Abercrombie & Fitch, and its company Hollister, just can't seem to stay out of court. While it vehemently pursues what it deems brand image, it continues to offend on the basis of religion and disability.
Recently in Civil Rights Law Category
You may think of time travel as something straight out of a fiction novel. But last week, the Tenth Circuit took us on a trip down memory lane, as it had to recall the legal landscape in 1997 to determine the rights of a pretrial detainee.
We definitely hear about West Nile virus a lot, especially during the summer, but do you actually know what the symptoms are? Neither did some New Mexico police officers, who now face a civil action for the deprivation of an arrestee's rights, reports the Tri-City Herald.
Remember those criminal cases that you read in Con Law? Well, it's very likely that future editions of the Con Law textbook will include Kansas v. Cheever.
Kansas v. Cheever: Background
Scott Cheever, a methamphetamine user, shot and killed Sheriff Matthew Samuels of Greenwood County, Kansas. Cheever presented a voluntary intoxication defense and argued that because of his drug use, he did not have the appropriate mental state to commit premeditated murder. The court ordered a mental examination by a government-appointed psychiatrist.
Since it is SCOTUS week, we'll be covering various cases from the circuits that were granted cert. Coming out of Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice is the key abortion-related question of regarding an Oklahoma law pertaining to abortion-inducing drugs.
This already on SCOTUS' docket, but is pending a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, according to The New York Times.
What has occurred with Cline, and what is the issue, though? Here's a general overview.
Earlier this week, the Tenth Circuit stuck its head in the sand, and proceeded to draw a thick, long line with it. It took 76 pages to explain why the court was reversing the district court's decision granting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") motion for summary judgment against Abercrombie & Fitch.
To quote Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
It's Obamacare week at FindLaw in more ways than one. While on one hand we're posting about the practical implications of the law, with the other we're posting about constitutional challenges (yes, again) to the law.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius
You may remember that back in July, the Tenth Circuit ruled that Hobby Lobby, a for-profit, secular corporation, had Article III standing to bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. Hobby Lobby Stores sought exception from the Obamacare contraception mandate on grounds that it would be against their religious beliefs.
The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the use of testimony by victims' relatives in recommending the death penalty to a defendant this week.
Defendant Rocky Eugene Dodd was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court and then received two death sentences. The two victims were his neighbors who were found in their apartment with their throats slit. The prosecution case was all circumstantial -- there were no eyewitnesses, no confession, and no DNA linking Dodd to the killings.
All parolees have a diminished expectation of privacy, the Tenth Circuit reminds us, in a case that denied the defendant's motion to suppress a search.
Several months after his release, defendant Bruce Mabry violated the terms of his parole by leaving the state of Kansas. Mabry was pulled over by police in Utah. The car was driven by another parolee and there were 22 pounds of marijuana found, as well. The other parolee was arrested, but Mabry was not. Shortly after, however, an "Order to Arrest and Detain" was issued, on the basis that Mabry had violated his parole by traveling out of state.
Earlier this week the Tenth Circuit reviewed two sections of the amended Utah Sexual Solicitation Statute for First Amendment facial challenges by several escort service businesses. The district court upheld § 1313(1)(c), but found § 1313(2) unconstitutionally vague.
The Tenth Circuit, reversed in part, and affirmed in part, holding that the two sections were constitutional and did not infringe on appellants' First Amendment rights.