LGBT issues

  • April 14, 2014

     
    The Justice Department has accused the Albuquerque Police Department of “a pattern or practice of use of excessive force that routinely violated people’s constitutional rights.” Fernanda Santos at The New York Times reports on the 16-month investigation which found that “too often, the officers kicked, punched and violently restrained nonthreatening people … many of whom suffered from mental illnesses,” while other victims “were disabled, elderly or drunk.”
     
    Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in Kitchen v. Herbert, a case challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. State officials filed an appeal after the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah held the ban to be unconstitutional last December. Writing for Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost comments on the legal and “unmistakably personal” implications of the case.
     
    The Federal Trade Commission won an important victory in a case that challenged its authority to “regulate data security under the FTC Act.” Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions breaks down Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al.
     
    In a study conducted by the Center for American Progress, Jenny DeMonte and Robert Hanna reveal that in some areas, impoverished students are “less likely to receive highly effective teaching.” In their report, DeMonte and Hanna provide ways to combat this troubling inequality.  
     
    In an excerpt from Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution highlighted in The Washington Post, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens discusses the recent shooting massacres, the influence of the National Rifle Association and “the five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.”
  • April 10, 2014
     
    The Justice Department has long faced criticism from civil rights activists for its racial profiling procedures. In response, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has proposed revisions to the racial profiling rules which would “expand the definition of prohibited profiling.” However, many argue that the DOJ’s new efforts would “allow the F.B.I. to continue many, if not all, of the tactics opposed by civil rights groups.” Matt Apuzzo at The New York Times has the story.
     
    Earlier this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard the “first appellate case in the nation on gay marriage rights since last summer’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.” Led by attorney Peggy A. Tomsic, the plaintiffs shared with the judges “the ‘human reality’ at the heart of the case” and explained how Utah’s ban on gay marriage "has ‘cemented’ discrimination against same-sex couples.” Brooke Adams at The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the argument.
     
    The Obama administration is “relinquishing oversight” over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Gautham Nagesh at The Wall Street Journal explains how “Republicans concerned about the Commerce Department’s plan are pushing legislation to block the transition.”
     
    Today, President Obama will speak at the 50th anniversary celebration of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, honoring the memory of President Lyndon Johnson and his contributions to the civil rights movement. Writing for The Hill, Justin Sink comments on the summit being held at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin.

     

  • April 3, 2014

    Yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down a limit on the aggregate financial contribution an individual can make to candidates and party committees in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Democracy 21 discusses the “consequences of the disastrous decision” while the Brennan Center for Justice’s David Earley explains how the case reflects the “justices’ troubling vision of democracy.” At Demos, Alex Amend notes how the “McCutcheon Money” will discourage whatever “level-playing field” was left after Citizens United v. FEC. For more coverage of McCutcheon v. FEC, please visit ACSblog.
     
    James Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, confirmed that “the National Security Agency has used a ‘back door’ in surveillance law to perform warrantless searches on Americans’ communications.” Writing for The Guardian, Spencer Ackerman and James Ball report on the political outcry surrounding this controversial “secret rule change.”
     
    At The Daily Beast, Geoffrey R. Stone—former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter as well as Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapteroffers insight into why “anti-gay marriage laws are irrational.”
     
    Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for Wood v. Moss, a case asking whether Secret Service agents can be sued for treating protestors differently in a 2004 presidential visit to Oregon. At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson—Faculty Advisor for the CUNY School of Law ACS Student Chapter—discusses how and if this case, along with the recent scandal surrounding President Obama’s personal security detail, should influence the “qualified immunity” the Supreme Court bestows on the Secret Service.

     

  • March 31, 2014

    In an op-ed for The New York Times, Bruce Ackerman eloquently compares the current state of gay marriage to the struggle of the civil rights movement in order to “emphasize the link between institutionalized humiliation and the constitutional requirements of equal protection.” Indeed, as Ackerman’s analysis points out, “dignity is a constitutional principle.”
     
    Earlier this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, a case examining whether computer software is “eligible for copyright and patent protection.” Timothy B. Lee at The Washington Post provides useful commentary on the case.
     
    At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost notes that death row inmates are challenging the lethal injection formula that is being used for executions. In the piece, Jost explains why “it is not too much to ask that courts make sure that lethal injections, as carried out, are the humane executions they are supposed to be.”
     
    Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker reports on the successes of the Affordable Care Act thus far, the fecklessness of some of its promoters and the law’s most critical hurdle.
     
    Writing for Just Security, Marty Lederman describes why Hussain v. Obama is “a habeas case to keep an eye on.”
  • March 24, 2014

    As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, Leslie C. Griffin at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights discusses why “Conestoga could provide a more important—and dangerous—precedent than Hobby Lobby.” Walter Dellinger, Member of the ACS Board of Advisors, writes an op-ed for The Washington Post explaining why the Court should “reject claims of religious entitlement that so greatly burden the interests of others.” For more on the “contraception mandate” cases, read Professor Griffin’s ACSblog post on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and more.
     
    Just weeks after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed legislation that would allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of religion, an attempt in Georgia, to pass a similar bill last Thursday, has failed. Georgia Republican State Sen. Josh McKoon “attempted to attach the measure to two unrelated bills in the state legislature, hoping to get the controversial measure passed on the last day of the session.” Adam Serwer at MSNBC has the story.
     
    Writing for the The New York Times, Member of the ACS Board of Directors Linda Greenhouse comments on the most recent decision from the high court regarding railroad rights-of-way to reveal “how far the Supreme Court should go to acknowledge the real-world context of its decisions.”
     
    The public’s call for more transparency at the high court continues. At Jost On Justice, Kenneth Jost comments on the “Supreme Court’s obsession with secrecy.”
     
    Gerard Magliocca at Concurring Opinions reveals how the “Four Horsemen”—the four conservative justices who opposed President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs from 1932–1937—made it to the Supreme Court.