text:
Friday, December 12, 2014
Ninth Circuit Affirms $300K in Punitives in Title VII Case with only Nominal Damages
The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, this week affirmed a lower court's $300,000 puntive damage verdict in a Title VII sexual harassment case in which the court awarded no compensatory damages and just $1 in nominal damages.
The ruling distinguishes BMW v. Gore, the 1996 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that excessive punitives could violate due process. Gore involved a common law tort claim with no statutory cap on punitive damages. This case, State of Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, in contrast, involved a Title VII claim with a statutory cap on both compensatories and punitives. That difference, the statutory cap, drove the result.
The case arose out of a sexual harassment complaint by an employee at ASARCO's Mission Mine complex in Sahuarita, Arizona. The plaintiff alleged that during her time at ASARCO she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and was constructively discharged.
The jury awarded no compensatory damages, but awarded $1 in nominal damages and $868,750 in punitives. The trial court later reduced the punitives to $300,000, the statutory max for a Title VII claim. (The court also awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $350,902.75.) ASARCO appealed, arguing that the punitive damage award violated Gore.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument. The court said that because Title VII caps both compensatories and punitives, a punitive damage award within the statutory cap satisfies the underlying constitutional considerations that animated Gore (even if the punitives amounted to 300,000 times the damages). In particular, the statutory cap gave the defendant fair notice of the severity of a penalty for a Title VII violation (where the defendant in Gore, a tort case, had no such fair warning), the cap sets out a clear amount, and it states the degree of culpability a defendant must have had, thus reducing the chance of random or arbitrary awards. Moreover, "Gore's ratio analysis has little applicability in the Title VII context," because the statutory cap doesn't lend itself to a ratio analysis the way a common law damage award does. (Under Title VII's caps, the punitive damages can't increase proportionally to the harm, because they're capped.)
December 12, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Due Process (Substantive), News, Opinion Analysis, Procedural Due Process | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Daily Reads: On Torture
With the publication of the more than 500 page "Executive Summary" of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program (searchable document here), the subject of torture is dominating many public discussions.
A few items worth a look (or second look):
In French, Justice Scalia's interview with Le Journal du matin de la RTS (videos and report) published today. One need only be marginally fluent in French to understand the headline: "La torture pas anticonstitutionnelle", dit le doyen de la Cour suprême US. (h/t Prof Darren Rosenblum).
The French report will not surprise anyone familiar with Justice Scalia's discussion of torture from the 2008 "60 Minutes" interview discussed and excerpted here.
The "ticking time bomb" discussion in Scalia's remarks is the subject of an interesting commentary by ConLawProf Rosa Brooks in Foreign Policy provocatively entitled "Tick, Tick, Bull, Shit."
And while Justice Scalia contended that defining torture is going to be a "nice trick," LawProf David Luban's 2014 book Torture, Power, and Law offers very explicit definitions, even as it argues that these definitions can erode as torture becomes "normalized," seemingly giving credence to Scalia's point.
December 12, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Executive Authority, Foreign Affairs, International, Interpretation, News, Scholarship, Sexuality, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Georgia High Court Upholds Use of Private Probation Companies
The Georgia Supreme Court yesterday rejected claims by a group of plaintiffs that the state courts' use of private probation companies violated due process. At the same time, however, the court ruled that Georgia law and contract principles could limit the way those companies operate.
The plaintiffs in the case, a group of probationers, argued that the use of private probation companies violated due process, and that the company imposed excessive fees on them for unauthorized monitoring, testing, and tolling of their probation. The case illustrates the dangers and abuses that can come with hiring out a private company to conduct functions like probation.
The plaintiffs alleged first that Georgia's statute authorizing state courts to use private probation companies was facially invalid, because it them of liberty without due process of law. That's because the statute did not restrict the courts from arranging payment based on the length of a misdemeanant's probation and other probation-related services that the company provided (like monitoring and testing), creating a conflict of interest for the company. Moreover, plaintiffs claimed that courts relied on recommendations by private probation officers who had a pecuniary interest in the outcome.
The court rejected these claims:
While the supervision of probation is a function historically performed by state probation officers, the mere act of privatizing these services does not violate due process. Nothing on the face of the statute allows Sentinel or any other private probation company to deprivate an individual of his or her property or liberty without due process of law nor is there anything which authorizes the creation of a private probation system that is so fundamentally unfair that it fails to comport with our notions of due process. . . . As found by the trial court, most of the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs in these cases occurred not because of Sentinel's compliance with the restrictions placed upon it by the private probation statutory framework, but becasue of Sentinel's failure or the failure of its employees to abide by the limited statutory authority granted.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the statute allowed their imprisonment for debt, in violation of the Georgia Constitution, and that a court couldn't order, and a private company couldn't use, electronic monitoring devices.
But the court ruled as a matter of statutory interpretation that Georgia law did not allow for the tolling of misdemeanor probationers' sentences. That's because misdemeanor sentences are set by statute at one year, at which point jurisdiction over the defendant ceases, and there's no statutory authority to deviate from that rule.
Finally, the court ruled, based on Sentinel's contracts, that some of the plaintiffs could recover fees paid to Sentinel for probation services during their original probation, and that others could recover fees paid after the expiration of the term of their original sentences or for electronic monitoring.
November 25, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Due Process (Substantive), News, Opinion Analysis, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
South Carolina Federal Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In a 26 page opinion today in Condon v. Haley, Judge Richard Mark Gergel held that South Carolina's same-sex marriage bans (by statute and state constitutional amendment) is unconstitutional.
Here is the gravamen of Judge Gergel's opinion:
This Court has carefully reviewed the language of South Carolina's constitutional and statutory ban on same sex marriage and now finds that there is no meaningful distinction between the existing South Carolina provisions and those of Virginia declared unconstitutional in Bostic.
Recall that the Fourth Circuit in Bostic v. Schaefer held that Virginia's same-sex marriage laws should be evaluated by strict scrutiny because marriage is a fundamental right; not surprisingly, the bans did not survive the standard. Recall also that the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Moreover, Judge Gergel rejected the argument that "same-sex couples should not look to the courts to protect their individual rights but to the 'usually reliable state democratic processes' for relief" as the Sixth Circuit's very recent opinion upholding state prohibitions of same-sex marriage declared, by noting that the Fourth Circuit rejected this same argument.
Judge Gergel did, however, dismiss Governor Nikki Haley as a defendant. Judge Gergel noted that "simply being the state's chief executive sworn to uphold the laws is not sufficient" and there is "little evidence to support an argument that Defendant Haley has taken enforcement action or engaged in other affirmative acts to obstruct Plaintiffs' asserted fundamental right to marry. " Judge Gergel specifically distinguished Bowling v. Pence, in which a federal judge reversed a prior order dismissing the Governor of Indiana as a defendant after he took "affirmative action to enforce the statute."
Judge Gergel issued a temporary stay of the injunction until November 20, 2014.
November 12, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Eleventh Amendment, Equal Protection, Family, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, November 10, 2014
Sotomayor Stays Kansas Federal Judge's Same Sex Marriage Injunction
In an Order late today, Justice Sotomayor stayed the preliminary injunction of Judge Daniel Crabtree entered last week in Marie v. Moser regarding Kansas' same-sex marriage ban.
As we noted, Judge Crabtree stayed the injunction himself, reasoning that although the injunction seemed firmly established given Tenth Circuit precedent, Kansas raised many jurisdiction and justiciability issues.
As is usual, there is no reasoning supporting the Supreme Court stay. Here's the text of Justice Sotomayor's opinion:
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,
IT IS ORDERED that the preliminary injunction entered by the United State District Court for the District of Kansas on November 4, 2014, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, November 11, 2014, by 5 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
Perhaps we can expect another Order from Justice Sotomayor late on Tuesday?
UPDATE here.
November 10, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, November 7, 2014
Missouri Federal Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
A day after the Sixth Circuit's divided decision upholding same-sex marriage bans in several states, and thus creating a circuit split (with the Supreme Court having denied certiorari to the Seventh, Tenth, and Fourth Circuit opinions holding to the contrary), United States District Judge Ortrie D. Smith of Missouri (and in the Eighth Circuit) has rendered an opinion in Lawson v. Kelly, finding Missouri's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
Judge Smith's 18 page opinion agrees with the Sixth Circuit majority in one respect: The Supreme Court's opinion in Windsor v. United States holding DOMA unconstitutional is not dispositive. However, Judge Smith also states that the Court's 1972 dismissal in Baker v. Nelson is not dispositive.
Judge Smith holds that under Eighth Circuit precedent, sexual orientation "is not a suspect class and that classifications based on sexual orientation are not subject to heightened review of any kind." On that basis, he grants judgments on the pleadings to the defendants.
However, Judge Smith holds that the same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. First, Judge Smith concludes that marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, even as he notes that not all regulations of marriage are subject to strict scrutiny. Following Zablocki v. Redhail, however, he applies the "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry" standard and concludes that the "prohibition must be examined with strict scrutiny, and viewed in that light the restriction fails to satisfy the Due Process Clause's dictates."
Additionally, Judge Smith analyzes the same-sex marriage ban under the Equal Protection Clause as a classification based on gender:
The restriction on same-sex marriage is a classification based on gender. The State's "permission to marry" depends on the gender of the would-be participants. The State would permit Jack and Jill to be married but not Jack and John. Why? Because in the latter example, the person Jack wishes to marry is male. The State's permission to marry depends on the genders of the participants, so the restriction is a gender-based classification.
As Judge Smith avers, "Restrictions based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny." He finds the standard is not satisfied:
The State has not carried its burden. Its sole justification for the restriction is the need to create rules that are predictable, consistent, and can be uniformly applied. Assuming this is a valid justification for a restriction, there is no suggestion as to why the gender-based classification is substantially related to that objective. A rule that ignores gender would be just as related to that objective and be just as easy to apply (and arguably would impose less of a burden on the Recorders of Deeds because they would not have to conduct any gender-based inquiry whatsoever). Regardless, administrative convenience is not a valid reason to differentiate between men and women.
Judge Smith therefore concluded that "section 451.022 of the Revised Missouri Statutes and Article I, section 33 of the Missouri Constitution, and any other provision of state law that precludes people from marrying solely because they are of the same gender violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" and enjoined state officials from declining to issue same-sex marriage licenses although the Judge stayed the "effects of the judgment" until the judgment is final.
November 7, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Divided Sixth Circuit Creates Circuit Split in Same-Sex Marriage Litigation
The Sixth Circuit's opinion today in DeBoer v. Snyder upheld the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage bans in several states, reversing the district court decisions in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Jeffrey Sutton and joined by Judge Deborah Cook begins by invoking judicial restraint and democratic processes: "This is a case about change—and how best to handle it under the United States Constitution." Such an opening may not be surprising given Judge Sutton's published views such as this from a Harvard Law Review piece favoring "a return to a world in which the state courts and state legislatures are on the front lines when it comes to rights innovation."
Dissenting, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, begins with a scathing assessment of Judge Sutton's opinion:
The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
For the majority, the operative precedent is Baker v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court's 1972 dismissal of a same-sex marriage ban challenge "for want of substantial federal question." The opinion distinguishes Windsor v. United States as limited to the federal government. The opinion also rejects the relevance of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari from circuit decisions finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional: "The Court's certiorari denials tell us nothing about the democracy-versus-litigation path to same-sex marriage, and they tell us nothing about the validity of any of these theories."
The majority also rejects the persuasive value of the opinions from the other circuits, again returning to the judicial restraint perspective:
There are many ways, as these lower court decisions confirm, to look at this question: originalism; rational basis review; animus; fundamental rights; suspect classifications; evolving meaning. The parties in one way or another have invoked them all. Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.
In considering rational basis review (under either equal protection or due process), the majority finds that states can rationally incentivize marriage for heterosexual couples who "run the risk of unintended offspring" and that states might rationally chose to "wait and see" before changing the definition of marriage.
In considering animus (which might heighten the rational basis review to rational basis "plus"), the majority distinguishes both City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center and Romer v. Evans, stating that the state-wide initiatives banning same-sex marriage merely "codified a long-existing, widely held social norm already reflected in state law," rather than being novel acts of animus. Indeed, the majority states
What the Court recently said about another statewide initiative that people care passionately about applies with equal vigor here: "Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters' reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate." Schuette v. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action[BAMN].
Moreover, in another portion of the opinion the majority addresses the possibility of heightened review under the Equal protection Clause based on level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual minorities and invokes Carolene Products. For the majority, the issue of political power is the key rationale for denying heightened scrutiny:
The Fourteenth Amendment does not insulate influential, indeed eminently successful, interest groups from a defining attribute of all democratic initiatives—some succeed, some fail—particularly when succeeding more and failing less are in the offing.
And in considering fundamental right to marriage under the Due Process Clause, the majority concluded marriage is not a fundamental right, distinguishing Loving v. Virginia as a case that "addressed, and rightly corrected, an unconstitutional eligibility requirement for marriage; it did not create a new definition of marriage." Moreover, if marriage were a fundamental right, this would call into question laws regarding divorce, polygamy, and age requirements.
The majority also rejects the "right to travel" argument as a rationale for recognizing valid out of state marriages.
Additionally, the majority articulates its constitutional interpretative strategies. In section B, entitled "Original meaning" and in Section G, entitled "Evolving meaning," the majority is very clear that one theory is more consistent with its view of judicial restraint.
The Sixth Circuit - - - as many predicted - - - has now created a split in the circuits on the question of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. The plaintiffs, who prevailed in the district court cases below, are sure to petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, perhaps bypassing seeking en banc review by the Sixth Circuit.
November 6, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Kansas Federal Judge Holds State's Same-Sex Marriage Bans Unconstitutional
In a 38 page opinion in Marie v. Moser, Judge Daniel Crabtree held that Kansas' state constitutional provisions and statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
This is not surprising given the Tenth Circuit's opinions in Bishop v. Smith (finding Oklahoma's same-sex marriage prohibition unconstitutional) and Kitchen v. Herbert (finding Utah's same-sex marriage prohibition unconstitutional and the United States Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in these cases a month ago. As Judge Crabtree states: "When the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit has established a clear rule of law, our Court must follow it."
But, although the result may not be surprising, the opinion does have two odd aspects.
First, why is the opinion 38 pages? Shouldn't this opinion be more like last month's four page opinion by the Arizona federal judge stating that it is bound by the Circuit opinion? And indeed, Judge Crabtree's analysis of the Circuit precedent is relatively brief. However, Judge Crabtree's opinion also contains not only a brief discussion of the parties and the challenged laws, but a careful consideration of a variety of other matters including those related to justicability and jurisdiction:
- Standing (generally focusing on redressability, but including a claim that because the plaintiffs are a same-sex female couple, they cannot argue the constitutionality of the Kansas laws as applied to same-sex male couples);
- Eleventh Amendment
- Domestic Relations Exception to federal court jurisdiction
- Absention (including Pullman, Younger, Colorado River, Burford, Rooker-Feldman)
Additionally, Judge Crabtree considered an argument that the correct precedent was not the Tenth Circuit opinion, but a Kansas state court opinion (to which the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari).
Judge Crabtree rejected all of these arguments, but in a careful and considered manner.
Second, why did Judge Crabtree grant a stay to the defendants? Judge Crabtree's answer is related to the length of the opinion. He states that although
the Tenth Circuit has settled the substance of the constitutional challenge plaintiffs' motion presents. And under the Circuit's decisions, Kansas law is encroaching on plaintiffs constitutional rights. But defendants' arguments have required the Court to make several jurisdictional and justiciability determinations, and human fallibility is what it is; the Circuit may come to a different conclusion about one of these threshold determinations. On balance, the Court concludes that a short-term stay is the safer and wiser course.
Thus Judge Crabtree stayed the injunction until November 11, unless the defendants inform the court they will not appeal. Perhaps the state officials in Kansas will conclude that it would be a waste of taxpayers' money as did the state officials in Arizona. Or perhaps not.
November 4, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Federal Judge in Puerto Rico Dismisses Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban
In his opinion in Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico Juan Perez-Gimenez dismissed the constitutional challenge to Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as "man and woman" and refusing recognition to marriages "between persons of the same sex or transexuals."
In large part, Judge Perez-Gimenez relied upon Baker v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court's 1972 dismissal of a same-sex marriage ban challenge "for want of substantial federal question." For Judge Perez-Gimenez, this dismissal remains binding precedent for several reasons. Judge Perez-Gimenez finds that Baker remains good law despite the "nebulous 'doctrinal developments" since 1972. He rejects the precedential value of Windsor v. United States in this regard: "Windsor does not - - - and cannot - - - change things." He acknowledges and cites authority to the contrary, but finds it unpersuasive. He specifically rejects the relevance of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari from circuit decisions finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional in light of the more solid precedent of Baker v. Nelson.
Judge Perez-Gimenez also grounds his adherence to Baker v. Nelson on the First Circuit's opinion in Massachusetts v. HHS, finding DOMA unconstitutional. The First Circuit's discussion of Baker v. Nelson is somewhat unclear, but Judge Perez-Gimenez rejects the argument that they are dicta and further reasons even if the statements are dicta, "they would remain persuasive authority, and as such, further support the Court's independent conclusions about, and the impact of subsequent decisions on, Baker."
Judge Perez-Gimenez articulates a perspective of judicial restraint, articulating deference to the democtratic institutions of Puerto Rico and adherence to stare decisis. But in the opinion's conclusion, he makes his own views clear:
Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is "exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship," Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.
Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial "wisdom" may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.
A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is "minimal marriage", where "individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties" the blueprint for their design? *** It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs' logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on "the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one's choice."
Undoubtedly, this issue is on its way to the First Circuit. The states in the First Circuit - - - Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine - - - all have same-sex marriage without federal court decisions, so this decision from the District of Puerto Rico will provide the First Circuit the opportunity to reconsider Baker v. Nelson and the applicability of its DOMA decision, Massachusetts v. Gill.
Although perhaps the challengers to the same-sex and "transsexual" marriages might seek to have the issue decided by the Puerto Rican Supreme Court.
October 22, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, October 17, 2014
Arizona Federal Judge Holds State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Judge John Sedwick's opinion in Connolly v. Jeanes is a mere four pages, noting that the requirement of a "lengthy and detailed opinion" is now obviated because as the district court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Latta v. Otter. As to a stay, an "appeal to the Ninth Circuit would be futile" and given the Supreme Court's denial of petitions for writs of certiorari, it is "also clear" that the "High Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit's decision."
Despite the recent activity by Justice Kennedy including the stay and modified stay and vacated stay of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Attorney General Tom Horne (pictured) agreed in a statement (video here) and cited his ethical duties under Rule 11 and not to "waste the taxpayers' money." He issued a letter to the clerks "effective immediately."
October 17, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Supreme Court Vacates Fifth Circuit Stay of Texas HB 2 Injunction
The controversial Texas law limiting abortion access known as HB 2, which began law despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis, is now effectively enjoined - - - in part - - -by the United States Supreme Court in its Order in Whole Woman's Health Center v. Lakey.
Here's the entire text:
The application to vacate stay of final judgment pending appeal presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the court is granted in part and denied in part. The Court of Appeals' stay order with reference to the district court's order enjoining the admitting-privileges requirement as applied to the McAllen and El Paso clinics is vacated. The Court of Appeals' stay order with reference to the district court's order enjoining the ambulatory surgical center requirement is vacated. The application is denied in all other respects.
Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito would deny the application in its entirety.
To recap: the United States Supreme Court is vacating the Fifth Circuit stay of the district judge's injunction against portions of the law, thus reinstating the district judge's injunction at least in part.Recall also that this is an as-applied challenge. A panel of the Fifth Circuit in March upheld the admitting privileges provision after it had issued a stay of Judge Yeakel's decision enjoining the provision as unconstitutional.
October 15, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Gender, Medical Decisions, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Daily Videos: "Citizen Four" and Edward Snowden Interviews
With the release of "Citizen Four," the film by Laura Poitras on Friday, two videos are worth a watch.
First, here is a Q&A session with Laura Poitras at the 52nd New York Film Festival on October 10 after a premier of the film.
Second, here is a "virtual interview" with Edward Snowden from the New Yorker Festival - - - including in the first minute or so the official trailer of the film (also here) and an extended discussion with Snowden:
October 14, 2014 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Executive Authority, Film, First Amendment, Foreign Affairs, International, News, Speech, Theory, War Powers, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Alaska Same-Sex Marriage: Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
On Sunday afternoon before a Monday federal holiday, federal district judge Timothy Burgess of the District of Alaska issued an opinion in Hamby v. Parnell and immediately enjoined officials of the state of Alaska from enforcing either the statute or state constitutional provision barring same-sex marriages.
Judge Burgess' 25 page opinion predictably relied upon the Ninth Circuit's decision in Latta v. Otter concluding that the same-sex marriage bans of Idaho and Nevada violated the Equal Protection Clause and using the Circuit's heightened scrutiny standard for sexual orientation. Judge Burgess also found that the Alaska laws violated the Due Process Clause because they infringe on the "fundamental right to choose whom to marry."
In the Due Process discussion, Judge Burgess has an interesting invocation of originalism:
In Lawrence [v. Texas], the critical mistake identified by the Supreme Court in its earlier reasoning [in Bowers v. Hardwick] is the same error made by Defendants in this case: in the desire to narrowly define the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, they "fail[] to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake."
Our forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights hundreds of years ago and could not have predicted "the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities" as we see today. As the Supreme Court articulately explained, "those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clause[]...knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once necessary and proper in fact only serve to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." The Plaintiffs in this case do not ask the Court to recognize an entirely new fundamental right to same-sex marriage; rather, Plaintiffs wish to participate in the existing liberty granted to other couples to make a deeply personal choice about a private family matter.
Alaska has filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, arguing in part that there is a "reasonable likelihood the Ninth Circuit will rehear Latta en banc and thus vacate the panel's decision." This is largely based on the Ninth Circuit's application of heightened scrutiny in the panel opinion.
But recall that this heightened scrutiny is based on SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs, decided 10 months ago and which was denied a rehearing en banc.
And recall also that while Justice Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of Latta, he later clarified that the stay was only as to Idaho and not Nevada (although the Ninth Circuit's heightened scrutiny standard was applied to the laws of both states), and the stay vacated on Friday.
Additionally, Alaska argues that "conditions compelling Supreme Court review of this issue could easily develop very soon." Recall that the Supreme Court denied certiorari of the decisions from three circuits finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. As Alaska argues:
The Sixth Circuit heard argument in early August regarding cases14 from four states (Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio) and could issue a decision at any time, and the Fifth Circuit has expedited argument of Louisiana and Texas cases and could issue a decision by end of this year. Accordingly, circumstances are likely to develop in which the Supreme Court is virtually obligated to review the issue.
Yet given the lack of endurance of previous stays, there is little reason to believe Alaska would be considered a different case.
October 14, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, October 6, 2014
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari to Same-Sex Marriage Petitions
In its Order today, the Court denied certiorari to a raft of cases, including the cases seeking review of opinions in which appellate courts found bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
These cases are from three circuits:
From the Seventh Circuit: Bogan v. Baskin and Walker v. Wolf, decided in September, regarding the same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin;
From the Tenth Circuit, Herbert v. Kitchen, the opinion issued in June regarding Utah's prohibition and Smith v. Bishop, extending Herbert's reasoning to the ban in Oklahoma; and
From the Fourth Circuit's Bostic v. Rainey, regarding Virginia's prohibition there were three petitions, McQuigg v. Bostic, Schaefer v. Bostic, and Rainey v. Bostic. The Fourth Circuit has already issued a Mandate, lifting the stay.
October 6, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Fifth Circuit Stays Injunction Against Texas' Restrictive Abortion Law HB2
In Whole Woman's Health Center v. Lakey, the Fifth Circuit today issued a stay of the majority of the district judge's injunction against portions of Texas HB 2 passed despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis. A panel of the Fifth Circuit in March upheld the admitting privileges provision after it had issued a stay of Judge Yeakel's decision enjoining the provision as unconstitutional.
This newest round of opinions consider the as-applied challenge to the admitting privileges provision combined with the the ambultory-surgical-center requirement.
In the stay opinion, authored by Judge Jennifer Elrod (pictured below) the majority states that there is some confusion concerning whether the district judge's opinion is actually limited to the as-applied challenge or whether it goes further.
The majority interjects some confusion of its own with its statement that the district judge was wrong to conclude that "the severity of the burden imposed by both requirements is not balanced by the weight of the interests underlying them" because
In our circuit, we do not balance the wisdom or effectiveness of a law against the burdens the law imposes.
The Fifth Circuit's majority opinion states that
the district court's approach ratchets up rational basis review into a pseudo-strict-scrutiny approach by examining whether the law advances the State's asserted purpose. Under our precedent, we have no authority by which to turn rational basis into strict scrutiny under the guise of the undue burden inquiry.
It is this point on which Judge Stephen Higginson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagrees. He states that he does not read the earlier HB 2 case, Abbott, "to preclude consideration of the relationship between the severity of the obstacle imposed and the weight of the State's interest in determining if the burden is 'undue.'" And that consistent with the correct analysis, "the district court considered the weight of the State's interest in its undue-burden review."
With one small exception - - -the district court's injunction of the physical plant requirements of the ambulatory surgical provision remaining in force for El Paso - - - the Fifth Circuit stayed the district judge's injunction. While the court states that the merits panel is not bound by its determination, it will certainly be persuasive when the Fifth Circuit considers the next round in the saga of the constitutionality of HB2.
October 2, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Medical Decisions, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Louisiana Federal Judge Upholds State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Breaking the spate of federal decisions that have invalidated state same-sex marriage prohibitions, federal district judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana today upheld the constitutionality of that state's ban in his 32 page opinion in Robicheaux v. Caldwell.
Judge Feldman rejects the equal protection claim (the "most hefty constitutional issue") and the due process claim, as well as rejecting any heightened scrutiny within those claims and any extension of Windsor to state same-sex marriage bans. In applying rational basis, the judge found that the "central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents" and of "even more consequence," the "legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus," was sufficient.
The theoretical underpinnings of the judge's rationale are a preference for states' rights, democratically enacted provisions, tradition, and a judicial practice of being "circumspect."
Judge Feldman's opinion credits notions of formal equality and the slippery slope. For example, in rejecting the analogy to Loving v. Virginia, Judge Feldman writes: "no analogy can defeat the plain reality that Louisiana's laws apply evenhandedly to both genders--whether between two men or two women." This evenhandedness was precisely the argument Virginia unsuccessfully advanced in Loving when it argued that under its miscengenation statute, both whites and blacks would be prosecuted. At another point, Judge Feldman states:
Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will be reduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able to claim marriage. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phase of some "evolving understanding of equality," where what is marriage will be explored. And as plaintiffs vigorously remind, there have been embattled times when the federal judiciary properly inserted itself to correct a wrong in our society. But that is an incomplete answer to today's social issue. When a federal court is obliged to confront a constitutional struggle over what is marriage, a singularly pivotal issue, the consequence of outcomes, intended or otherwise, seems an equally compelling part of the equation. It seems unjust to ignore. And so, inconvenient questions persist. For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.
Judge Feldman acknowledged that his decision departed from the recent trend, but quoted from the dissenting opinion in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Bostic v. Schaefer.
As Judge Feldman also stated:
Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this Court is but one studied decision among many. Our Fifth Circuit has not yet spoken.
Whether or not the case is appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the issue seems sure to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
September 3, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, September 1, 2014
District Judge Enjoins Portions of Texas' Restrictive Abortion Law, HB 2
The latest installment in the continuing saga of HB 2, Texas' restrictive abortion law, occurred late Friday with Judge Lee Yeakel enjoining the admitting privileges requirement and the ambultory-surgical-center requirement in his 21 page opinion in Whole Woman's Health Center v. Lakey.
Recall that a panel of the Fifth Circuit in March upheld the admitting privileges provision of controversial Texas HB 2 passed despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis, after it had issued a stay of Judge Yeakel's decision enjoining the provision as unconstitutional.
This new opinion considers the as-applied challenge to the admitting privileges provision combined with the the ambultory-surgical-center requirement.
In considering the testimony and evidence in the bench trial, Judge Yeakel found that the "experts' testimony substantially contradicted each other and, predictably, reached opposing conclusions," noting that this is "the nature of expert testimony." But the judge did use some of that testimony, as well as carefully considering the parties' stipulations.
The court concludes that the act's ambulatory-surgical—center requirement, combined with the already in-effect admitting-privileges requirement, creates a brutally effective system of abortion regulation that reduces access to abortion clinics thereby creating a statewide burden for substantial numbers of Texas women. The obstacles erected for these women are more significant than the "incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion." [citing Casey]. The court concludes that the overall lack of practical access to abortion services resulting from clinic closures throughout Texas as a result of House Bill 2 is compelling evidence of a substantial obstacle erected by the act.
The judge also concluded "that the severity of the burden imposed by both requirements is not balanced by the weight of the interests underlying them." And, perhaps most interestingly, the judge explicitly considered the legislative intent of HB2:
An abortion regulation is also violative of a woman's right to an abortion if it was adopted with the purpose of erecting a substantial obstacle to a woman's ability to choose a previability abortion. [citing Gonzales v Carhart]. Because the act's two requirements have the effect of creating an undue burden, an additional finding that the act was passed with the purpose of erecting a substantial obstacle is not required in order to declare the act unconstitutional. However, the court concludes, after examining the act and the context in which it operates, that the ambulatory-surgical- center requirement was intended to close existing licensed abortion clinics. The requirement's implementing rules specifically deny grandfathering or the granting of waivers to previously licensed abortion providers. This is in contrast to the "frequent" granting of some sort of variance from the standards which occur in the licensing of nearly three-quarters of all licensed ambulatory surgical centers in Texas. Such disparate and arbitrary treatment, at a minimum, suggests that it was the intent of the State to reduce the number of providers licensed to perform abortions, thus creating a substantial obstacle for a woman seeking to access an abortion. This is particularly apparent in light of the dearth of credible evidence supporting the proposition that abortions performed in ambulatory surgical centers have better patient health outcomes compared to clinics licensed under the previous regime.
[emphasis added].
Thus, the judge enjoined the enforcement of HB2.
The Attorney General of Texas is sure to appeal.
September 1, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Utah District Judge Finalizes Judgment on Unconstitutionality of Polygamy Prohibition
In a brief Memorandum and Judgment in Brown v Herbert federal district judge Clark Waddoups has finalized his conclusion - - - and made appealable - - - his previous decision that Utah's anti-bigamy statute is partially unconstitutional.
Recall that the Utah provision at issue criminalized bigamy as defined as including when a married person "purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."
The challengers to the statute, the Browns, are famous from the reality program Sister Wives and the accompanying book. The show includes "commitment ceremonies" between Cody brown and subsequent wives. They are represented by ConLawProf Jonathan Turley who blogs about this judgment, including the possibilities of appeal, here.
It does seem that given the breadth of the statutory proscription on "bigamy" that includes cohabitation, an appeal might be ill-advised. A strict enforcement of the statute would mean that anyone whose divorce was not final and who cohabited with another person might be guilty of bigamy.
[image via]
August 28, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Florida Federal District Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In his 33 page opinion today in Brenner v. Scott, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida found that Florida's same-sex marriage bans in the constitution as Article I §27 and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1) violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Judge Hinkle first determined that the "right asserted by the plaintiffs is a fundamental right as that term is used in due-process and equal-protection jurisprudence," noting that almost every court that has addressed the issue since the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Windsor has said the answer is yes, and concluded that that "view is correct." Given that there is a fundamental right, he continued:
That leaves for analysis the second step, the application of strict scrutiny. A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. A variety of justifications for banning same- sex marriages have been proffered by these defendants and in the many other cases that have plowed this ground since Windsor. The proffered justifications have all been uniformly found insufficient. Indeed, the states' asserted interests would fail even intermediate scrutiny, and many courts have said they would fail rational- basis review as well. On these issues the circuit decisions in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen are particularly persuasive. All that has been said there is not repeated here.
Judge Hinkle did take the opportunity, however, to specifically discuss the procreation argument, finding that "Florida has never conditioned marriage on the desire or capacity to procreate."
Like other judges, Judge Hinkle used Justice Scalia's dissenting language from Lawrence v. Texas to note that moral disapproval in the marriage context is the same as moral disapproval in the sodomy context.
Judge Hinkle's opinion then analyzed the requirements for a preliminary injunction, finding them satisfied. But he also held that a stay was warranted; it would have been difficult to rule otherwise in light of the previous stays, including the one just yesterday by the United States Supreme Court.
August 21, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Can City of Ocala Ban the Saggy Pants Style on Government Property?
This summer, the city of Ocala, Florida passed Ordinance 2014-44 , prohibiting the style of saggy pants on city property. Tonight, the city officials will reconsider the ordinance in light of threatened legal action.
Ocala is not the first municipality to try to ban the style. But these bans have constitutional issues. While First Amendment challenges of free expression have not been successful on the grounds that the style does not convey the necessary particularized message, challenges based on substantive due process do have merit.
The ordinances generally state as their purposes "decency" and "morals," but there is a problem prohibiting showing underwear. Here's the language from the Ocala ordinance:
It is unlawful for any person, while on city owned property, to knowingly or intentionally wear pants below the person's natural waistline in a manner that leaves the person's underwear or bare buttocks exposed. A person's underwear is "exposed" if, when measured vertically, more than two inches of it is visible. A person's bare buttocks is "exposed"person's intergluteal cleft is visible.
As a judge from another Florida city - - - Riveria Beach - - - held, such a ban violates basic liberty interests under the due process clause. As for the "intergluteal cleft" being visible, there are real questions whether that can constitutionally be included in "indecent exposure."
It is oft-stated that "saggy pants" are a foolish style. But fashions, of course, change. In a 1937 case, People v. O'Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284, 8 N.E.2d 862 (1937), New York's highest court struck down a Yonkers ordinance that prohibited any person over the age of 16 from appearing in public "in a bathing costume" or "in other than customary street attire." The defendants included a woman who wore "white sandals, no stockings, yellow short pants and a colored halter, with a yellow jacket over it and no hat" and a man who "had on white sneakers, white anklets, short socks, yellow trunks, short pants, a blue polo shirt, brown and white belt, no hat." Maybe they looked "foolish" to their contemporaries, but as the court declared, the "Constitution still leaves some opportunity for people to be foolish if they so desire."
Moreover, it's important to be attentive to the equal protection problems that the criminalization of saggy pants raises.
There is more discussion and analysis of saggy pants bans and the limits of criminalizing indecent exposue in Dressing Constitutionally (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
image via
August 20, 2014 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


text:
Pastels are everywhere this season in both fashion and beauty. Whether it's a peach blouse or a lilac eye, pastels almost always make an appearance in the spring, regardless of what year it is. Looking to implement this palette into your daily routine? Here are 3 easy ways you can play with pastels, without breaking the bank.
Peach Cheeks
Peach is flattering to every skin tone because it resembles a natural flush. All you have to do is figure out the right tone of peach to flatter your complexion.
Fair - We recommend a softer hue with hints of pink, like IT Cosmetics Airbrush Blush Stain - Sweet Cheeks.
Medium - Go for pigments with more of an orange tint, try Jouer Cosmetics Tint in Fawn.
Darker - Complemented by a peach with a redder base, we recommend By Terry Blush Terrybly - Ultimate Radiance Blush in Beach Bomb.
Say it with a Scarf
If you are new to pastel hues or if there is a new one you want to try, start with a scarf. Colors take a while to get used to, and may not all complement your coloring. Before investing in an expensive dress or jacket, test the trend with something smaller. If you aren't a scarf fan, this can also be accomplished with a necklace, clutch, or ballet flat.
I Have an EYE-dea
Pastel eyes! Eyeshadow is a lovely way to pose in pastels, and there is a flattering way to wear every shade! The trick to looking trendy and not … from the 80's, is to combine the pastel with a neutral shade. Here are some examples to get you going.
- Blend a frosty pink lid into a light grey crease, try ILIA Multi-Stick in Tenderly.
- Combine mint green shimmer with a caramel brown eyeliner, try Vapour Organic Beauty Mesmerize Eye Shimmer Treatment in Smitten.
- Mix a classic black smoky eye with a baby blue highlight, try By Terry Ombre Blackstar Cream Eyeshadow in Paradise Island.
Craving more pastels? Check out our Glitzy Pastels Nail Tutorial on b-glowing TV.
SELF Magazine 2013 Healthy Beauty Awards » -
More than 1,600 SELF Magazine readers tested 1,505 new beauty products launched this year, and the results are in! Check out the b-glowing.com brand products that won 2013 Healthy Beauty Awards!
Best All-Around Conditioner:
Fekkai Advanced PrX Reparatives Conditioner - Transform your hair into silky-soft locks with this lightweight, nourishing conditioner. We love this product because it not only removes product build-up, but also strengthens against breakage. Combine with Protein Rx Reparative Shampoo for best results.
Best Body Self-Tanner:
St. Tropez Self Tan Dark Bronzing Mousse - It seems St. Tropez products are constantly winning 'Best Of' awards. This lightweight, easy-to-apply self tanner was developed with advanced formulations and innovative technology to adapt to your individual skin tone. We love the long-lasting, streak-free color that delivers a natural-looking tan with just one application. Combine with the St. Tropez Tanning Mitt to keep hands stain-free.
Best Antiacne Cleanser:
Eau Thermale Avène Cleanance Gel Soapless Cleanser - This soap-free deep cleanser eliminates impurities without stripping the skin of its natural oils. Perfect for oily and blemish-prone skin, Cleanance is hypoallergenic and non-comedogenic. We love the PH balance this product provides! Follow with Cleanance Emulsion Lotion to regulate overproduction of oil throughout the day.
Shop b-glowing.com for these and more amazing beauty products.
«Style How-To: Sleek Ponytail -
Shop Hair here.
Sleek hair is all the rage this season, and from what we saw at Fashion Week for fall/winter, this trend is not going away. One of our favorite sleek looks, that has withstood the test of time, is a pony tail.
We love a pretty pony because it's work-appropriate, great for all textures - including fine hair - and a great way to get a second day out of your already-styled hair. Ready to rock this runway-ready revolution? Here are step-by-step instructions for this easy up-do, and the products that will get you there.
1. Prep Your Mane
You perfected your hair for work yesterday, but 24 hours later it's looking a little … sad. Use Mason Pearson's Handy Mixture Bristle & Nylon Brush to detangle and soften your locks, in preparation for your pony.
2. Tame Your Tail
Run T3's Single Pass 1" Flat Iron over your ends and address any noticeable kinks in your 'do. Don't spend too much time on this step, as the majority of your locks will be gathered and unseen. One minute tops!
3. Smooth Your Strands
Add a couple drops of . Philip B.'s Anti-Frizz Formula 57 w/ Natural Lavender & Jojoba Extract this will keep frizz at bay and help you maintain your hairs health while it holds the style.
4. Flipping Out
Flip hair upside down, brushing repeatedly from root to tip toward the floor. Make a fist, and place it against the top of your head, this is where your pony will 'sprout' from.
5. Gather the Herd
Open your fist and begin brushing your hair into it, collecting it for the hair tie. Depending on hair length, you may have to move your fist towards the nape of your neck, in order to collect all your stands in the tie.
6. Rein It In
Using the hair tie of your choice, secure your now-collected hair. You may choose to leave the tie as-is, or you can create a more polished look by wrapping a thin segment of hair from your tail around the tie and securing it with a bobby pin towards the underside of your ponytail.
7. Polish the Pony
Now that your pony is in place, you'll want to tame baby hairs and frizz. Use Pop & Lock Crystallite Shellac by Color WOW along the hairline and sides to perfect your sleek look, enhance shine and tame fly-aways.
8. Solidify Your Style
Finish off this look with a pass of your favorite hairspray. We recommend Serge Normant Meta Luxe Hairspray to ensure hold and protect hair against damaging and dulling UV rays.
We hope you enjoy this styling 'how-to' from b-glowing.com!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
No Toro Bravos? Damn.
New Videos
Subscribe to the Sneaker News Youtube Channel
August 6th, 2014 by John Kim / 22
In 2006, Jordan Brand released its most celebrated non-Air sneaker model called the "Spiz'ike" – a tribute to Spike Lee, his film production company 40 Acres and a Mule, and his role as the memorable and irreplaceable Mars Blackmon. The Spiz'ike, which pulls in key elements from the five Air Jordans that Lee helped immortalize, is perhaps the best "hybrid" sneaker design in the Nike/Jordan history, and there's no denying that this tribute model to Spike is as revered as the legacy models are.
Since its release in 2006, the Spiz'ike has seen a vast number of releases as well as an introduction to NIKEiD, making the number of colorways truly endless. With the first colorway returning this Saturday, we went back and selected the ten best, starting from the original to one that went all the way to the White House. Check out our compilation of ten awesome Spiz'ike releases and let us know what pairs you have in your collection or if you feel that another pair deserves to be in our batch.
Filed under: Air Jordan Featured Featured Stories
Tags: Jordan Spiz'ike
No Toro Bravos? Damn.
Every so-called "The Best" or "The Top Whatever Number" list will receive backlash from the public...with that being said I'm part of that public and here's my backlash...."Where's the "Do The Right Thing" editions!?
No gym reds??? smh...
I had them all except the ones coming out this weekend and the black/gum bottoms...the woman's black/ice/pink should be there and infrared...the university blue were a rare one too, infrared was quality too
Cool grey color way was one of the best ones to be done in this shoe. Shows how poorly these lists are put together.
Best and spiz'ike should not even be in the same sentence.
Fire reds not even in there smh horrible top 10
Wtf, the cool greys are easily top 5
The bred one dope
no fire red spizikes or do the right things wtffffff sneaker news
The insoles of the Spiz'ikes are the 20s right?
Y'all had one job to do and of course y'all fucked it up the true blues the cements are crap those black n goods nobody even care that they exist and the stealths made it to the outlets and still didn't sell. Wat about the cool greys the black purple n lime Nelly's the easters and every colorway look better than the first pair
Awwwwwww the Cool Grey would've been worth mentioning.
There's a typo, those "Potus" aka Bordeaux spizike's released in 2012 not 2013
Whats up with the pictures? Using safari and can't see anything.
my 10 best spiz'ike's are; 1. east coast og 2. west coast gucci 3. true blue 4. white cement 5. kings county 6. fire red (2008) 7. fire red (2010) 8. gold dust 9. black cement 10. cool grey
There aren't any pictures.
The spizikes came out after the 20s which came out in 05 And the spizikes came out in 06 idk wat he means by insoles but the inside print and the spizike print was made bcuz of the 20s
@JMBasquiat Naw spiz'ikes were made way before the 20s. I think its just the 3,4,5,6
Thank you for clarifying. I thought so myself.
Wrong. The 20s came out in 05 and the Spiz'ikes in 06. It's a hybrid of the 3,4,5,6, and 20s.
@JMBasquiat I didn't know, learn something new everyday
Subscribe to the Sneaker News Youtube Channel


text:
I hope everyone keeps hating cause i really like these and ill be pissed if i cant get them for retail
New Videos
Subscribe to the Sneaker News Youtube Channel
March 16, 2014 BY Brendan Dunne / 32
The Air Jordan 3 "Sport Blue" will release on August 16th, 2014. The summer looks to be a very "Sport Blue" one as far as Jordan Brand is concerned, considering that this release will be flanked by the likes of that Air Jordan 6 that first introduced the sneaker world to this specific shade back in the early 1990s. Give us a heads up in the comments regarding how you're feeling about this brand new Jordan 3 colorway and check back in on Sneaker News for further photos of the upomcing pair.
Source: SC
Air Jordan 3 "Sport Blue"
Color: Black/Sport Blue-Wolf Grey
Style Code: 136064-007
Release Date: 08/16/14
Price: $170
Filed under: Air Jordan Release Dates Upcoming Sneakers
Tags: Air Jordan 3 Air Jordan 3 Retro Air Jordan III Air Jordan 3 Retro Jordan 3 Sport Blue
I hope everyone keeps hating cause i really like these and ill be pissed if i cant get them for retail
Black cement true blue 3's... I rather cop a pair of True Blue 3's and wipe off my Black Cements.
These are a must have for me as long as there a general release and I don't have to jump through loop's in order to get a pair i.e raffle's and online botism's lol
so Jordan just released the poor man's white cement and now this is going to be the same for the black cement... no thanks!
@Iseeulookin973 @boogieblind I know what you mean and you've got a point. The leather was nice on the infrared 3s. But something about the colorway just seemed wrong to me and since I already have the white cements I didn't see a reason to buy a pair that looks so similar but isn't quite as dope.
@boogieblind I feel u but I disagree on these and the infrared 3's I like them both but to each its own i guess
@boogieblind lol @poor mans white cement!! I actually have all the og colorways of the 3's but I personally thought those infrared 3's( which I copped) fit right in to the mix, the tumbled leather was good and they actually gave me an og kinda feel so I would have to disagree on this pair as well I think these are a change of pace but most def a cop for me especially when I know I got the og's covered just my opinion though!
for some reason, these just dont rub me the right way...iont know y
Watch these be transformed into some AJ III "True Blues" hahahaha or some other EXCLUSIVE colorway.... if I can buy 'em I'm gonna customize 'em!
is it me or do they have the shape right finally?
little less white to no white would be better
Keep hating on these peeps! I'll happily grab 2 pairs!!!!
This shoe doesn't appeal to me. Easy pass.
This can be an alternate for the True Blues and Black Cements
Pass! Easy, easy pass!
idk it just looks weird just picture the black cement 3's then just put blue in it? ya can't picture it can yall this was poorly executed.
Nah son, let em sit these wack as hell.
Passing like a QB.
I HOPE THEY GET HYPED UP OD SO ALL YALL LIKE @dopeman978 BUY EM, BUT...
Really though I rather spend my money getting some Kobe 9s, at least I know I'm getting my monies worth
Jb missed. Needs some chrome in there somewhere
Please don't let there be a hype around these.
Ok how this color sucks? They are sort of similar to true blue 3 with a all black upper or even the blk cement 3s with blue hits! So how's does this suck?
@dopeman978 TRUE BLUE III'S AND WHATEVER THESE FAKE LOOKING THINGS ARE SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME SENTENCE PERIOD
Yea but I feel what your saying, I'm a retro purist myself. But this is a tight color. Like all this is the blk version of the true blue 3s. This is like the blk version of the grape 5s.
I like those... A Black True Blue 3...
Exactly kid, that's why these are tough
I like them
ok. these are alright. cant go wrong with the 3s.
Subscribe to the Sneaker News Youtube Channel


text:
Teenage Sleeplessness May Lead to Obesity
By IANS
Published: 22nd August 2014 12:24 AM
Last Updated: 22nd August 2014 12:24 AM
WASHINGTON: Teenagers who do not get enough sleep may tend to become obese in course of time, says a new research.
Researchers at Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University and University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Public Health examined the effect of sleeplessness on obesity in teenagers over time.
They found that the risk of being obese by age 21 was 20 percent higher among 16-year-olds, who got less than six hours of sleep a night, compared with their peers who slumbered more than eight hours.
"Lack of sleep in your teenage years can stack the deck against you for obesity later in life," said Shakira F. Suglia, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Mailman School, Columbia University.
"Once you are an obese adult, it is much harder to lose weight and keep it off. And the longer you are obese, the greater your risk for health problems like heart disease, diabetes and cancer," Suglia added.
The message for parents is to make sure their teenaged kids get more than eight hours of sleep a night.
For the study, data on over 10,000 American teenagers and young adults aged between 16 and 21, was collected as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
Information on what the teens ate was not captured in the surveys although it could play a role.
Future research may look into whether, for example, soda consumption is a factor in sleeplessness and, in turn, obesity.
The results appeared in the Journal of Pediatrics.
Disclaimer: We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the NIE editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.


text:
(Xbox 360, PS3)
Bodycount is a first-person-shooter for Xbox360 and Playstation 3, from Codemasters.
1UP Review
Bodycount Review
Score: D+
It might have been considered a complete shooter in 2001.August 31, 2011
User Reviews> Write a Review of This Game
Submit a Review for Bodycount
Here is where you can write your own Bodycount Xbox 360 review. Please make your review as honest and well written as possible -- remember, someone else may read your review to decide whether to buy this game! This is not the place for you to respond to 1UP's or other peoples' reviews, this is where you should write your own thoughts on the game. What did you like or dislike? What did you think of the graphics? How about the gameplay? What could the developers have done better? You must include a rating with your review, and don't even think about reviewing this game unless you've played it for several hours!


text:
Lacy Peaks Cake
Additional Information
Step 1
In advance, make gum paste flowers: Prepare one recipe of gum paste and tint 1/4 ivory, 1/4 rose, 1/4 dark kelly/moss green combination and 1/4 light kelly/moss green combination.
Step 2
Roll out and cut 25 each ivory and ivory/rose flowers using apple blossom cutter from flower making set; let dry on small flower formers dusted with cornstarch.
Step 3
Roll out and cut 20 each dark kelly/moss green and light kelly/moss green leaves using large rose leaf cutter from flower making set. Mark veins with veining tool from confectionery tool set; let dry on small flower formers (1/2 on inside, 1/2 on outside).
Step 4
Brush dried flowers with water and sprinkle with pink or granulated sugar. Pipe tip 2 dot centers in buttercream.
Step 5
Place cake on cooling grid positioned over cookie sheet. Lightly ice cake with buttercream icing.
Step 6
Cover cake with melted candy; let set; repeat process and let set completely. Position cake on serving plate and pipe tip 1s cornelli lace.
Step 7
Pipe tip 2 bead bottom border; position leaves and flowers around cake.
In Stock (ships in 1-2 business days)
Ivory Icing Color
Rose Icing Color
Moss Green Icing Color
Kelly Green Icing Color
3 packages White Candy Melts® Candy
Soft Pink Colored Sugar
granulated sugar
In Stock (ships in 1-2 business days)
In Stock (ships in 1-2 business days)
In Stock (ships in 1-2 business days)
Cooling Grid
Cookie Sheet
The bead shape makes impressive borders outlines and accents on letters and designs; also a cute trim on clothing and gingerbread houses. The basis for making piped hearts and figure piping.
The perfect look for formal presentations, such as wedding and anniversary cupcakes. The precise, lacy design of this freehand technique depends on the continuous curving strings that do not overlap or touch.
Item(s) added to the shopping cart!View Shopping Cart Continue Shopping
Item(s) added to your Favorites!View Favorites Continue Shopping
You Might Also Like
Frilly wild rose petals turn this plain cake into a very special treat for Mother's Day or any spring party. Learn to pipe perfect petals at a Wilton Method Class on Craftsy. You'll be well on your way to making more beautiful buttercream-iced cakes.
Speed up the decorating process with a few nifty tools. Use our Decorating Comb to create narrow or wide ridges in iced surfaces and a Decorator Dessert Pro® to apply icing in interesting ways and shapes.
Serve this cottage- charming confection at garden weddings and bridal showers. Use the Floral Collection Flower Making Set to create daisy blooms; paint foliage on cake with thinned Green Icing Color.


text:
Activists: At least 33 killed in Syrian airstrike
BEIRUT -- Syrian government aircraft struck a busy market Thursday in a rebel-held district of Aleppo, killing at least 33 people in the latest deadly attack targeting mainly civilians in the contested city.
Several activists said a government helicopter dropped three crude barrel bombs that exploded in the Hillok district along a civilian-packed street lined with vegetable and meat shops. They said the attack wounded scores of people.
"It was mayhem; many of the bodies are burned," said Hasson Abu Faisal, an activist in Aleppo.
A day earlier, a government airstrike hit a school in Aleppo, killing 20 people, including 17 children, activists said.
Activists said Hillok district has rarely been hit by government airstrikes.


text:
AFILM DOCUMENTARY about the three-tier beer distribution system sounds like the kind of yawner they show in Economics 101. But as "Beer Wars" opens Thursday with a one-day nationwide screening, suds lovers are foaming over in joyous anticipation.
The film, by director, writer and producer Anat Baron, is described as a "David and Goliath tale" about the battle for market share and shelf space between micro- and macro-breweries.
Beer blogs have been filled with speculation about the first theatrical movie devoted to craft beer. With a live panel discussion about the film to be beamed to theaters following the screening, beer clubs are organizing meet-ups and other gatherings to fill the seats.


text:
What's New | Departments | Contact Us | Links
Civic Organizations
City Government
Meetings are at 7:00 p.m. and are held in Fisher Hall, upstairs, at City Hall, 255 N. Main Street. The public is always welcome and invited to attend, and opportunities are provided at each meeting for public input. Copies of the materials provided to the City Council and agendas are available at City Hall and on-line.
On rare occasions special meetings may be held. Notice will be posted on the door of City Hall at least 24 hours in advance as well as on-line.
Click here to learn more about citizen participation.
2016 Meetings: January 26, February 23, March 22, April 26, May 24, June 28, July 26, August (Recess), September 27, October 25, November 22 & December 20.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission meets the second and fourth Mondays of each month, as needed. If the regular meeting date falls on a Monday holiday, the meeting is held the next evening, Tuesday. Meetings are at 7:00 p.m. and are held in Fisher Hall, upstairs, at City Hall, 255 N. Main Street. The Planning Commission does not meet unless it has business to conduct, so please contact Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Coleman to confirm that a meeting is scheduled.
2016 Park Board Meeting Schedule: January 6, February 3, March 2, April 6, May 4, June 1, July & August (Recess), September 7, October 5, November 2, December (Recess). All meetings are held in Fisher Hall (Council Chambers) at City Hall at 7:00p.m.
2016 Library Advisory Board Meeting Schedule: January 14, Februrary 11, March 10, April 14, May 12, June 9, July & August (Recess), September 8, October 13, November 8, December (Recess). All meeting are held in the Kirk Room in Library at 4:00 p.m.
2016 Budget Committee: April 28, May 5 & May 12.
Public Meeting Space Schedule
Color Code: Arts Center, Community Room, Kirk Room, Pioneer Park, Council Chambers and Community Events.


text:
45 years of experience
Accepting new patients
18100 Oakwood Blvd
Dearborn, MI 48124 Phone number & directions
Patient Reviews
Patient Reviews ? Write a Review
Overall Rating:
Total Ratings
Total Reviews
I didn't like much. Both him and his assistant got attitudes when postoperative problems arose and acted like I was an idiot to be concerned. Also had me on incompatible meds, which made me very sick-my primary care physician had a fit when he saw that. Found another dr who was wonderful and did revision surgery to correct problems. I had x-ray techs, PTs, nursing staff tell me what a jerk Morawa is. Wish I had heard that from the start. We would like to trust and put our faith in our dr-this was a huge learning experience.
wonderful orthopedic doctor. I have had 2 knees and one hip done by him.
The Guy does what he does, No matter how the operation turns out he does a perfect job even if your limping all over the place, And don't use him for a comp case he will say everything is Ok even when its not,
Very good at his practice. Very poor bedside manner, very short tempered, very little after examination explanation. I don't recommend
Very bad bed side manners, has a very bad temper, would not refer him because of my operation of hip replacement the sciatic nerve severed


text:
Rocky Mount, N.C. – North Carolina Wesleyan men's tennis players Rinat Khussainov, Robert Kjellberg and Alexey Rumyantsev have become the first three Battling Bishops in program history to earn Intercollegiate Tennis Association All-American honors. Additionally, the final ITA team poll lists Wesleyan with a #13 national ranking for the season.
To read more about this recognition and the NC Wesleyan College tennis program, visit the NCWC Athletics Site from the home page or: www.ncwcsports.com