 |
|

Legal news from Saturday, December 22, 2012 |
 |
|


Federal appeals court blocks California sexual orientation therapy law
Keith Herting on December 22, 2012 12:07 PM ET

[JURIST] A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] granted an injunction [text, PDF] on Friday to temporarily block enforcement of a California law banning mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) with minors. The injunction will prevent the law, SB 1172 [text], which was slated to take effect on January 1, 2013, from being enforced until the constitutionality of the law can be determined by the appeals court. The plaintiffs claim that the law violates their right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment [text]. The plaintiffs were represented by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel (LC) [advocacy website], who were quick to declare the injunction a victory claiming [press release] that the law is "politically motivated to interfere with counselors and clients." The court has indicated it will "fast-track" a review of the law which will allow for a speedier ruling on its constitutionality.
Earlier in the month a federal district court refused to block the law [JURIST report] claiming a challenge of the constitutionality was "not likely to prevail." A separate challenge to SB 1172 resulted in a temporary injunction [JURIST report] by a different judge in the same court earlier in the week. That challenge, brought by the Pacific Justice institute (PJI), resulted in a temporary injunction which would have allowed the plaintiffs in that case to continue SOCE after the law goes into effect. PJI filed its lawsuit challenging the bill just days after it was signed [JURIST reports] into law by California Governor Jerry Brown [official website] in October. SB 1172 was approved by the California State Assembly [JURIST report] in August and the California Senate [JURIST report] in May. Supporters of the bill, including groups such as Equality California [advocacy website] and the American Psychoanalytic Association [advocacy website] assert the reason for legislation is that homosexuality is not and should not be treated as a disease, and efforts to reverse homosexuality have proven to be detrimental to minors.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Regional rights court strikes down Costa Rica in vitro fertilization ban
Samuel Franklin on December 22, 2012 11:38 AM ET

[JURIST] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights [official website, in Spanish] ruled [judgment, PDF, in Spanish; press release, PDF, in Spanish] Thursday that Costa Rica's ban on in vitro fertilization (IVF) violates the rights to privacy, liberty, personal integrity and to form a family, as recognized under international law. The challenge was filed [JURIST report] in July 2011 on behalf of [text] 50 Costa Rican couples who have had to seek IVF procedures in other countries as a result of the ban. In 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica [official website] banned IVF, declaring the practice unconstitutional because it violates an embryo's right to life. Since then, maintaining the ban has received support [The Australian report] from conservative groups and the Catholic church in Costa Rica. Their campaigns focused on the disposal of fertilized eggs common in IVF procedures, portraying the practice as tantamount to murder.
IVF is a type of fertility treatment for couples who have had difficulty conceiving children. Through IVF, a woman's eggs are removed and fertilized outside the body. Successfully fertilized embryos are then implanted into the woman for gestation. Costa Rica was the only Western nation that banned the practice. Although the nation is known for a progressive human rights and civil liberties record, the government usually holds to the Catholic Church's edicts on many social issues. In August 2010 the Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled 5-2 to disallow a nationwide referendum [JURIST report] on whether to recognize same-sex civil unions [JURIST backgrounder]. The referendum was to be on the ballot during the December 2010 municipal elections after qualifying for the ballot through a petition.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal judge dismisses filibuster lawsuit
Samuel Franklin on December 22, 2012 10:09 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Friday dismissed [opinion, PDF] a lawsuit claiming that Senate filibusters are an unconstitutional denial of majority rule. The lawsuit was brought by a non-profit organization known as Common Cause [advocacy website] as well as four members of the US House of Representatives and individuals who allege they would have benefited from the DREAM Act [JURIST news archive]. Despite acknowledging the filibuster rule as an important and controversial issue, the court ultimately denied further proceedings because of the plaintiffs' lack of standing and the court's overall apprehension toward interfering with separation of powers. While the US Constitution does not contain any language regarding the proper length of, or method for, the Senate to debate proposed legislation, it does grant each House the power to determine the rules of its proceedings, something "beyond the jurisdiction of this court," stated US District Judge Emmet Sullivan.
The Senate filibuster rule has been a long-standing tradition on Capitol Hill, but has not been without its criticism, particularly in the previous few years over alleged misuse and abuse. In May Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the Senate floor called [Huffington Post report] for a change to the rule, referencing bills for which both parties have shown overwhelming support, but are in danger of expiration due to unjustified filibuster delay. Currently, Senate rules dictate that 60 votes are needed to end debate on a bill while a simple majority would be required to pass it. The most infamous of filibusters was during debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1957 [JURIST report] in which former Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) spoke [biography] on the Senate floor in protest of the bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes without pause, a record that stands to this day.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|