Saturday, December 29, 2012
Ind. Courts - Photos of two women justices now on display, along with the many photos of the men who have served, or are serving, on the Supreme Court
My two favorite photos from yesterday's ceremony are linked below, thanks to the Lafayette Journal Courier (and photographer Matt Kryger/Indianapolis Star)
- Justice Rush taking the oath. Notice the photos of the current justices on the wall behind her; one has a drape over it.
- Justice Rush's photo unveiled. The only other woman ever to sit on the Indiana Supreme Court, Myra Selby (left), does the honors, assisted by Lake Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Bonventura (right).
- In this photo, from 2010, one can see J. Selby's photo in the second row, to the right of J. DeBruler. The bottom row shows the Court prior to the retirements of J. Boehm, CJ Shepard, and J. Sullivan.
Ind. Courts - Still more on: "ACLU of Indiana Challenges Marion County Judicial Election System"
Updating this ILB entry from Nov. 1, 2012 (which includes a link to the complaint, filed in federal court), this one from Nov. 5th, linking to an IndyStar editorial, and this one from Nov. 6, linking to a Star letter to the editor. The suit is Common Cause Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State:
The Indiana Secretary of State is Indiana’s chief election official, IC 3-6-3.7-1, and is sued in her official capacity. Among other things, the Indiana Secretary of State is charged by law with certifying the results of judicial elections in Indiana (IC 3-12-5-1).Today the ILB has obtained a copy of the memo in support of a motion to dismiss, filed by the Indiana Attorney General on Dec. 20th. It begins:
Defendant, Indiana Secretary of State, in her official capacity, by counsel, Deputy Attorneys General Dino L. Pollock and Kenneth L. Joel, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of her Motion to Dismiss. 1. Introduction Plaintiff has filed its Complaint. pursuant to 42 USc. § 1983, raising a First Amendment2 challenge to Indiana Code § 33-33-49-13 , alleging, inter alia, that the statute prevents some of its - members and other registered voters in Marion County - from being able to cast a meaningful vote in Marion County Superior Court judicial elections. See Campi. at ~~ 5, 25, 28. As set forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this suit. Moreover, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because this suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Ind. Decisions - "Contraception Mandate Faces Justice Sotomayor and Seventh Circuit"
In an order issued yesterday, Dec. 28th, in the case of Korte v. Sebelius, the 7th Circuit panel, 2-1, granted the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
A day before, Dec. 27th, in another case, Grote Industries v. Sebelius, Indiana district court Judge Sarah Evans Barker denied a similar motion. See the ILB entry here.
See this long Volokh Conspiracy post this morning by Jonathan Adler that discusses yesterday 7th Circuit ruling (it does not mention the Grote ruling). The post begins:
It’s been a significant week for litigation over the contraception mandate. On December 20, a motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied employer Hobby Lobby’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. As a private employer, Hobby Lobby is not eligible for the safe harbor from enforcement, and will be subject to the mandate at the start of the new year. As a consequence, Hobby Lobby filed an emergency application for a stay with the Supreme Court, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied with a brief four-page opinion. According to Justice Sotomayor, Hobby Lobby could not meet the extraordinarily demanding standard for such an injunction. Lyle Denniston has a brief report on SCOTUSBlog, and Ed Whelan critiques the decision on Bench Memos (see also here). for what it’s worth, I am not as convinced as Whelan that Hobby Lobby’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are “indisputably clear.” While I think religious institutions have a strong RFRA-based free exercise claim, and that religious institutions — and not the government — define the contours of what the exercise of a given religious faith requires — I am not sure that private, for-profit corporations can avail themselves of RFRA in the same way as avowedly religious institutions., even when privately held by religiously devout individuals, nor am I aware of any case law that would clearly establish this point (but see below).
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is looking more favorably on another private employer’s challenge to the contraception mandate. In what Lyle Denniston calls “the most significant federal appeals court ruling so far on the new federal health care law’s contraceptives mandate,” a divided panel of the Seventh Circuit granted a private employer’s emergency motion for an injunction against enforcement of the contraception mandate. Judges Flaum and Sykes voted in favor of the employer’s claim; Judge Rovner against.