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

Every year since 2004, Colorado's governor has recognized a "Colorado Day of Prayer." This isn't terribly unusual in itself; since 1952, Congress has established a "national day of prayer" and most other states do the same thing.

But the Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn't like it. They object to the explicit biblical references in the proclamations, claiming a violation of the Preference Clause of the state constitution (its own version of the Establishment Clause).

States (Arizona and Kansas) have passed laws requiring voters to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Meantime, a long-standing federal law (the National Voter Registration Act, or "Motor Voter" law) says that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has to make a universal nationwide voter registration form, and that states have to take it and like it.

Long story short: Arizona's law already made it to the Supreme Court last year, when the Court required Arizona to recognize the federal form. However, Justice Scalia also suggested that the states might be able to sue the EAC to force them to add proof-of-citizenship language to the forms.

How well did that work out? Not too well, if the Tenth Circuit's recent opinion is the last word.

Update: it turns out the stay was much ado about nothing. The stay was lifted Wednesday afternoon. More on the order, and the two sides' arguments, can be found at FindLaw's Courtside.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has just issued a stay blocking same-sex marriages in Kansas, right around the time a district court's ruling striking down the state's ban on gay marriages was about to take effect. The order is a surprise, considering that since the Court declined to take on gay marriage earlier this term, it has refused to issue stays in numerous other same-sex marriage appeals.

We have to imagine that the plaintiffs' lawyers feel like the witch who got crushed by Dorothy's house in Oz, as this came out of nowhere. What gives? And what else is odd about this SCOTUS stay?

We love being right, though to be fair, anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of how controlling precedent works could have seen this opinion coming.

The Tenth Circuit has ruled against gay marriage. The Supreme Court didn't intervene. What's a federal district court in Kansas to do then? Make Kansas the 33rd state to have legalized gay marriage, obviously, even though a parallel state court challenge is set for oral arguments tomorrow.

This is cute. The Kansas Supreme Court actually thinks that it might have a say in gay marriage.

That may seem harsh, but you probably already know about the Tenth Circuit's holdings in the Utah and Oklahoma cases. And you probably already know that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to disturb those holdings.

Gay marriage is legal in the Tenth Circuit.

So why is the Kansas Supreme Court hearing oral arguments this week (which you can attend in person -- arrive early!)?

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.