Opening briefs filed to appeal Prop. 8 repeal

9th Circuit declines free-speech case

Democrats push Goodwin Liu, other controversial nominees out of committee

New York Times: An extreme judicial blockade

Prop. 8 backers criticize judge in appeal briefs

Goodwin Liu and Robert Chatigny: Obama’s worst judicial nominees yet?

“Imperial County, Prop. 8 lawyers’ briefs attack Judge Walker”

Californians ask court to declare “gay marriage” unconstitutional

9th Circuit to review decision declaring state marriage admendment unconstitutional

Briefs quote Obama in calling for “morality” in Prop 8 case

Americans United, allies urge federal appeals court to rehear case challenging religiously based hiring bias

9th Circuit to hear Arizona immigration appeal Nov. 1

9th Circuit: Oregon law protecting minors from sexually explicit materials held unconstitutional

Defenders of marriage, initiative process in Calif. file opening brief on appeal

High bar to sue on harassment rules

U. S. Appeals Court throws out suit over religious speech

Prop 8 backers target trial judge’s findings in appeal

9th Circuit dismisses “ask God what your grade is” case on standing grounds

Court, White House team up against “gay” ban

“Marriage equality advocates” react to latest legal round

    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.’”


  • Posted: 09/14/2010
  • |
  • Category: Uncategorized
  • |
  • Source: www.sfbaytimes.com

  • Tags: , , , , , ,

9th Circuit to reconsider headscarf rights case

Law Review: Dramatically Narrowing RFRA’s Definition of “Substantial Burden” in the Ninth Circuit

    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.”


  • Posted: 09/14/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty

  • Tags: , , ,

9th Circuit dismisses ACLU case asserting torture by C.I.A.

Imperial County fights for spot in Prop 8 debate

Conservative group throws Hail Mary pass on Prop 8

    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.”


  • Posted: 09/02/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.law.com

  • Tags: , , , , ,

Legal group seeks to compel Calif to defend Prop 8

Ninth Circuit protects para-church ministries – really!

Christian Examiner: FAQs on Prop 8, California’s contested marriage amendment

Greg Baylor: Are you sitting down? 9th Circuit delivers favorable religious freedom decision

Court reinstates evangelist’s defamation suit against ABC

The government’s new right to track your every move with GPS

    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.


  • Posted: 08/25/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: news.yahoo.com

  • Tags: ,

“The Pope is not a pedicurist”

Court rules World Vision can require employees to be Christians

Greg Baylor: Update on CLS v. Hastings

When may religious charitable groups discriminate in employment based on religion?

Maggie Gallagher: Chuck Cooper strikes back

9th Circuit panel for Prop 8 appeal won’t be known for months

What makes Arizona such a hotbed of high court action?

CA marriage on hold, appeal sped up

“Marriage equality advocates react to latest legal round”

“Gay marriage,” a constitutional right or “tyranny of elitists?”

9th Circuit: Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

    Law.com: “A three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday . . . A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with [Xavier Alvarez] in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there’s no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.” USA v. Alvarez, No. 08-50345 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010)


  • Posted: 08/18/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: www.law.com

  • Tags: , ,

How 1997 ruling might thwart Prop. 8 appeal

Rick Hasen: Reading the tea leaves on the 9th Circuit’s stay order

    Rick Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, writing at the American Constitution Society blog: “I believe caution is in order, and that proponents and opponents of gay marriage should read very little into the Ninth Circuit’s order as to how that court is likely to decide the Proposition 8 case. But the Ninth Circuit’s decision to issue a stay could increase the chances that the Supreme Court ultimately will side with gay marriage supporters . . . This case already has had more than its share of twists and turns. But for those who want to predict what will happen in the appellate courts, there’s really very little to go on so far. Certainly we should not rely on a procedural order containing no written rationale offered by a different set of decisionmakers than the judges who will decide the merits of the appeal.”


  • Posted: 08/18/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.acslaw.org

  • Tags: , , , ,

“Delay on gay marriage in Calif. gives Democrats room to focus on midterms”

TIME: New legal strategy for Prop 8 supporters

National Review Online: “Gay marriage on hold”

No same-sex “marriages” in California until appeal

“Gay marriages” halted; case fast-tracked

Attorney: Ninth Circuit makes “right call”

9th Circuit agrees to fasttrack same sex “marriage” hearing

Appeals court stays Prop 8 ruling

Pro-marriage groups laud Ninth Circuit’s emergency stay of Prop. 8 ruling

SCOTUS Blog commentary: 2nd Prop. 8 case expedited

    SCOTUSblog: “The Ninth Circuit Court on Tuesday morning ordered an expedited review of a second appeal on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage — a plea by local officials in Imperial County, Calif., to enter the case in order to defend the ballot measure’s constitutionality. The motions panel of the Circuit Court, in a two-page order, set the county’s appeal to be heard at argument along with the appeal by the backers of Proposition 8 — that is, during the week of Dec. 6. The written briefing schedule will be the same in both cases, concluding on Nov. 1.”


  • Posted: 08/17/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: , , ,

US conservative Christians fear for rights

Another issue emerges in CA’s “gay marriage” case

Ed Whelan: Some reflections on 9th Circuit stay order

Ed Meese: Prop. 8 ruling ignores precedent, evidence and common sense

Dennis Prager: Same-sex “marriage” and the insignificance of men and women

“Gay marriage” back on hold during appeal on Proposition 8 decision

“Gay-marriage” ban to continue indefinitely

Same-sex “marriages” placed on hold in California

Federal appeals court stops California same-sex “marriages” from resuming

Federal Appeals Court intervenes in Prop. 8, halts California “gay marriages”

Federal panel puts same-sex “marriage” on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward

Legal focus in Prop. 8 “gay marriage” battle: Who has right to fight?

Court halts Calif. “gay marriages” pending appeal

Now California puts “gay marriage” on hold indefinitely as court decides whether they should go ahead

Prop. 8: Appeals court puts ruling on hold

Appeals court puts “gay marriages” on hold, sets December hearing

Jonathan Adler: More on standing to defend Prop 8

    Jonathan H. Adler writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “I think that the defenders of Proposition 8 do have standing to appeal the decision, just as they had standing to intervene, and that even if they do not, the officials of Imperial County would, and should have been permitted to intervene. Although I generally support a rather narrow view of standing, I largely agree with Michael Dorf that it would be anomalous were state officials able to effectively nullify state ballot initiatives simply by refusing to defend such initiatives in Court. Further, I think the interest of the proposition’s defenders on appeal is equivalent to that of an initiative’s sponsors who could file suit to ensure their initiative appears on the ballot in the first place.”


  • Posted: 08/16/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: volokh.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

CA: “Businesses await marriage windfall”

L.A. County Registrar’s office in Norwalk to stay open late Wednesday for same-sex “marriages”

Judges decision on motion for stay appealed by defenders of California marriage amendment