The senior portrait of Ceara Sturgis, a lesbian student who claims she submitted the photo for entry into her graduation yearbook, but it was rejected by school officials.

In the case, Sturgis v. Copiah County School District, the ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of a former student, Ceara Sturgis, who contends that the district did not publish the portrait she submitted because she refused to wear attire traditionally worn by the female students.

Sturgis, 18,  said she had her senior portrait taken in a tuxedo because she feels more comfortable in men’s clothing.

“Inclusion in the senior yearbook is a rite of passage for students, and it is shameful that Ceara was denied that chance,” said Christine Sun, senior counsel with the ACLU.

Earlier this year another lesbian student in Mississippi fought to wear a tuxedo and bring a same-sex date to the prom, but was denied by school officials.

In that case, Constance McMillen, who was also represented by the ACLU, sued the Itawamba County School District. The district settled the case out of court and agreed to pay McMillen $35,000 and abide by a nondiscrimination policy.

Sturgis told the Clarion Ledger that McMillen inspired her.

She contends that the district violated her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and protections against gender discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments.

Complaint: Sturgis v. Copiah County School District

Related posts:

1. ACLU Sues School District Over Moral Traditions An 18-year-old lesbian in Mississippi has filed a lawsuit claiming her high school...
2. School Districts Unblock Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trangender Web Sites For Students Tennessee School Districts bowed to the American Civil Liberties Union...
3. Man Forced To Stop Displaying “Offensive” Pro-Life Signs Files Lawsuit An Oregon man filed a lawsuit Thursday against the city...

In the case, ACLU v. Grayson County, the ACLU allowed the time to expire without filing the petition, closing the final chapter on the court battle that has been waged by the organization since 2002.

It was then that the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Grayson County, Kentucky, for displaying the Ten Commandments as part of the “Foundations of American Law and Government Display.”

The display, which was approved by the Grayson County Fiscal Court in 2001, consisted of nine historical documents, including a copy of the Ten Commandments, along with an “Explanation Document” that noted the significance of these documents to the law and government of the United States.

The Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, The Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a picture of Lady Justice, were all part of the display that hangs on the second floor of the Grayson County courthouse

A district court judge agreed with the ACLU and ruled that the motive for hanging the display was for religious purposes, and therefore violated the Constitution.

In 2009, before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, presented the oral argument on behalf of the county.

The court concluded that the district court “erred in its assessment of the record,” and said the ACLU “failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the Fiscal Court had an impermissible purpose or that the Foundations Display endorses religion.”

In May of this year, the Sixth Circuit refused the ACLU’s request to rehear the case.

“The Ten Commandments is as much at home in a display about the foundation of law as stars and stripes are in the American flag,” said Mr. Staver. “The Ten Commandments are part of the fabric of our country and helped shape the law. It defies common sense to remove a recognized symbol of law from a court of law.”

In 2005, this same Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the same Ten Commandments display in Mercer County, Kentucky, which Liberty Counsel also defended. Since then, every federal court of appeals which has addressed Ten Commandments displays has upheld them.

Related posts:

1. Court of Appeals Denies To Rehear ACLU’s Request to Remove Ten Commandments The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the ACLU’s request...
2. Court of Appeals: Display with Ten Commandments Is Constitutional The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor Thursday...
3. Divided 6th Circuit Upholds Ban on Ten Commandments Displays A divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a...

The three judge panel granted an emergency motion to stay filed by proponents of Prop 8, in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, until the court has time to hear the case in early December.

The motions panel was made up of Senior Judge Edward Leavy, a Reagan appointee, and two Clinton appointees, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Sidney Thomas.

“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.

Earlier this month openly gay District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the California law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional – deciding that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Judge Walker  agreed to stay his order until Wednesday, August 18.  After that the stay would have expired, allowing for California gay couples to obtain marriage licenses.

Monday’s order now extends the gay marriage ban until sometime after December 6, when oral arguments are scheduled to be heard. The order also indicates that the court sees a serious problem with the suppoerts appeal.

The two page order specifically directs Prop 8 supporters to address whether they have the legal ability to challenge Walker’s ruling.  According to the order, they are to “include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.”

Related posts:

1. Federal Judge Rules Cali. Gay Marriage Ban (Prop 8) ‘Unconstitutional’ In a controversial decision that will likely end up at...
2. Panel For Ninth Circuit Moves Quickly On Prop 8 A motions panel for the Ninth Circuit Court set a...
3. Judge See Quick Action On Prop. 8 Gay Marriage Ban AP — A San Francisco federal judge said a lawsuit...

In a 9-2 vote, the justices rejected challenges by federal attorneys and others who had argued the law fails to protect adoptive children against possible damaging effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle, and that they are denied rights to a traditional family.

Justices argued that once gay marriages had been approved in earlier this year, it would amount to discrimination to consider those couples less capable of parental duties than heterosexual couples.

“Given that the interests of the child must come first, the proposed reform is constitutional,” said Supreme Court Justice Arturo Zaldivar.

Earlier this month the court voted 9-2 to uphold the rights of gays to wed under a Mexico City law that went into effect on March 4.

According to the AP, hundreds of gay couples have married under the law but city officials have not received any adoption applications by those couples.

Although the law applies only in Mexico City, other states must respect the gay marriages and adoptions made in the capital.

In the ruling, the court condemned comments made by Cardinal Juan Sandoval, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Guadalajara, who suggested on Sunday that justices support the law because they may have been paid off by the Mexico City government.

“I don’t doubt that [the justices] are bribed by [leftist Mexico City mayor Marcelo] Ebrard [who backed the gay marriage legislation]. They’re bribed by international organizations,” said Sandoval.

Related posts:

1. Mexico City Passes Gay Marriage Law The world is continuing to embrace gay marriage at an...
2. Argentina’s Senate Ready To Vote On Gay Marriage Thousands of Argentinians gathered Wednesday in strong opposition to a...
3. California Supreme Court Affirms Will of People The California Supreme Court today affirmed the will of the...

The panel, which is made up of judges on the Circuit Court, ordered that the briefing by supporters of the ban be completed by August 16, at 9 a.m. PST.

The Prop 8 supporters were allowed by the panel to file their emergency stay request – pending an appeal, and ordered a reply by the 11 p.m. PST Friday by the opponents of the gay marriage ban.

Attorney’s for Prop 8 wrote in their Emergency Motion For Stay, that it’s “imperative that a stay pending appeal be entered on or before August 18, 2010 at 5 p.m.” so as to avoid “the confusion and irreparable injury” that would result from any same-sex marriages conducted in the meantime.

The opponents reply contends that the proponents are not bringing anything new to the case, and ask the court to oppose the motion.  They claim that the supporters reproduce, “(sometimes, verbatim) the same arguments” that they “unsuccessfully advanced on summary judgment and then failed to substantiate at trial.”

Proponents for Prop 8 were required submit a reply by 9 a.m. today.

District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling will go into effect on Wednesday at 5 p.m. allowing for gay marriages to start, if it is not postponed.

The briefing is not expected to be completed until late December, meaning the case would not be decided by the Circuit Court until at least the first quarter of 2011.

Related posts:

1. California’s Gay Marriage Ban Extended The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said...
2. Federal Judge Rules Cali. Gay Marriage Ban (Prop 8) ‘Unconstitutional’ In a controversial decision that will likely end up at...
3. Ninth Circuit rules against Christian Legal Society SAN FRANSISCO, Cali. – The University of California Hastings College...

Incoming ABA President Stephen Zack spoke in favor of the proposed resolution, asking, “Why would anyone in this country not want two people who love each other to enjoy the blessings of marriage and the protections of law?”

Former president, Tommy Wells, contends that urging laws to protect the rights of gay couples can strengthen the family.

“Our citizens of the same sex who are being denied the right to a civil marriage are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life,” said Wells.  ”They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”

The resolution was debated for a brief time after past president of the Ohio State Bar Association, Leslie W. Jacobs, objected to the measure and sought a motion to table it.

“I have reluctantly concluded that silence on an issue of political correctness is cowardice,” said Jacobs before the House.

His motion was ruled out of order and the measure was then placed up for a voice vote and passed by the 561 member of the House.

Resolution 111 reads: “RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.”

“The ABA should follow the growing trend of courts and state legislatures in recognizing the inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal relationship of marriage as mandated by fundamental constitutional principles of equality,” says the measure.

“What we do [in the House] seriously affects our perception in law-making forums. If we are perceived to be off base on something that lawmakers readily understand, I don’t think they can be expected to defer to us on something on which they don’t understand,” he said.

The ABA kicked off the San Francisco-based meeting with keynote speaker, David Boies, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs that challenged California’s constitutional amendment – Proposition 8.   In that case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, an openly gay federal judge ruled the the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

During his address, he challenged ABA lawyers to “bring the rule of law to its full fruition here in this country [and] … to fulfill the goals and lofty rhetoric of our founding fathers,” during his speech at the Opening Assembly.

Boies, in an interview with the ABA Journal, said it would be “significant” if the ABA comes out in support of marriage equality.

“The ABA obviously is the most respected legal organization in the United States, and probably the world, and its opinion will be listened to by legislators and courts,” said Boies.

Related posts:

1. ABA Measure Urges Governments To Support Gay Marriage The American Bar Association will consider adopting a measure at...
2. Hawaii Lawmakers Approves Civil Unions Hawaii’s Democratic-controlled House approved a civil unions bill Thursday that...
3. Federal Judge Rules Cali. Gay Marriage Ban (Prop 8) ‘Unconstitutional’ In a controversial decision that will likely end up at...

Liberty Counsel filed the brief in the case, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, in which the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that parts of the tuition program were unconstitutional because the money was used to send children to religious-based private schools, instead of secular schools.

The legal group is representing the American Association of Christian Schools, which includes Arizona private schools that will be directly affected by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that stuck down the education choice law.

The tuition program, which has been in effect for 13 years, gives private donors a dollar-for-dollar state income tax credit for contributions to school-tuition organizations.  Private, not-for-profit school tuition organization (STOs) distribute the money as scholarships to students interested in attending private schools, some of them secular and some religious.

Arizona and various STOs originally had the case dismissed in the federal district court, but the Ninth Circuit overruled the district court. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The case now gives the High Court an opportunity to broaden or even refine a 2002 ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in which the High Court concluded tax-funded school vouchers are not only constitutional, but that they are indeed “a program of true private choice.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority in that case that public money “reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals.”

The Center for Arizona Policy, a nonprofit research and education organization said in a statement: “We are confident that these [tax-credit] programs will be upheld and that Arizona will continue to be a leader for school choice.”

Amicus briefs have been filed by eight states and a multitude of organizations, calling for the Ninth Circuits decision to be overturned.

The money coming to these organizations is from the voluntary donations of tax-paying citizens of Arizona, not from the government, says Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and the dean of Liberty University School of Law.

“Parents deserve the right to choose how to educate their children. This program gives parents the rights that everyone should enjoy,” contends Staver.

The Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the original lawsuit, arguing that the program is unconstitutional because it amounts to a state endorsement of religion.

“No matter how you describe them, [the tax-credit programs] force taxpayers to subsidize sectarian institutions in violation of both state and federal laws,” said ACLU of Arizona cooperating attorney Marvin Cohen.

The ACLU says it’s “apparent” that the state legislature “enacted these ‘school choice’ programs in order to benefit religious schools at the expense of public schools and non-sectarian private schools.”

The groups defending the tax credit program are confident the Supreme Court will rule that the program does indeed allow for individual, private choices and funding, not government action or money, and therefore is constitutional.

Liberty Counsel joined other organizations in filing a brief, such as the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research foundation, also contend that the funds received by STOs are the product of individual taxpayers’ “genuine and independent choice.”

“The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that parents in Arizona are pressured to accept scholarships to religious schools due to the limited number of scholarships available to secular schools is simply not supported by the evidence,” argues the Cato Institute in their brief.  “But the share of STO scholarships not reserved to religious schools is now almost twice as large as the share of families choosing secular schools.”  “…Parents thus have ample opportunity to obtain STO funds for their children to attend secular schools.”

The Alliance Defense Fund also filed a brief, and argues that there are several reasons why they believe the Ninth Circuit’s ruling should be overturned.

First, Cortman says those challenging the program have no legal standing in the case because they “have suffered no legal injury, giving them no reason to file suit in the first place.”

Second, regardless of whether a school is religious or non-religious, “any type of private school can be legally funded by school tuition organizations, which distribute only private money,” said Cortman. “This type of funding does not become unconstitutional just because non-religious organizations have not taken as much initiative to make use of the opportunity.”

Cortman also adds that the tax-credit program is “neutral,” because the state never touches the private money involved, and additionally, the program is one of many school-choice programs available.

The American Federation for Children says the court’s decision to hear the case only serves to provide supporters of school-choice yet another opportunity to demonstrate the constitutionality of school choice programs.

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court of the United States will side with the 28,000+ children served by this program and, most importantly, the freedoms granted to all of us under the Constitution of the United States of America,” said Elisabeth “Betsy” DeVos, chairman of the American Federation for Children.

Mat Staver agrees, adding that it is fundamental right for parents to be able to choose where to educate their children.

“It is contrary to our history of liberty that parents should be forced to educate their children in government schools, particularly when some schools doom their children to failure.” He adds, “Parents know best about their children’s well-being and should be given every opportunity to provide a quality education of their choice.”

The Supreme Court will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn in their 2010-11 term, which starts in October.

Related posts:

1. Confidence Builds As Supreme Court Will Hear School-Choice Case The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider the...
2. Private Christian Schools Can Expel Homosexual Students SAN FRANSISCO, Cali. — The state Supreme Court denied review...
3. Lawsuit Filed In Spain Over Mandatory Course Material‎ In Schools More than 300 parents and children filed a lawsuit with...

Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr., right, congratulates the dean of Liberty University School of Law, Mat Staver, after the ABA Council voted to award the law school full accreditation status during their annual meeting in San Francisco. (Photo by Becki Falwell.)

On Thursday, Liberty University School of Law was given the full accreditation status by the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which is recognized as the accrediting agency of law schools by the U.S. Department of Education.

Nestled in Lynchburg, Va, the law school opened its doors in August 2004 and within eighteen months was given provisional approval by the ABA, which may be one of the shortest amounts of time a law school has ever obtained that status, according to school officials. A law school must be provisionally approved for at least two years before it is eligible to apply for full approval.

Obtaining full approval is a rigorous process and indicates that a law school is in full compliance with all the ABA accrediting standards.

In March 2009, Liberty applied for full approval and in October of that same year the ABA sent a full Site Team to the campus for three days to conduct a thorough review of the program of legal education.

In June 2010, school officials had to appear before a 17 member ABA Accreditation Committee in Washington, DC, for a three-hour hearing to review the law school’s program.

School leaders also appeared before the Council last Thursday for a final round of hearings at the ABA meeting in California, after which the Council voted to grant full accreditation approval to the school on its first application.

“The accreditation approval of the school of law represents a significant milestone in the history of Liberty University,” said Liberty University Chancellor, Jerry Falwell Jr. in a press release. “It is a giant step toward the fulfillment of Liberty’s mission to train students to serve Christ and to serve their fellow human beings in every profession and in every walk of life.” He added, “The law school has surpassed my father’s expectations, and, in just a few short years, has already begun to positively impact the culture and legal education.”

Now that the law school has received full approval, Liberty officials announced their plans to move forward  with launching additional degrees, which will include various specialties in law (LL.M.), a master’s in Public Policy, and a Ph.D. in law.

The law school and Liberty University will also be starting a dual degree program this fall. These degrees include the JD/MBA, JD/MDiv, JD/MAR, JD/MEd, JD/EdS, JD/EdD, and JD/MA-Human Services.

“Obtaining full accreditation approval has been a rigorous but rewarding process. Now that the law school has reached this milestone in only six years since it opened, we are ready to move forward with new and exciting programs,” said Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Achieving full approval is a testament to the quality of the law school’s legal education and to the many people who make it possible,” he said.

There are only 200 provisionally or fully ABA approved law schools in the country.

Related posts:

1. Western State University College of Law Receives Full ABA Accreditation Western State University College of Law, the oldest law school...
2. Liberty Law School Team Wins Regional ABA Championship A Liberty University School of Law team placed first at the...
3. ABA To “Examine” Law Rankings As U.S. News Justifies Scheme During last week’s midyear meeting, the American Bar Association House...

In United States v. Maynard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected arguments by the government which claimed that 24-hours per day surveillance without warrants was constitutional based on previous rulings about limited, point-to-point surveillance of public activities using radio-based tracking devices, reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital rights.

The case stems from an incident in which D.C. area police officers placed a GPS device on a drug suspect’s vehicle, Antoine Jones, while it was on private property, and then used it to track its position, every ten seconds for four weeks, without a search warrant.

Federal prosecutors argued the authorities, who initially had a warrant but it expired, did not need one anyways to track their suspect because he was traveling about freely in a vehicle on public roads in the District of Columbia and in Maryland.

In an amicus brief filed by both the EFF and the ACLU, the groups argued that such unsupervised tactics would open the door for law enforcement officers to abuse their power and continuously track anyone’s location, at anytime, for any reason, without ever having to prove to a judge that such actions are justified.

Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in the 41-page opinion:

It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person’s hitherto private routine.

Ginsburg adds:

A person who knows all of another‘s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.

EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick said she is proud that the the court recognized the differences and potential privacy harm GPS offers compared to more traditional forms of surveillance.

“This same logic applies in cases of cell phone tracking, and we hope that this decision will be followed by courts that are currently grappling with the question of whether the government must obtain a warrant before using your cell phone as a tracking device,” said Granick.

“GPS tracking enables the police to know when you visit your doctor, your lawyer, your church, or your lover,” said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCA. “And if many people are tracked, GPS data will show when and where they cross paths. Judicial supervision of this powerful technology is essential if we are to preserve individual liberty. Today’s decision helps brings the Fourth Amendment into the 21st Century.”

Both the 9th and 7th federal appellate circuit courts have said that the use of GPS for surviellence over a long period of time is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.

The case was case, formerly known as U.S. v. Jones.

Related posts:

1. Ninth Circuit rules against Christian Legal Society SAN FRANSISCO, Cali. – The University of California Hastings College...
2. New Warrant Issued For Mom in Dispute For Cancer Treatment Anthony Hauser, the father of a 13-year-old boy with cancer...
3. France Orders Police To Read Suspects Their Rights France’s Constitutional Council on Friday ruled that police must read...

Although planned before the judge Walker’s ruling that negates the will of 7 million voters in California, River Damien Sims, a priest for St. Victor’s Old Catholic Community Church and gay himself, is offering a workshop to try and bridge the gap between gays and Christians.

“I think what this [workshop] does is present homosexuality as a way that is not a sin, that there’s nothing morally wrong with homosexuality,” says Sims in an interview with the Vallejo Times-Herald.

“The Bible is an ancient document, but the Scriptures used [to condemn homosexuality] are not interpreted in the correct way,” says Sims.

The First Christian Church, whose building St. Victor’s congregation uses, held a similar workshop just two weeks prior to the Nov. 4, 2008, vote on Proposition 8.

Related posts:

1. Federal Judge Rules Cali. Gay Marriage Ban (Prop 8) ‘Unconstitutional’ In a controversial decision that will likely end up at...
2. Prop. 8 Judge is Gay? The San Francisco Chronicle published an interesting article on Sunday...
3. Supreme Court Stays Ruling In Broadcasting Prop 8 Trial In the divided, conservative-vs-liberal lines, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling...