The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: federal appeals court
Appeals Court Delays Release Of  Documents To January 6​ Panel

Appeals Court Delays Release Of  Documents To January 6​ Panel

By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday put on hold a lower court ruling allowing congressional investigators to obtain former President Donald Trump's White House records relating to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump's lawyers had asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to put the Tuesday ruling on hold while he appeals it.

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe, additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Scott Malone)

Court Blocks Mississippi From Closing State’s Last Abortion Clinic

Court Blocks Mississippi From Closing State’s Last Abortion Clinic

By Alana Semuels, Los Angeles Times

NEW ORLEANS — After a series of setbacks, abortion rights advocates claimed a small victory Tuesday after a federal appeals court blocked a law that would have closed the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi.

The law required that all physicians associated with an abortion clinic have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The state’s last clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, had filed a suit challenging the law, in part because none of the seven hospitals in the Jackson area were willing to grant the physicians admitting privileges.

Mississippi officials argued that women could go to neighboring states to obtain abortions, but the three-member panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 2-1, that the state could not shift its constitutional duties to another state.

The law “imposes an undue burden on a women’s right to choose an abortion,” the court said.

The decision is curious because the same appeals court, with a different panel of judges, let stand a similar law in Texas this year. Similar laws are also being litigated in Wisconsin and Alabama and are in place in Kansas, North Dakota, and Tennessee. Comparable laws will go into effect later this year in Louisiana and Oklahoma.

The difference, said Matthew Steffey, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, is that the Mississippi law would have closed the last remaining clinic, whereas the Texas law closed only some.

“If you go all the way back to the era of Roe vs. Wade, the problem was that abortions were available in some jurisdictions but not others,” Steffey said. “Roe nationalized the right of access to abortion, and the court, for very good reason, said a state can’t export or transfer its constitutional duties to other states.”

The state can still appeal the decision, and Jan Schaefer, a spokeswoman for the Mississippi attorney general, said in an email that the state was “reviewing the ruling and considering our options.”

Steffey said the law was likely to remain blocked.

“I think it’s essentially game over at this point,” he said.

The Mississippi law, passed in 2012, was one of a flurry of anti-abortion laws pushed by conservative legislatures after the midterm election of 2010. Some required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges in local hospitals, others banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and others required clinics to give women an ultrasound and then describe the image to them before performing the procedure.

Legislators said the bills were aimed at making abortion safer for women, although many also said they would prefer to eliminate abortion entirely if they could.

“If a woman is going to have an abortion, we want to make sure she receives proper health care,” said Rep. Katrina Jackson, a Democrat, who sponsored Louisiana’s admitting-privileges bill. “It’s about continuity of care.”

Abortion rights advocates have fought many of the state laws in court, with varying degrees of success. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Arizona on a state law that barred abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, effectively blocking that law, but similar laws still stand.

The Texas admitting-privileges law still stands, and a paper released last week found that the number of abortion facilities in the state had dropped to 22 from 41 and that the abortion rate had declined 13 percent in the year the law has been in place.

“The courts have been a bit of a mixed bag, and sometimes restrictions are struck down, sometimes they’re not, and it’s very hard to predict what will happen,” said Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for reproductive rights.

In an effort to get a more definitive ruling on the matter, Planned Parenthood has filed a petition asking the full bench of the 5th Circuit to reconsider the Texas case. Its petition would essentially ask all of the judges to rule on the law, rather than just the three-judge panel, which upheld it in March. Differing decisions could make the case proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Also Tuesday, the Massachusetts Legislature gave final approval to a bill designed to tighten security around abortion clinics in the state. The law, which would allow police to disperse anyone impeding access and keep them at least 25 feet from the clinic’s entrance for up to eight hours, comes a month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2007 state law that prevented protesters from coming within 35 feet of the entrances. Gov. Deval Patrick has said he will act quickly to sign the bill into law.

In the meantime, clinics such as the Women’s Health Care Center in New Orleans are struggling to gain admitting privileges at local hospitals, since the law in Louisiana still stands. On a recent weekday, Sylvia Cochran, the administrator of the clinic, one of two in the New Orleans area, sat in an office as protesters outside held graphic images of fetuses and shouted at women approaching the building.

The admitting-privileges law is “a game-changer,” said Cochran, who has been working at the clinic since 1977. It goes into effect Sept. 1, and abortion rights advocates say it could close all clinics in the state except for two in Shreveport.

Cochran spent recent months applying for malpractice insurance, which is necessary for gaining admitting privileges, to no avail so far. The state had previously prohibited doctors providing abortions from obtaining malpractice insurance, a law that was overturned by the courts in 2012. No hospital had granted her clinic admitting privileges yet.

If the New Orleans and Baton Rouge clinics close, it will be a shorter drive for New Orleans women to visit the clinic in Jackson, across the state border, than it will be for them to visit the remaining clinics in their own state.

Photo: World Can’t Wait via Flickr

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By U.S. Appeals Court

Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By U.S. Appeals Court

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

In a closely watched case, a federal appeals court has ruled that Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the second appellate circuit to recently rule on an issue that is probably heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision, handed down on Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., is the first such ruling from a federal appeals court in the South, generally regarded as more conservative than the rest of the nation. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage, though the issue is pending in courts in every state in the country.

The ruling is also the latest in a string of more than two dozen victories by supporters of gay marriage and moves another case up the judicial ladder, a needed step before the issue reaches the Supreme Court.

On June 25, in a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit upheld gay marriage in a Utah case. On July 25, the same three-judge panel issued a similar split ruling in a case from Oklahoma. Both decisions were stayed to allow time for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The ruling in the Utah case marked the first time a federal appeals court has ruled on gay marriage since the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had to extend benefits to legally married same-sex couples a year ago.

Supporters of same-sex marriage were jubilant over the Virginia ruling.

“It was in a case out of Virginia that the Supreme Court ended race discrimination in marriage. And today, in another Virginia marriage case, a federal circuit court ruled against discrimination in marriage, affirming the freedom to marry for loving and committed gay couples,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group backing gay marriage.

“The 4th Circuit’s ruling echoes what over 25 other federal and state courts have held: Same-sex couples deserve the dignity of marriage, and anti-marriage laws are indefensible. Every day of denial is a day of injustice and tangible harms. It’s time for the Supreme Court to bring the country to national resolution and secure the freedom to marry for all,” he said.

In the Virginia case, Timothy Bostic and Tony London were denied a marriage license at Norfolk Circuit Court on July 1, 2013, and they promptly sued, arguing that the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage denies gays and lesbians equal protection and rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws,” the judges wrote in the Virginia case.

“Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form life-long partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the 14th Amendment cannot countenance,” they said.

On Feb. 13, 2014, just in time for Valentine’s Day, a federal judge in Norfolk struck down the state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006.

In her original ruling, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen compared the ban on same-sex marriage to Virginia’s past prohibition to interracial marriage. That Virginia case led to a 1967 landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage — an argument that has returned in many states during the current campaign to eliminate state laws barring same-sex marriage.

London and Bostic are represented by attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson, former adversaries in the 2000 Supreme Court case, Bush vs. Gore, which led to George W. Bush being elected president. Boies served as counsel for Vice President Albert Gore. Olson represented Bush and later served as his solicitor general.

In their papers, the lawyers argue that Virginia’s gay-marriage ban improperly discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

“The Supreme Court has reaffirmed … that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights — if not the most fundamental right of an individual,” they said. “The right to marry has always been based on, and defined by, the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice,” they said.

Proponents of upholding Virginia’s constitutional ban, including Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, a defendant in the case, argue that federal courts should defer to the states on the issue.

“References to marriage being only between a bride and groom, i.e. a husband and wife or one man and one woman, predate the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the defense said in its papers. The 2006 action “did not redefine marriage; it memorialized existing laws,” according to Schaefer’s filing, which also argued that “great weight” should be given to the will of the people.

Photo: Susan Melkisethian via Flickr

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Analysis: Same-Sex Marriage In Virginia Gets Its Day In Federal Appeals Court

Analysis: Same-Sex Marriage In Virginia Gets Its Day In Federal Appeals Court

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

The battle over same-sex marriage in Virginia moved to the appellate level on Tuesday, a significant step for two reasons, one practical and one historical.

It was a Virginia case that led to a 1967 landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage — an argument that has returned during the current campaign to eliminate state laws barring same-sex marriage. Tuesday’s argument before a three-judge federal panel will also be the latest of the gay marriage cases to move up the judicial scale, a needed step before the issue likely heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Timothy Bostic and Tony London were denied a marriage license at Norfolk Circuit Court on July 1, 2013, and they promptly sued, arguing that gays and lesbians are being denied equal protection and rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment because of the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage. It was on Feb. 13, just in time for Valentine’s Day, that a federal judge in Norfolk struck down the state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen compared the ban on same-sex marriage to Virginia’s past prohibition to interracial marriage. It was that case that led the Supreme Court to end bans on interracial marriage across the country. Advocates are hoping the same argument will lead to the same result on same-sex marriage issues.

London and Bostic are represented by attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson, former adversaries in the 2000 Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore, which led to George W. Bush being elected president. Boies served as counsel for Vice President Albert Gore. Olson represented Bush and later served as his solicitor general.

In their papers, the lawyers argue that Virginia’s gay marriage ban improperly discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

“The Supreme Court has reaffirmed at least 14 times that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights — if not the most fundamental right of an individual,” they said. “The right to marry has always been based on, and defined by, the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice,” they said.

Proponents of upholding Virginia’s constitutional ban, like Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, a defendant in the case, argue that federal courts should defer to the states on the issue.

“References to marriage being only between a bride and groom, i.e. a husband and wife or one man and one woman, pre-date the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the defense said in its papers. The 2006 action “did not redefine marriage; it memorialized existing laws,” according to Schaefer’s filing, which also argued that “great weight” should be given to the will of the people.

“Americans have come a long way in supporting the freedom to marry, with a majority for marriage nationwide,” Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, which supports same-sex marriage, stated on Tuesday. “So have the courts — with 11 out of 11 federal judges and numerous state courts from New Mexico to Arkansas all ruling in recent months against marriage discrimination.”

The three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit were named Tuesday morning, just before arguments were set to begin. They are: Paul V. Niemeyer, nominated to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush; Roger L. Gregory, a recess appointment by President Bill Clinton in 2000 who was subsequently nominated by President George W. Bush; and Henry F. Floyd, nominated as a district judge by George W. Bush in 2003 and named to the appeals court by President Barack Obama in 2011.

The 4th Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, is the second appeals court to consider whether state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver has already heard arguments about the issue in cases stemming from Utah and Oklahoma. A ruling is pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court last summer struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which opened the gates to a variety of lawsuits on issues around same-sex marriage. Federal judges have used the court’s reasoning in the DOMA case to strike down bans in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan. Additionally, judges in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio have said those states must recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Often, the Supreme Court will wait to see how the issue is playing out in the lower courts before deciding to weigh in, a process that many people believe is underway.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. In Arkansas on Monday, more than 200 gay couples obtained marriage licenses following a judge’s decision on Friday to toss out the state’s 10-year-old same-sex marriage ban.

Arkansas is seeking a stay on same-sex marriages and that issue is pending before the state’s Supreme Court.

AFP Photo/Joel Saget