May 25, 2013

Guest Post: “John Adams: From Boston to Guantanamo to DOMA” by Michelle Mumford

John Adams: "the man who at certain point...

Image via Wikipedia

Recently, the Honorable Monroe G. McKay, Senior Judge on the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed a group of young lawyers at the Utah State Bar’s annual Law Day luncheon on the theme of “The Legacy of John Adams, from Boston to Guantanamo”. Judge McKay recited a number of instances throughout history where lawyers have taken on noble yet unpopular causes.  He reminded lawyers that there will always be opportunities to do the right thing.  I found Judge McKay’s remarks especially poignant in light of the recent failure of the Atlanta law firm of King & Spalding to honor its commitment to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). [Read more...]

DOMA on its way to review?

District Judge Jeffrey S. White

Is a case in California setting up DOMA for overturn?

A federal judge in California has ruled that a federal appeals judge has no power to order the U.S. government to provide health benefits to the same-sex spouse of a court employee, but went on to invite a constitutional challenge to the law that mandates a denial of such benefits — the federal Defense of Marriage Act.   The judge also indicated that the challenge probably would succeed.

In other words, the appellant, a court employee seeking benefits for her partner, has the wrong procedural posture. She gets until April 15 to file an amended complaint for review of the constitutional grounds of the action preventing the benefits.

With Lambda Legal arguing the case on her behalf and praising the judges dicta that she has a “clear right to relief,” I have no doubt that the case will be amended and refiled.

Stay tuned and remember: if you can’t win at the voting booth, you might be able to win in court, instead.

Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...

Image via Wikipedia

 

(h/t SCOTUSblog)

 

 

Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional

U.S. Supreme Court

Image via Wikipedia

Initially I questioned the Obama Administration’s refusal to defend DOMA. On reflection, however, there may be precedent for their actions. Ilya Somin points out several precedents in both Republican and Democratic administrations that support the premise that the President may be justified in not supporting legislation he deems unconstitutional.

During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7–2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5–4 vote.

Check out his full comments on the Volokh Conspiracy. And the last word?

The fact that Republican administrations have done the same thing in the past doesn’t necessarily prove that Obama’s decision was justified. After all, as Obama himself would be quick to agree, Republican administrations make plenty of mistakes too.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional.

Enhanced by Zemanta

News Round-up: Warren Jeffs Edition

Tempel der FLDS in Eldorado, Texas
Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, Warren Jeffs‘ conviction was overturned and the Utah Supreme Court ordered a retrial, and today the world is all a-twitter with the case.  It turns out that polygamy is just as interesting to news readers today as it was in the 1890s.

…and that’s just a few perspectives, today. If that’s not enough on marriage, there’s always the Defense of Marriage Act for you to think about. (Constitutional or unconstitutional? Discuss.) (Townhall.com)

(Oh, and don’t miss all these other stories on the case here below)

Related articles by Zemanta

Enhanced by Zemanta