Judge Jeffrey Sutton
Over the weekend, Mark Oppenheimer wrote an interesting New York Times piece about the Sixth Circuit’s recent ruling in Ward v. Polite (PDF). In that case, Judge Jeffrey Sutton — noted feeder judge, judicial hottie, and possible SCOTUS nominee in a Republican administration — handed a (partial) victory to Julea Ward, an evangelical Christian who sued various teachers and administrators at Eastern Michigan University, where she had been studying counseling.
Here’s a concise summary of the facts, from the opening to Judge Sutton’s opinion (which is wonderfully clear; he’s great at explaining complex legal issues to large lay audiences; see also his Obamacare opinion):
When the university asked Ward to counsel a gay client, Ward asked her faculty supervisor either to refer the client to another student or to permit her to begin counseling and make a referral if the counseling session turned to relationship issues. The faculty supervisor referred the client. The university commenced a disciplinary hearing into Ward’s referral request and eventually expelled her from the program. Ward sued the university defendants under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ward claimed that her expulsion violated her free speech and free exercise rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. At the same time, the Sixth Circuit held that Ward wasn’t entitled to summary judgment in her favor either: “At this stage of the case and on this record, neither side deserves to win as a matter of law.” So perhaps we’ll end up with a trial.
Who’s in the right here, Ward or the university? Let’s discuss….
Continue reading “Should Therapists Be Able to Turn Away Clients on Moral Grounds?”
The power to thwart God's will is at your local drugstore.
Who’d have thunk it? These days, contraception is a hot-button issue. On the campaign trail, presidential candidate Rick Santorum thinks that Griswold was wrongly decided. Inside academia, students are challenging the refusal of one Catholic university (including its law school) to let its health centers prescribe birth control.
Getting upset over inadequate access to contraception is one thing. What about getting upset — at a Catholic law school, mind you — over a discussion of birth control? Can you imagine what kind of comments about contraception could cause a law school community to get all riled up?
Let’s look at — and argue about — the email that caused students at one top-ranked Catholic law school to get their diaphragms all scrunched up proverbial panties in a wad. Even the dean had to get involved….
Continue reading “A Contraception Controversy — and an ATL Debate”
* Landmark case alert. This just in from SCOTUS: the separation of church and state even applies to employment discrimination lawsuits. Say hello to the “ministerial exception.” [New York Times]
* Paul Ceglia was fined for ignoring a discovery order. He also has to reimburse Facebook for all of its related, Biglaw legal fees. Here’s looking forward to Ceglia’s bankruptcy filing. [Bloomberg]
* “[D]emand for lawyers is declining,” but we definitely need another law school in Texas. A federal judge quit his job to become the dean of the ten millionth law school in the state. [National Law Journal]
* Joran van der Sloot pleaded guilty to the murder of Stephany Flores yesterday, but we know what most Americans are thinking. WHERE’S THE JUSTICE FOR NATALEE HOLLOWAY?!!?!?!?!! [CNN]
* Proof that Casey Anthony isn’t mentally ill: she’s been thinking of kicking Jose Baez’s limelight-loving, camera-hogging ass to the curb. Time for Cheney Mason’s takeover. [New York Post]
* Lindsay Lohan is being sued for allegedly running over a paparazzo. But really, she should be sued for thinking she can play Elizabeth Taylor. Come on, that’s just not right. [Hollywood Reporter]
* “It seems no one can use dirty words, except Steven Spielberg.” Well, sh*t, I’ll be damned. Is Elena Kagan going to be the voice of reason in the Supreme Court’s FCC profanity case? [Los Angeles Times]
* Ken Cuccinelli filed an emergency motion to get Virginia’s primary ballots printed. You can’t wait three days for Perry’s hearing? It’s on Friday the 13th. You know how that’s going to go. [Bloomberg]
* The Tenth Circuit upheld a ruling to block an Oklahoma law barring the consideration of Sharia law in court decisions. If this pisses you off, go and watch Homeland. You’ll feel better. [MSNBC]
* Dewey want to join the Magic Circle? Bloody hell, of course! Clifford Chance has snagged two mergers and acquisitions partners from Dewey & LeBoeuf. [DealBook / New York Times]
* What will an LL.M. get you in today’s job market? Not a whole lot. And if you’re counting that extra year of loan debt as something of value, then you’re just a masochist. [National Law Journal]
* Heather Peters, the former lawyer suing Honda in small claims court, may be SOL because of a SOL issue. Stay tuned for the results at her second hearing later this month. [Huffington Post]
This is not the case for Biglaw partnership (and hasn't been for quite some time).
As mentioned yesterday in Non-Sequiturs, the white-shoe law firm of Milbank Tweed, in a recent press release about its new partnership class, gave a special shout-out to Atara Miller. It identified Miller as “likely the only Orthodox Jewish woman partner at a major Wall Street firm” (emphasis in the original).
The release continued: “Milbank has four other Orthodox partners who cope with the same issues, but each of them has a wife to run the household and children, while Ms. Miller takes on those duties at home.”
A big shot in Biglaw, and a baleboste to boot — that’s nice, very nice. But is it accurate to assert that Miller is unique?
Continue reading “Oy Vey! Milbank Mistakenly Touts ‘Only Orthodox Jewish Woman Partner’ in Biglaw”
Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.
Last week, we discovered that roughly six percent of our readers use — and will continue using — the word “irregardless,” despite the fact that it isn’t a proper word. Please God, make it stop.
Speaking of God, that brings us to this week’s topic: because people are so easily offended, should lawyers strike the term “act of God” and use the phrase “act of nature” instead?
Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: What Caused Your Claim, God or Nature?”
Honestly, 'convert or be eaten' wouldn't have been a hard choice for me.
There are some debtors who go to such lengths to escape their obligations that you have to wonder what kind of person lent them money in the first place.
Today we’ve got an expedited motion to vacate. It’s filed by an attorney, representing the debtor, who seems mad — both mad as in “angry,” and “mad” as in “bats**t crazy pants.” She’s mad at the lender, and she’s mad at the judge.
But mostly, she’s mad at Catholics. Dirty, dirty Catholics….
Continue reading “Deadbeat Debtor Warns of Great Catholic Conspiracy”
Let’s play a quick game (which we might return to later if there’s interest). If we were to give out awards to the different federal judicial circuits, in the manner of a high school yearbook, which awards would go to the different circuits? Here are some of my nominations:
(Article III groupies: Feel free to suggest others, in the comments.)
As for the other awards, well, they’d all go to the Ninth Circuit. It’s the nation’s most famous (or infamous) federal appeals court, so it would win “Most Likely To Become A Celebrity.” It’s the biggest, so it would win “Most Popular” (especially among the ACS and ACLU crowd). It would win “Most Athletic,” since it includes California. And it would win “Biggest Flirt,” thanks to its numerous superhottie judges. (Don’t you wish they all could be California jurists?)
The Ninth Circuit would also run away with “Most Likely To Be Made Fun of on YouTube” — since it already has been. How many circuit courts can claim that distinction?
Continue reading “How the Ninth Circuit Stole Christmas”
I send my lawyers out unto the world.
I’m not sure it’s fair to call the Vatican “homophobic.” Homophobia contemplates a kind of fear. It’s a prejudice that, like so many, comes out of ignorance.
The Vatican is different. They think they’re at war with gays and lesbians — and who knows how many of these guys are at war with their own sexuality. And as opposed to a mere lack of understanding, there’s that annoying, Vatican-style, moral omnipotence that makes them feel they know exactly where gays and lesbians are going to end up. The Vatican isn’t homophobic so much as it’s homo-hating.
Given all that, I can’t say that I’m surprised that the Vatican is suing over a photoshopped picture of Pope Benedict XVI open-mouthed kissing another man. I’m sure surprised that the Unhate Foundation and an Italian fashion company had the stones to put the picture in an ad campaign all around Italy….
Continue reading “Vatican Sues Over Pictures of Pope Sucking Face”
Word on the street is that people have been saying that I’m “anti-woman.” Apparently, I might as well get in touch with Al Bundy and join NO MA’AM. And while sitting around drinking booze and going to strip clubs would be fun, it’s just not my thing. I’m sorry to disappoint our readers, but I’m not anti-woman. I’m anti-stupidity.
Women in Biglaw: good. Women in Biglaw being nasty to others: bad. Breastfeeding in general: good. Breastfeeding in court: bad. The point is that I don’t have to be a knee-jerk feminist to be in favor of women’s rights.
And in the latest round of woman-related stupidity, it turns out that religion is still trumping women’s reproductive rights at a highly-ranked law school in the New York metropolitan area. So, which school is denying its women access to birth control?
Continue reading “Which Law School Needs to Give Thanks for Birth Control?”
Mayor Bloomberg has reason to smile today.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg can have his way with the Occupy Wall Street protesters. According to the Associated Press, Justice Michael Stallman of New York Supreme Court just shot down the Temporary Restraining Order sought by the protesters against Mayor Bloomberg.
Let’s hope everybody keeps their cool.
The ruling on the TRO appears below…
Continue reading “Breaking: Judge Stallman Rules Against Occupy Wall Street Protesters”
November 15th, 2011, there was a riot in the streets, tell me where were you? While you were at home watching your T.V., I was participating in some anarchy.
Well, there wasn’t really a riot in the streets. And I wasn’t really participating in it so much as taking the 5 train to work today. But I did bump into some would-be Occupy Wall Street protesters looking to join the movement after the main group was evicted from Zuccotti Park under the cover of darkness early this morning. The people on the train asked for my legal advice.
I laughed — then told them I could do them one better. Let’s see if we can’t crowdsource a legal recourse for the Occupy protesters now that big bad Bloomberg has put his jackboot on the movement….
Continue reading “On The Train With Occupy Protesters As They Roll Toward Trinity Church”
It’s been a bad few days for the Church of England. First, it gets slammed for siding with the bankers, rather than the protesters, after its flagship venue, St Paul’s Cathedral, finds itself at the heart of Occupy London. Second, a change to the U.K.’s ancient royal succession laws strikes a blow for its great rival, Rome, as a ban on royal family members who marry Catholics taking the throne is lifted.
Beginning with the Occupy London controversy: the protesters’ original plan was to occupy St Paul’s neighbour, the London Stock Exchange, which nestles alongside the U.K. branch of O’Melveny & Myers on an adjoining square. But they were blocked by the police, forcing them instead to set up camp on the forecourt of the great cathedral (built from the ashes of the Great Fire of London in 1666). At first this seemed like a defeat, as the Church of England played victim, shutting the doors of St Paul’s to visitors for the first time since the Second World War on what it claimed were health and safety grounds.
Here’s what the encampment looked like:
Continue reading “Letter from London: What Would Jesus Do?”
Like any well-adjusted adult, I blame my parents for all of my problems. You should too, at least when it comes to your name. For instance, if your parents named you Candy, then they ensured that you would become a stripper. Similarly, if your parents named you Stanley, then you were destined to become a tool.
There are a few exceptions where the name chosen by your parents guarantees that you will be a success. For example, if your parents named you “Valerie,” you were destined to become a star.
The luckiest of all, for our purposes at least, are those chosen few with the last name Small….
Continue reading “Size Matters: Mr. Small”
Just because Nonie Darwish is controversial doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to speak.
It appears that some people have forgotten that they are free to not attend events sponsored by the Federalist Society.
There is a controversy bubbling at George Mason University School of Law because the law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society has invited Nonie Darwish to speak at an event. Darwish has been described as a “notorious Islamophobe” who argues that Islam should be “annihilated.” Some people on campus, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, have asked the law school to disinvite Darwish.
Come on, people. We live in a world where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets to speak at the U.N. (to say nothing of Columbia University). Ahmadinejad has been described (by me) as a “notorious a**hole” who argues that the Holocaust “didn’t happen.”
The world is just going to be a lot easier to navigate if the Federalist Society can invite whom they want and the American Constitution Society can invite whom they want…
Continue reading “Here’s A Thought: Let The Federalist Society Invite Whomever They Want To Speak”
Judge Ginsburg: back to school.
* Judge Douglas Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.) is taking senior status and joining the NYU Law faculty. Query how this will affect his feeding (and no, we’re not talking about New York versus D.C. restaurants). [The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times]
* “Two Examples of Things Not to Say When You’re at Your Local IRS Office.” [Going Concern]
* Speaking of efficiency-challenged government entities, how can the U.S. postal service be fixed? Professor Gerard Magliocca floats some ideas. [Concurring Opinions]
Madonna: going to court.
* Should you rinse religion from your résumé? Reflections from Professor Paul Horwitz. [PrawfsBlawg]
* The Material Girl is going to trial — over the trademark to “Material Girl.” [Fashionista]
* It’s not just law schools that are getting sued for fraud; it’s happening to art schools too. [PetaPixel]
* Elsewhere in litigation land, Quinn Emanuel is making bank — by suing banks. [Thomson Reuters News & Insight]
* What’s the deal with high-frequency trading algorithms? Fear not; the SEC is on the case. [Dealbreaker]
Shon Hopwood
* Interesting historical perspective from Professor Dave Hoffman on the current debate over legal education. One critic wrote that “there are too many lawyers in this country,” “many of them are not busy,” and “many of them are on the margin of starvation” — back in 1932. [Concurring Opinions]
* And some thoughts on the subject from someone who, despite all the warnings, has decided to go to law school — Shon Hopwood, our former Jailhouse Lawyer of the Day. [The Cockle Bur]
* Professor Paul Horwitz has a response to Governor Rick Perry’s “Response” — and Horwitz seems somewhat sympathetic. [New York Times]
* No, University of Chicago law review editors, Professor Stephen Bainbridge is not going to give up his valuable time to help you do your jobs. [Professor Bainbridge]
* The 7 Habits of Highly Useless Outside Corporate Lawyers. [What About Clients?]
* The latest salvo in the ongoing battle between Professor Lawrence Connell and Widener Law School: Widener demands that Professor Connell undergo a psychiatric evaluation. [Instapundit]
* On Friday, I spoke with John Patti of WBAL about the idea floated in my recent New York Times op-ed (co-authored with Zach Shemtob). [WBAL Radio]
* And here are some NYT letters to the editor in response to our piece. [New York Times]
* While the ABA hosts its big annual meeting up in Toronto, the ABA Journal hosts Blawg Review #314. [ABA Journal via Blawg Review]
* There’s still time to sign up for our chess set giveaway — but act soon, because time is running out. You can also join our Facebook group. [Above the Law; Facebook]
I was a very good student in Catholic school (except for the Catholic bits). But a quick Google search reveals that God explained rainbows to Noah as follows: “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”
Now, I’m not one of those guys who actually believes that one dude put two of everything on a boat. I’m not even one of those guys who knows so little about biology that I think you can repopulate anything with just two. But if you do believe in such stories, surely God’s bow is, like, a good thing. Surely there is nothing that man can do to defile that which was given by God as a sign of peace.
According to some Catholic schools in Canada, however, rainbows have caught “the gay,” and are now evil…
Continue reading “Apparently, God Hates Rainbows Now”
