Civil Rights Law News - U.S. Tenth Circuit
U.S. Tenth Circuit - The FindLaw 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

Last week, we reported about a quick, three-paragraph order allowing Citizens United to show the film "Rocky Mountain Heist" without having to disclose the names of the people who donated to the project. The Tenth Circuit promised that it would deliver a substantive opinion on the issue soon, and on Monday it certainly did -- in the form of a 34-page opinion with a nine-page dissent.

So why, exactly, doesn't Citizens United have to disclose the donors of "Rocky Mountain Heist"?

The Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates F--s" folks who protest funerals) is always good for a publicity stunt or two. What's today's stunt? The WBC wants to intervene in the legal challenge against Kansas's gay marriage ban, reports the Washington Blade. But the church isn't exclusively citing legal authority to support its motion to intervene in the district court.

It's also citing a higher power: the Bible. And the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, because the group asserts Kansas will burn if marriage equality is achieved.

We recently blogged about a rash of post-Citizens United cases brewing in the lower federal courts. These cases are trying to slowly push corporate speech forward, this time by exempting certain speakers from campaign disclosure requirements.

In the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals has tentatively allowed Citizens United (they very same!) to refrain from disclosing its donors pending the outcome of Citizens United v. Gessler before the court.

Yes folks, that's the same Citizens United, and they're at it again: litigating their way to through the courts, hoping to upset established campaign finance law.

As we blogged about last week, their target is an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a state law, which together require disclosure of donors who fund electioneering communications. The communication at issue here, "Rocky Mountain Heist," is ironically a documentary film that seeks to shine a light on money in Colorado politics. Citizens United is hoping that the appeals courts will allow it to keep its contributors masked because the district court really wasn't convinced. (H/T to Election Law Blog)

We write a lot around here about the repercussions of Citizens United v. FEC, but we've never done a People magazine-style "where are they now?" about Citizens United. Has it become embroiled in drugs? A nasty divorce? Bankruptcy?

Nope, Citizens United -- the organization -- is still alive and well, and churning out documentaries. This time, the documentary is called "Rocky Mountain Heist," which "concerns various Colorado advocacy groups and their negative impact on Colorado government and public policy," referring to elected officials and candidates by name.

Another interesting election law decision out of the nation's heartland. Is it just me, or is this an especially litigious year?

The Kansas Supreme Court on Thursday granted a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate's wish, letting him off the ballot over the protestations of Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Yes, we know, usually ballot access battles are fought to get on the ballot. So why was Chad Taylor so desperate to get off the ballot? Why did a Republican fight so hard to keep him on?

For some reason, Anita Hansen wanted to go into a Hollister store. You know Hollister: the Abercombie & Fitch brand designed to make everyone think they're a hip surfer dude. Anyway, for some reason, Anita Hansen wanted to go into this place -- maybe to figure out what that smell was -- but she couldn't get in. Hansen is disabled, and says she couldn't get into the store because there are steps leading to its front entrance (Abercrombie wants you to think you're entering a hut or something). Even after she was let in through a side door, she couldn't move around the store because the pathways between display tables were too narrow.

Abercrombie made a few changes to the store's layout, but that silly entrance remained. As a result, Hansen filed an ADA complaint. After Abercrombie couldn't get her claim tossed out of court, Hansen then had the case certified as a class action.

The district court held that the ridiculous hut-stairs not only offended good taste, but violated Title III of the ADA, issuing an injunction requiring Abercrombie to modify Hollister stores' entrances.

Kansas recently passed a law requiring voters to prove their citizenship before they can register to vote. Arizona also passed such a law. But here's the rub: Federal law doesn't make voters prove their citizenship through a document like a passport or a birth certificate. Under federal law, voters merely have to affirm they're citizens, and that's that.

On Monday, the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in an appeal of the Kansas version of the case. Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court in Kansas ordered the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to alter federal voting forms to reflect each state's requirements.

Do state officials have the right to decline to defend their state's laws? As we noted before, it is not an easy question. But University of Denver law professor (and rabbi) Kris McDaniel-Miccio, who is a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits challenging her state's gay marriage ban, disagrees: She penned an open letter to Colorado Attorney General John Suthers arguing that it is his duty to not defend the law.

Why? When he was sworn into office, Suthers pledged to uphold the laws and the constitutions of the United States and Colorado. With more than two dozen courts unanimously siding with marriage equality, including the Tenth (twice) and Fourth circuits, McDaniel-Miccio argues that the federal question is settled and that Suthers is not fulfilling the duties of his job by pressing forward.

Previously, Suthers stated that he was only reluctantly defending Colorado's Amendment 43, again, as a matter of duty, and despite his disagreement with the law.

Waiting for action on the Colorado gay marriage battle front? We have good news and bad news.

The good news is this: There have been three major court decisions in the last month addressing Colorado's ban. However, the bad news is that nothing is finalized just yet -- pretty much everything is on hold pending review from higher courts.

A federal court ruled against the state ban earlier this week, as did a state court earlier this month, but both decisions are on hold pending appeal. We've also talked about the rogue clerk who was defying the state's ban by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She's still at it, but other clerks have been ordered to stop.