This rather unusual lawsuit out of the Eleventh Circuit is an affirmation of Sandy Springs' ban on sex devices unless needed for "bona fide" reasons. Now, how often is that going to happen? What's a "bona fide" need for sex toys?
Recently in Civil Rights Law Category
The Florida Firearm Owners Privacy Act, odiously nicknamed 'Docs v. Glocks,' is being debated in federal court that has physicians on one side and gun rights activists on the other. It's been five years since the Florida law passed, and all eyes are on the Federal Court in Atlanta.
Most people see this as a doctors versus gun owners issue, but many lawyers see it as a First Amendment versus Second Amendment issue. What do you think is the correct way to interpret this debate?
Circuit cases don't often involve terribly outlandish scenarios. Here's an exception. In this qualified immunity case, a police officer arrested the real estate agents for the new owners of his home after they foreclosed on his house.
Based on that brief set of facts, how do you think the court ruled? You're probable right.
The Florida man who was sentenced to eight years for knowingly accessing a computer with intent to view child pornography got no relief from the Eleventh Circuit, which recently affirmed the lower court's decision.
The decision expands current law as to who may consent to give access to your materials in the face of a warrantless search.
In a case that is illustrative to those who lease-out residential property, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower trial court's dismissal of a discrimination suit in the plaintiff's favor because it found that the apartment complex had violated the Fair Housing Act.
Of particular note is the court's declaration that a defendant need not make dwelling impossible to obtain in order for that dwelling to be "unavailable" for purposes of the Act.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has yet again deflected another free speech argument from a coalition of doctors who have opposed Florida's notorious 'Docs vs. Glocks' rule and upheld that state's law on grounds that it failed to satisfy strict scrutiny review.
The Firearms Owners Privacy Act, originally intended (we think) by the Florida legislature to get doctors to mind their own business has resulted in this bizarre tug-of-war between the First and Second Amendments. The legal issues themselves are enough to warrant cert. by the Supreme Court.
Prison Legal News, a monthly publication by the Human Rights Defense Center, isn't allowed in Florida state prisons. No, it's not the magazine's investigations into prison vendor misconduct or its reporting on inmate rights. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, it's the magazine's objectionable advertisements. Those ads? They're for things like stamps, three-way calling services, and pen pals.
Prison Legal News sued over the ban, which was largely upheld in October. Now, they've turned to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the prisons' ban infringes on the magazine's First Amendment rights. And they've got some ammunition in their corner. The suit is being lead by Former U.S. Solicitor General and regular Supreme Court litigator, Paul D. Clement.
When you look at a still-shot of a video, does that mean you've "seen" the whole video?
This seemingly silly question sits at the core of a legal issue that has only further divided the federal circuit courts, probing deep questions about the scope of Fourth Amendment Searches and digital privacy. Perhaps the more probing legal question should be this: Does seeing the screenshot give law enforcement the authority to search the entire device on which a particularly potentially criminal video was found?
It's only been little more than a month since the Second Circuit decided the New York case of Expression Hair Design v. Schneiderman, ruling that the state's no-surcharge law is lawful. Serendipitously, the Eleventh Circuit ruled this week that no-surcharge laws violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the state's applicable statute, which bans retailers from charging a surcharge to customers who elect to use their credit cards is nonsense when taken in conjunction with the state's express allowance of offering a discount for cash.The court said it may have the look of regulating conduct, but in reality, it regulates speech.
In a case that is somewhat reminiscent of Citizens United, which revolves around the amorphous notion what constitutes valid speech, the 11th Circuit just ruled that a lower court abused its discretion when it did not quash subpoena's against state officials and granted them the benefit of doubt of privilege.
The subpoenas were directed at lawmakers; they alleged that the Act violated the First Amendment rights of the Alabama Education Association (AEA) because of alleged bad faith.