<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Constitutional Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/constitutional-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Vermont Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/07/vermont-legalizes-same-sex-marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/07/vermont-legalizes-same-sex-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Legislature in the state of Vermont voted today to override the veto the state governor issued yesterday of a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry. Vermont joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa in allowing same-sex marriage, but is the first state to legalize it through legislation.
The Senate voted 23-5 and the House 100-49, which met [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Legislature in the state of Vermont <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Passed/S-115.pdf">voted</a> today to override the veto the state governor issued yesterday of a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry. Vermont joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa in allowing same-sex marriage, but is the first state to legalize it through legislation.</p>
<p>The Senate voted 23-5 and the House 100-49, which met the required two-thirds of each chamber to override a veto.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/07/vermont-legalizes-same-sex-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in Iowa</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/07/same-sex-marriage-now-legal-in-iowa/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/07/same-sex-marriage-now-legal-in-iowa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legalizing Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday when the Iowa Supreme Court held that a state ban on marriage of same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The court&#8217;s decision upheld a previous district court ruling that a state law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman violated the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday when the Iowa Supreme Court <a href="http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf">held</a> that a state ban on marriage of same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The court&#8217;s decision upheld a previous district court ruling that a state law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman violated the equal protection rights of gay and lesbians. The lower court ruling followed a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, representing same sex-couples who were unable to obtain marriage licenses. Although the county attorney&#8217;s office claimed that the previous ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should go to the legislature, it will not seek reconsideration or rehearing of the case. Opponents are left to lobby for a vote on a constitutional amendment.</p>
<p>Same-sex couples in Iowa may obtain marriage licenses beginning on April 24 after the ruling is final.</p>
<p>Source:<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage"> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/04/07/same-sex-marriage-now-legal-in-iowa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gun Ban in Atlanta Airport Upheld</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/16/gun-ban-in-atlanta-airport-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/16/gun-ban-in-atlanta-airport-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Ban at Atlanta Airport]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday upheld a US District Court decision to dismiss a lawsuit that sought to allow guns to be carried in terminals, parking lots and other unsecured parts of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The suit was filed last year by GeorgiaCarry.org after a new law allowed individuals to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday <a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815571.pdf">upheld</a> a US District Court decision to dismiss a lawsuit that sought to allow guns to be carried in terminals, parking lots and other unsecured parts of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The suit was filed last year by GeorgiaCarry.org after a new law allowed individuals to carry guns into restaurants, state parks and on public transportation, on the theory that the airport is considered public transportation.</p>
<p>US District Judge Marvin Shoob previously rejected this theory based on the ordinary definition of public transportation and legislative intent. The 11th Circuit of Court of Appeals&#8217; three-judge panel agreed with the lower court&#8217;s decision that the claims were meritless.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429021283">http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429021283</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/03/16/gun-ban-in-atlanta-airport-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Department Keeping Bush Secrets Under Wraps</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/17/justice-department-keeping-bush-secrets-under-wraps/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/17/justice-department-keeping-bush-secrets-under-wraps/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FOIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JHustice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warrantless Wiretapping]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Justice Department has denied requests to reveal information about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists to the public. It has stated that a final decision on releasing certain information will not be made until the new administration rewrites Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines. It is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Justice Department has denied requests to reveal information about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists to the public. It has stated that a final decision on releasing certain information will not be made until the new administration rewrites Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines. It is unclear whether the new administration&#8217;s policy for openess in government will be applied retroactively to FOIA requests that the agency already has finished processing. The Justice Department&#8217;s resistance to the release of records is contrary to President Obama&#8217;s promise of more open government.</p>
<p>Some of the cases in which the Justice Department is upholding the Bush administration&#8217;s refusal to release records include:</p>
<p>-A case involving a request for documents regarding the Automated Targeting System used by Customs officers to screen all travelers leaving or entering the country.</p>
<p>-A case seeking records of telecommunications companies regarding lobbying for legal immunity for their cooperation in warrantless domestic wiretapping.</p>
<p>-A case seeking the Department of Justice&#8217;s legal opinions justifying wiretapping.</p>
<p>-Three cases seeking the Department of Justice&#8217;s legal opinions about detention and interrogation of terrorism detainees.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1151/02-17-2009/20090217002009_08.html">http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1151/02-17-2009/20090217002009_08.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/17/justice-department-keeping-bush-secrets-under-wraps/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rules California Must Release Prisoners</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/10/court-rules-california-must-release-prisoners/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/10/court-rules-california-must-release-prisoners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california department of corrections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison overcrowding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=759</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court has tentatively ruled that California must release by between 36,200 and 57,000 inmates.  The three federal judges said a final population figure would be announced later and more hearings may be held before a final decision is made. The court found that that inmates were deprived of constitutional rights to adequate mental and physical [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal appeals court has tentatively ruled that California must release by between 36,200 and 57,000 inmates.  The three federal judges said a final population figure would be announced later and more hearings may be held before a final decision is made. The court found that that inmates were deprived of constitutional rights to adequate mental and physical health care, and that the unconstitutional conditions are due to overcrowding. </p>
<p>The order comes as California is dealing with a $42 billion budget deficit that is forcing the state to furlough its employees two days each month.  <span style="font-family: Verdana">Opponents of the release order claim that the state does not have the funds for the support programs associated with the release of such a large number of inmates, but the court claimed that reducing the number of inmates could save the state $900 million annually in prison costs. </span>The state has said it will appeal any final prisoner release order to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/02/federal-judges-order-california-to.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/02/federal-judges-order-california-to.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/02/10/court-rules-california-must-release-prisoners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State Moment of Silence Law Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/22/state-moment-of-silence-law-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/22/state-moment-of-silence-law-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prayer in school]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[US District Judge Robert W. Gettleman Wednesday held unconstitutional an Illinois statute that requires public schools to observe a daily moment of silence. The state law known as the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act gives the students time to reflect or pray at the beginning of the school day. Talk show host Rob [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>US District Judge Robert W. Gettleman Wednesday held unconstitutional an Illinois <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=9&amp;SessionID=51&amp;GA=95&amp;DocTypeID=SB&amp;DocNum=1463&amp;LegID=&amp;SpecSess=&amp;Session">statute</a> that requires public schools to observe a daily moment of silence. The state law known as the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act gives the students time to reflect or pray at the beginning of the school day. Talk show host Rob Sherman and his high school age daughter Dawn filed the lawsuit, and the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the law claimed it coerced students to pray in schools.</p>
<p>Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Attorney General, is reviewing the decision, but it is not clear whether she will file an appeal.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_re_us/moment_of_silence_1">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_re_us/moment_of_silence_1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/22/state-moment-of-silence-law-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Washington Court Rules Truants Entitled to a Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/13/washinton-court-rules-truants-entitled-to-a-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/13/washinton-court-rules-truants-entitled-to-a-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truancy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Washington state Court of Appeals has ruled that a juvenile accused of chronic truancy must be given a lawyer at the first court hearing. Under the state law, a student with seven or more unexcused absences in a month or 10 or more in a school year may be ordered to appear in Juvenile Court. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Washington state Court of Appeals has ruled that a juvenile accused of chronic truancy must be given a lawyer at the first court hearing. Under the state law, a student with seven or more unexcused absences in a month or 10 or more in a school year may be ordered to appear in Juvenile Court. The child in the truancy proceedings had been under a court order for school attendance and was repreatedly found in contempt for violating the order and threatened with electronic monitoring.</p>
<p>The decision was made by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Washington state Court of Appeals, reversing a King County Superior Court ruling and an earlier Court of Appeals finding that was made on different issues. The panel found that denying a juvenile the right to a lawyer from the outset was in violation of constitutional requirements of due process. The right to a lawyer has been well-established in criminal cases, but the right to a lawyer in civil proceedings has not yet been clearly defined.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Wash-court-rules-that-truants-entitled-to-lawyer">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Wash-court-rules-that-truants-entitled-to-lawyer</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/13/washinton-court-rules-truants-entitled-to-a-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Supreme Court Hears Witness Intimidation Case</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/06/nj-supreme-court-hears-witness-intimidation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/06/nj-supreme-court-hears-witness-intimidation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racketeering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bornstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confrontation clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witness intimidation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=707</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein told the state&#8217;s highest court that there are many instances of witnesses unwilling to testify in domestic violence, gang violence, and organized crime due to being threatened and intimidated. Witness intimidation is being blamed as the biggest obstacle to successful prosecution in such cases.
The state is urging the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein told the state&#8217;s highest court that there are many instances of witnesses unwilling to testify in domestic violence, gang violence, and organized crime due to being threatened and intimidated. Witness intimidation is being blamed as the biggest obstacle to successful prosecution in such cases.</p>
<p>The state is urging the court to allow statements of out-of-court witnesses who have been victims of intimidation to be used at trial without presenting the witnesses themselves. Defense lawyers claim that allowing the statements to be used without presenting the witness would violate the defendants&#8217; constitutional right to confront accusers.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/NJ-high-court-hearing-case-on-witness-intimidation">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/NJ-high-court-hearing-case-on-witness-intimidation</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/01/06/nj-supreme-court-hears-witness-intimidation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Additional DC Gun Control Measures</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/17/dc-gun-control-measures/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/17/dc-gun-control-measures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Handgun Ban]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Washington DC City Council passed additional legislation Tuesday requiring gun owners to participate in mandatory certified firearms training (one hour minimum at a firing range and four hours of classroom instruction) prior to registration, registration every three years and background checks every six years.
Since the US Supreme Court overturned the city&#8217;s handgun ban as [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Washington DC City Council passed additional legislation Tuesday requiring gun owners to participate in mandatory certified firearms training (one hour minimum at a firing range and four hours of classroom instruction) prior to registration, registration every three years and background checks every six years.</p>
<p>Since the US Supreme Court overturned the city&#8217;s handgun ban as unconstitutional in June, city officials have implemented other gun control measures as well.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/12-16-2008/20081216115007_037.html">http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/12-16-2008/20081216115007_037.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/17/dc-gun-control-measures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Black Nominee to U.S. Justice Department Named</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/02/first-black-nominee-to-us-justice-department-named/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/02/first-black-nominee-to-us-justice-department-named/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eric Holder is the first African-American nominee for attorney general. His resume includes being the first black U.S. attorney, the Justice Department&#8217;s first black deputy attorney general, and the acting attorney general for 14 days at the end of the Clinton administration. The former attorney general,   Alberto Gonzales, resigned amid probes into the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric Holder is the first African-American nominee for attorney general. His resume includes being the first black U.S. attorney, the Justice Department&#8217;s first black deputy attorney general, and the acting attorney general for 14 days at the end of the Clinton administration. The former attorney general,   Alberto Gonzales, resigned amid probes into the department&#8217;s firing of nine U.S. attorneys.</p>
<p>Among the policy issues Holder will need to address are how to handle the remaining foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and whether to issue new legal guidelines for interrogating and wiretapping such suspects. Holder has characterized the secret monitoring of communications of U.S. citizens and the use of questionable interrogation methods as &#8220;excessive and unlawful.&#8221; </p>
<p>Critics of Holder point to his support for presidential pardons for convicted tax evader Marc Rich and for terrorist Susan Rosenberg, who was convicted on explosives and weapons charges. Holder also refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate President Clinton&#8217;s fundraising activities. Holder has since expressed regrets about his decision to recommend Rich&#8217;s pardon.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&amp;orgId=607&amp;docId=l:l:892770710&amp;topicId=12722&amp;source=undefined&amp;start=2&amp;topics=single">http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&amp;orgId=607&amp;docId=l:l:892770710&amp;topicId=12722&amp;source=undefined&amp;start=2&amp;topics=single</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/12/02/first-black-nominee-to-us-justice-department-named/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
