v. Schwarzenegger] filed by the Becket Fund, a non-profit law firm that specializes in the protection of religious rights . . . Well, says the Becket Fund, there is at least one rational basis for Prop 8 that no one has focused on (including Judge Walker): there is a popular as well as scholarly consensus (based on actual experience in several states) that same-sex marriage negatively affects religious liberties.”

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney [Jim Campbell] tells OneNewsNow 25 briefs were filed. ‘This is a very broad coalition, a very diverse show of support for the people of California and for people all throughout this country who continue to believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman,’ Campbell suggests.”

Bruce Hausknecht writing at CitizenLink:  ”That’s why it is interesting to see a Prop 8 friend-of-the-court brief filed in the 9th Circuit appeal of Walker’s Prop 8 decision by several civil rights organizations, specifically on the topic of Loving v. Virginia. Their main point? That Loving was about eugenics and racism, and Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws only used marriage as a tool . . . ”

How Appealing Extra by Lawrence Hurley originally published at the Daily Journal: “Of 54 cases the court has agreed to hear so far, 18 are 9th Circuit rulings. The justices will also be reviewing one California Court of Appeal opinion in a product liability case and a direct appeal from the three-judge district court panel that has ordered the state to release thousands of prison inmates.”

Associated Press: “Mexico and 10 other Latin American countries want a federal appeals court to consider their viewpoints in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s appeal of a ruling that put parts of her state’s new immigration law on hold.”

Kenneth Anderson writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “Congratulations to Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the 9th Circuit, who has been named chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on International Judicial Relations by Chief Justice Roberts.”

Courthouse News Service: “The 9th Circuit tossed a lawsuit challenging Alaska’s practice of appointing only attorneys as state judges through a merit-selection process in which attorneys play a significant role.” Kirk v. Carpeneti, No. 09-35860 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010)

ADF Attorney David Hacker writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Last night, the ADF Center for Academic Freedom filed a Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jonathan Lopez’s case against the Los Angeles Community College District. (The ADF press release is here.) On September 17, 2010, a panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Mr. Lopez did not have legal standing to challenge LACCD’s speech code, even though a professor, administrator and two students threatened Lopez with punishment under the code.”

CBS 4: “Wyoming joined in a legal brief opposing gay marriage in California because it has an interest in defending its own state law defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, Wyoming’s attorney general said Wednesday.”

MercatorNet / Sheila Reports: “[Californians] who want their constitutionally expressed will to be legally established have tolerated the repeated necessity of fighting for it in court . . . The breadth of support for the marriage amendment is showing . . . ‘What’s at stake in this case is bigger than California and bigger even than marriage,’ said ADF Senior Counsel [Brian Raum].”

Catholic News Agency: “While the case would directly affect the 61 million Americans under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, ADF senior council [Brian Raum] said what is at stake is ‘bigger than California and bigger even than marriage.’ ‘These briefs demonstrate the wide-ranging concerns about marriage, voter rights, judicial activism, religious liberty, and other issues and how they will be affected nationwide if this lawsuit is allowed to prevail,’ he commented. ‘A diverse number of Americans understand that this lawsuit seeks to impose — through a San Francisco court — an agenda that America has repeatedly rejected.’”

ADF’s Weekly Update is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l-tD8G2g4E

Pacific Justice Institute: “The Pacific Justice Institute [filed an amicus brief] Friday afternoon with the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Prop. 8.”

California Catholic Daily: “‘What’s at stake in this case is bigger than California and bigger even than marriage,’ said ADF senior counsel [Brian Raum]. ‘These briefs demonstrate the wide-ranging concerns about marriage, voter rights, judicial activism, religious liberty, and other issues and how they will be affected nationwide if this lawsuit is allowed to prevail. A diverse number of Americans understand that this lawsuit seeks to impose — through a San Francisco court — an agenda that America has repeatedly rejected.’”

Julie Hilden writing at FindLaw: “On September 20, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that two Oregon statutes that had criminalized giving sexually-explicit material to minors violated the First Amendment. In theory, these statutes were intended to target the reprehensible practices of ‘luring’ and ‘grooming,’ by which adults expose minors to sexually-explicit material as part of their attempt to have sex with the minors. And of course, no party to the case has contested the point that an adult’s having sex with — or attempting to have sex with — a minor is wrong and should be illegal. However, the Oregon statutes at issue did not criminalize the combination of luring or grooming and sex with a minor, whether achieved or attempted. Instead, the statutes allowed prosecutions to occur when no sex by an adult with a minor had occurred, had been attempted, or had been intended.”

OneNewsNow: “‘What the lower court said here in essence is that it violates the United States Constitution to define marriage and to preserve marriage as the union between a man and a woman,’ [ADF Attorney Jim Cambell] explains. ‘So if that decision were to be upheld, it could have ramifications throughout the entire country.’”

OneNewsNow: “A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a California college student who claims a professor violated his free-speech rights when he stopped him from finishing his speech defining marriage as between one man and one woman . . . ‘Jonathan went through all of this; [he] experienced all these deprivations of his First Amendment right to speak freely when given the opportunity to do so, yet the Ninth Circuit is saying he can’t challenge the policies under which the college acted to suppress his speech,’ laments Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney [David Hacker].”

Blog of LegalTimes: “The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines today to advance the nomination of law professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, signaling they’re not ready to give up on one of President Barack Obama’s most controversial nominees.”

New York Times Editorial: “The most prominent of the five repeaters is Goodwin Liu, a law professor and legal scholar who would be the only Asian-American serving as an active judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . . . Conservatives do not like Mr. Liu’s support for same-sex marriage rights, affirmative action and his view that the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time. But his views fall well within the legal and political mainstream. His warnings that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito would turn out to be extremely conservative were accurate.”

SF Public Press: “The defendants, who failed to prove their case to Walker that Proposition 8 is both constitutional and in the interest of the state of California are now firing back at the judge . . . A three-judge panel of the appellate court is scheduled to take up the case starting on Dec. 6, and will determine if ProtectMarriage – the driving force that brought Proposition 8 to the ballot in 2008 and defended it via its Alliance Defense Fund – can qualify as a party which suffered personal harm as a result of the ruling.”

Joel Mandelman writing at Pajamas Media: “The U.S. Senate will soon consider two of Barack Obama’s worst judicial nominations: Goodwin Liu for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Robert Chatigny to the 2nd Circuit. Both nominees have shown an arrogant contempt for the law, a total disregard for the limited role of the judiciary in a democracy, and a brutal inclination to abuse judicial power to impose their own peculiar left-wing ideologies on the American people.”

The Sacramento Bee / Capitol Alert: “The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, part of the team appealing Walker’s ruling, said in its brief, posted here, that the judge’s ruling ‘defames as anti-gay bigots not only seven million California voters, but everyone else in this county, and elsewhere, who believes that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage continues to meaningfully serve the legitimate interests of society.’”

MAARS News: “‘The district court decision is an attack on the many judges and lawmakers and millions of Americans who rightly and reasonably understand that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman,’ said Alliance Defense Fund attorney [Brian Raum], who is part of the legal team fighting to uphold Proposition 8.”

Christian Web News: “‘The district court decision conflicts with every other appellate court ruling on the federal constitutionality of marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court,’ said ADF Senior Counsel [Brian Raum]. ‘The decision is an attack on the many judges and lawmakers and millions of Americans who rightly and reasonably understand that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman.’”

WorldNetDaily: “The filing today came from the Alliance Defense Fund, which noted that the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker, a homosexual, violates every precedent around. ‘The district court decision conflicts with every other appellate court ruling on the federal constitutionality of marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court,’ said senior counsel [Brian Raum] . . . The brief even quoted Obama in establishing the body of authority that a moral issue such as marriage certainly can be addressed in the law.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “Americans United for Separation of Church and State and allied groups have asked a federal appellate court to reconsider a decision dealing with religious bias in hiring at publicly funded ‘faith-based’ charities. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that World Vision, an evangelical Christian relief agency, had the right to fire workers who hold views that conflict with the agency’s religious viewpoint.”

Associated Press: “[The 9th Circuit] says it will hear arguments Nov. 1 in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s appeal of a ruling that put parts of the state’s new immigration law on hold.”

Powell’s Books v. Kroger, No. 09-35153 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2010) Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. Excerpts from the opinion follow McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: We consider here the constitutionality of a pair of …

Attorneys defending marriage in California filed their opening brief Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in defense of the state’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Inside Higher Ed: “A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Community College District arising out of the way a public speaking professor harshly criticized a student presentation that opposed gay marriage . . . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Jonathan Lopez, the student who sued, presented arguments that ‘come to the very edge of showing injury in fact,’ but that he failed to show actual damage from the sexual harassment code — and that as a result he lacked the legal right to sue . . . Officials of the Alliance Defense Fund, which backed Lopez and urged the appeals court to find the harassment code unconstitutional, could not be reached for comment.”

The Chronicle of Higher Education: “A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a case brought by a Los Angeles City College student whose Speech 101 professor shouted him down and called him a ‘fascist bastard’ while he was giving a presentation about his Christian faith . . . [David J. Hacker], a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped bring the lawsuit, said the decision could have chilling effects on student speech nationwide. Policies like the one Mr. Lopez challenged, which apply to students any time they are on the institution’s campus, “lead to students’ believing they can speak less,” he said.”

“Backers of California’s same-sex marriage ban urged a federal appeals court to overturn the trial judge who struck down Proposition 8 by arguing late Friday that his consideration of evidence was ‘egregiously selective and one-sided’ . . . ‘The district court decision is an attack on the many judges and lawmakers and millions of Americans who rightly and reasonably understand that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman,’ said Alliance Defense Fund attorney [Brian Raum] . . .”

“A federal appeals court has tossed out the lawsuit of a California community college student who claimed that a teacher illegally berated him in class for making a speech opposing same-sex marriage.”

Chad Groening writing at OneNewsNow: “A conservative military watchdog argues that the controversial Ninth Circuit has created a situation that will make it more difficult for the U.S. military to defend its decision to kick a lesbian nurse out of the Air Force Reserve.”

San Francisco Bay Times: “Supporters of same-sex marriage say the appeals court has put the matter on the fast track, which they believe helps the cause for equality . . . ‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the 9th Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call,’ stated pro-Prop 8 conservative Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Staff Counsel Jim Campbell. ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun.’”

CBS 5: “A federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed Monday to reconsider whether a Muslim woman’s religious rights were violated when she was required to remove her headscarf in an Orange County courthouse holding cell four years ago.”

Dramatically Narrowing RFRA’s Definition of “Substantial Burden” in the Ninth Circuit–The Vestiges of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetary Protective Assocation in Navajo Nation et al. v. United States Forest Service et al
Zackeree S. Kelin and Kimberly Younce Schooley, 55 S.D. L. Rev. 426 (2010)

“A thorough examination of Navajo reveals that the Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation of ‘substantial burden’ stems from the overstated policy concerns articulated in the pre-Smith case of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and is inconsistent with the religious freedom protections found in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder that RFRA sought to restore. Furthermore, the case exposes the tension that results when protection of land-based religious beliefs is evaluated in a nation built on an ownership-based Western approach to land. The Ninth Circuit seemed uncomfortable with the proposition of extending RFRA’s protections to the way in which Native Americans worship, i.e., where essential elements needed to practice these religions – land and other natural resources – are controlled by the government. As a result of what appears to be a policy-driven outcome, many more religious freedom claims outside the context of Native American religion will be cut off, as the triggering mechanism for application of the compelling interest test is now far more difficult to satisfy in the Ninth Circuit.”

New York Times: “A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former prisoners of the C.I.A. could not sue over their alleged torture in overseas prisons because such a lawsuit might expose secret government information.” Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., No. 08-15693 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2010)

San Diego Union-Tribune: “The county is attempting to get into the case, utilizing the pro bono services of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a conservative legal group based in Murietta that advocates for religious causes. But the county faces an uphill battle, legal experts say. It has to show that it has a particular legal interest in the case, and that allowing the decision to stand would cause the county some kind of recognizable harm. That may be hard. But there are questions about whether the sponsors of the proposition, who defended the measure in court, have the legal basis to pursue an appeal.”

Law.com: “A new legal effort to force California’s governor and attorney general to defend Proposition 8 in court may have some political potency, but is unlikely to win in court, legal observers say . . . There’s a high standard to win a writ of mandamus. And in this case, the Pacific Justice Institute, which filed the petition, is up against issues of executive branch discretion, the separation of powers doctrine and an ambiguous state statute regarding the attorney general’s obligation — or discretion — to defend the state in lawsuits, said UC Hastings College of the Law professor and appellate expert Rory Little.”

“The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require the two officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8.”

ADF Attorney Kevin Theriot writing at Speak Up Movement / Church: “This decision [in Spence v. World Vision] brings the Ninth Circuit in line with several others such as the Eleventh in Atlanta and the Third in Philadelphia. What’s remarkable is the court went even further than its sister circuits when making this ruling. For instance, in holding that World Vision falls under the Title VII’s exemption for religious organizations, the court said that the First Amendment would require such an exemption, even if Title VII didn’t provide for it. It’s encouraging to know that even if Congress attempts to narrow the law to only apply to churches, para-church ministries like World Vision are still protected by the Constitution.”

Christian Examiner: “Who will appeal? The appeal was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Protect Marriage, which sponsored Proposition 8. Also appealing will be Advocates for Faith and Freedom on behalf of Imperial County, a rural farming community that borders San Diego County, Arizona and Mexico.”

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Yes, believe it or not, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a favorable religious freedom decision. On Monday, the court held that World Vision is in fact a religious organization and thus allowed to fire three employees who had repudiated the Christian beliefs they once held.”

OC Weekly: “[T]he Ninth Circuit panel (dominated by two Democrat presidential appointees) determined that Judge Klausner had prematurely ended the suit because Stossel and ABC presented Price’s ‘statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words.’” Via Religion Clause. | Price v. Stossel, (9th Cir., Aug. 24, 2010)

Yahoo (TIME): “Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements. That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.”

United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. January 11, 2010)

Yesterday, the denial of rehearing en banc was entered, with Judge Kozinksi dissenting, with four others.

Eugene Volokh writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “From Judge Kleinfeld’s concurrence in the judgment in Spencer v. World Vision: ‘The core of Judge Berzon’s dissent is the idea that performance of activities that are often performed in a secular context cannot be religious. That is mistaken. When the Pope washes feet on the Thursday before Easter, that is not secular hygiene, and the Pope is not a pedicurist.’”

CNN / Belief Blog: “The humanitarian organization World Vision can require its employees to be Christians, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. In upholding a lower-court ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that World Vision is exempt from a provision in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring religious discrimination.” | Eugene Volokh: When may religious charitable groups discriminate in employment based on religion?

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “In a motion filed July 30, 2010, CLS urged the Ninth Circuit to address that issue. On August 9, Hastings and Hastings Outlaw filed their oppositions to CLS’s motion, essentially urging the court to end the case without consideration of the school’s unconstitutionally selective application of its all-comers policy. Yesterday, August 19, CLS filed its reply. We now await the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.”

“A Ninth Circuit panel issued three very interesting opinions on this subject today . . . in Spencer v. World Vision, Inc. . . .

ADF’s Weekly Update is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMIhmMjXkZs

Maggie Gallagher writing at Real Clear Politics: “[T]he devastating brief that attorney Charles Cooper filed asking the 9th Circuit to overrule Walker . . . is a total smack-down of Walker’s decision to ignore the immense amount of evidence brought to him — not to dispute it, but to simply ignore it. Walker tried to pretend, in essence, that the only form of evidence a trial judge may consider is expert witness testimony in court. He even ignored expert witness testimony when it clashed with his own views. Harvard professor Nancy Cott, a historian of marriage, favors gay marriage, but even she freely admitted in trial that gay marriage represented a momentous change in the public meaning of marriage, and that the effects of this change would be impossible to determine in advance.”

Law.com: “The appeal of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling hasn’t yet been assigned to a merits panel, said Circuit Executive Cathy Catterson. The court typically assigns cases about three months before argument, Catterson said. It won’t be publicly revealed which 9th Circuit judges will hear the case until a week before oral argument, set for the week of Dec. 6 . . .”

Law.com: “‘ . . . ‘I think there are two explanations, and one is dominant,’ Bolick suggested for the influx of Arizona cases. ‘Arizona is taking the concept of states being the laboratories of democracy very seriously on multiple fronts . . . We have a legislature that is risk-taking and innovative . . . The second “less significant reason, but nonetheless still very significant reason” is that Arizona resides in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, said Bolick.’ . . . The Institute, which has an Arizona affiliate, is representing not only the Arizona Freedom Club PAC in the campaign finance case, but also is involved in the school choice tax credit case — Arizona Christian Tuition Organization v. Winn (combined with Garriott v. Winn).”