A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 8-3 decision is unprecedented, as all other federal appeals court rulings have sided with employers. The Supreme Court has never heard a case on the issue.

Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority opinion, said “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination,” and that “it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.'” Wood, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, added that her ruling was based on the “common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”

The case, Kimberly Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, centers around a professor in South Bend, Indiana. Openly lesbian, Kimberley Hively had been working as a part-time professor at Ivy Tech’s South Bend campus from 2000 to 2014. Six times between 2009 to 2014, Hively applied to full-time positions at the college. She was denied an interview all six times and, in July 2014, the college did not renew her part-time contract.

Hively sued the college, but a federal district court ruled in favor of Ivy Tech. Tuesday’s decision vacates the lower court’s decision. Federal law, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, is also protected by federal law.

Writing for the dissenting opinion, Judge Diane Sykes said the ruling was “momentous,” and amounted to “the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves.” Sykes, who President Donald Trump reportedly considered nominating to the Supreme Court, continued: “We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions.”

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 Appeals Court Rules LGBT Discrimination Violates the Civil Rights Act appeared first on Law Street.

A California federal court dismissed a trademark lawsuit last week that John Wayne Enterprises brought against Duke University. The case was dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.

Actor John Wayne, born Marion Robert Morrison, had several nicknames that contained the word “Duke,” such as Duke Morrison, Duke Wayne, and The Duke. John Wayne Enterprises was created to “preserve and protect the name, image, and likeness of John Wayne by associating the John Wayne brand with quality and timeless products and experiences that embody the spirit of John Wayne and give back to the community.” In July 2013, the organization filed a trademark application with the Patent and Trademark Office to use the trademarks “Duke” and “Duke John Wayne” on all alcoholic beverages except beer. Last July, the organization sued Duke University for infringing its Duke trademark on alcoholic bottles.

John Wayne Enterprises argued that Duke University does not own the word “Duke” for use for all purposes’ however, the university argued that John Wayne Enterprises’ use of “Duke” on alcohol beverages caused consumer confusion, which trademark law is designed to prevent. According to the Los Angeles Times, John Wayne Enterprises’ “Duke” trademark is “a label on a bottle of bourbon stamped with a silhouette of the movie star in a cowboy hat, clutching a gun. The name ‘DUKE’ is stamped over his thighs, and John Wayne’s signature is reproduced near his feet.”  The John Wayne Enterprises logo can be seen here.

John Wayne Enterprises tried to gain personal jurisdiction over Duke University in a California federal court because “the school actively recruits students there, raises money there, maintains alumni associations there and sells university-related products there.” However, U.S. District Judge David Carter dismissed the Wayne estate’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction and said the case belonged in front of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Appeal Board in Alexandria, Virginia.

The court believed that “Duke was aware of John Wayne Enterprises’s presence in the state, but that there was no showing how Duke [University] purposefully directed its conduct at California by filing an opposition to trademarks in Virginia [the location of the Patent and Trademark Office.]”

John Wayne Enterprises and Duke University have battled over the use of the “Duke” trademark before. A July article in the Hollywood Reporter cites conflicts over using the name “Duke” in restaurant services, gaming machines, and celebrity licensing services. Thus, Judge Carter’s dismissal is likely not the end of this case. John Wayne Enterprises can always bring a suit against Duke University on the East Coast.

It’s rare to see John Wayne on the losing-end of a battle, but I am sure that John Wayne Enterprises is already preparing its next move to prevail in the end.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Duke’s Trademark Suit Against Duke University is Dismissed appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a New York federal district court ruled that TVEyes’ use of Fox News’ video clips is a fair use according to the federal Copyright Act.

Who is TVEyes?

You may not have heard of TVEyes, Inc. before, but you’ve probably heard of some of its subscribers: the White House, 100 members of Congress, the United States Army, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and the Associated Press.

So your two next questions may logically be: 1) who is TVEyes? and 2) why do portions of the federal government and the country’s major media outlets care about it? The answer is that TVEyes is a for-profit 24/7 media-monitoring service that monitors and records more than 1,400 television and radio broadcasts and transforms the broadcasts into searchable databases. The searchable databases allow TVEyes’ subscribers,like the White House, to see how different television and radio stations from across the country are reporting a particular event.

How Does TVEyes Work?

You may also be wondering how TVEyes is able to record thousands of broadcasts at once, and how subscribers are able to use its database.  According to a New York federal court opinion published on Tuesday, September 9, TVEyes uses closed captioning and speech-to-text technology to record television and radio broadcasts, and then the company creates a database of the recorded content.  Subscribers log onto a Watch List Page, which monitors keywords, tabulates the total number of times a keyword was mentioned by all 1,400 television and radio broadcasts, and organizes keyword search results by day for a 32-day period. From the Watch List Page, subscribers can click on the Results List Page, which shows the number of times a keyword was used on a particular day.  Each result on the Results List Page contains transcripts of the television and radio broadcasts that mention the keyword as well as thumbnail images of that television or radio broadcast that said the keyword. The subscriber can then click the thumbnail image, and a video clip of the broadcast will play alongside a transcript on the Transcript Page, which contains a wealth of information such as the name and location of the broadcast channel, Nielsen Ratings data about the clip, and the publicity value of the clip.

TVEyes also provides the following notable features and pages:

• A Media Stats page that graphically illustrates the number of times a keyword has been used over a period of time;
• A Marketshare page that contains a “heatmap” indicating the geographical locations that use the keyword the most;
• A Broadcast Network page which depicts in a pie chart the breakdown of which broadcast stations use the keyword;
• A Date and Time Search that lets subscribers play a video clip that aired on a specific date and time on a specific television station; and,
• A Media Snapshot featurethat allows subscribers to watch live streams of everything that TVEyes records.

Moreover, subscribers can save, archive, edit, and download an unlimited number of clips, and email clips to anyone, regardless if he or she is a TVEyes subscriber. Once a recipient clicks on the e-mailed clip, he or she is directed to TVEyes’ website and not the content owner’s website (i.e., Fox News’ website).

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Fox News sued TVEyes because it believed that TVEyes would divert its viewers to TVEyes’ website. Fox News claimed that TVEyes committed copyright infringement because TVEyes used Fox’ News copyrighted video clips to create content on TVEyes’ website, which its subscribers can play, save, edit, archive, download, and share. Specifically, Fox News alleged that TVEyes copied and infringed 19 one-hour programs on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, such as two episodes of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, three episodes of Special Report with Bret Baier, three episodes of The Five, four episodes of The O’Reilly Factor, two episodes of The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, four episodes of Hannity, and one episode of Special Report Investigates: Death & Deceit in Benghazi.

Fair Use Defense

Whenever a plaintiff sues a defendant for copyright infringement, the defendant has certain defenses in the arsenal.  One of those defenses is fair use, which is a doctrine that allows the public to use a copyrighted work without an author’s permission in certain situations.  In this case, TVEyes argued that the features on its database constituted fair use.

The fair use statute, which is listed under 17 U.S.C. 107 in the federal Copyright Act, says that if a defendant uses a copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, there is a strong presumption that the defendant’s use of the work is fair use.  Nevertheless, a court must consider the four factors listed therein:

1. The purpose and character of the work.
2. The nature of the work;.
3. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that the defendant used.
4. The effect the defendant’s use has on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.

Each factor, however, must be viewed in isolation, and the court uses a balancing test.  No one factor brings about a resolution. Let’s see how the court analyzed the four factors.

Factor 1:  The Purpose and Character of the Work

The court noted that the main reason for looking at the purpose and character of a defendant’s work is to see if it adds something new to the original copyrighted work and is not merely a substitute for the original work. The court’s investigation of whether a work adds something new is referred to as “transformative” use. TVEyes argued that its features providing subscribers with Fox News’ video clips is transformative, but Fox News argued that TVEyes’ copying and disseminating of its copyrighted excerpts, circulations, and summaries is not fair use.

The court held that TVEyes’ features that provide its subscribers with Fox News’ video clips was transformative because the database converted Fox’s copyrighted works into a research tool. Moreover, TVEyes’ subscribers use TVEyes for research, criticism, and comment. Finally, although TVEyes is a for-profit company, and commercialism can sometimes weigh against a finding of fair use, the more transformative a work is, the less significance is placed on commercialism.  Since TVEyes’ work was transformative, factor one favored TV Eyes.

Factor 2:  The Nature of the Work

This factor considers the nature of the copyrighted work because some types of work are closer to the kinds of works that copyright law intends to protect. For example, the type of work at issue in this case (i.e., the news) is not copyrightable because the news contains facts. Facts are not copyrightable because society wants everyone to be able to freely disseminate facts in order to find the truth; however, the creativity in deciding how to portray, film, direct, sequence, communicate the news is copyrightable

Nevertheless, courts may favor fair use for a work that is factual or informational.  Wwhere the work is transformative, however, the second factor has limited value.  Thus, the court said that the second factor does not weigh for or against a finding of fair use in this case.

Factor 3:  The Amount and Substantiality of the Copyrighted Work the Defendant Used

TVEyes concedes that it copied all of Fox News’ content. This factor, however, does not just employ a quantative comparison between the original copyrighted work and the defendant’s work, it also asks whether the defendant copied no more than was necessary for any valid purpose stated in the first factor (i.e., transformative use). Since TVEyes’ business model depends on copying all of Fox News’ content, the court said that TVEyes did not take more than what was necessary to obtain its transformative use; however, like the second factor, the court held that the third factor weighed neither for or against a finding of fair use.

Factor 4:  The Effect of the Defendant’s Use on the Potential Market or Value of the Copyrighted Work

This factor considers the economic injury that the defendant’s work causes and the benefit the public generates from use of the defendant’s work, if any.

• Economic Injury: This part of factor four determines whether the defendant’s use would have an adverse impact on the potential market of the original copyrighted work. Fox News argued that TVEyes’ services decreased its ratings of the 19 individual, hour-long programs it aired between October 2012 and July 2013, and thus diminished the amount of per-subscriber carriage fees that advertisers and cable and satellite providers paid Fox News because TVEyes’ subscribers watched TVEyes’ copies rather than the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Network.

The court stated, however, that the 19 shows were no longer available for TVEyes’ subscribers, and TVEyes erases its content every 32 days.  Moreover, during the 32-day period in which these programs were available, only 560 video clips played, and 85 percent of those played were less than a minute long. In addition, between 2003-2014, only 5.6 percent of all TVEyes users saw any Fox News content on TVEyes.  In only three instances between March 2003 and December 2014 did TVEyes subscribers access 30 minutes or more of Fox News Channel’s content, and no subscriber accessed any Fox Business Network content. Furthermore, 95 percent of all video clips played on TVEyes are three minutes or shorter. Thus, the court said there was no basis that TVEyes’ subscribers would likely watch ten minute clips sequentially in order to use TVEyes as a substitute for Fox news.

Fox also argued that TVEyes impairs the derivative work market for syndiciation partners like YouTube and Fox News’ exclusive licensing agent, ITN Source and Executive Interviews.  However, Fox could not point out the alleged customers that Executive Interviews lost.  Moreover, Fox’s revenue from syndication partners and licensing clips is a small fraction of Fox News’ overall revenue (i.e., north of $212,000 and $246,000 respectively) and would likely be outweighed by the public’s benefit of using TVEyes’ services.

• Public Benefit: TVEyes argued that it provides a tremendous public benefit because it creates a library of television broadcast content and makes it easy and efficiently text-searchable. It also argued that without TVEyes there would be no way to search 27,000 hours of daily television broadcast programming, most of which isn’t available online or anywhere else.

Moreover, TVEyes argued that subscribers use its service to comment and criticize broadcast news; government bodies use it to assess factually-reported accuracies; political campaigns use it to monitor political advertisement and campaign appearances during elections; financial firms use it to monitor and archive employees’ public statements for regulatory compliance; the White House uses it to evaluate news and to provide the press with feedback; the United States Army uses it to track media coverage about worldwide military operations to ensure national security and troop safety; journalists use it to research, report, compare, and criticize broadcast news coverage; and elected officials use it to conform informational accuracies reported on the news and to correct misinformation.

Thus, after analyzing the economic injury and public benefit factors, the court held that factor four favored a finding of fair use because the public benefit of TVEyes outweighed its minimal possibility of competition to Fox News.

Balance of Four Factors

Since TVEyes captures and indexes broadcasts that would otherwise not be there — and journalists, the White House, the United States Army, financial firms, elected officials, and political campaigns use TVEyes for purposes like criticizing news, correcting misinformation, assessing commercial advertising, evaluating national security risks, and tracking financial regulatory compliance — the court held that copying Fox News’ content for indexing and clipping services for TVEyes’ subscribers was fair use.

Limited Fair Use

The court held that it did not have to decide fair use for the full extent of TVEyes’ services because no sufficient evidence was presented about whether features that allow TVEyes’ users to save, archive, download, email, and share clips of Fox news’ broadcast content were integral to the transformative purpose of indexing and providing Fox News clips or whether they threatened Fox News’ derivative businesses.  Moreover, neither party was entitled to summary judgment on whether the date and time search function because the record failed to show whether the date and time search function was integral to the transformative purpose of TV Eyes’ service. The court said the factual record regarding the date and time search function should be developed further.

What’s Next?

The court scheduled the next court date for October 3, 2014, which will determine the remaining issues stated about in the “Limited Fair Use” case. We will have to wait and see how the court handles those issues.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Suffers Major Fair Use Defeat to TVEyes appeared first on Law Street.

Judges are supposed to be the good guys, the gatekeepers of justice, and the people that we turn to make sure that justice is served. But sometimes judges deserve some judgment themselves. They act inappropriately and do really stupid stuff. So here are the top nine biggest WTF things judges have done in recent years.

[wooslider autoslide=”false” smoothheight=”true” slide_page=”disorder-in-the-court-nine-times-judges-acted-innappropriately” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”ASC” order_by=”menu”]
—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Andy Pixel via Flickr]

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 Top WTF Moments By Judges appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

Advisory opinions are essentially pieces of advice offered by courts as a way to provide guidance on a particular law or issue. Since its inception, the United States Supreme Court, and federal courts in general, have not been allowed to issue advisory opinions, even though some onlookers have speculated that they may help cut down work flow and clear up ambiguities in the law. Read on to learn about the history of advisory opinions, the Supreme Court’s ban on releasing them, and how that has affected our American jurisprudence system.

What Exactly is an Advisory Opinion?

An advisory opinion is a non-binding explanation of the legal implications of a situation that has not arisen in actual litigation. An advisory opinion allows the legislature, the executive branch, or a lower court to gain insight into the prevailing judicial interpretation of a law, regulation, or constitutional amendment. This reduces the likelihood that a governmental act will be invalidated for conflicting with the Constitution, so it could save time or money. Advisory opinions are not binding precedent but are often treated as persuasive if no other precedent exists.

Why Can’t the Supreme Court Issue Advisory Opinions?

In the United States, federal courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Article III designates that any legal opinion promulgated by federal courts must pertain to an issue that is “mature for judicial resolution” and the parties must have a palpable interest in the case. Put more simply, the Supreme Court, or any lower federal courts, can only rule in a real case, not just when someone brings a topic to the court to ask for an opinion.

Partly at issue is the separation of powers. The job of the legislative branch is to make the laws, the executive branch is supposed to enforce them, and the judicial branch is supposed to interpret them. By allowing the judicial branch to interpret them earlier than is unnecessary, that separation becomes blurred. That’s the argument made by John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when he refused to offer judicial advice to President George Washington or Alexander Hamilton. Later, Justice William R. Day reinvigorated the argument against Supreme Court advisory opinions in Muskrat v. United States. He stated as a reason to not offer advisory opinions that:

The result will be that this court, instead of keeping within the limits of judicial power and deciding cases or controversies arising between opposing parties, as the Constitution intended it should, will be required to give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative action, a function never conferred upon it by the Constitution.

Are There Alternatives to Advisory Opinions?

Certain state courts allow federal courts and courts of other states to ask them certified questions about actual controversies involving the state’s law. The U.S. Supreme Court also accepts certified questions about actual controversies from lower federal courts; however, this is a rare occurrence. A certified question is a request from one court to another court for clarification of a question of law. For example, if a cause of action under a state statute is brought in federal court, the federal court may send a certified question to the state court in order to gain clarification about how to interpret the state statute in accordance with the state’s jurisprudence.

Federal courts are able to employ preventative adjudication in the form of declaratory judgments due to the passage of the Declaratory Judgment Act. A declaratory judgment is a legal finding of a party’s actual legal rights in an actual case or controversy (or lack thereof) against another party. These judgments are binding though they can be appealed. The act allows a party to seek a declaration of his or her rights against another party even if no specific legal relief is sought in the case. If the proven facts show that there is a possibility that relief may be warranted in the future, then the act gives federal courts the discretion to issue declaratory judgments that define parties’ rights.

Federal courts maintain artful legal doctrines in order to ensure that Declaratory Judgments do not amount to de-facto Advisory Opinions. These doctrines are codified in the case of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.  In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court promulgated specific guidelines for the use of Judicial Review:

1. The Court will not determine the constitutionality of legislation in nonadversary proceedings.
2. It will not anticipate a question of constitutional law.
3. It will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than needed.
4. It will not rule on constitutionality if there is another ground for deciding the case.
5. It will not determine a statute’s validity unless the person complaining has been injured by it.
6. It will not invalidate a statute at the instance of persons who have taken advantage of its benefits.
7. It will always ascertain whether any reasonable interpretation of a statute will allow it to avoid the constitutional issue.

These guidelines are designed to prevent courts from promulgating interpretations of the Constitution outside of a ruling in an actual case or controversy.

What is the Argument for Changing the Laws to Allow Federal Courts to Issue Advisory Opinions?

Proponents of granting the Supreme Court the power to issue advisory opinions argue that judicial economy will be improved by the ability to issue opinions more quickly about pervasive legal issues. They also argue that the government can avoid wasting time and resources investing in programs and policies only to have it all be for naught if the government’s action is held to be unconstitutional. Ten states allow their highest courts to issue advisory opinions and the mechanism is an effective legal procedure in those states.

What is the Argument for Maintaining the Status Quo?

Opponents of granting the Supreme Court the power to issue advisory opinions argue that

Every tendency to deal with constitutional questions abstractly, to formulate them in terms of barren legal questions, leads to … sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.

There are more expeditious and expedient means that government actors have for gaining necessary legal interpretations and findings from the courts, such as certified questions. Furthermore, there are procedural mechanisms that allow the legal status of a situation to be determined without the expense and difficulty of a full trial, such as declaratory judgments.

 Resources

Primary

U.S. Archives: U.S. Constitution

Founders Constitution: John Jay to George Washington

Documents in Early American History: John Jay Letter

Additional

Fire Dog Lake: Why Can’t Congress Just Ask the Supreme Court Ahead of Time?

Indiana Law Journal: The Advisory Opinion-An Analysis

Fordham Law Review: The Advisory Opinion and the United States
Supreme Court

Fordham Law Review: The State Advisory Opinion in Perspective

Ohio Northern University Law Review: The Early Supreme Court Justices’ Most Significant Opinion

VIllanova Law Review:Advisory Opinions as a Problem Solving Process

Mel A. Topf: A Doubtful and Perilous Experiment: Advisory Opinions, State Constitutions, and Judicial Supremacy

Cornell Law: Advisory Opinion

UMKC School of Law: Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Power:

UMKC School of Law: Standing, Advisory Opinions, Mootness, and Ripeness

Roger Williams University Law Review: The Jurisprudence of the Advisory Opinion Process in Rhode Island

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Advisory Opinions in Federal Courts: Forbidden Territory appeared first on Law Street.

The state of Wisconsin has a law that has been dubbed the “cocaine mom” law. The idea, in theory, is supposed to protect fetuses from mothers who have drug or alcohol problems and may harm their unborn children. The law contains specific language that the provisions in this law are only supposed to be used in a situation in which a mother may harm her child to a severe degree. In addition to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have these laws in place, while 20 other states have tried and failed to pass them.

A New York Times article by Erik Eckholm published earlier this week explored the horrifying implications of this law. The editorial focused on the story of a twenty-eight year old woman named Alicia Beltran. Fourteen weeks into her pregnancy she went in for a prenatal checkup. She was honest with her doctor about an addiction to Percoset, a prescription painkiller. She had kicked that addiction a few months before. She had also briefly taken a medication called Suboxone, which is intended to help addicts kick their addictions. It is safe even for pregnant women. She borrowed it from a friend, and did not have a prescription for it, because she could not afford one. But she waned herself off of it a few days before she even went in for pre-natal care.

After explaining her situation to her doctor, she took a urine test that showed only traces of Suboxone, which she had disclosed to her doctor. Later tests showed no drugs in her system. The physician’s assistant she had seen for her check-up report told her that if she wanted to continue to take Suboxine, that she should get a prescription. That decision was backed up by the OBGYN Beltran had also briefly seen at the clinic. Beltran explained that she no longer intended to take the drug, and that a prescription would not be necessary.

The physician’s assistant was concerned about the patient, and reported Beltran. A few days after her check-up appointment, a social worker showed up at her door. For Beltran, that was when the real nightmare began. The social worker said that she needed to restart Suboxine to prevent her from taking any other drugs, or be court-ordered to do so. Beltran explained that she did not want to restart Suboxine, and that she was not at risk for restarting her Percoset addiction. She admits that the social worker upset her deeply, and when she slammed the door, she said something about considering an abortion.

A few days after this incident, a sheriff showed up at Beltran’s door and placed her under arrest. She was brought to court, and the terrified young woman was introduced to a lawyer that had been assigned to her unborn fetus. She asked for a lawyer for herself, but wasn’t given one. She was then remanded to a 78-day stay at a drug addiction facility to treat a problem that, as later urine tests showed, she simply did not have. She reports that she was given an option between the treatment facility and jail.

Now, Beltran is fighting back. She is part of a federal suit that aims to declare the Wisconsin “cocaine mom” unconstitutional. Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women told the New York times about the ramifications of these types of laws, saying “this is what happens when laws give officials the authority to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as if they are already completely separate from the pregnant woman.”

The future of this case in court may have interesting effects on the large and vast fetal personhood argument that has been occurring for the past few years all across the United States. If the Federal Court decides that a woman can be held against her will in the name of protecting a fetus; namely that the life of a fetus supersedes the rights of a mother—that decision could have an important effect on the forward movement of fetal personhood cases nationwide. On the flip-side, if they rule that the law is unconstitutional, that precedent could be used as an argument to block fetal personhood efforts in some states.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [alenka_getman via Flickr]

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 “Cocaine Mom” Law’s Horrifying Effects appeared first on Law Street.

The Detroit bankruptcy filing will arrive in court Wednesday despite several attempts to block the massive $18 billion debt restructuring.  U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Steven Rhodes agreed to an expedited hearing shortly after Emergency Manager Kevin Orr filed for Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy last Friday.  The main opponents of the bankruptcy are retirees and workers who are primarily concerned with their ability to receive retirement benefits.

On Monday Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina claimed that the law allowing Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to approve the emergency manager’s bankruptcy filing is unconstitutional.  This ruling was based on the grounds that the governor would be violating the state’s constitutional protections for public workers’ retirement benefits.  In response, State Attorney General Bill Schute has filed an appeal on behalf of the governor to the state appeals court.

[NBC News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ian Freimuth 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 Detroit Files Largest U.S. Municipal Bankruptcy appeared first on Law Street.