Four Historical Events in USA Law Happened Today

[shadowkat]

Several major court and legislative decisions were made today in the USA, which may or may not be of interest to you. Here's a run-down in case you were asleep or busy elsewhere.

1. DOMA SUPREME COURT RULING

The Supreme Court overturned a key portion of DOMA Act - which was considered a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

In a 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married. - according to CBS News. It was struck down as being against the Equal Protection Clause.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

Kennedy went on to state:

On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community." The court held that DOMA "because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

DOMA’s "demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law," the majority ruled. "This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment." DOMA, the majority said, "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples" and "makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

You can go tot he link to read the dissent. The gist was that the conservators did not agree that the Constitution forbade laws that tell people what to do in regards to marriage, alcohol consumption or anything similar. But from what I've read, the majority over-turned DOMA in part because it questioned State laws and superimposed Federal laws on States, as well as dictated who should get married and who should get benefits. A clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which does not provide a religious or traditionalist definition of who can or cannot be protected under that law. That said, it does not prevent states such as Utah or Kansas from prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage and/or not recognizing it in another state.


2) In regards to Proposition 8 - it was not struck down so much as passed over.
According to the CBS News site:

At the same time, the court ruled 5-4 that the defendants in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which considered the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban (called Proposition 8), have no standing in court. Supporters of Prop. 8 brought the case to the Supreme Court after a lower court struck down the law but California's governor and attorney general declined to defend it. By dismissing the case on procedural grounds, the court passed up the opportunity to issue a significant ruling on the issue of marriage.

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.

The practical impact of dismissing the Prop. 8 case is limited. It leaves the lower court ruling striking down Prop. 8 in place, applying statewide at best. However, the ruling may apply only to couples who directly challenged Prop. 8, or the counties in which they originally made those challenges. The lawyers who defended Prop. 8 said Wednesday that they are committed to seeing that Prop. 8 is enforced in the state.

This means that the lower court ruling which struck down Proposition 8 remains in place. Since the Governor of California and the California Justice Department refused to defend the act, the suit was dismissed. The gist? A private party cannot defend the constitutionality of a state statute when the state itself refuses to do so. This protects people in the United States from corporations and religious organizations (or in the case of California religious organizations in neighboring states with too much time and money on their hands) from dictating their rights.

As CNN reports on its site:

By dismissing the case, the court leaves in place the lower court decision in California that allows same-sex marriage to be reinstated. The federal appeals court stay on the decision will be lifted.

Within hours of the ruling, California's Gov. Jerry Brown said, "I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state's counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."

Brown, a Democrat, said he interpreted the high court opinion as making Prop 8 unconstitutional and unenforceable. The state's Attorney General Kamala Harris agreed and urged the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to issue its mandate "immediately." But by law, that cannot normally be done so for at least 25 days, to allow for possible new legal challenges.

3.) While this is wonderful news, and I certainly applaud both rulings. Not all is well...the Supreme Court also curtailed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here's some key links towards understanding the act and the ruling:

* What Would a 2013 Voting Rights Act Look Like?

* The Supreme Court Invalidates Two Key Sections of the Act, Sections 4 and 5

First off, what is the act? Good question, from Wiki.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance. These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964.

The Voting Rights Act prevented Texas for example, from redistricting areas with large Latino populations to benefit primarily white voting districts and white candidates. It also prevented Texas from instituting a voter ID law. Overturning these sections permits Texas to do those two things.

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation. From the NY Times Article.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

And from the NY Times Article:

The decision did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, the later section is without significance — unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

It was hardly clear, at any rate, that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying that the majority opinion had provided the reasons and had merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.”

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.

Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.

The rational behind the decision was that when the ACT was passed the country's population was vastly different. But now that we have a black president, black mayors and legislators, the legislation is outdated and no longer required.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

As for my own take on this ruling, I find myself nodding along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginseberg who wrote the dissent:

"In the Court's view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," Ginsburg responded. "Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the VRA."

She wrote that the law was a landmark solution to an important problem in history.

"The Voting Rights Act became one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation's history," Ginsburg declared. "Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made."

Ginsburg then cited a long list of voting rights transgressions that states have committed in the last half-century, which she said "fill the pages of the legislative record." She concluded that the Supreme Court had "erred egregiously" with its decision.

From The Huffington Post.

Two steps forward two steps back...reminds me of the Texas Two-Step.

4) Speaking of Texas, the The Texas Abortion Bill is Dead due to a 13 Hour Filibuster by a Female State Senator.

The Texas anti-abortion bill, which threatened to close nearly all of the abortion clinics in the state and prompted an 11-hour filibuster by state Sen. Wendy Davis (D), is dead, The Austin American-Statesman reported.

Lawmakers had to vote on Senate Bill 5 before the special session's end at 12 a.m. local time. However, more than 400 protesters halted the proceedings 15 minutes before the roll call could be completed with what they called "a people's filibuster," The Associated Press reported.

The crowd of demonstrators in the capitol cried "Shame! Shame!" when Davis' filibuster was halted by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who ruled that her discussion of mandatory ultrasound testing was off-topic. Then the protesters roared after state Sen. Leticia Van De Putte asked, "At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?”

Their cries continued to echo inside the chamber -- and over a livestream watched by thousands around the world -- until after the midnight deadline passed.

Here's a description of why Senator Davis opposed the bill:

The five clinics that would remain open if the bill passed are the only ones in Texas that meet the surgical-center requirements, and all are in large cities; Austin, San Antonio and Dallas each have one, and Houston has two. Advocates for abortion rights said that the burden on those five clinics to provide women’s health services would be extreme, and that women in rural areas and small towns far from those cities would be underserved.

Two clinics in McAllen and Harlingen in South Texas — the only abortion providers in the area — would close, they said, forcing women seeking abortions to travel a few miles across the border into Mexico rather than drive four hours to San Antonio.

During her filibuster, Ms. Davis spoke about her opposition to the bill, calling it a “raw abuse of power” by Mr. Perry and other Republican leaders to shut legal clinics, but also read aloud various documents, letters and statements, including testimony from numerous opponents of the bill.

In short, the bill would make it possible for people with money to seek abortions but not for women who were poor or did not have the means. It was discriminatory against women who were not wealthy and did not have access to the better clinics.

All in all an interesting day in US law.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I keep wondering if Roberts and his cronies can be quite that oblivious?
But apparently so.

There is however an interesting pattern to their decisions emerging...
in all three cases, the court was supporting the individual States' right to dictate their own laws without Federal involvement or interference.