Decided

Child Porn Trafficking Life Sentence Upheld by 11th Circuit

2012-02-08T13:03:26Z

Convicted members of an international child-pornography ring will spend the rest of their lives in prison, but a lower court will reconsider a child victim's restitution award, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday affirmed life sentences for seven men convicted in a widespread child-porn operation that involved more than 60 people in at least six countries.

But the three-judge panel vacated a $3.2 million restitution award against one of the men, for a 4-year-old girl depicted in the illegal images. Why vacate the victim's award?

Because the Eleventh Circuit questioned whether the man was the proximate cause of the girl's injuries. That's required for a child-porn victim to receive restitution, the court held.

Proximate cause refers to the scope of a defendant's responsibility. Applied to this case, the convicted pornographer's actions must be shown to have caused the girl's injuries, the Eleventh Circuit held.

No such evidence has been presented, the court explained. "[O]ur review of the record shows no basis for determining whether [the man's] possession of child pornography proximately caused any of [the victim's] harm," the court wrote.

"We do not seek to minimize the harm suffered by [the girl]," the court continued, but the law does not call for strict liability for the possession of "admittedly repugnant images or videos."

A lower-court evidentiary hearing should decide if proximate cause exists, and then impose a reasonable restitution award, the Eleventh Circuit ordered.

As for the child-porn sentences, the court held that life behind bars was not "grossly disproportionate" to the men's crimes. As such, the life sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the court said.

Related Resources:

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Life Sentences for Child Porn Trafficking, Nixes Restitution (ABA Journal)
Eleventh Circuit affirms life sentences, but vacates restitution award, for child porn ring (Sentencing Law and Policy blog)
State Child Pornography Laws (FindLaw)
House Fire Leads to NY Prof's Child Porn Arrest (FindLaw's Blotter)

State Court Strikes Down Georgia Assisted Suicide Law

2012-02-07T20:40:04Z

The First Amendment protects an individual's right to advertise assisted suicide services, according to a unanimous Georgia Supreme Court. The justices came to this conclusion in a suit brought by four members of Final Exit Network, a "death with dignity" advocacy group.

The plaintiffs were prosecuted after helping a 58-year-old cancer patient commit suicide. Georgia's assisted suicide law makes it illegal to publicly offer or advertise suicide assistance.

This law was the only means of punishing the plaintiffs, according to the Associated Press. Georgia law does not prohibit assisted suicide. It does not prohibit the act of assisting suicide either.

The Georgia Supreme Court latched onto this discrepancy when explaining its ruling. Georgia's assisted suicide law effectively bans the public advertisement of a legal activity.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, such content-based restrictions are unconstitutional unless "justified by a compelling interest [that] is narrowly drawn to serve that interest." The Georgia court did not find proof of any compelling and narrowly tailored state interest.

The court explained, "Had the state truly been interested in the preservation of human life ... it could have imposed a ban on all assisted suicides." Instead, the state banned the advertisement of such services in order to prevent a "Dr. Kevorkian type actor."

As a result of this decision, we may see an amendment to Georgia's assisted suicide law. It will probably be easier -- and cheaper -- for legislators to criminalize the actual act of assisting suicide than to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Related Resources:

Georgia's Top Court Strikes Down State Law Limiting Assisted Suicide Ads (NPR)
Assisted Suicide (FindLaw)
State of Washington 'Death with Dignity' Act Goes Into Effect Thursday (FindLaw's Common Law)

Prop. 8 Decision Avoids Issue of Same-Sex Marriage's Constitutionality

2012-02-07T19:19:43Z

Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. But is same-sex marriage a constitutional right? Maybe not.

The 9th Circuit has upheld a lower court ruling, striking down California's same-sex marriage ban on equal protection grounds. But the court focused only on the law's purpose -- not on the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The ruling states that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional because it "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt writes that the court has not decided whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Answering this question was an unnecessary part of the analysis.

This is because the U.S. Constitution requires, at the very least, a legitimate reason for passing a law that treats a group of persons differently. The court found no such reason.

Same-sex couples in California have all the same rights as opposite-sex couples, the court explains in 128 pages. This is because the state has a domestic partnership law granting such rights. Prop 8 thus had one effect -- stripping same-sex couples of "the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships."

"Nothing more, nothing less."

Prop 8 was not enacted to promote procreation or 2-parent households, writes Judge Reinhardt. It did not affect religious freedom or education. It only took away the right to be granted marriage licenses -- a right provided by the state constitution.

As per Romer v. Evans, "the Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort.'"

This will certainly not be the end of Prop. 8, as its supporters will likely appeal. If accepted by the Supreme Court, you can expect the Justices to similarly evade the real question. They, too, don't need to opine on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage to decide if Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

Related Resources:

Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules (Los Angeles Times)
Equal Protection Clause (FindLaw)
Prop 8 Found Unconstitutional by Federal Court (FindLaw's Decided)

Prop 8 Trial Video to Stay Sealed, 9th Cir. Rules

2012-02-02T19:57:53Z

Curiosity will remain unsatisfied for those following the Prop 8 trial. Video of the 2010 federal proceedings will remain sealed, according to an order issued by the 9th Circuit.

That video was recorded at the insistence of Judge Vaughn Walker, who ultimately found the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. He repeatedly promised the parties that it was intended for internal use only -- that it would help him when it came time to prepare his order.

In making its decision, the 9th Circuit thoroughly explained that it was not opining on courtroom cameras, open proceedings or freedom of the press. It was only analyzing the circumstances surrounding the Prop 8 trial video and its sealing.

Judge Walker had initially planned to publicly broadcast the proceedings, but proponents of Prop 8 disagreed. They appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor.

In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, Judge Walker amended his plan to broadcast the trial. He would still record the proceedings as allowed under court rules, but the Prop 8 trial video would be used in-chambers only.

He again made this promise when providing copies to the parties for use during closing arguments. They could retain those copies so long as they did not release them to the public.

Citing these promises, the 9th Circuit wrote, "the integrity of our judicial system depends on no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge's word." It also pointed out that Judge Walker acted on the "advice" of the Supreme Court.

As such, the Prop 8 trial video probably won't be released if the parties choose to appeal.

Related Resources:

Court orders Prop. 8 trial videos to remain sealed (San Francisco Chronicle)
Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Law (FindLaw)
Judge Unseals Video of Court Proceedings in Prop 8 Case (FindLaw's Courtside)

Montana's Medical Pot Law Trumped by Federal Law, Court Rules

2012-02-01T13:03:16Z

Montana's medical marijuana law doesn't protect pot-smoking patients from federal prosecution, and even a Justice Department memo can't change that, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy dismissed a civil lawsuit brought by 14 Montana medical marijuana patients and providers whose homes and businesses were raided by federal agents last year, the Associated Press reports.

The medical-pot patients and providers were charged under federal laws that prohibit marijuana. But those charges fly in the face of a Justice Department memo that seemed to suggest the feds would not prosecute them, the patients' lawyers argued.

A 2009 memo by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden said federal prosecutors would not go after "individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana," according to the AP. Voters approved Montana's medical marijuana law in 2004.

Still, Ogden's memo did not create a legal defense to violating the federal Controlled Substances Act, Judge Malloy wrote in his Jan. 20 decision.

"A reasonable person, having read the entirety of the Ogden Memo, could not conclude that the federal government was somehow authorizing the production and consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes," Malloy wrote, according to the AP.

Malloy also cited the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, which states that federal laws trump state laws in the event of a conflict. A 2005 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, held that the supremacy clause applies in medical-marijuana cases, Malloy wrote.

That's a potential death sentence for Montana's medical marijuana industry, a patients' lawyer complained to the Gazette. The patients and providers are considering an appeal.

Related Resources:

Judge: Montana's medical marijuana law doesn't shield providers from federal prosecution (The Associated Press)
Medical Marijuana - An Overview (FindLaw)
What is the Supremacy Clause and Why Should You Care? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
Browse Criminal Defense Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)

Woman Must Decrypt Laptop, Judge Rules

2012-01-25T16:57:40Z

The Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination does not apply to encrypted laptops, according to a federal judge in Colorado.

The judge came to this conclusion in the case of Ramona Fricosu, a woman accused of bank fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Investigators believe her encrypted laptop holds vital evidence, but she has refused to provide her password.

Instead, she hid behind the Fifth Amendment, claiming it protects her from a court order to decrypt the laptop. The judge does not agree.

In some instances, the production of a document may be protected by the Fifth Amendment. This is because the very act of providing the document is an acknowledgment of its existence and authenticity, as well as the defendant's control.

Providing a password to an encrypted laptop is similar in that the defendant is acknowledging the computer's ownership.

The judge rejected this theory of Fifth Amendment protection because the government has proven -- by a preponderance of the evidence -- that the encrypted laptop belonged to Ramona Fricosu.

He therefore issued a court order to decrypt the laptop and provide prosecutors with a copy.

Courts are split on this issue. A federal judge in Vermont came to the same conclusion, but a Michigan court refused to grant such an order. There are also no controlling cases from the federal appellate courts or from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ramona Fricosu thus has a decent chancing of winning her appeal. Her lawyers have also asked the 10th Circuit to stay the order to decrypt the laptop while it considers her argument.

Related Resources:

Judge orders woman to give up password to hard drive (MSNBC)
Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination (FindLaw)
Can Your Laptop Plead the Fifth Amendment? (FindLaw's Law & Daily Life)

CA Slaughterhouse Law Struck Down by US Supreme Court

2012-01-25T13:04:35Z

The Supreme Court has overturned California's slaughterhouse law. The statute required humane treatment of downed livestock. This included animals that could not walk or stand.

California's law took effect in 2009. It was passed in response to undercover video aired by the Humane Society. The clip showed workers in a Los Angeles-area slaughterhouse dragging and forcing downed livestock into pens.

The state law sought to regulate how slaughterhouses treated these "non-ambulatory" animals. But the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) already provided regulations. After the California law went into effect, the National Meat Association brought a lawsuit seeking to overturn the new statute.

The Supreme Court voted unanimously against the California law, in favor of the meat association.

The rationale behind their decision was that the FMIA preempted the state statute .

The court found that the FMIA and the California slaughterhouse law were essentially creating additional and different requirements. This is expressly prohibited under the FMIA.

The FMIA regulates downed livestock by classifying them. Animals with disease or conditions are to be slaughtered apart from the food and considered "condemned." Non-ambulatory animals that aren't "condemned" are classified as "suspect" and also slaughtered separately. They are inspected after the slaughter where an inspector will determine if any parts are consumable.

The California statute specifically prohibits a slaughterhouse from purchasing, selling, or receiving downed livestock. Slaughterhouses are also prohibited from selling any parts of downed livestock for human consumption. They are also required to immediately and humanely euthanize animals that are non-ambulatory.

Animal rights groups including the Humane Society disagree with the court's ruling on California's slaughterhouse law. They believe that the federal government still needs to do more to further the humane treatment of downed livestock, according to CNN.

Related Resources:

Supreme Court overturns California slaughterhouse law (Thomson Reuters News & Insight)
The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption (FindLaw)
Slaughterhouse Nine: Federal Preemption Bars Cal Meat Law (FindLaw's California Case Law)

Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking Requires a Search Warrant

2012-01-23T20:12:07Z

Police should probably get a warrant before attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect's vehicle. Or so implies the Supreme Court.

The new technology has been used to track a suspect's every move -- 24 hours a day for weeks on end. But in a unanimous decision, the Court has ruled that the use of such a device is a search under the 4th Amendment.

In most, if not all, situations police need a warrant.

The case involves the conviction of Antoine Jones, a suspected drug trafficker. Without first obtaining a valid warrant, police attached a GPS tracking device to his car and left it there for 28 days.

The government tried to argue that this was not a search covered by the 4th Amendment. But the Court disagreed. Police trespassed upon Jones' property when officers attached a GPS device to his vehicle. This would have been a search in 1791.

This was a very narrow ruling. The Court does not require a warrant for every instance of GPS tracking. Though it implies that a prolonged period of tracking requires a warrant, it does not discuss short periods of tracking.

Though still a search, short periods of GPS tracking may nonetheless be reasonable even without a warrant. This is especially true if there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe the suspect is engaged in criminal activity.

The Supreme Court has put law enforcement on notice with this decision, but its uncertainty has paved the way for a flood of GPS tracking lawsuits.

Related Resources:

Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking (Washington Post)
The Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement (FindLaw)
Police Need a Warrant to Put GPS on Your Car (FindLaw Blotter)

Interim Texas Redistricting Maps Trashed by Supreme Court

2012-01-20T18:22:57Z

Today's Supreme Court decision has once again left Texas' legislative future up in the air. Just 11 days after oral arguments, the Court has issued a per curiam opinion rejecting interim redistricting maps drawn by a panel of federal judges.

The interim set of Texas redistricting maps affects voting for the State Legislature and the House of Representatives. They are believed to increase the power of Hispanic voters and help Democratic candidates.

This is contrary to the state-drawn maps, which favor Republicans.

The controversy surrounding Texas' redistricting maps started earlier this year, when the state redrew its electoral maps to reflect population growth. Texas is subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and is thus required to get "preclearance" for all voting-related changes.

The Justice Department challenged Texas' redistricting maps and refused to grant preclearance. At the same time, another group challenged the maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming the new maps discriminated against Latinos and African-Americans.

The second case was being heard by a 3-judge panel in San Antonio. With no end in sight and primaries quickly approaching, that panel was tasked with creating an interim electoral map. That map -- at issue in this Supreme Court case -- was quite different from the one written by the state.

Today, the Supreme Court admonished the panel for failing to "take guidance from the state's recently enacted plan." The judges should not have ignored "the policy judgments [the plan] reflects."

Only the valid, non-discriminatory policy judgments, of course.

The 3-judge panel must now redraw the interim Texas redistricting maps by February 1. That is the deadline imposed by state officials, who have already moved primaries to April.

Related Resources:

Supreme Court Sends Interim Texas Maps to the Trash Heap (Wall Street Journal)
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Overview (FindLaw)
Redistricting Woes Continue to Spread (FindLaw's Law & Daily Life)

Mass. Court Reverses Judge's Abortion, Sterilization Order

2012-01-19T13:02:23Z

A Massachusetts appellate court has stepped in on behalf of "Mary Moe," a 32-year-old schizophrenic and bipolar woman ordered to undergo an abortion and sterilization procedure.

The woman's parents asked Family and Probate Court Judge Christina Harms to declare her incompetent so they could force her to abort the fetus. But Judge Harms went one step further and ordered the hospital to sterilize her, too.

That sterilization order was produced "out of thin air," according to Appeals Court Judge Andrew Grainger.

Mary Moe's parents did not ask for the sterilization order and neither did the court-appointed guardian, explains the appellate court. There was no hearing on the issue, nor a finding of fact. Judge Harm simply decided that sterilization would "avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future."

But the decision to reproduce is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. That right still applies to incompetent persons in the state of Massachusetts, according to the appellate court. Judges must therefore decide what the incompetent person would do if currently competent.

The court-appointed guardian believes Mary Moe would not choose to have an abortion if lucid. She's apparently a Catholic and repeatedly displayed disgust at the procedure, reports the Boston Globe.

Nonetheless, Judge Harm decided to order the abortion. She believes Mary Moe would choose to abort so she could continue taking her medication. It would have to be discontinued to protect the fetus.

The appellate court questioned Judge Harm's decision to ignore the guardian's findings. It also blasted the sterilization order for its lack of due process. It then sent Mary Moe's case back to the probate court, where it will be heard by a different judge.

Related Resources:

Mass. court rejects order for mentally ill woman to have abortion she said she didn't want (Associated Press)
Reproductive Rights (FindLaw)
NC Sterilization Victims Deserve $50,000, Panel Says (FindLaw's Injured)

Prayer Banner in RI School Must Be Torn Down: Federal Judge

2012-01-17T14:02:20Z

A federal judge has stepped in on behalf of teen Jessica Ahlquist, ordering the removal of a prayer banner displayed at Rhode Island's Cranston High School West.

The eight-foot by four-foot mural urges students to be honest and kind, and to embrace friendship and sportsmanship. It also begins with the words "Our Heavenly Father" and closes with "Amen."

As an atheist, Ahlquist felt ostracized by its presence.

Lawyers from Cranston High argued that the prayer is merely historical, as it dates back to 1963. But as the judge explains, "no amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that."

He thus determined that the banner violates the Establishment Clause's prohibition of state-sponsored prayer. In making this decision, the judge relied on a number of prominent Supreme Court cases.

The Supreme Court first considered school prayer in the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale. It found it unconstitutional to impose prayer in public schools. Twenty-five years later in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court wrote that parents trust public schools to ensure that the "classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views."

And in 2005's Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court reiterated that the "impressionability of the young" requires the government to "exercise particular care in separating church and state."

Even if Cranston High didn't force Jessica Ahlquist to read the prayer banner, its presence advances Christian views in a space filled with impressionable young minds. It therefore violates the Establishment Clause.

Related Resources:

Federal Judge Says Prayer Banner Must Be Removed (Fox News)
School Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance: Constitutional Basis for Ban (FindLaw)
Graduation Prayer Allowed at Public School, 5th Circuit Rules (FindLaw's Decided)

Can You Suffer Emotional Harm From Burger with Spit if You Don't Eat?

2012-01-13T11:03:15Z

A Washington sheriff's deputy's Whopper of a spit-burger lawsuit is on hold, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeks clarification about a Washington state law.

Clark County Sheriff's Deputy Edward Bylsma's beef with Burger King began at a drive-thru window, Reuters reports. Bylsma's spit-burger suit claims he ordered a Whopper -- but he didn't have it his way, as Burger King's slogan promises.

Instead, Bylsma pulled back the Whopper's bun and found a "slimy, clear and white phlegm glob" -- a topping he most certainly didn't order.

Bylsma touched the phlegm glob, but he didn't eat the spit burger, his Burger King lawsuit claims. DNA testing linked the spit to a Burger King employee, who served 90 days in jail for assault, Reuters reports.

Deputy Bylsma then sued Burger King and its franchisee under Washington's product liability laws, claiming he suffered "ongoing emotional trauma ... including vomiting, nausea, food anxiety and sleeplessness."

A lower court threw out the spit-burger suit, finding Washington's laws don't allow for mental distress awards if a product didn't cause physical harm, Reuters reports.

But Bylsma appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which said the issue was not so clear. The Ninth Circuit's order asks the Washington Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on the law.

The Ninth Circuit's request is not uncommon, because a state's Supreme Court gets the final word in interpreting state laws. You may recall the Ninth Circuit issued a similar order in considering California's same-sex marriage cases, asking California's Supreme Court to clarify a state law about who has standing to bring a lawsuit.

Washington's Supreme Court now gets to decide if it will answer the Ninth Circuit's question in Deputy Bylsma's spit-burger case. It's not clear when the Washington Supreme Court will issue its decision.

Related Resources:

Case of spit in cop's Whopper headed to state Supreme Court (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Order Certifiying Question to the Supreme Court of Washington - Bylsma v. Burger King (U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Quiz: Emotional Distress (FindLaw)
Cops Arrest Man Who Ordered Pot at Burger King Drive-Thru (FindLaw's Legally Weird)

Supreme Court Blocks Lawsuit Against Private Prison Employees

2012-01-12T14:02:14Z

In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that inmates do not have a right to file a federal lawsuit against private prison employees for alleged 8th Amendment violations.

The case -- Minneci v. Pollard -- follows up on a 2001 decision in which the Supreme Court barred constitutional lawsuits against federally-contracted private prison companies. As in that ruling, the Court has decided that federal inmates may only seek damages from private prison employees in state court.

State tort law -- not constitutional law -- is their only option.

This seems like a bizarre ruling given the constitutional implications. But the truth is that there is no statute that allows victims to sue federal officials who violate their constitutional rights. The closest statute is section 1983, which only authorizes such actions against state agents.

But in a 1971 case known as Bivens, the Supreme Court created such a right. There is an "implied cause of action" that allows courts to order federal agents to pay damages for constitutional violations.

However, Bivens only grants a limited right. It only applies when there is no "alternative, existing process for protecting [a constitutionally recognized] interest."

Richard Lee Pollard claims that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment in a privately run federal prison. It caused him further pain, and left his arms permanently damaged.

He may not have an explicit federal cause of action, but he can still sue under state tort law. He can sue the private prison employees for negligence, emotional distress, medical malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. He doesn't need the court to create a Bivens action.

Therefore the court declined to create one. Federal private prison employees must be sued in state court, unless no state action exists.

Related Resources:

Court won't allow private prison employees lawsuit (Associated Press)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment (FindLaw)
Rights of Inmates (FindLaw)

10th Cir. Enjoins Oklahoma's Sharia Law Ban

2012-01-11T19:12:38Z

Citing the Establishment Clause, the 10th Circuit has upheld an injunction preventing Oklahoma's Sharia law ban from going into effect.

The ban -- a constitutional amendment known as the "Save Our State Amendment" -- was passed by state voters in 2010. It prevents state judges from basing decisions on international and Sharia law.

The amendment mentions no other religion-based codes of conduct.

The court analyzed the Sharia law ban under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which speaks to state-sponsored religious discrimination.

Oklahoma tried to argue that the Establishment Clause does not apply because the Save Our State Amendment does not discriminate among religions. It claimed that Sharia law was only given as an example.

The court responded by pointing to the following clause:

"The courts may uphold ... the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law."

The judges then cited language printed on the ballot:

"Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed."

The court concluded that the Save Our State Amendment is in fact discriminatory. It then went on to analyze the rationale behind the Sharia law ban. Such discrimination is unconstitutional unless it is "closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest."

Oklahoma was unable to cite "any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve." The state also admitted that it knew of no instance where a state judge had applied Sharia law.

Without proof of a compelling state interest, the 10th Circuit had no choice but to enjoin Oklahoma's Sharia law ban.

Related Resources:

Appeals court affirms order blocking Oklahoma sharia law ban (Los Angeles Times)
Religion (FindLaw)
The Oklahoma Referendum Prohibiting State Courts from Applying International or Sharia Law (FindLaw's Writ)

Woman Too Conservative for Iowa Law School Has Suit Reinstated

2012-01-10T11:03:55Z

A political discrimination lawsuit filed by Teresa Wagner can go forward, according to the 8th Circuit. Wagner, a conservative Republican, applied for a professorship at the University of Iowa College of Law in 2006.

Despite being qualified for the job, she was not hired. She believes that the law school's dean, along with its faculty hiring committee, denied her the position after learning of her active involvement in "socially conservative causes."

The court unanimously agreed that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the hiring decision was "in part motivated by Wagner's constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of political belief and association."

The court's decision, though not surprising, is a bit unique. Political affiliation is not a protected characteristic under federal employment statutes. Moreover, there are only a few states or localities that outlaw employment-related political discrimination.

However, there is one glaring exception. In Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., the Supreme Court ruled that state and federal entities may not engage in political discrimination when making most employment decisions.

To do so both punishes employees for their political beliefs and attempts to coerce them into another set of beliefs. Such practices therefore infringe upon the First Amendment's right of association and political speech.

Because Iowa Law is a public school, it must abide by this rule. But remember that only the government -- or someone acting behalf of the government -- can violate the First Amendment. If Iowa Law was a private university, it's unlikely that Teresa Wagner would have a case.

Related Resources:

Eighth Circuit Revives Discrimination Suit against Law School Dean (Wall Street Journal)
How does freedom of speech protect a public employee? (FindLaw)
Legalese 101: Freedom of Speech (FindLaw's Law & Daily Life)