Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The state of Virginia's tourism and travel slogan is "Virginia is for Lovers." Well, not quite for everyone.

The Prop. 8 "dream team" of Ted Olson and David Boies, who teamed up to overturn the gay-marriage ban
in California, have joined a lawsuit against Virginia’s prohibition against same-sex marriage. Lawyers want Virginia as same-sex marriage test case:

The American Foundation for Equal Rights — with its attention-getting
political odd couple of conservative Republican lawyer Theodore Olson
and liberal Democrat David Boies — will announce Monday it is joining a
lawsuit against what the lawyers called Virginia’s “draconian” laws
prohibiting same-sex marriages, the recognition of such marriages
performed where they are legal, and civil unions.

It is one of dozens of lawsuits filed across the nation by same-sex marriage activists who say they feel emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decisions in June that
overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that forbade
recognition of same-sex marriages and separately allowed such unions to
resume in California.

* * *

There are dozens of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in 18
states, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and on Friday, a state judge in New Jersey ruled same-sex marriages must be allowed there. Gov. Chris Christie (R) is appealing.

But
the ultimate goal is the recognition of a constitutional right, such as
when the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial
marriages in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports that GOP-led states are moving aggressively on voting rules:

Emboldened by the Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the
Voting Rights Act, a growing number of Republican-led states are moving
aggressively to tighten voting rules. Lawsuits by the Obama
administration and voting rights activists say those efforts
disproportionately affect minorities.

Last week, a three judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled 2-1 to allow the Department of Justice to intervene in the Texas redistricting lawsuit. The Court ruled (.pdf) that "after Shelby County, circumstances changed significantly, since §3(c) became an issue for the first
time."

"The parties recognize the importance of the §3(c) claims. Certain Plaintiffs “posit that this particular VRA claim will be critical in resolving the issues in this litigation.” Docket no. 788 at 2. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ briefing on §3(c) illustrates the fact that issues concerning the proper construction and application of §3(c) are unsettled and highly disputed. And the parties recognize that “there is limited judicial guidance available on the application of Section 3(c).” Docket no. 788 at 9. The United States has a direct interest in the construction and application of §3(c) that was not present until after the Shelby County ruling. Therefore, the interest that the United States seeks to protect is not the same interest that was present from the inception of the litigation."

Today, the Department of Justice sued the state of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina over "the worst voter suppression law" in the nation. Read the complaint Here (,pdf).

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A New Jersey state court judge ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marry under the state constitution, ordering
marriage equality will take effect on October 21, 2013 — assuming the
decision is not stayed on appeal. New Jersey Judge: Same-Sex Couples Have The Right To Marry:

The decision is expected to be appealed, first to an intermediate court, and then to the state Supreme Court.

* * *

The decision
does not overturn the civil unions law, but asserts that same-sex
couples must also have the right to marriage, including all the federal
benefits now associated with it post-Defense of Marriage Act:

The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal
benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide
range of contexts: civil union partners who are federal
employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with
regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are
employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave
Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and
civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married
couples enjoy.

And if the trend of federal agencies deeming civil union partners
ineligible for benefits continues, plaintiffs will suffer even more,
while their opposite-sex New Jersey counterparts continue to receive
federal marital benefits for no reason other than the label placed upon
their relationships by the State. This unequal treatment
requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to
satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution
as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis. Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution.