Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

Girl Can Use Cannabis Medicine at School, California Court Rules

Imagine watching your child have a tonic-clonic seizure for an hour, with no way to stop it, until an ambulance arrives and administers emergency medication. If you're lucky enough not to be familiar with a tonic-clonic seizure, it's when you slump over, potentially falling on the ground and injuring yourself, eyes rolled back, in the fetal position, hands clocked inward, foaming at the mouth, convulsing violently, biting your tongue until it bleeds, and urinating on yourself. It is nothing short of horrific, for both the child and the parent.

Most tonic-clonic seizures last a minute or so, but in Brooke Adams' case, who has Dravet's Syndrome, they would go on for an hour, causing irreparable damage to her brain and entire nervous system. None of the standard medications were curbing these seizures. It was, as they say, uncontrollable. Brooke would have 20 seizures per month, until the Adams discovered that CBD oil significantly curbed the number of seizures, and THC oil would stop any prolonged seizures within three minutes. This was nothing short of a life-changing miracle for the Adams family.

But there was a catch: how could she take the cannabis medicine to school?

Arizona Voting Laws Are Constitutional, Federal Court Rules

The Democratic National Committee is running out of time if it wants to strike down two Arizona voting laws it deems unfair before the upcoming November elections.

The DNC filed suit against the State of Arizona in April 2016, challenging two voting laws. The first, a new law that makes collecting early ballots from voters a felony punishable by one year in jail and a $150,000 fine. The second, a law that dates back to 1970, which forbids voters from casting ballots outside of their precinct. The DNC viewed both of these laws as unconstitutional under the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendment, as well as the Fair Voting Rights Act of 1965. A federal judge ruled against the DNC, and they appealed. A three member panel of the San Francisco federal circuit court ruled that two Arizona voting laws are indeed constitutional. The Democratic National Committee plans to seek a review on this matter en banc.

Missouri Can Enforce Abortion Clinic Regulations, Federal Court Rules

Many people debate whether or not Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Without a crystal ball, it's hard to tell. But truthfully, that may not be necessary. It may be possible to maim it to the point that it is effectively useless.

After a recent case in Missouri, it may still be legal to get an abortion, but good luck finding a low cost facility to get one.

Federal Judge Voids Texas' Fetal Burial Law

There's a side of abortions and miscarriages that is often forgotten: the body of the fetus.

In February 2017, a Texas law went into effect that required health care providers to bury or cremate fetuses, regardless of a patient's wishes or religious beliefs. That law had been put on hold after local abortion clinics filed for, and received, a temporary injunction in federal court.

Last week, Judge David A. Ezra declared that injunction permanent, stating the law violated the 14th amendment, since it required healthcare facilities to use "unreliable and nonviable" waste disposal methods that would restrict abortion access. He also found that the law interfered with a woman's decision to have an abortion by "enshrining one view of the status of and respect that should be given to embryonic and fetal tissue remains."

Homeless in Western States Can't Be Prosecuted for Sleeping on Streets

Outlawing the criminalization of homelessness just got a little clearer in the Western United States. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is unconstitutional to prosecute someone for sleeping on public streets, at least for the most part. More on that later.

If you asked a layperson, they would probably guess that job opportunities for people of color have never been better, and that corporations are getting more racially diverse. But that's not always the case, especially in the financial sector. Bloomberg reports that major banks have been losing more and more black workers every year, and JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., has seen its share of black employees drop six consecutive years, from 16 percent in 2011 to 13.4 percent in 2017.

Those numbers were reported along with a $24 million settlement between JP Morgan and six current and former employees who claimed the bank's discrimination against black financial advisors was "uniform and national in scope."

In May 2017, the Supreme Court struck down congressional boundaries in North Carolina, finding they were drawn to pack more black voters into specific congressional districts. Eight months later, the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to again redraw its congressional map, ruling the effort to set the current boundaries was "motivated by invidious partisan intent."

The Supreme Court asked the Fourth Circuit to revisit that decision (based on new precedent regarding whether a voter has standing to bring a gerrymandering claim), but the court came to the same conclusion: Voters in North Carolina provided sufficient "evidence establishing that each of their districts is 'packed or cracked' and, as a result, that their votes 'carry less weight than [they] would carry in another, hypothetical district.'"

So it's either back to the congressional map drawing board for North Carolina lawmakers, or back to the Supreme Court.

The State of Alabama and the Supreme Court haven't always gotten along, legally speaking. Most famously, there was then-Governor George Wallace standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama's Foster Auditorium in an attempt to stall desegregation in the wake of the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Most recently, there was disgraced former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore's ongoing battle over same-sex marriage.

The Court hasn't been all that friendly the federal appeals court that includes Alabama, either, overturning 85 percent of the Eleventh Circuit's decisions that it reviewed from 2010 to 2015, the second-highest reversal rate in the country.

That could explains the Eleventh's Circuit's tone in striking down an Alabama law limiting procedures available to women seeking abortions, making it very clear they would not have done so if not for Supreme Court decisions it disagreed with.

Twitter Can Ban Racists, California Court Rules

Last November, Twitter updated its rules and policies, adding that users "may not affiliate with organization that -- whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform -- use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."

One month later, Jared Taylor, a publisher of white nationalist content, was booted off the platform. He then brought three claims against Twitter. Two were dismissed by the California Superior Court, but one was allowed to move forward -- that was an unfair competition claim. That court reasoned that Twitter is a monumental platform for expressing political views, and that banning someone from it may be unfair, and even unconscionable.

Now, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court was wrong. Taylor's third claim should also be dismissed. In other words: Twitter can fully ban racists from its platform.

Appeals Court Upholds Law Allowing Guns on TX Campuses

In response to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, President Trump suggested that the teachers carry weapons in their classroom to protect the students. Perhaps that would be Trump's response to the three University of Texas, Austin, professors, whose Civil Rights suit lost in a three judge panel 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. There, plaintiffs cited their First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated by allowing students to carry concealed weapons into their classrooms on campus ("Campus Carry" laws). The plaintiffs lost at both the federal and appellate level. They are deciding whether to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court.