ACSBlog

  • May 25, 2012

    by Samantha Berkovits

    In the first decision on DOMA from the federal bench since President Obama’s announcement supporting gay marriage, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, is unconstitutional. Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury focused on how DOMA unconstitutionally limits same-sex couple and domestic partner participation in aspects of the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS.

    U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the definition of spouse in DOMA "violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex spouses," as does a subsection of the Internal Revenue Code. Wilken concludes that CalPERS should not use DOMA or the IRS provision to limit participation for same-sex couples, nor should the plan cease receiving beneficial tax credits from the federal government.

    Her ruling “set out the reasons why the legal arguments for a federal statute prohibiting same-sex marriage have become obsolete” and referenced the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which stated that “social disapproval of homosexuality on the basis of asserted tradition and mores is no longer accepted as sufficient justification for laws burdening gay men and lesbians.” She also cited the more recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Perry v. Brown that “tradition alone is not a justification for taking away a right that had already been granted, even though that grant was in derogation of tradition.”

  • May 25, 2012

    by Samantha Berkovits                   

    Image preview

    The U.S. Senate confirmed Paul Watford to a judicial emergency seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Monday evening, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to force a vote on his nomination. Watford’s confirmation will provide some much-needed relief to the Ninth Circuit, which has more than twice the caseload of the next busiest circuit. But the confirmation vote came only after Reid filed a motion to force a vote – the 27th he has had to file on President Obama’s judicial nominees. Before the scheduled cloture vote, senators agreed to instead hold an up-or-down vote on his nomination and confirmed him 61-34.

     President Obama has nominated Thomas M. Durkin to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Durkin, a partner at Mayer Brown and former federal prosecutor, has the full support of Senators Durbin and Kirk. He was first suggested as a potential nominee three years ago, and the seat has been vacant since 2010 when Judge Wayne Anderson retired.

  • May 24, 2012
    BookTalk
    Willie Mays Aikens
    Safe At Home
    By: 
    Gregory Jordan

    By Gregory Jordan, an author and journalist


    I remember standing with Willie Mays Aikens outside his halfway house in a hardscrabbled  corner of Kansas City as night fell in June 2009. I was there to write a book about his life; he was merely trying to make sorts of his life.  He would be late for sign-in in two minutes, but showed no urge to rush. He never rushed - his innate cool and Southern style made rushing inconceivable. But that night he seemed unnerved. Not nervous – never that, either.  But unnerved at how he would provide for the woman who would soon be his wife, for a daughter at an expensive college, and for her younger sister who had her eyes set on other expensive colleges.

    He was an ex-con, a month out of the slammer after learning the hard way what mandatory minimum sentencing is, and he had been offered a job on a road crew fixing potholes. He had two bad hips, two bad knees, an empty bank account, and a used car that broke down every other day. But he also had something he hadn’t had in over 14 years: freedom. And one more thing: spiritual cleanliness. He was not only drug free, not only did he have that cursed addiction tucked in under his hat where it belonged, but he also had what he called “a spiritual life.” He correlated it with God and churchgoing; I equated it with his boundless hope and joy. 

    As I walked him up the steps of the big brick building that night, I looked at my watch. He walked through the swinging doors, signed in, and the second hand on my wristwatch hit twelve as he put down the pen. 9 p.m. on the nose, and Mr. Cool Faith Hope Joy was heading to his bunk bed.

    I walked to my rental car, and thought: if I were a betting man, I’d bet on him. He wants it. He can taste it. Even though they set him up and locked him up and came close to throwing away the key, he had somehow corrected himself. Not cured himself, but set a right and steady course, destination pending.

  • May 24, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been a loud, at times obnoxious, critic of serious efforts to strengthen regulations of the financial industry. Specifically he has fought the Volcker rule, which would bar federally insured banks from risky trading ventures, similar to the ones that Dimon’s bank engaged in that led to a multi-billion dollar loss.

    Dimon is also on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is instrumental in supervising and regulating financial institutions. A growing number of people, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are suggesting that Dimon is unfit to serve on the board of an institution that is charged with checking the actions of JPMorgan, which as The New York Times has noted emerged from the Great Recession as “the nation’s biggest bank.”  

    Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is the latest influential voice to call for Dimon to go.

    Writing for The Baseline Scenario, Johnson noting that the NY Fed is a “key part of our regulatory and supervisory apparatus,” concludes that it makes no sense for Dimon to remain a part of the apparatus that “oversees his activities, decisions, and potential losses.” Johnson is asking others to join the effort urging Dimon to resign from the board.

    The JPMorgan debacle centers on a trader in London dubbed the “London Whale,” apparently for playing a central role in a risky hedging strategy that led to the announcement of a $2 billion, likely far higher, trading loss.

    In a post for his Rolling Stone blog, Matt Taibbi says, “If you’re wondering why you should care if some idiot trader (who apparently has been making $100 million a year at Chase, a company that has been the recipient of at least $390 billion in emergency Fed loans) loses $2 billion for Jamie Dimon, here’s why: because J.P. Morgan Chase is a federally-insured depository institution that has been and will continue to be the recipient of massive amounts of public assistance. If the bank fails, someone will reach into your pocket to pay for the cleanup. So when they gamble like drunken sailors, it’s everyone’s problem.”

  • May 23, 2012

    By Sarah Lipton-Lubet, ACLU Washington Legislative Office. This commentary is cross-posted at the ACLU’s Washington Markup blog.


    Every few weeks, opponents of birth control manage to garner some media attention by objecting – again – to the federal contraceptive coverage rule, which ensures that millions of women will have affordable insurance coverage for contraception without extra out-of-pocket costs. But time after time, it’s just more of the same. 

    This week, 12 new lawsuits were filed challenging the rule, doubling those already in play. The lawsuits have made a splash by virtue of their number, but when you take a moment to actually look at them, there’s nothing to see. The rule is constitutional, it violates no federal law, and it’s incredibly important for women.

    First principles of First Amendment law, as currently interpreted by the courts, are as follows: the Free Exercise Clause does not require any exemptions from a neutral law of general applicability. As the Supreme Court held two decades ago, in an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, to do otherwise would be to create a system “in which each conscience is a law unto itself.” Translation? If it applies equally and doesn’t target any faith, it’s not a First Amendment violation. The contraceptive coverage rule applies to everybody and doesn’t target anybody; end of story.

    Our courts have long held that institutions that operate in the public sphere are not above the law. The Supreme Court has recognized that allowing employers to get out of similar laws “operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” And indeed, the high courts of California and New York have both rejected claims that requiring coverage of contraception somehow runs afoul of religious liberty protections. Local Catholic Charities were the plaintiffs in those cases, just as they are in a number of the cases filed this week.