DOCSLIB.ORG

Sample Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sample Brief NO. 2013-01 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SPRING TERM 2013 FELIX LEITER, Petitioner, v. VILLAGE OF SPIES-ROTH, Respondent, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW JULIUS H. MINER MOOT COURT COMPETITION ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT: i QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment that provides the full relief available for a retrospective damages claim, made to the sole named plaintiff in an uncertified class action, renders that claim moot, requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. II. Whether the Fourth Amendment allows the government to obtain a DNA sample by buccal swab from a felony arrestee upon arrest and upload the sample to state and federal databases for purposes of identifying the arrestee. ii INDEX QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... iv OPINIONS BELOW......................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................3 ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................5 I. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PETITIONER’S SPECTAR CLAIM AS MOOT BECAUSE IT NO LONGER PRESENTED A LIVE CONTROVERSY AFTER HE WAS OFFERED THE MAXIMUM RELIEF AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT. .................................................................................................................5 A. Petitioner lost any individual legal interest in his substantive SPECTAR claim after the Rule 68 offer of judgment........................................................................6 B. Petitioner has no basis for standing apart from his mooted SPECTAR claim............8 1. Petitioner’s class never acquired a separate legal interest and may not provide standing for Petitioner’s claim. ....................................................................8 2. Petitioner has been offered full relief and has no separate economic interest in class certification sufficient to maintain standing. .................................9 3. Petitioner’s claim is not inherently transitory and he may not rely on this basis to maintain standing.........................................................................................10 C. Petitioner’s SPECTAR claim is moot because he has no personal stake in the litigation and no alternative basis for standing.............................................................12 II. THE TAKING AND STORAGE OF A DNA SAMPLE FROM A FELONY ARRESTEE IS A REASONABLE SEARCH AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. ...................................................................................................12 A. A DNA search minimally impacts an arrestee’s privacy interest. ..............................13 1. Petitioner had a diminished expectation of privacy as an arrestee.......................14 2. DNA testing is not overly invasive............................................................................15 B. The government has a significant interest in obtaining arrestees’ DNA. ...................18 C. The government’s interest in obtaining DNA outweighs the minimal intrusion on arrestees’ privacy. ......................................................................................19 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................20 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).............................................5, 7 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) .......................................................................................14 City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)................................................................................10 City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619 (2010).............................................................20 County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)...............................................6, 10, 11 Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) ...........................................................................................6 Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980).............................................9, 10, 12 Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 688 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2012)........................................10 Florence v. Board of Chosen Freehodlers of County of Burlington, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012).......................................................................................................................................14 Garret v. Athens-Clarke Cnty., Ga., 378 F.3d 1274 (2004) ....................................................14 Greisz v. Household Bank (Illinois), N.A., 176 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1999) ...............................7 Haskell v. Harris, 669 F.3d 1049, reh'g en banc granted, 686 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................................................13 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004).................................................................................................................................18, 19 Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1995)......................................................................14 Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302 (4th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................19 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) .............................................................................13 Leiter v. Village of Spies-Roth, 231 F.Supp. 6th 4 (D. Wig. 2012) .....................................9, 14 Leiter v. Village of Spies-Roth, 528 F.4th 16 (13th Cir. 2013)..............................11, 15, 18, 20 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................................6, 7 Monell v. City of New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)....................2 North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971)............................................................................7 Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) .............................................................................7 Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991) ...............................................................7 Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).......................................................................13, 14 Sch. Comm'rs v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128 (1975).......................................................................6, 8 Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) ................................................15 Smith v. Bayer, 131 S.Ct. 2368 (2011) ......................................................................................9 iv Cases—Continued: Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) ................................................................................6, 9, 10 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998)......................................................................................11 U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) .........................................6, 10, 12 United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) ....................................................................15, 16 United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004)....................................................16, 18 United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)........................................................................13 United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) ............................................................................18 United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1741 (2012).................................................................................................................................14, 18 United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010), vacated, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................................................17 United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) .....................................................................14 United States v. Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2005) ........................................................19 United States v. Weikert, 504 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) ...............................................................18 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)...................................................................................................................6 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) ............................................................8 Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008).......................................................................................................................................17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing in the Court of Chancery
    GUIDELINES TO HELP LAWYERS PRACTICING IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY The vast majority of attorneys who litigate in and appear before the Court conduct themselves in accordance with the highest traditions of Chancery practice. These Guidelines are intended to ensure that all attorneys are aware of the expectations of the Court and to provide helpful guidance in practicing in our Court. These Guidelines are not binding Court Rules, they are intended as a practice aid that will allow our excellent Bar to handle cases even more smoothly and to minimize disputes over process, rather than the substantive merits. These Guidelines do not establish a “standard of conduct” or a “standard of care” by which the performance of attorneys in a given case can or should be measured. The Guidelines are not intended to be used as a sword to wound adversaries. To the contrary, they are intended to reduce conflicts among counsel and parties over non-merits issues, and allow them to more efficiently and less contentiously handle their disputes in this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not intend that these Guidelines, or the sample forms attached hereto, be cited as authority in the context of any dispute before the Court. These guidelines reflect some suggested best practices for moving cases forward to completion in the Court of Chancery. They have been developed jointly by the Court and its Rules Committee to provide help to practitioners. The members of the Court and its Rules Committee recognize that a particular situation may call for the parties to proceed in a different manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Porter V. Knickrehm
    Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 1 of 34 • , &.8rufo!4ED ERN OlsTRICcTT COURT 'ARIW/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRJUL 272 SAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARI(MI(~§ W 00+ WESTERN DIVISION BY:~~ACI( CL£:RI( ~ HARVE PORTER, et aI., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No.4:03 CV008l2SWW ) KURT KNICKREHM, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF CARE FACILITY ) RESIDENTS AND ELLEN SUE GIBSON ) ) Defendant Intervenors. ) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND EOUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS Plaintiffs seek summary jUdgment on their Due Process and Equal Protection claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Arkansas Local Rule 56.1. As demonstrated below, the motion should be granted on both claims because there are no disputed issues of material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, lnc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Arnold v. City oj" Columbia, Mo., 197 FJd 1217, 1220 (8 th Cir. 1999). Case 4:03-cv-00812-SWW Document 66 Filed 07/27/04 Page 2 of 34 , I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 20- 48-401 et seq. (Michie 2003 Supp!.) and Development Disability Services Director's Office Policy Manual ("Manual") numbers 1020, 1037, 1053, and 1086 because Arkansas law and policies fail to provide adequate judicial hearings at which adults whose liberty is at stake can contest the state's effort to institutionalize them. Plaintiff Harve Porter is an adult diagnosed with moderate mental retardation who is currently involuntarily confined at the state's Alexander Human Development Center ("ALHDC).
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware San
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION ) CONFIDENTIAL -- FUND, on behalf of itself and all others ) FILED UNDER SEAL similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 4446-VCL ) AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF ) NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., ) DANIEL M. BRADBURY, JOSEPH C. ) COOK, Jr., ADRIAN ADAMS, STEVEN R. ) ALTMAN, TERESA BECK, KARIN ) EASTHAM, JAMES R. GAVIN, GINGER L. ) GRAHAM, HOWARD E. GREENE, Jr., JAY ) S. SKYLER, JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN, and ) JAMES N. WILSON, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) ) Cross-Claimant, ) ) v. ) ) THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST ) COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee for Indenture ) Dated as of June 8, 2007, ) ) Cross-Claim Defendant ) YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF A DOCUMENT FILED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND FILED UNDER SEAL. THIS DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND FILED UNDER SEAL. REVIEW AND ACCESS TO THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT BY PRIOR COURT ORDER. RLF1-3391876-1 If you are not authorized by Court order to view or retrieve this document, read no further than this page. You should contact the following person: Raymond J. DiCamillo (#3188) OF COUNSEL: Margot F. Alicks (#5127) Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Robert A. Sacks 920 North King Street Diane L. McGimsey Wilmington Delaware 19801 Orly Z. Elson (302) 651-7700 Damion D.D. Robinson Attorneys for Defendants and Cross- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Claimant 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067-1725 (310) 712-6600 Thad J.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-368 Ford Motor Co. V. Montana Eighth Judicial
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FORD MOTOR CO. v. MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA No. 19–368. Argued October 7, 2020—Decided March 25, 2021* Ford Motor Company is a global auto company, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan. Ford markets, sells, and services its products across the United States and overseas. The company also encourages a resale market for its vehicles. In each of these two cases, a state court exercised jurisdiction over Ford in a products-liability suit stemming from a car accident that injured a resident in the State. The first suit alleged that a 1996 Ford Explorer had malfunctioned, killing Markkaya Gullett near her home in Montana. In the second suit, Adam Bandemer claimed that he was injured in a collision on a Min- nesota road involving a defective 1994 Crown Victoria. Ford moved to dismiss both suits for lack of personal jurisdiction. It argued that each state court had jurisdiction only if the company’s conduct in the State had given rise to the plaintiff’s claims. And that causal link existed, according to Ford, only if the company had designed, manufactured, or sold in the State the particular vehicle involved in the accident.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES Supreme Court of the United States
    RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States ADOPTED APRIL 18, 2019 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543 Clerk of the Court ............................... (202) 479-3011 Reporter of Decisions.......................... (202) 479-3390 Marshal of the Court........................... (202) 479-3333 Librarian................................................ (202) 479-3175 Telephone Operator ............................. (202) 479-3000 Visit the U.S. Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4) Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE COURT Page Rule 1. Clerk ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 2. Library ............................................................................................ 1 Rule 3. Term ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum ................................................................... 2 PART II. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Rule 5. Admission to the Bar.................................................................... 2 Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice.............................................................. 3 Rule 7. Prohibition Against Practice ...................................................... 4 Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Handbook: Proceeding Before the Montana Supreme Court
    Toward justice for all . Proceeding before the Montana Supreme Court without an attorney CIVIL HANDBOOK The Supreme Court Mike McGrath Chief Justice of Justice Building ♦ 215 North Sanders Montana PO Box 203001 ♦ Helena, MT 59620-3001 Phone (406) 444-5490 ♦ Fax (406) 444-3274 June 1, 2011 This booklet is designed to assist individuals who are unable to obtain the assistance of an attorney to navigate through the appellate process. These materials provide the minimum amount of information you need to pursue a case in the Montana Supreme Court. Neither this handbook nor the attached forms are intended to provide legal advice. Nor are they a proper substitute for having an attorney advise you or represent your interests before the Court. Appellate practice is complicated and failure to follow proper appellate procedure can result in your case being dismissed. We recommend you consult an attorney if at all possible. The Court understands that sometimes an attorney is not available to provide you with all of the assistance you need. In those situations, we hope you will find this handbook useful. Good luck with your appeal. Mike McGrath Chief Justice P.S. Pay close attention to the filing deadlines listed on page 33. Failure to file the proper papers on time is the most common reason for an appeal to be dismissed. Table of Contents STARTING AN APPEAL.............................................................................................................. 3 What can be appealed? [Rules 4 and 6] .................................................................................... 3 How do I file an appeal? [Rule 4]............................................................................................... 3 I can’t afford to pay the filing fee. How do I ask the Court for permission to appeal without paying the fee? [Rule 5] ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Persuading with Precedent: Understanding and Improving Analogies in Legal Argument Jacob M
    PERSUADING WITH PRECEDENT: UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING ANALOGIES IN LEGAL ARGUMENT JACOB M. CARPENTER* I. INTRODUCTION When writing persuasive briefs, attorneys use comparisons—metaphors or case-based analogies—to help explain their analyses and support their positions.1 Cognitive science shows that readers process information both by metaphor and by analogy in much the same way.2 But attorneys use the two types of comparisons for very different purposes.3 Metaphors occasionally can be helpful in certain briefs, but case-based analogies are critical in most briefs4 because of the American legal system’s reliance on precedent and stare decisis.5 Several legal scholars have explored how attorneys use metaphors in their legal writing.6 Although the existing scholarship on legal metaphors is Copyright © 2016, Jacob M. Carpenter. * Associate Professor of Legal Writing, Marquette University Law School. I would like to thank Professor Michael Smith, University of Wyoming School of Law, for encouraging me to write this Article when I first discussed the topic with him; Professor Linda Edwards, University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Law, for her constant support; and the Marquette University Law School administration for their support of this Article. 1 GEORGETOWN UNIV. WRITING CTR., WHAT DO YOU MEAN “THERE’S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO DO IT”? SELECTING METHODS OF LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT WORK BEST 1 (2004), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing- scholarship/writing-center/upload/legalanalysismethods.pdf. 2 See MICHAEL R. SMITH, ADVANCED LEGAL WRITING: THEORIES AND STRATEGIES IN PERSUASIVE WRITING 199 (2d ed. 2008) (quoting EDWARD P.J. CORBETT & ROBERT J.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Process Or Not? That Is the Question
    Short Process or Not? That is the Question. The New Tribunal Law and Procedures Pertaining to the Marriage Nullity Cases. By Monsignor Dariusz J. Zielonka, J.C.D. September 8, 2015, marked history of the Church with promulgation of the new procedural norms and the new law pertaining to marriage nullity cases handled by the diocesan tribunals. Pope Francis issued that day two documents describing these changes: Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus [MI] (Lord Jesus the Gentle Judge) for the Latin Church and Mitis et Misericors Iesus (Gentle and Merciful Jesus) for the Catholic Churches of Eastern Rites. Though the changes introduced only 14 new articles on procedural rules, and 20 new canons (1671-1691) out of 1752 total canons in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, they significantly alter current Tribunal operations. Therefore, there are three stages of the restructuring of the Tribunal: planning (current), implementation (December 1, 2015 – January 31, 2016) and reopening of the Tribunal on February 1, 2016. The implementation stage has many tasks to be accomplished: personnel and clergy training, implementation of the new technology (hardware and software), testing, development of the new forms and literature, creating of the new website, indexing and prioritizing of the current cases. What needs to be noted is the fact that this implementation stage takes place around Christmas and New Year holiday season. The changes announced by the Pope received quite a bit of attention from the media. Some of the media outlets ventured to interpret the new law. While some changes are obvious, and do not require much interpretation, others were presented in a confusing way, as the rest of the canons (in the current 1983 Code of Canon Law) were not taken into consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Medieval Roman Canon Law in England
    A BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL ROMAN CANON LAW IN ENGLAND In discussing the influence of the Canon law in England, the period of time open for our investigation is those cen- turies between the Norman Conquest and the Reformation, or from the middle of the iith to the middle of the i6th century. After the break with Rome by Henry VIII all direct connection with the Vatican is severed. How was the Canon law regarded prior to the Reformation? The investigator who examines simply the field of jurisdiction which the English State allowed the Church to appropriate, and who then finds that in England the Church was not suffered by the State to possess "certain considerable por- tions of that wide field of jurisdiction claimed by Canonists as the heritage of ecclesiastical law,"1 will probably abandon his investigation with the belief that the Canon law had scarcely any authority in England, so great was the English hostility manifested against it by the State. But, to get at the truth of the matter, is not this the question to be investigated when considering the influence of the Canon law in England: did the English ecclesiastical courts "hold themselves free to accept or reject, and did they in some cases reject, the Canon law of Rome?"2 The answer is, that the English ecclesiastical courts possessed no such power as that of accepting or rejecting the Canon law-they acknowledged its binding authority on them. Although England curtailed greatly the claims, of jurisdic- tion advanced by the Church, yet the fact is that within the limits of that curtailed ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the English Church, as a provincial church subordinated (by its own admissions) to the supreme head of the Western Latin Church, administered and rendered obedience to Roman medieval Canon law in the English spiritual courts.
    [Show full text]
  • FM 6-0, Commander and Staff Organization and Operations, Provides Commanders and Their Staffs with Tactics and Procedures for Exercising Mission Command
    FM 6-0 COMMANDER AND STAFF ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS MAY 2014 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This publication supersedes ATTP 5-0.1, dated 14 September 2011 HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY This publication is available at Army Knowledge Online (https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html). To receive publishing updates, please subscribe at http://www.apd.army.mil/AdminPubs/new_subscribe.asp. FM 6-0, C1 Change No. 1 Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 11 May 2015 Commander and Staff Organization and Operations 1. Change 1 to FM 6-0, 5 March 2014, adds the supersession statement to the cover. 2. Modifies figure 7-2. 3. Modifies figure 9-5. 4. Adds joint command relationships to appendix B. 5. Modifies table B-2. 6. Modifies table B-3. 7. Adds definitions of close support, direct liaison authorized, direct support, and mutual support. 8. A number sign (+) marks new material. 9. FM 6-0, 5 May 2014, is changed as follows: Remove Old Pages Insert New Pages front cover front cover pages i through vi pages i through vi pages 7-1 through 7-2 pages 7-1 through 7-2 pages 9-23 through 9-45 pages 9-23 through 9-46 pages B-1 through B-7 pages B-1 through B-7 pages Glossary-1 through Glossary-9 pages Glossary-1 through Glossary-9 pages Index-1 through Index-9 pages Index-1 through Index-9 7. File this transmittal sheet in front of the publication for reference purposes. DISTRUBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts and Canon Law Marianne Perciaccante
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 6 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 1996 Courts and Canon Law Marianne Perciaccante Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Perciaccante, Marianne (1996) "Courts and Canon Law," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol6/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COURTS AND CANON LAW INTRODUCTION For civil courts to analyze whether the ecclesiastical ac- tions of a church judicatory are... 'arbitrary' must in- herently entail inquiry into the procedures that canon or ecclesiastical law supposedly requires the church judica- tory to follow.... But this is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits;... a civil court must accept the ecclesiastical decisions of church tribunals as it finds them. If the civil courts are to be bound by any sheet of parch- ment bearing the ecclesiastical seal and purporting to be a decree of a church court, they can easily be converted 2 into handmaidens of arbitrary lawlessness. What happens when courts encounter questions answerable by ca- non law? In these quotations from Justice Brennan's majority opinion and Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court: United States V. Windsor and Hollingsworth V
    Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry Jody Feder Legislative Attorney Alissa M. Dolan Legislative Attorney February 20, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42976 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court: Windsor and Hollingsworth Summary Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on an issue that has long been a subject of controversy in the United States, namely, what types of restrictions, if any, may the government place on the ability of gay couples to enter legal marriages. The origin of the debate over same- sex marriage can be traced back to 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling that appeared likely to lead to recognition of same-sex marriage under the state’s constitution. In response, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 of DOMA created a new federal definition for the terms “marriage” and “spouse” that includes heterosexual couples only. Thus, any federal law that uses those terms automatically excludes same-sex couples from any rights, benefits, or protections that flow from the statute. Meanwhile, in the nearly two decades since DOMA was enacted, the state legislatures and courts have become increasingly enmeshed in questions about the extent to which marital rights and benefits can or must be offered to same-sex couples. Currently, nine states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex couples to marry, while the vast majority of the remaining states have statutes or constitutional provisions that bar such marriages.
    [Show full text]