CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Constitutional Law Category

Imagine you live somewhere far from traditional services, and have a sick pet. And imagine there is an experienced veterinarian -- one that had received a Health Service Commendation Medal from the Surgeon of the United States, in fact -- available to answer your questions about your sick pet online. That's pretty great, right?

Now imagine that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners says this vet's advice is illegal, suspended his license, and fines him $500. Not so great, right? That's why Ronald Hines, a 75-year-old veterinarian in Brownsville who's been diagnosing pet ailments via his website for the past 10 years, is now filing his second lawsuit against the Board, claiming his online pet advice is protected speech under the First Amendment.

But will this challenge be more successful than the last?

Sports gambling isn't a federal crime. After all, why can you go to Vegas and place wagers on just about any game you like? But a federal law did allow federal authorities and sports leagues to sue states for "authorizing" sports betting, and block them from doing so.

This small distinction was the statute's undoing, as the Supreme Court repealed the law, leaving it up to the states to legalize or criminalize sports betting. You can read the Court's ruling below:

Atheist Sues to Avoid Alcoholics Anonymous Treatment

Alcoholics Anonymous is an important part of recovery for many addicts. But, according to James Lindon, it's "rooted in monotheistic spirituality," which is a problem for him as an atheist. Convicted of drug charges, he claims that he was forced by the judge and treatment providers to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous as part of his sentence. Well, Lindon has sued the judge, a treatment center and program, and Cuyahonga County departments and officials claiming:

"Defendants' policies, customs, and actions amount to state-endorsed and impermissible interference with plaintiff's free exercise of religion, or impermissible establishment of religion or endorsement of religion, entanglement with religion, promotion of one religion over another religion, or promotion of religion over non-religion."

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, the first Article of Impeachment was filed against President Donald Trump. Representative Brad Sherman, a democrat from California, along with Texas Representative Al Green, filed the article based on President Trump committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

While some pundits and media outlets are calling this attempt a longshot, Sherman believes the evidence mounting against the sitting president is convincing. Unfortunately for the democrat from California, the GOP controlled House is not expected to vote to impeach, particularly given the 46-seat advantage.

President Donald Trump has come under fire, politically, for not fully divesting himself from his personal business interests when he took office. Today, for the second time, he's hearing the same criticism, but legally.

Back in January, a bunch constitutional scholars, Supreme Court litigators, and former White House ethics lawyers sued Trump, claiming that payments made to Trump-owned businesses amounted to violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. Earlier today, the District of Columbia and State of Maryland filed a similar suit. So what is the Emoluments Clause and is Trump violating it? You can see the full lawsuit below:

Another day, another Trump executive order, another lawsuit seeking an injunction against said order. This time it's the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a "National non prophet nonprofit working to promote the separation of state and church," suing Trump mere hours after he signed his Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

While the order purports to protect "the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government," critics claim it is an illegal attempt to skirt a largely inconsequential provision of the tax code. All we are waiting on now is the inevitable federal district court order enjoining enforcement of Trump's order. You can read the FFRF's lawsuit requesting that injunction below.

Like many federal judges before him, United States District Judge William H. Orrick of California's Northern District has enjoined the federal government from enforcing one of President Donald Trump's executive orders. Trump's Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," has suffered the same fate as his travel ban, both the original and the revised version.

So why was the latest order ruled unconstitutional? You can see Judge Orrick's reasoning below.

In 2015, the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to force the DOJ to publish its rules for conducting warrantless spying on journalists in the United States. The DOJ responded that it had supplied all of the documentation the Foundation requested, aside from information that fell under certain FOIA exceptions.

This week, a U.S. District judge in California ruled that the unpublished rules on media surveillance could remain unpublished, ending the Foundation's lawsuit. You can read the opinion in full, below:

Making headlines across the country tonight, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower federal district court's order, issued last week, blocking President Trump's controversial immigration executive order, commonly referred to as the "Muslim ban," from taking effect nationwide. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a rare unanimous per curium decision, repeatedly explained that the federal government's arguments were untenable.

The lower court put a stop to the executive order, which allowed immigrants, and lawful permanent residents, who were being denied entry under the order, to enter the country. The Ninth Circuit's ruling essentially means that those who would have been affected by the executive order but for the lower court's ruling, will still not be affected by it. However, it should be noted that all of these orders are preliminary, and will only be in place until a final resolution is reached as to the constitutional challenges to the executive order, which could take years if it is allowed to continue.

It seemed as if as soon as President Donald Trump announced his executive order banning Syrian refugees and instituting "extreme vetting" for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, the lawsuits started flying. One of the most important was filed by the state of Washington and was successful in getting a temporary restraining order blocking federal officials from enforcing the order.

Trump's lawyers appealed the TRO, requesting a stay until the case ran its course, but that request was denied over the weekend. The parties are still battling in court, and 97 companies decided to join the fray, filing a brief in support of Washington and claiming, among other things, that the order "effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies." You can see their full filing below: