California Civil Rights Law News - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

"For those who already own a firearm and are known to be trustworthy due to the licenses that they hold and a history of responsible gun ownership, there is no justification for imposing the full 10-day waiting period."

That's District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii's holding: For Californians who already lawfully own guns, or for those who are licensed concealed carry permit holders, there is no justifiable reason to have a strict 10-day waiting period before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The dust is still settling after Hobby Lobby, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of exempting closely held corporations from the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, but Californians may not feel the aftershock.

Why? California has laws in place that require employers to include birth control in their prescription drug coverage. But these laws don't cover the same legal ground as the healthcare mandate.

So how will Hobby Lobby affect Californians?

Uh, yeah, you read that right: tenure is unconstitutional, and shocks the conscience. Or, to be a bit more clear, the effects of tenure are unconstitutional, says Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu.

How? It's simple: when you give someone a lifetime contract, sometimes that person begins to let their job performance suffer. And guess where terrible tenured teachers end up? The places nobody else wants to go -- schools in poorer neighborhoods. These schools, when staffed with burnouts, deprive the predominately poor and/or minority students of their state and federally guaranteed "equal education opportunity."

It's an interesting leap from tenured teachers to unequal education, one that is sure to be appealed. If it stands, however, it could be the beginning of a war on tenure nationwide.

Want to spend more time practicing, and less time advertising? Leave the marketing to the experts.

Kick the lout out, they said. They got their wish.

No one is going to mourn Donald Sterling's departure from the NBA. The truth is, it was a long time coming -- his racism was an open secret for years, like the time he refused to rent apartments to black people, or the time be brought women to the Clippers' players' showers and told them to admire the "beautiful black bodies."

Yeah, they certainly won't mourn him. But they are mourning his loss of "free speech."

Lots of California law updates this week with the 2014 State of the Judiciary, a retiring judge, and a review of laws, pending, passed, and interpreted. Let's jump in:

2014 State of the Judiciary

On March 17, 2014 Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye gave her 2014 State of the Judiciary Address before California judges, legislators and attorneys. The foundation of her statements rested on "fairness and collaboration" -- values that both the judiciary and legislature embody. She went on to honor the anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and discussed issues important to her including collaborative courts, self-help centers at the trial courts, JusticeCorps and juvenile justice. To read her remarks in full (or watch a video), click here for the 2014 State of the Judiciary Address.

This week California is making headlines with laws -- enacted and proposed -- that affect gun rights, and the rights of juveniles. A Sunnyvale municipal law banning large-capacity magazines reaches the highest court of the land, while another proposed law would require juveniles to be tried as adults.

Sunnyvale's Controversial Gun Law

Last November, the voters of the City of Sunnyvale passed Measure C, a law that among other things, bans large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. A group of Sunnyvale gun owners affected by the new law challenged Sunnyvale, California Municipal Code § 9.44.050, in federal district court, seeking an order for a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement.

Yolo County's Concealed-Carry Permit Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Gun rights activists in Yolo County nabbed a win, as the Ninth Circuit has held that the county's "good cause" concealed-carry handgun policy is unconstitutional.

Yolo County's policy requiring anyone seeking a concealed-carry permit to show "good cause" was initially upheld by the district court. However, following the Ninth Circuit's recent decision on a similar law in San Diego County, it's not a huge shocker that Yolo County's concealed-carry law was also shot down.

It's been a busy few weeks in California with so much legal news to write about that we couldn't just pick one issue. Today, we take a brief look at the teacher tenure case, Propositions 9 and 89, and a new suit filed against U.C. Berkeley.

Vergara v. California

A group of students is challenging five statutes that regulate the dismissal, tenure and layoff of teachers in Vergara v. California, reports LA School Report. The plaintiffs' attorney, Theodore Boutrous argued in court that the challenged laws "put and keep grossly ineffective teachers in the classroom in front of students," reports Reuters. After the plaintiffs presented their case, defendants -- two largest teachers unions and the state of California -- moved to dismiss.

Is a website a place? That's basically the question that a panel of Ninth Circuit judges needs guidance on, and has certified to the California Supreme Court.

Background

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case involving California law. The case was initiated by the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness ("GLAD") against CNN, for its lack of closed captioning on its online videos. GLAD brought its claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh") and the California Disabled Persons Act ("DPA") and sought damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

A 2010 law that would have placed a number of restrictions (fingerprinting purchasers, sales tracking, and a ban on online and mail-order sales) on ammunition that is "principally for use" in handguns, has twice been shot down by California courts as "void for vagueness." Now, the law will get its last chance at life from the state's high court.

The California Supreme Court yesterday agreed unanimously to hear an appeal in the case, reports the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Possible issues could include the vagueness of the statute itself or the standard to be applied in facial challenges to laws.