JD Journal » california law

Prop 8 Argument Recap

joshua — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:53:04 +0000

Legal giants David Boies and Ted Olson appeared once again on behalf of their clients to argue that California’s Proposition 8, which effectively banned same sex marriages, is unconstitutional. This time that forum was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and this time it was televised live. The oral arguments in the case lasted nearly three hours and were divided between procedural issues and the issues directly involved in the case. While it is always difficult to make predictions based on the questions that judges ask, I’ll go out on a limb and do so anyway. I would expect the three judge panel to find that the supporters of the initiative, but not the deputy clerk of Imperial County, have standing to appeal by carving out an exception to the standing rules for sponsors of ballot initiatives that are being challenged in court. Furthermore, I believe the three judge panel, composed of one moderate conservative, one very liberal and one center-left judge will uphold the lower court’s injunction barring the enforcement of Prop 8. My best guess is that they will limit the scope of the ruling based either on the fact that California once gave same sex couples the right to marry so taking it away is particularly offensive to the 14th amendment, or based on the fact that California gives gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage and so denying them just the name is a clear equal rights violation. Either way, the ruling won’t go so far as to say that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

You can read live blogs covering the arguments here and here or see an expanded version of my analysis here.

California Reinstates Slaughterhouse Regulation

daniel — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:05:11 +0000

A California law preventing the slaughtering of sick and disabled animals for food was reinstated on Wednesday. A 13-month old injunction issued by Fresno, California-based U.S. District Judge Lawrence O’Neill was determined to be erroneous.

Judge O’Neil came to his initial conclusion by deciding California Penal Code §599f was pre-empted by §678 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The two pieces of law, as it turns out, have nothing to do with one another. The Federal Law simply regulates which kind of animals can be slaughtered. The mistake O’Neil made was rather elementary: a federal law regulating something does not prevent states from outright banning it.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco made the ruling, with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski calling the district court’s reasoning “hogwash.”

“Federal law regulates the meat inspection process,” wrote Kozinski. “States are free to decide which animals may be turned into meat.”

Morning Roundup

joshua — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:45:20 +0000

Good morning everyone! Today is Friday, March 26, and before we head into the weekend let’s take a look back at yesterday’s headlines…

All 60 members of UCI’s inaugural class have landed summer jobs…

Morris Manning & Martin has established a foothold in South America by forging an alliance with a Brazilian firm…

A federal judge has rejected a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit brought by workers involved in the cleanup from 9/11…

Lady Gaga is facing a lawsuit brought by a former boyfriend and business associate…

Duane Morris is the latest firm to report good numbers for 2009…

California voters will get the chance to vote on an initiative legalizing marijuana…

A group of workers in Louisiana has won a large class action lawsuit for occupational hearing loss…

and Ropes & Gray has been hit with a plagiarism lawsuit…

Civil Rights Activists to Challenge CA Affirmative Action Ban

sara — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:41:32 +0000

The civil rights organization The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (known as BAMN) will file a lawsuit today challenging a California law that bans affirmative action in college admissions. The lawsuit contends that Proposition 209, passed in 1996, violates equal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and says it has limited the number of non-Asian minority students at the University of California’s most selective campuses. The suit criticizes the heavy reliance on high school grades and test scores in the admissions process, pointing out that giving so much weight to these factors in admissions discriminates against and disadvantages students from schools without honors or AP programs and academic/career counseling. The lawsuit names Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and UC President Mark G. Yudof as defendants. The suit will be filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Proposition 209 but George Washington, a Detroit based attorney for BAMN believes that the legal atmosphere has shifted in recent years and his case can succeed. UC Spokesman Steve Montiel said, “If this opens up another discussion, that’s well and good , but as long as Proposition 209 is the law, we’re obliged to follow it.”

Breakin’ the law! – Part 2

joshua — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:59:55 +0000

You would think with his popularity dropping and his state in an economic shambles, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would be keen to avoid appearing cavalier, but apparently such is not the case. Just over a month after his wife was caught on filmbreaking California’s no cell phone while driving law, The Governator has been spotted parking his silver convertible Porsche in a red zone. While the rest of us might expect to get a $90 ticket, apparently the Governor got away with it this time.

This comes one day after Schwarzenegger appeared on The Tonight Show, where he was plugging “green cars”. For the record, the Porsche is most definitely not a green car.

Morning Roundup

joshua — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:56:42 +0000

Good morning everyone! Here’s a quick look back at yesterday’s news…

Reed Smith is the latest firm to abandon lockstep compensation…

NAWL has released its annual survey and it’s a good news/bad newssituation for women in BigLaw…

A new law in California guarantees the right to counsel in some civil matters…

New California Law Provides Free Counsel in Some Civil Matters

joshua — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:11:40 +0000

Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill today that guarantees legal counsel to indigent respondents in some civil matters, such as foreclosures and child custody cases. The law applies to anyone whose income places them below 200% of the poverty level. Reaction to the new law has been mixed. Advocates for the bill say that it will help those who have a legitimate defense but lack the ability to present it. Opponents claim that it will clog up the court system and by radically increasing the percentage of litigated evictions, everyone will suffer.