Last September, New Yorker Kelly Gunn went to court to argue that she should be considered a legal parent and gain parental rights to the son her ex-partner adopted in 2011. Last week, she lost her case, but she is now planning to appeal. It’s a complex story that was made possible after a different case led to a new, broader definition of “parent” in New York last fall.

Gunn was in a relationship with Circe Hamilton when they started planning an adoption. The couple split up before the adoption agency had identified Abush, the seven-year-old boy who later became Hamilton’s son. But Gunn still felt like Abush was her son too. She argued in court that her participation in the adoption planning, as well as her support and care after Abush arrived, should qualify her as a legal parent.

On the other side of the argument, Hamilton said that their joint adoption plan ended when they broke up. She claimed that Gunn’s role in her and her son’s life after the breakup was more like that of a close friend or maybe a godmother.

In Gay Rights Case, Woman to Appeal for Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son https://t.co/k7lVw6Mn80 pic.twitter.com/4hdYdqxuWC

— Sara Buitrago (@x3aamphv) April 20, 2017

The case is possible thanks to a decision authored by recently deceased Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam. In a ruling last August, the New York State Court of Appeals decided that a person who is not related by blood to, or the legal adoptive parent of, a child can still ask for custody rights. The ruling came after a case in which another unmarried gay couple, named as Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A. C.C. in court documents, had a child together.

Elizabeth was impregnated through artificial insemination in 2008. After giving birth to a boy, the three of them lived together as a family until 2010, when the women’s relationship ended. Three years after that, Elizabeth tried to sever Brooke’s ties with their son and didn’t let them have any contact. When Brooke sued for visitation rights, a lower court turned her down, as the law didn’t accept a non-adoptive caretaker with no biological ties to the child as a parent.

But the appeals court overturned the ruling on August 30. Judge Abdus-Salaam wrote that the legal definition of a parent was outdated and didn’t fit how many of us view “family” today. They considered the law especially unsustainable since New York started allowing same-sex marriage in 2011. The ruling stated:

Where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the nonbiological, nonadoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.

But the Gunn and Hamilton case is more complicated. The couple never married, and they did not conceive the child together. By the time they split up, they had only planned to adopt a child, but knew no other details. Gunn decided to seek custody because Hamilton was planning on moving to her home country of Great Britain with Abush.

One of Hamilton’s lawyers raised the issue that New York State’s new, expanded definition of parental rights could also be very scary for parents. It could open up arguments for trusted people close to the family to claim parental rights. But it doesn’t allow someone to gain those parental rights too easily–according to the judge in this case, Frank P. Nervo, Gunn didn’t provide sufficient evidence that she had played the role of a parent, and that was why she lost the case.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Seeking Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son Continues Legal Battle appeared first on Law Street.

In a 10-4 decision on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, concluding that military-style weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” wrote Judge Robert King, who noted that the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller excluded coverage of assault weapons.

The decision overturned a previous ruling that found Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 unconstitutional because the weapons “are in common use by law-abiding citizens,” and therefore don’t fall under the exception that applies to “unusual” weapons–i.e. machine guns and hand grenades.

The law, which was introduced by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, prohibits the sale, possession, transfer, or purchase of 45 kinds of assault rifles and places a 10-round limit on detachable gun magazines.

In a scathing dissent, Judge William B. Traxler wrote that his colleagues did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“[The majority] has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Traxler.

King, however, pointed out that the same kinds of weapons were used in the shootings in Aurora, San Bernardino, and Orlando, adding that the names of those places “have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there.”

The decision is considered to be a major victory for gun safety advocates, but a serious setback for gun proponents who believe their right to bear arms should not be limited.

According to NBC News, the NRA estimates there are somewhere between 5 million to 10 million AR-15s–one of the banned weapons under Maryland’s law–in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes.

“It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment,” said National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker. She added that the majority opinion “clearly ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are ‘in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'”

The plaintiffs could appeal to the Supreme Court, but Frosh says he’s confident that the law will stand.

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Rules Assault Rifles Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court late Thursday night affirmed a lower court’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s executive order that banned travel from seven countries to the U.S. The ruling is a blow to Trump’s efforts to clamp down on refugees and immigrants from “terror prone” countries the White House says pose a threat to U.S. security. Trump said the ruling was a “political decision,” and pledged to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

For now, refugees and visa-holders–who have already been vetted and admitted to the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security–from Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya will be allowed to travel and settle in the U.S. Trump’s executive order, issued on January 27, barred refugees from entering the U.S. for at least 120 days, and visa-holders for at least 90 days. Syrians–refugees and travelers–would have been blocked indefinitely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, deliberated for two days before coming to a conclusion. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the executive order could violate the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The three judges, appointees of Presidents Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, said: “we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” Trump tweeted his disapproval just moments after the court’s decision:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

The road to the appeals court began last Friday, when a district court judge in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order on the travel ban. That judge, James Robart, sided with the states of Washington and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, and said that because of the travel ban, the states “are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” The White House immediately appealed to the court in San Francisco, and after a day of oral arguments and two days of deliberations, the appeals court affirmed Robart’s ruling.

The appeals court was unconvinced by the administration’s argument that the judiciary has no authority to question executive actions involving national security. “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” The court did say the government should enjoy deference in matters of national security, but reiterated that those decisions are not “unreviewable.”

The Trump Administration will likely file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court within the next few days. With the pending confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, the court has eight justices, which many consider ideologically split 4-4. If the case ends up in their docket, a 4-4 vote would keep the appeals court’s ruling in place. A Supreme Court hearing and decision could come as early as next week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Tom  Brady is officially a free man–free to play in the first four games of this year’s season, that is. Earlier today, Judge Richard M. Berman nullified the punishment that the NFL levied against Brady for his role in the famed deflategate scandal of last year’s playoffs.

Berman’s ruling was based mainly on procedural concerns. According to the decision:

The Award is premised upon several significant legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (four-game suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.

Berman’s decision could have brought finality after a drawn out back-and-forth battle between the star Patriots’ quarterback, represented by the NFLPA, and the NFL. However the NFL is going to continue to appeal it–the case will now make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell elaborated in a written statement today:

We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today’s decision. We will appeal today’s ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. The commissioner’s responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season.

So, the NFL has now signed itself up for an even lengthier court process than it probably originally bargained for. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will assign a panel of three judges chosen from a pool of 23 once the appeal is filed. The NFL will then have to convince two or more of the three that Berman was wrong in the way that he applied the law. While that seems simple enough, it’s the waiting game that dominates appeals cases that is at issue here. A case can take up to a year to appear in front of an appeals court, which means that this whole controversy will be hanging over the NFL, the NFLPA, and Brady for quite a bit longer. If the appeal does go through, it’s unclear how Brady could actually be punished, although a suspension appears to be a possibility.

Brady will play in the first regular season game next Thursday against the Pittsburgh Steelers. So why is the NFL even bothering to appeal?  One big issue is that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent for how the NFL handles suspension–the door has now been opened for another round of scrutiny in the appeals process by the courts. That could get expensive, and mean that the threat of NFL punishment holds less weight for players because there’s a new avenue for an appeal. For example, Cowboys player Greg Hardy is apparently looking to appeal his four-game suspension for domestic violence. At the end of the day, this entire debacle doesn’t look great for the NFL, regardless of whether or not Brady was actually in the wrong and aware of the under-inflated balls.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How is DeflateGate Still Not Over?: The Next Steps for the Belabored NFL Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

A U.S. Appeals Court just issued a decision that threw out a preliminary injunction that would have prevented bulk data collection by the government. This decision is important, but also very confusing because the NSA program that it challenges was changed in June following the passage of the USA Freedom Act. There is a lot going on here so let’s break down the ruling and what it means for the case’s future.

Friday’s decision came from a panel of three DC Circuit Court judges who in a 2-1 ruling threw out an injunction from the district court ruling. In the initial ruling in December 2013, DC District Court Judge Richard J. Leon found that there are “significant privacy interests at stake and the unprecedented scope of the NSA’s collection and querying efforts, which likely violate the Fourth Amendment.” Judge Leon issued an injunction that would end the collection of bulk data under the NSA’s program and would require the agency to destroy previously collected records. However, given the national security interests at stake the judge stayed, or put on hold, his injunction pending an appeal decision from the circuit court. That ruling was issued on Friday and two of the three judges on the panel decided that there were not sufficient grounds for the injunction to be issued. But the judges’ decision to throw out the injunction does not mean that the case is over. In fact the judges did not really rule on the facts of the case, instead they remanded it back to the lower court.

First, it is important to understand why the case remains valid even after Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which effectively ended the government’s bulk phone metadata collection. Parts of the USA PATRIOT ACT–which was what the government used to justify the NSA data collection program–expired on June 1 following a Rand Paul filibuster. The next day, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act that maintained the government’s ability to get phone call metadata information using court warrants, but moved the actual collection of data to individual wireless carriers (like AT&T and Verizon) rather than the NSA. This compromise settled a lot of the debate about the NSA’s program, but in order to allow for a transition the existing program was allowed to continue for 180 days after the law took effect on June 2. The judges in Friday’s ruling decided that the case was not moot because the previous form of collection continued during the 180 day period.

So what does the ruling mean? The DC Circuit Court’s ruling will not necessarily affect the outcome of the case as it focused on whether the present facts constitute sufficient ground for the injunction issued by Judge Leon. The issue at hand for the plaintiffs–Larry Klayman and Charles Strange–is providing sufficient evidence to show that the NSA’s bulk data collection affected them specifically. The judges ruled that while Klayman and Strange provided enough evidence to indicate that they had legal standing to challenge the program, they did not meet the higher threshold required for injunctive relief.

The lack of specific information about the program creates an issue for the plaintiffs because they are unable to provide direct proof that their data was collected. The crux of their claim focuses on the fact that the bulk data collection system exists and that the government has acknowledged that it collected data from Verizon Business customers. Both plaintiffs are Verizon Wireless customers, not Verizon Business customers, but they speculate that their data was most likely collected based on what we know about the program.

Per Circuit Court Judge Stephen F. Williams’ opinion:

Plaintiffs claim to suffer injury from government collection of records from their telecommunications provider relating to their calls. But plaintiffs are subscribers of Verizon Wireless, not of Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.—the sole provider that the government has acknowledged targeting for bulk collection… plaintiffs lack direct evidence that records involving their calls have actually been collected

Judge Janice Rogers Brown joined the court’s opinion and also wrote separately to reiterate:

While plaintiffs have demonstrated it is only possible—not substantially likely—that their own call records were collected as part of the bulk-telephony metadata program, plaintiffs have nonetheless met the bare requirements of standing.

The case will now go back down to the district court to see if further discovery between the plaintiffs and the government is appropriate. While the judges did not stop the case outright, they do note that it will likely be difficult for Klayman and Strange to get sufficient evidence indicating that their data was collected. Doing so will depend on the government’s willingness to release information about a program that it desperately wants to keep secret. So far, the only court to rule on the facts of the bulk data collection program, the Second Circuit Court in New York, ruled against the NSA–and if this case gets that far it will likely follow suit. According to the initial ruling from Judge Leon, the case will likely show that the program was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but that will only happen if they are able to get sufficient information from the government. We will have to keep watching this case to see whether the plaintiffs have a reasonable chance.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Reverses Injunction on Bulk Data Collection: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

In a tragic, but very confusing story, a woman from Utah is suing herself–and a Utah court just said that she can move forward. Barbara Bagley, is representing her late-husband Bradley Vom Baur’s estate, suing the woman whose negligence may have caused the auto accident in which he passed away. The person who may have caused the accident? That’s right–it’s the same Barbara Bagley. So Barbara Bagley is suing Barbara Bagley. Confused yet? I sure am. How exactly can someone sue themselves?

Well, essentially it’s the same as when two separate people are involved in an accident like this–if someone passes away in a car accident, their “estate” can sue the person who caused the accident. In her lawsuit, she is essentially just arguing that Bagley who controls Vom Baur’s estate, and Bagley who drove the car are two different parties with two different interests. She’s asking for unspecified damages for his medical and financial expenses, loss of financial support and companionship, and the physical pain he suffered.

Bagley was driving a Range Rover in 2011 with her husband when she lost control. The car flipped after she hit a bush, and her husband, Vom Baur, was thrown from the car. He suffered extensive injuries and passed away a little over a week later. The side of Bagley that controls Vom Baur’s estate is claiming that she was negligent for failing to look ahead properly and keep control of her vehicle.

This may be a tactic to get the insurance money that Bagley desires. University of Utah Law Professor Shima Baradaran explains:

She is claiming her own negligence in her husband’s death. In order to recover for the costs of his death she has to kind of claim her own negligence. So basically she’s suing herself so that the insurance recovery can follow.

This does mean that Bagley has two separate sets of lawyers. The lawyers defending Bagley on behalf of her late-husbands estate are privately hired. The attorneys defending her as a driver come from her insurance carrier.

Now, of course, there’s been a legal battle before the case actually commenced over what Bagley is doing. The lawyers for Bagley as the driver have tried to get the case thrown out. As they wrote in a motion to dismiss:

Further, if this suit is allowed to continue, a jury would be asked to determine whether Barbara Bagley’s fault caused Barbara Bagley’s own harm. The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself. The jury will be highly confused — it cannot order a person to compensate herself In January 2014, a judge actually dismissed the case. But this week, an appeals court said that Bagley is able to sue herself.

Originally, a judge agreed with them, and threw out the case in 2014. But this week, an appeals court reversed that decision, and said that the case can move forward. The defense–the insurance company representatives for Bagley–hasn’t said whether or not it will try to bring it to the Supreme Court.

It’s a weird case, certainly, although not entirely unexpected in today’s litigation-happy world. In some ways it’s also a heartbreaking case–a woman is admitting that her negligence caused her husband’s death because that’s the way that she’s going to be able to pay off his bills. Finally, it’s a fascinating case. The ability to separate different parts of legal identity is certainly a mostly-unexplored field. Whether or not this case goes forward, or whether it ends up at the Utah Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see which of Bagley’s interests succeeds.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Utah Appeals Court Rules Woman May Sue Herself appeared first on Law Street.

The New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the ruling that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks is unconstitutional.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the law “violated the state principle of separation of powers.”  The ban would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants throughout the city.  The appeals court decision came after a New York Supreme Court Justice ruled that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Bloomberg has recently issued several executive orders and initiatives in an attempt to improving the health of New Yorkers, including mandating that all chain restaurants publicize calorie counts; promoting the use of stairways rather than elevators; and even an attempt to raise the age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.  Although he has faced several challenges to his health initiatives, he remains committed to improving the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

[NY Daily News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Large Drink Ban Still Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.