Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

For such a hotly-debated topic, the law regarding bans and burdens on abortion hasn’t changed much. Any ban or undue burden on pre-viability abortions is unconstitutional per the Supreme Court’s holdings in Roe, Casey, and Gonzales. Since 1973, the bright line rule that a woman’s right to privacy trumps the state’s interest in “the potentiality of human life” is been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, despite many chances to modify or reject that rule.

Last year, Arizona passed H.B. 2036, which prohibited physicians from performing abortions on any fetus with a gestational age of twenty weeks or later, absent some medical emergency endangering the life of the mother. This was in addition to an existing law that prohibited abortions (absent medical emergency) at or after the point of viability.

After an illegal left turn and near-collision with their police cruiser, Officers Matthew Ellis and Officer Daron Wyatt acted reasonably when they ran the van's plates. They even acted reasonably when they followed the van, which had previously been involved in a narcotics stop. The decision to pull the driver over after the van swerved again was likely reasonable as well.

Did they act reasonably when, minutes later, the officers struck the resisting driver, Adolf Anthony Sanchez Gonzalez, with their flashlights and possibly attempted a sleeper hold? How about seconds after that, when Officer Wyatt shot the driver at point blank?

That question is why this case, and others like it, led to race riots in Anaheim. It's also why the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Most of us are waiting to hear the Supreme Court's thoughts on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage. Judge Harry Pregerson, however, already has an opinion.

Judge Pregerson is the chair of the Ninth Circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders. Last week, he issued an unpublished opinion addressing DOMA and a similar Oregon law, finding both laws unconstitutional and ordering that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts extend benefits to the spouse of Alison Clark, a Federal Public Defender in Portland, Oregon.

Karen Eklund crossed the Bay Bridge at over 100 miles per hour. She then took to the surface streets of San Francisco at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour, which is pretty impressive considering the poor condition and curviness of some of SF's roads. Eventually, with police officers in tow, she pulled into a cul-de-sac and was trapped.

Her response was neither rational nor polite: she rammed the police cars with her getaway vehicle. Officer Stephen Markgraf ran up to the passenger side of the vehicle and noticed that she was unarmed. Nonetheless she yelled, "F*** you" and reversed into the cop car two more times.

Indian tribes in Montana say that the time and cost associated with voting infringes on their right to vote. Last year, 15 Indians from the Crow, Northern Cheyenne and Fort Belknap reservations filed a lawsuit claiming that the long distances they must drive for early voting and late registration leaves them disadvantaged compared to white voters, The Associated Press reports.

At that time, however, District Judge Richard Cebull refused to grant an emergency order to force officials to provide satellite voting on Montana reservations. Judge Cebull reasoned that, regardless of whether voting discrimination exists, the plaintiffs did not show they were unable to vote for the candidates of their choice.

In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.

Bobby Joe Knight served 20 years in a California prison for sexual assault. Though his sentence ended in 2004, he's still behind bars.

Why? California's Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), which allows the state to initiate civil proceedings to hold a certain sub-species of violent sexual predators in a state hospital if the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is likely to "engage in sexually violent behavior" due to a mental disorder.

The existing Border Search Exception, which is quite handy for digging through terrorists' and drug smugglers' luggage, doesn't exactly fit with the realities of modern life. Whereas we once could dig though someone's belongings in an hour or two, the Cotterman case presented a different scenario: a convicted pedophile caught with images of himself and an underage girl after his laptop was seized at the border and examined at a laboratory 170 miles inland.

If it sounds like a tough and important case, that's because it is. So important, in fact, that we sent our best people to live-blog the oral arguments.

It’s rough being a third party in America. When was the last time a third party was truly relevant? Was it Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in the early 20th century? Our country has been a dual-party system by default for so long that it is nearly impossible for a third party to break into the popular conscience, or into office for that matter.

It shouldn’t be that way, however. It should be as simple as making stump speeches, getting signatures, and running for office on ideas. Unfortunately, third party candidates and independents often run up against bigger budgets, more volunteers, and in this case, state regulations.

Benito Acosta's First Amendment challenge to Costa Mesa, California's ordinance restricting behavior at a city council meeting has been resurrected by the Ninth Circuit after the court agreed to rehear the case in an order released on Monday. A previous panel upheld the law in part, though it found the prohibition of "insolent" conduct to be overbroad.

In 2005, Acosta accosted the City Council during discussion over a proposal to allow local police to enforce federal immigration laws. He was twice removed from city council meetings, once for calling the Costa Mesa mayor a "f***ing racist pig" and another time after he verbally sparred with the Minuteman Project's co-founder, Jim Gilchrist.

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in October that phone books may be obsolescent, but they're still entitled to First Amendment protection.

That decision may end up costing Seattle $500,000, according to The Seattle Times. Thursday, the paper reported that the city has reached a tentative agreement to pay the six-figure settlement after losing its fight against the phone book publishers, according to two unnamed sources.