<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ADF Alliance Alert &#187; ZZ: Case Filings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alliancealert.org/tag/zz-case-filings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alliancealert.org</link>
	<description>news from the frontlines of the culture war</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 23:12:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Reinhardt&#8217;s memorandum opinion explaining his decision not to recuse himself in Prop 8 case</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/01/04/judge-reinhardts-memorandum-opinion-explaining-his-decision-not-to-recuse-himself-in-prop-8-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/01/04/judge-reinhardts-memorandum-opinion-explaining-his-decision-not-to-recuse-himself-in-prop-8-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Perry v. Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=89734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/01/04/1016696memo.pdf">Memorandum regarding motion to disqualify</a> in <em>Perry v. Schwarzenegger</em>, No. 10-16696 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010) &#124; 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." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/01/04/judge-reinhardts-memorandum-opinion-explaining-his-decision-not-to-recuse-himself-in-prop-8-case/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/01/04/judge-reinhardts-memorandum-opinion-explaining-his-decision-not-to-recuse-himself-in-prop-8-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alaska governor wants court to reconsider teen abortion law</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/alaska-governor-wants-court-to-reconsider-teen-abortion-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/alaska-governor-wants-court-to-reconsider-teen-abortion-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Planned Parenthood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. Alaska]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=88641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["[The judge] said abortion practitioners should not face prison sentences for failing to comply with it. He also removed a section allowing parents to file a civil lawsuit against abortion practitioners who don’t comply seeking financial damages." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/alaska-governor-wants-court-to-reconsider-teen-abortion-law/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/alaska-governor-wants-court-to-reconsider-teen-abortion-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AK Supreme Court rules that state may certify Murkowski as election winner</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/ak-supreme-court-rules-that-state-may-certify-murkowski-as-election-winner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/ak-supreme-court-rules-that-state-may-certify-murkowski-as-election-winner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Miller v. Treadwell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=88529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018378.html">Election Law Blog</a>: "You can read the opinion <a href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Miller%20v%20Treadwell%20decision.pdf">here</a>. In a unanimous, unsigned (per curiam) opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court said that nothing blocked the state of Alaska from certifying the U.S. Senate race for Lisa Murkowski." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/ak-supreme-court-rules-that-state-may-certify-murkowski-as-election-winner/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/ak-supreme-court-rules-that-state-may-certify-murkowski-as-election-winner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: En banc rehearing granted in suit over student distribution of religious themed materials</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/5th-circuit-en-banc-rehearing-granted-in-suit-over-student-distribution-of-religious-themed-materials/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/5th-circuit-en-banc-rehearing-granted-in-suit-over-student-distribution-of-religious-themed-materials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Morgan v. Swanson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=88579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/12/en-banc-rehearing-granted-in-suit-over.html">Religion Clause</a>: "Earlier this month, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-40373-CV2.wpd.pdf">order</a> granting an <em>en banc</em> rehearing in <em>Morgan v. Swanson</em>. A 3-judge panel in the case refused to grant qualified immunity to two Plano, Texas elementary school principals who were sued for refusing to allow elementary school students to hand out religious-themed items during school parties and at other non-curricular times." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/5th-circuit-en-banc-rehearing-granted-in-suit-over-student-distribution-of-religious-themed-materials/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/5th-circuit-en-banc-rehearing-granted-in-suit-over-student-distribution-of-religious-themed-materials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Teacher loses challenge to school&#8217;s demand she apologize for her class on evolution</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/teacher-loses-challenge-to-schools-demand-she-apologize-for-her-class-on-evolution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/teacher-loses-challenge-to-schools-demand-she-apologize-for-her-class-on-evolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: North Carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Hensley v. Johnston County Board of Education]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=88506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/12/teacher-loses-challenge-to-schools.html">Religion Clause</a>: "In [<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/20101223.pdf"><em>Hensley v. Johnston County Board of Education</em></a>, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135926 (ED NC, Dec. 23, 2010), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed free speech, equal protection and religious discrimination claims by an 8th grade science teacher who refused to apologize to parents over her method of teaching evolution and dealing with religious objections to evolutionary theory." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/teacher-loses-challenge-to-schools-demand-she-apologize-for-her-class-on-evolution/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/28/teacher-loses-challenge-to-schools-demand-she-apologize-for-her-class-on-evolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NH: Merrimack church sues town, claiming discrimination for nixed building project</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/17/nh-merrimack-church-sues-town-claiming-discrimination-for-nixed-building-project/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/17/nh-merrimack-church-sues-town-claiming-discrimination-for-nixed-building-project/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: RLUIPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Goffstown Harvest Christian Church v. Goffstown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Merrimack Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Town of Merrimack]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=87462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/902798-196/merrimack-church-sues-town-claiming-discrimination-for.html">Nashua Telegraph</a>: "Churches in Merrimack and Goffstown have sued their respective communities for religious discrimination, charging that the towns’ zoning and planning boards have violated their federal rights by refusing to let them build."

<a href="http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/csp/cms/sites/Telegraph/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=9VBwe44P3IaxIeavV6rz22uRcu_OuiDPKiq27FF94y8Xd5KAypRpi0sb_dmbH0GC4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&#38;CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&#38;CONTENTDISPOSITION=merrimackchurch.pdf">Complaint</a> filed in <em>Merrimack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Merrimack</em> (D.N.H.)

<a href="http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/csp/cms/sites/Telegraph/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=lBXi3$d$koWCzV6LDxUM5a_vBU$60ZRNt_cSQvP3h_4Xd5KAypRpi0sb_dmbH0GC4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&#38;CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&#38;CONTENTDISPOSITION=goffstownchurch.pdf">Complaint</a> filed in <em>Goffstown Harvest Christian Church v. Goffstown</em> (D.N.H.) <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/17/nh-merrimack-church-sues-town-claiming-discrimination-for-nixed-building-project/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/17/nh-merrimack-church-sues-town-claiming-discrimination-for-nixed-building-project/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DC Circuit upholds FTC jurisdiction over purported religious organization</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/16/dc-circuit-upholds-ftc-jurisdiction-over-purported-religious-organization/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/16/dc-circuit-upholds-ftc-jurisdiction-over-purported-religious-organization/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: DC Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Daniel Chapter One v. FTC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=87077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/12/dc-circuit-upholds-ftc-jurisdiction.html">Religion Clause</a>: "In <em>Daniel Chapter One v. FTC</em>, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25496 (DC Cir., Dec. 10 2010), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an organization's formal legal status as a religious corporation sole does not prevent the Federal Trade Commission from regulating its advertisements for dietary supplements." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/16/dc-circuit-upholds-ftc-jurisdiction-over-purported-religious-organization/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/16/dc-circuit-upholds-ftc-jurisdiction-over-purported-religious-organization/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge weakens Alaska abortion notification law</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/judge-wont-block-alaska-abortion-notification-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/judge-wont-block-alaska-abortion-notification-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Planned Parenthood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. Alaska]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=86372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[. . . 'It’s an Alaska State Suggestion now, under the judge,' he said." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/judge-wont-block-alaska-abortion-notification-law/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/judge-wont-block-alaska-abortion-notification-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court rules that case of employees fired for being &#8220;too religious&#8221; should go to jury</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/court-rules-that-case-of-employees-fired-for-being-too-religious-should-go-to-jury/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/court-rules-that-case-of-employees-fired-for-being-too-religious-should-go-to-jury/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Liberty Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Dixon v. Hallmark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=86451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&#38;PRID=1013">Liberty Counsel</a>: "A federal court of appeals <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/appeal_dixon_120910.pdf">has ruled</a> that the case of two employees who were fired for being 'too religious' should go to a jury." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/court-rules-that-case-of-employees-fired-for-being-too-religious-should-go-to-jury/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/court-rules-that-case-of-employees-fired-for-being-too-religious-should-go-to-jury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACLU files suit in Georgia courthouse headscarf issue</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/aclu-files-suit-in-georgia-courthouse-headscarf-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/aclu-files-suit-in-georgia-courthouse-headscarf-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Valentine v. Douglasville]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=86488</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/local_news/ACLU-to-File-Lawsuit-in-Headcover-Issue-20101214-am-sd">My Fox Atlanta [AP]</a>: "A Muslim woman who was arrested after she refused to remove her headscarf in a west Georgia courthouse has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Douglasville and the officers who arrested her." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/aclu-files-suit-in-georgia-courthouse-headscarf-issue/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/14/aclu-files-suit-in-georgia-courthouse-headscarf-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Final Exit Network argues Georgia suicide law unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/10/final-exit-network-argues-georgia-suicide-law-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/10/final-exit-network-argues-georgia-suicide-law-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Final Exit Network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Bioethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Euthanasia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Schindler v. Perdue]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=86039</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/right-to-die-group-772552.html">Atlanta Journal-Constitution</a>: "Attorneys for four members of the right-to-die group Final Exit Network who are charged with assisting in the suicide of a 58-year-old Cumming man argued Friday that Georgia’s statute covering assisted suicide is unconstitutional and 'totally incoherent.'" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/10/final-exit-network-argues-georgia-suicide-law-unconstitutional/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/12/10/final-exit-network-argues-georgia-suicide-law-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberty Counsel&#8217;s healthcare suit on fast-track to 4th Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/30/liberty-counsels-healthcare-suit-on-fast-track-to-4th-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/30/liberty-counsels-healthcare-suit-on-fast-track-to-4th-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Liberty University v. Geithner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=84455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&#038;PRID=1007">Liberty Counsel</a>: "Liberty University’s challenge to the healthcare law will now be heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals following <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/opinion_healthcare_moon_113010.pdf">today’s ruling</a> by District Court Judge Norman Moon." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/30/liberty-counsels-healthcare-suit-on-fast-track-to-4th-circuit/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/30/liberty-counsels-healthcare-suit-on-fast-track-to-4th-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FL: Apollo Beach neighborhood discriminated against Orthodox Jew, county says</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/29/fl-apollo-beach-neighborhood-discriminated-against-orthodox-jew-county-says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/29/fl-apollo-beach-neighborhood-discriminated-against-orthodox-jew-county-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:28:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Hillsborough County et al v. Lake Saint Clair Homeowners Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=84115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/apollo-beach-neighborhood-discriminated-against-orthodox-jew-county-says/1136358">TampaBay.com (St. Petersburg Times)</a>: "Hillsborough County is suing an Apollo Beach homeowners association in federal court, contending it has discriminated against a homeowner who is an Orthodox Jew."

<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/20101129.pdf">Complaint</a> filed in <em>Hillsborough County et al v. Lake Saint Clair Homeowners Association</em> (M.D. Fla.) <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/29/fl-apollo-beach-neighborhood-discriminated-against-orthodox-jew-county-says/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/29/fl-apollo-beach-neighborhood-discriminated-against-orthodox-jew-county-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Montana High Court OK&#8217;s valedictorian&#8217;s religious references</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/23/montana-high-court-oks-valedictorians-religious-references/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/23/montana-high-court-oks-valedictorians-religious-references/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Montana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Griffith v. Butte School Dist. No. 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=83608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/11/montana-high-court-oks-valedictorians.html">Religion Clause</a>: "In a 6-1 decision last week, the Montana Supreme Court held that school officials violated the free speech rights of a graduating senior when it censored on the basis of viewpoint her proposed valedictory remarks. <a href="http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/docContent.dll?Library=CISDOCSVR01^doaisd510&#038;ID=003838028"><em>Griffith v. Butte School District No. 1</em></a>, (MT Sup. Ct., Nov. 19, 2010)" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/23/montana-high-court-oks-valedictorians-religious-references/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/23/montana-high-court-oks-valedictorians-religious-references/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prop. 8 case on TV</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/19/prop-8-case-on-tv/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/19/prop-8-case-on-tv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Perry v. Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=83057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/prop-8-case-on-tv/">SCOTUSblog</a>: "The Ninth Circuit Court agreed on Wednesday to allow live and delayed broadcasting of the Dec. 6 oral argument on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — California’s ban on same-sex marriage. In a <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Prop-8-TV-order-11-17-10.pdf">brief order</a>, the Court cleared live broadcasting by C-SPAN, the cable network. It also gave permission to a San Francisco station, KGO-TV, an ABC affiliate, to provide coverage." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/19/prop-8-case-on-tv/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/19/prop-8-case-on-tv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S.: &#8220;Don&#8217;t interrupt gay ban&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/u-s-dont-interrupt-gay-ban/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/u-s-dont-interrupt-gay-ban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81723</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lyle Denniston <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/u-s-dont-interrupt-gay-ban/">reports at SCOTUSblog</a>: "The Obama Administration, continuing its defense in court of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the U.S. military, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday not to interrupt that policy while its constitutionality is being tested in lower federal courts. A California federal judge’s worldwide order against enforcement of the 1993 law and Pentagon regulations should not be allowed to take effect in the meantime, the government contended. The opposition document in <em>Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S.</em> (application 10A465)  is <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/US-response-10A465-11-10-10.pdf">here</a>." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/u-s-dont-interrupt-gay-ban/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/u-s-dont-interrupt-gay-ban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OK: Judge details rationale for halting anti-Sharia law measure</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/ok-judge-details-rationale-for-halting-anti-sharia-law-measure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/ok-judge-details-rationale-for-halting-anti-sharia-law-measure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: International Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Awad v. Ziriax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1110/Judge_details_rationale_for_halting_antiShariah_Law_measure.html">Politico</a>: "In a <a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_shariah_tro.html">nine-page order released Tuesday</a>, U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said she was persuaded that a constitutional amendment known as State Question 755 seemed to have a legally improper religious purpose and posed a threat to violate the rights of Muslims . . . "

Ed Whelan <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/252908/re-judicial-mischief-oklahoma-ed-whelan">comments at Bench Memos</a>.

Eugene Volokh <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/11/09/district-court-temporarily-enjoins-oklahoma-no-use-of-shariah-law-in-court-constitutional-amendment/">writing at The Volokh Conspiracy</a>: "I’m no fan of the amendment, which would also apparently ban the use of foreign law in Oklahoma courts, even in situations — such as disputes about whether two people were validly married in a foreign country, enforcement of contracts that provide for the use of (say) British law, and tort litigation over conduct that happened in a foreign country — where foreign law has long been used under standard choice-of-law principles. And it’s also possible that the specific ban on the use of Sharia law might be unconstitutional, though that depends on exactly how the amendment is interpreted. But my tentative sense is that the plaintiff doesn’t have standing to challenge the ban on the use of Sharia." &#124; <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/11/10/standing-to-challenge-laws-that-allegedly-endorse-or-disapprove-of-religion/">More from Volokh on standing</a>. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/ok-judge-details-rationale-for-halting-anti-sharia-law-measure/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/ok-judge-details-rationale-for-halting-anti-sharia-law-measure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>10th Circuit: No campaign finance limits for small groups</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/10th-circuit-no-campaign-finance-limits-for-small-groups/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/10th-circuit-no-campaign-finance-limits-for-small-groups/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:46:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 10th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Sampson v. Buescher]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A federal appellate court ruled Tuesday that requiring small groups who promote ballot initiatives to file campaign finance reports is so burdensome that it's unconstitutional, dealing the latest blow to open-government advocates."  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/10th-circuit-no-campaign-finance-limits-for-small-groups/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/10/10th-circuit-no-campaign-finance-limits-for-small-groups/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ed Whelan on the TRO barring Oklahoma&#8217;s sharia law amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/09/ed-whelan-on-the-tro-barring-oklahomas-sharia-law-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/09/ed-whelan-on-the-tro-barring-oklahomas-sharia-law-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: International Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Awad v. Ziriax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ed Whelan <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/252908/re-judicial-mischief-oklahoma-ed-whelan">writing at National Review / Bench Memos</a>:"<a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_shariah_tro.html">Here</a>’s the judge’s opinion . . . I don’t see how the plaintiff’s proffered evidence shows that the amendment’s 'actual purpose is to disapprove of plaintiff’s faith.'" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/09/ed-whelan-on-the-tro-barring-oklahomas-sharia-law-amendment/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/09/ed-whelan-on-the-tro-barring-oklahomas-sharia-law-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Muslim&#8217;s lawsuit says Okla. amendment violates Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/muslims-lawsuit-says-okla-amendment-violates-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/muslims-lawsuit-says-okla-amendment-violates-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: International Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Awad v. Ziriax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=80531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-muslims-lawsuit-says-okla-amendment-violates-constitution-106718503.html">PR Newswire</a>: "The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) today announced the filing of a lawsuit that claims an anti-Islam state ballot measure (SQ 755) passed in Tuesday's election violates the U.S. Constitution." (links to relevant documents) <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/muslims-lawsuit-says-okla-amendment-violates-constitution/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/muslims-lawsuit-says-okla-amendment-violates-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FL: School reopens Bible distribution, overturning ban on Religious Freedom Day</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/fl-school-reopens-bible-distribution-overturning-ban-on-religious-freedom-day/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/fl-school-reopens-bible-distribution-overturning-ban-on-religious-freedom-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Liberty Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: World Changers of Florida Inc. v. District School Board of Collier County]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=80351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&#038;PRID=996">Liberty Counsel</a>: "A federal judge has entered a <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/order_worldchangers_110210.pdf">Consent Decree</a> that overturns the decision of the Collier County School Board, which banned voluntary distribution of Bibles to high school students on Religious Freedom Day. This Decree is the culmination of litigation brought by Liberty Counsel to vindicate the constitutional rights of World Changers, the local group denied equal access by the school board." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/fl-school-reopens-bible-distribution-overturning-ban-on-religious-freedom-day/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/04/fl-school-reopens-bible-distribution-overturning-ban-on-religious-freedom-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IN: Crime to surreptitiously videotape one&#8217;s fiancee naked?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/01/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/01/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Chiszar v. Indiana]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=79470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10291003ewn.pdf"><em>Chiszar v. Indiana</em></a>, No. No. 91A04-1004-CR-290 (Ind. App. Oct. 29, 2010)

"It is the nature of the looking that is at issue here. The 'looking' that is proscribed under the statute is 'any looking of a clandestine, surreptitious, prying, or secretive nature.' There can be no reasonable purpose for that kind of looking since, by definition, it is without the other person’s knowledge, and, therefore, it is without the other person’s consent. To look at someone in a clandestine or secret manner is to hide that looking from the other person, and it is that act that is proscribed by the statute. We hold that individuals of ordinary intelligence would comprehend the statute adequately to inform them of the proscribed conduct and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/01/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/01/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberty Counsel asks Supreme Court to hear case on Ten Commandments display</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/27/liberty-counsel-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-ten-commandments-display/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/27/liberty-counsel-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-ten-commandments-display/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Monuments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=78735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&#038;PRID=991">Liberty Counsel</a>: "Today Liberty Counsel <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/petition_mccreary_102710.pdf">filed a petition</a> with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the Court take on a case it heard in 2005 involving the 'Foundations of American Law and Government' display ('Foundations Display'), which includes the Ten Commandments, on two county courthouse walls in McCreary and Pulaski Counties in Kentucky. The original lawsuit was filed by the ACLU in 1999." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/27/liberty-counsel-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-ten-commandments-display/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/27/liberty-counsel-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-ten-commandments-display/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MS: $81K in legal fees awarded in lesbian prom case</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/ms-81k-in-legal-fees-awarded-in-lesbian-prom-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/ms-81k-in-legal-fees-awarded-in-lesbian-prom-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Constance McMillen v Itawamba County School District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=78690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13390349">WMCTV (AP)</a>: "A federal judge has ordered a Mississippi school district to pay $81,665 in legal fees and expenses in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian student whose prom was canceled because she wanted to bring her girlfriend to the dance." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/20101026.pdf"><em>McMillen v. Itawamba County School District</em></a>, No. 1 :10CV061-GHD-JAD (N.D. Miss. Oct. 26, 2010) <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/ms-81k-in-legal-fees-awarded-in-lesbian-prom-case/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/ms-81k-in-legal-fees-awarded-in-lesbian-prom-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit overturns Arizona&#8217;s proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/9th-circuit-overturns-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/9th-circuit-overturns-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:31:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Gonzalez v. Arizona]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=78653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/9th-circuit-overturns-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/9th-circuit-overturns-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Lambda Legal urges court: Do not reinstate DADT&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/lambda-legal-urges-court-do-not-reinstate-dadt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/lambda-legal-urges-court-do-not-reinstate-dadt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Lambda Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=78540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/ca_20101025_dadt-amicus.html">Lambda Legal</a>: "Lambda Legal today filed a <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/log-cabin-republicans-v-usa_ca_201010225_amicus-lambda-legal.html">friend-of-the-court brief</a> urging the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to leave in place pending appeal the injunction a federal district court judge issued against enforcement of the U.S. military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT) ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, saying that the policy's impact extends far beyond those in uniform and that continuing it would do irreparable harm to lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/lambda-legal-urges-court-do-not-reinstate-dadt/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/lambda-legal-urges-court-do-not-reinstate-dadt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prop 8 ban on same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; has no legitimate basis, Americans United tells Appeals Court</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/prop-8-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-has-no-legitimate-basis-americans-united-tells-appeals-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/prop-8-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-has-no-legitimate-basis-americans-united-tells-appeals-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Americans United for Separation of Church and State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Perry v. Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=78536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/10/proposition-8-ban-on-same-sex.html">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a>: "In a <a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/10/prop-8-amicus-brief-10-25-10.pdf">friend-of-the court brief</a>, 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." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/prop-8-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-has-no-legitimate-basis-americans-united-tells-appeals-court/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/26/prop-8-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-has-no-legitimate-basis-americans-united-tells-appeals-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge express deep doubts on health mandate</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/15/judge-express-deep-doubts-on-health-mandate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/15/judge-express-deep-doubts-on-health-mandate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=76657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/deep-doubts-on-health-mandate/">SCOTUS Blog</a>: "A federal judge in Florida rules it is 'not even a close call' that there are serious constitutionali questions surrounding the new federal law’s requirement that all Americans must buy health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty. This case thus goes on." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/15/judge-express-deep-doubts-on-health-mandate/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/15/judge-express-deep-doubts-on-health-mandate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal appeals court upholds Texas pledge wording</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/14/federal-appeals-court-upholds-texas-pledge-wording/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/14/federal-appeals-court-upholds-texas-pledge-wording/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pledge of Allegiance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Croft v. Perry]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=76527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A federal appeals court has rejected a Dallas-area parent's bid to have "under God" removed from the Texas pledge of allegiance that is recited every day by public schoolchildren." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/14/federal-appeals-court-upholds-texas-pledge-wording/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/14/federal-appeals-court-upholds-texas-pledge-wording/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit upholds Washington&#8217;s campaign-disclosure laws</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/13/9th-circuit-upholds-washingtons-campaign-disclosure-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/13/9th-circuit-upholds-washingtons-campaign-disclosure-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Human Life of Washington v. Brumsickle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=76408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["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." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/13/9th-circuit-upholds-washingtons-campaign-disclosure-laws/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/13/9th-circuit-upholds-washingtons-campaign-disclosure-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal judge orders &#8216;don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell&#8217; injunction</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=76302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell"; policy . . .  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-dont-ask-dont-tell-injunction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DC Circuit: Federal employee need not relitigate religious discrimination victory to appeal retaliation holding</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/06/dc-circuit-federal-employee-need-not-relitigate-religious-discrimination-victory-to-appeal-retaliation-holding/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/06/dc-circuit-federal-employee-need-not-relitigate-religious-discrimination-victory-to-appeal-retaliation-holding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: DC Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Title VII]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Payne v. Salazar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=75321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/10/dc-circuit-federal-employee-need-not.html">Religion Clause</a>: "In <a href="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/201009/09-5291-1264254.pdf"><em>Payne v. Salazar</em></a>, (DC Cir., Sept. 7, 2010), . . . Department of Interior employee Cassandra Payne won her religious discrimination clam at the administrative level. An EEOC administrative judge found that the Interior Department had violated Title VII by refusing Payne's requests for weekends off so she could attend church and Bible study . . ." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/06/dc-circuit-federal-employee-need-not-relitigate-religious-discrimination-victory-to-appeal-retaliation-holding/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/06/dc-circuit-federal-employee-need-not-relitigate-religious-discrimination-victory-to-appeal-retaliation-holding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit backs Alaska&#8217;s judicial selection process</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/01/9th-circuit-backs-alaskas-judicial-selection-process/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/01/9th-circuit-backs-alaskas-judicial-selection-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Kirk v. Carpeneti]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=74553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/30742.htm">Courthouse News Service</a>: "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." <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/30/09-35860.pdf"><em>Kirk v. Carpeneti</em></a>, No. 09-35860 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010) <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/01/9th-circuit-backs-alaskas-judicial-selection-process/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/01/9th-circuit-backs-alaskas-judicial-selection-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pacific Justice Institute files Prop 8 brief</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/28/pacific-justice-institute-files-prop-8-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/28/pacific-justice-institute-files-prop-8-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:49:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Pacific Justice Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Perry v. Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=73960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.pacificjustice.org/news/pji-files-prop-8-brief-today">Pacific Justice Institute</a>: "The Pacific Justice Institute [<a href="http://www.pacificjustice.org/sites/pacificjustice.org/files/PJI%20Prop.%208%209th%20Cir.%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf">filed an amicus brief</a>] Friday afternoon with the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Prop. 8." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/28/pacific-justice-institute-files-prop-8-brief/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/28/pacific-justice-institute-files-prop-8-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge issues closing questions for Prop. 8 trial</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/judge-issues-closing-questions-for-prop-8-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/judge-issues-closing-questions-for-prop-8-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Case Filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Perry v. Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=62510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The federal judge presiding over a trial on California's Proposition 8 issued a list Tuesday of 39 wide-ranging questions to be answered in closing arguments in San Francisco next week . . . " <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/judge-issues-closing-questions-for-prop-8-trial/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/judge-issues-closing-questions-for-prop-8-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

