constitutional law

A federal judge did not rule today as expected on Michigan's bans on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. Instead, the Detroit Free Press reports, the judge set a trial date in February. The judge also said in court that he must decide the issue as a matter of law.  The challenge is to a constitutional amendment adopted by voters. This is an example of an area left untouched by the U.S. Supreme Court: do state-level bans on same-sex matrimony violate federal or state constitutional rights?

A judge is expected to rule on a challenge to Michigan's same-sex marriage ban today, the Detroit Free Press reported. The challenge is to a constitutional amendment adopted by voters. This is an example of an area left untouched by the U.S. Supreme Court: do state-level bans on same-sex matrimony violate federal or state constitutional rights?

A clerk in North Carolina will begin to accept same-sex marriage applications, but there's a caveat. He won't sign the applications unless he gets the permission of the state attorney general. And according to this Chicago Tribune article, the attorney general personally supports same-sex matrimony but will defend North Carolina's Defense of Marriage Act barring same-sex unions.

Challenges to Michigan's state constitutional ban on giving any preference to race in the field of education will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court today. In an unusual circumstance, two sets of plaintiffs will make separate arguments in the court. Reuters reports: "One group opposed to the ban, from the University of Michigan, employs measured rhetoric, relies on more recent cases joined by conservative justices and tries to assure the court it can rule narrowly when striking down the Michigan ban. The other group, a long-standing Detroit-based coalition advocating for minority rights, is pushing a more expansive legal rationale and, in more impassioned rhetoric, invokes the orations of two late champions of racial justice in the 1960s, Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson."

The First Amendment Center has this report from Tony Mauro on six First Amendment cases on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket this year, including a case in which media groups are worried that news organizations could be left exposed to defamation lawsuits involving true news reports. That case regards a Colorado Supreme Court decision upholding a defamation judgment against an airline whose report about a "disgruntled employee was largely true."

One case over campaign finance was argued today. The Washington Post has "everything you need to know about McCutcheon vs FEC" and why it could be the next Citizens United:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-...

The New York Times' Adam Liptak reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous docket this fall: the "court’s new term, which starts Monday, will feature an extraordinary series of cases on consequential constitutional issues, including campaign contributions, abortion rights, affirmative action, public prayer and presidential power."

PENNSYLVANIA: The register of wills in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, ordered to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is seeking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review on whether the lower appellate court had jurisdiction and if the state health department opposing the licenses' issuance made out its burden of proof in the case, Reuters reports: http://whtc.com/news/articles/2013/oct/01/pennsylvania-clerk-appeals-ban...

NEW JERSEY: This state's attorney general has asked a state judge to put a stay in place until the New Jersey Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of the state's civil union law when it does not allow same-sex marriage, Bloomberg Businessweek reports. The AG argued, Bloomberg reports, "the judge should allow the Supreme Court, 'the ultimate arbiter of substantial constitutional issues, to definitively determine the contested issue and allow that court, if it deems necessary, to take the drastic step of rejecting on constitutional grounds' a state law.": http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-01/new-jersey-asks-judge-to-...

WEST VIRGINIA: Lambda Legal has filed a constitutional challenge to WV's ban on same-sex marriage, arguing it violates the plaintiffs's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Associated Press reports: http://m.tribtown.com/view/story/4c19a72e9dbc40cca08b54eb02037d72/WV--Ga...

MISSISSIPPI: A same-sex couple seeking a divorce after getting married in California are litigating to have their marital dissolution recognized under Mississippi family law,WMC-TV reports: http://m.wmctv.com/#!/newsDetail/23551743

That case may be the first of its kind in the state.

The Associated Press reports two developments regarding same-sex marriage litigation in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

One, a lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania state court to challenge the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage under the state constitution. A federal lawsuit has already been filed. The litigants were issued marriage licenses in Montgomery County, Pa., after PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane rejected the legality of the ban and said her office would not defend it.

Two, a lawsuit in Ohio seeking for out-of-state marriages to be recognized on death certificates has been expanded to all similary situated couples. Despite a ban on same-sex marriages in Ohio, a judge has ruled in favor of two couples on the principle that Ohio recognizes all valid marriages from other states for ministerial acts like the issuance of death certificates. Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/25/4341472/apnewsbreak-gay-marr...

After Pennsylvania state-court judges lost their challenge in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the constitutionality of the requirement that they retire in the year that they turn 70, they now have lost in federal court too, The Legal Intelligencer reports. The federal judge rejected both their equal protection and due process claims, citing binding precedent. The judge also rejected arguments that he should apply a higher standard of review than rational basis and that the US Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Windsor rejecting the federal Defense Of Marriage Act provided more support for the judicial plaintiffs' position. There also are bills pending in the General Assembly to put constitutional amendments before voters on either eliminating judicial retirement altogether or to raise the mandatory retirement age to 75.

Almost 40 years ago, Arizona adopted a judicial merit-selection system in which a nonpartisan commission recommends a panel of at least three candidates for judicial vacancies, and the governor must make his or her judicial appointment out of those nominees. Then Arizona enacted a law this spring requiring that the commission submit at least five nominees to the governor unless two-thirds of the commission rejected an applicant. Today, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the law violates that state's consitution. Court reformers, including the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake, opposed the change. According to Justice at Stake, the law "was an attempt by legislators to throw open the courtroom doors to greater political influence on the judiciary." Here's the full statement from Justice at Stake: http://www.justiceatstake.org/newsroom/press-releases-16824/?jas_applaud...