UPDATED: Texas Supreme Court Justices Sued in Federal Court for Failing to Rule on Class Certification Appeal

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:35:34 GMT

Plaintiffs in a Texas state court class action against Southwestern Bell have been waiting years for the Texas Supreme Court to decide whether the trial court's order certifying the class was proper. Southwestern Bell appealed to the Texas Supreme Court...

New York Times Editorial on Managing the Increasing Number of Pro Se Litigants

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:00:00 GMT

New Hampshire Chief Justice John T. Broderick, Jr. and California Chief Justice Ronald M. George published an OpEd in the New York Times, entitled "A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers," regarding handling the increasing number of pro se litigants. In addition...

LeRoy on the Effect of Partisan Election of Judges on Judicial Review of Employment Arbitrations

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:00:00 GMT

Professor Michael H. LeRoy (University of Illinois College of Law) has posted "Do Partisan Elections of Judges Produce Unequal Justice? When Courts Review Employment Arbitrations" on SSRN in the Working Paper Series. The abstract states: Partisan election of judges is...

Schwartz on the the Federal Arbitration Act

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:51:13 GMT

David S. Schwartz (University of Wisconsin) has posted The Federal Arbitration Act and the Power of Congress Over State Courts to SSRN. Abstract: The Federal Arbitration Act is unconstitutional as it has been applied to the states over the past...

NY Times Editorial on the importance of funding state courts

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:00:00 GMT

The New York Times has run an editorial about the importance of state courts, writing that "[t]his vital institution — constitutionally, an independent, co-equal branch of government — has been spiraling into crisis as cash-starved states struggle with huge deficits."...

Fitzpatrick on The Politics of Merit Selection

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:48:11 GMT

Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick (Vanderbilt Law School) has posted "The Politics of Merit Selection" on SSRN. It will be published in the Missouri Law Review. Abstract: In this Article, I undertake an evaluation of a method of judicial selection known...

Kansas Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of Damages Caps

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:52:47 GMT

Last week the Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument in Miller v. Johnson, a medical malpractice case challenging the constitutionality of a Kansas statute that caps damages for noneconomic loss at $250,000. The docket is available here. For additional coverage,...

Pepsi Facing $1.26 Billion Default Judgment in Wisconsin

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:22:00 GMT

Reuters is reporting: "A Wisconsin judge has ordered PepsiCo Inc to pay $1.26 billion to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's No. 2 soft drink...

E-Marriage -- using jurisdictional creativity to achieve marriage equality across state lines

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:22:41 GMT

Adam Candeub and Mae Kuykendall have launched a novel project at Michigan State University, College of Law. E-marriage would allow couples to combine the law of one jurisdiction with the physical location of another. In other words, a same sex...

California provides free representation in certain civil cases

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:00:00 GMT

California has a new program to fund public interest lawyers to provide free representation to all indigent civil litigants involved in certain types of cases, such as home foreclosures, domestic violence cases, cases alleging predatory lending practices and others. The...

Prof. Connors on Allocating the Costs of Discovery

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:33:44 GMT

Professor Patrick Connors (Albany) has posted Which Party Pays the Costs of Document Disclosure?, 29 Pace L. Rev. 441 (2009) on SSRN. Here's the abstract: The disclosure of electronically stored information has become an integral part of litigation in the...

Carolina lavender

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:46:21 GMT

Two pieces of good news for lgbt advocates in ye olde home state: The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a second-parent adoption in Boseman v. Jarrell. See Nancy Polikoff's blog for analysis of the decision. The extra bonus is that the plaintiff who won the case - Julia Boseman - is the first and only openly gay member of the state legislature. She is the state senator who represents Wilmington (ye olde home town). The Durham City Council voted unanimously to endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples. According to...

Two pieces of good news for lgbt advocates in ye olde home state:

The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a second-parent adoption in Boseman v. Jarrell. See Nancy Polikoff's blog for analysis of the decision. The extra bonus is that the plaintiff who won the case - Julia Boseman - is the first and only openly gay member of the state legislature. She is the state senator who represents Wilmington (ye olde home town).

The Durham City Council voted unanimously to endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples. According to the News & Observer:

The [Durham] City Council got a standing ovation Monday night when it unanimously passed, without discussion, a resolution supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.

"It is simply a statement" and has no effect on the law, City Attorney Patrick Baker said before the vote. Nevertheless, when the outcome was announced much of the full-house audience in the council chamber broke into applause and then stood.

The resolution states:

"The City Council of the City of Durham endorses and supports the rights of same sex couples to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitments of civil marriage."

Kagan May Not Argue Until OT09

kedar@dailywrit.com (Kedar Bhatia) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:33:51 GMT

Tony Mauro is reporting that Solicitor General may wait until next term to argue her first case before the Supreme Court. It had been reported earlier that she might argue for the first time in the landmark Voting Rights Act case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder. Mauro is now reporting that Neal Katyal [...]

Tony Mauro is reporting that Solicitor General may wait until next term to argue her first case before the Supreme Court. It had been reported earlier that she might argue for the first time in the landmark Voting Rights Act case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder. Mauro is now reporting that Neal Katyal will argue for the government.

Matt Coles on the Iowa decision: political power and calling out religion

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:24:12 GMT

By Guest Blogger and ACLU LGBT Rights Project Director Matt Coles The Iowa Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is the third from a state high court to treat government discrimination against gay people generally as a serious constitutional problem (the other two are the California and Connecticut marriage cases). All three courts say that a long history of discrimination driven by prejudice should make courts suspicious anytime the government singles gay people out. While there are some differences in details, the three...

By Guest Blogger and ACLU LGBT Rights Project Director Matt Coles

The Iowa Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is the third from a state high court to treat government discrimination against gay people generally as a serious constitutional problem (the other two are the California and Connecticut marriage cases). All three courts say that a long history of discrimination driven by prejudice should make courts suspicious anytime the government singles gay people out. While there are some differences in details, the three decisions in essence say that if the government claims that gay people are truly different (and therefore should be treated differently), it has to back the claim with proof, not speculation.

The demand for proof is a crucial. The argument that is most often used against us in marriage cases is that children do best with a mother and a father, and that marriage is set up to promote heterosexual parenting. For quite a few years now, there has been solid scientific evidence that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the ability to be a good parent. That’s why we have support from all of the nation’s major child welfare organizations.

But as long as the courts were willing to let discrimination stand if the justification for it was “conceivably” logical in the abstract, it was tough to win the parenting argument. But when proof is required—as the Arkansas case on foster parenting in 2006 showed—we are in much better shape.

These three state high court rulings are not limited to marriage; they apply to any form of government discrimination. So they should be a help in cases involving schools, jobs and most particularly, cases about adoption, foster care and parenting

Of course, these rulings technically apply only in the three states (and the three are among the best on government policies and gay people). But I think these opinions will be influential in many other states as well....

In deciding whether to be suspicious about government discrimination against a group, the U.S. Supreme Court often looks at whether its members appear able to protect their interests through the political process (although all of these cases are based on state constitutions, most state courts use the analyses that the U.S. Supreme Court uses for the federal constitution, even if they often come to different conclusions than the U.S. Supreme Court does). Several of the bad opinions that say there is no reason to be concerned about discrimination against gay people point to state laws against sexual orientation discrimination on the job or in housing. Those laws, the bad decisions say, prove gay people are not politically powerless.

As the California court pointed out, if an absolute lack of current political influence were the measure, there’d be no reason to be concerned about government discrimination based on race, religion or sex, since all those traits receive far more comprehensive legal protection everywhere in the United States. But all U.S. courts continue to treat race, religious and sex discrimination as deeply suspicious.

The Iowa case, following California and a very powerful part of the Connecticut opinion, says that as used by the U.S. Supreme Court, the question is not whether the group has some political influence, but whether it has the capacity to bring a prompt end to discrimination against it. That, the opinions say, is why we continue to be deeply skeptical of race and sex discrimination, and should be skeptical of sexual orientation discrimination as well.

What sets the Iowa opinion apart is a passage near the end. After dealing with the arguments the state offered to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples, the Iowa Supreme Court addresses head-on what it says is the “unspoken” reason many support the exclusion: religious opposition.

The Court says that while many oppose marriage for religious reasons, religion cannot justify a law excluding gay people from marriage. “State government can have no religious views,” the opinion says, “either directly or indirectly expressed through its legislation.” “This proposition,” the Court goes on to say, “is the essence of the separation of church and state.”

That proposition ought to be obvious, but in the last 25 years, it seems almost to have disappeared from civic discourse in America. It took guts for the Iowa court to say what virtually no other government official has been willing to admit. By bluntly pointing out that religion has driven much of the debate, and reminding other courts and legislatures of their obligation not to enshrine religion in law, the Court gave a deeply practical rationale for insisting that marriage exclusions either be based on rigorous logic and evidence or be struck down. And it is that down-to-earth honesty that will, I believe, make this a deeply influential opinion.

Will court nudge the legislature in New York?

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:26:18 GMT

New York's highest state court, the Court of Appeals, granted review yesterday in two cases in which conservatives challenged lower court decisions recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages as valid. The Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the parties who just persuaded the court to hear their cases, is probably ecstatic. Since lgbt rights groups had won the lower court decisions, they tried - unsuccessfully - to persuade the court not to hear the appeals. One case, Godfrey v. Spano, 871 N.Y.S.2d 296, stems from the Westchester County executive’s 2006 decision to begin...

One case, Godfrey v. Spano, 871 N.Y.S.2d 296, stems from the Westchester County executive’s 2006 decision to begin officially honoring out-of-state marriage licenses for gay couples the same way it did for heterosexual couples.

The other case, Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, 872 N.Y.S.2d 578, was filed after the department agreed in 2007 to begin recognizing out-of-state, same-sex marriages for the purpose of extending health insurance to spouses of public employees.

So, on the face of it, not good news for the lgbt team. Meanwhile, there is another major battle brewing in the state. The marriage equality bill is bottled up in the wildly dysfunctional New York State Senate, creating such a mess that the Majority Leader told an HRC dinner that it was a no-go for this year. That really slapped a wet blanket on the crowd, not least because it was lots and lots and lots of gay dollars from around the country that fueled the Dems' takeover of that particular legislative body.

So, the worst case scenario is that everything goes to hell in New York this year: the court rules that out-of-state marriages can't be recognized until New York's legislature clearly signals that the state's public policy has changed and the NYS Senate sinks deeper into the morass of budget crisis and paralysis.

On the other hand ... maybe the pendency of these two cases will jolt the Senate out of its perennial coma. If the Court of Appeals reverses the lower court decisions, there will be a fair number of New York couples stuck in a weird position very similar to that of the 18,000 in California: they were married where the marriage was lawful (probably most in Massachusetts) at a time when their state of residence (NY) recognized the marriage. But suddenly, their marriage is in legal limbo. This situation - or even the threat of it materializing - makes it urgent for the legislature to do something.

If that scenario plays out, yesterday's court's decision will have produced a very big silver lining for lgbt advocates and a pyrhhic victory for ADF.

Kansas jury acquits doctor who performed late-term abortions

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:32:16 GMT

After years of investigations and four days of testimony, jurors in Wichita took just 45 minutes on Friday to acquit a controversial abortion doctor of charges that he performed 19 illegal late-term abortions in 2003. Kansas law permits late-term abortions when two independent doctors agree that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed by giving birth. Prosecutors charged that the doctor, George Tiller, had an improper financial relationship with a doctor from Lawrence, Kristin Neuhaus, who provided a second opinion in the 19 cases cited. Dr. Tiller’s clinic is one...

Dr. Tiller’s clinic is one of three in the United States that perform late-term abortions, and he has been reviled by anti-abortion forces for decades. In 1986, a bomb exploded on the roof of his clinic here, Women’s Health Care Services. In 1991, some 2,000 protesters were arrested outside during summer-long protests; in 1993, Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms by an anti-abortion activist while driving away from the clinic. Protests continue there almost daily.

“It’s been a long ordeal for his patients, Dr. Tiller and his family,” the lead defense lawyer, Dan Monnat, said Friday outside the courtroom. “They’re just happy it’s over.” Dr. Tiller could have faced a year in jail and a $2,500 fine on each of 19 counts.

Two dozen law officers stationed themselves in the courtroom to maintain order as the verdict was read, and spectators, most of whom identified themselves as abortion opponents, were searched before entering. A few appeared to pray, but there were no outbursts. Anti-abortion protesters demonstrated outside the courthouse all week.

The Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition in Washington, called the verdict “a setback.” Mr. Mahoney said that had jurors voted for conviction, “they would have put him out of business.” But Mr. Mahoney, who had predicted that the trial would “energize” anti-abortion forces, said it was a “very technical case” that was not relevant to other legal and legislative challenges to abortion.

Assistant Attorney General Barry Disney, who prosecuted Dr. Tiller, said the quick verdict probably resulted from the fact that the issue before jurors was clear and concise. “There wasn’t a lot for them to go back there and argue,” Mr. Disney said.

During testimony, both Dr. Tiller and Dr. Neuhaus, the only witness called by prosecutors, denied that there was anything improper about their financial relationship. Dr. Neuhaus testified that she misspoke during a 2006 deposition when she called herself a “full-time consultant” for Dr. Tiller.

The trial is not the end of Dr. Tiller’s legal problems. The state Board of Healing Arts is investigating a complaint that mirrors the accusations made in the trial.

Source: N Y Times

What the Times article omits is the connection, however slight, between Dr. Tiller and Govenor Kathleen Sibelius, President Obama's nominee as Secretary of HHS. The right-wing has gone apoplectic over the Sibelius nomination because of her defense of reproductive rights and ties to Planned Parenthood and to Dr. Tiller. They know each other! Govenor Sibelius invited Dr. Tiller and his staff to the governor's mansion! She accepted an award from Planned Parenthood! Oh my!

Rough ride for Prop 8 opponents, but is an even better result possible?

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:17:16 GMT

First the caveats: not only is predicting results from watching an oral argument chancy, but I was not able to watch the entire three-hour argument. So perhaps what follows is foolhardy. But -- from what I did see, I wouldn't bet anything valuable that the California Supreme Court will invalidate Prop 8. In the arguments in the marriage case last spring, Chief Justice George, who later wrote the opinion, seemed almost to be reading from his draft, with several references to the 1948 decision in which the court struck down...

First the caveats: not only is predicting results from watching an oral argument chancy, but I was not able to watch the entire three-hour argument. So perhaps what follows is foolhardy.

But -- from what I did see, I wouldn't bet anything valuable that the California Supreme Court will invalidate Prop 8.

In the arguments in the marriage case last spring, Chief Justice George, who later wrote the opinion, seemed almost to be reading from his draft, with several references to the 1948 decision in which the court struck down the state's anti-miscegenation law. Yesterday, if he was guided by a draft opinion in most of his questions, the outcome will be that Prop 8 was an amendment, not a revision, of the state constitution, and is therefore valid. Justice Kennard, another member of the majority from last spring, seems likely to join him, and there was no sign that the three justices who formed the minority in the marriage case have inclination to find fault with Prop 8. So it looks to me like Prop 8 will continue in effect.

As to retroactivity, my hunch has always been that the 18,000 couples who married in California between the date of the last decision and election day will continue to have their marriages recognized as such. And nothing I observed in the oral arguments has changed that view.

So what happens next? If my prediction is correct, the media will play it as the proponents of Prop 8 being allowed to claim the fruits of their labors, and a validation of popular sentiment still set against recognition of same-sex marriage. And that will be true as far as it goes. But something far more interesting might emerge.

Several of the early questions from the bench seemed to suggest that especially Justices Kennard and George were inclined to focus on the equality in state law benefits that exists between marriage and what California calls domestic partnership (really a misnomer, because it's a full set of benefits like Vermont or NJ civil unions, not like the earlier form of DPs which are much more limited). These questions led to an exchange that appeared to be mutually frustating for the justices and Shannon Minter, in which Shannon kept repeating that one could not delete access to the word "marriage" and still have equal status, and the justices kept repeating, but the rest of our prior decision won't change.

If the court lives up to what it said in the marriage decision, however, the potential is for a better result than winning the challenge to Prop 8.

Although few people seemed to notice it at the time, the marriage decision ruled that what was essential was equality, not marriage. "Our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe as a matter of policy that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership ... but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution." The court ruled that the "right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage."

As we know, the court ruled both that same-sex couples were entitled to that bundle of substantive legal rights and attributes and that the status of domestic partnership was not sufficient despite its material parity with marriage. The court reasoned as follows (the italics are mine):

"Whether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element" of the right to marry, "one of the core elements ... is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect and stature" of the family relationships of heterosexual partners. By reserving the traditional, well-understood term "marriage" only for straight couples, the court said, it violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

Now that California's voters have taken the word "marriage" off the table as an option for both kinds of relationship categories, the court could rule that California has to come up with some other label and treat both heterosexual and same-sex couples the same. In other words, the official label for the legal status must be the same for everyone -- what that label is - whether it is "marriage" or something else - is not necessary.

If the court says this, they will be right. (I can imagine decisions reasoned in other ways as well, but I think this is at least a possibility.) This result would be better than invalidating Prop 8. Why? At least two reasons - if heterosexuals were at risk of losing marital status, I think Congress would feel compelled to repeal or alter DoMA to accord recognition to California couples for federal law purposes. And the issue of principle is not "marriage equality;" the issue is equality. The technical legal label of the institution - so long as it is the same for everyone - is irrelevant.

Viewing guide for Prop 8 oral argument

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:37:50 GMT

As most readers of this blog probably know, the oral argument in the challenge to Prop 8 will be tomorrow - Thursday, March 5 - from 9 am to noon PST, and will be webcast live. If you, like me, don't have a three-hour chunk of free viewing time, you can watch it later at your leisure. The arguments should be a fascinating debate about constitutional principles and priorities. However obscured in the peculiarities of California law distinguishing between amendments and revisions to the state constitution, the central issue for...

The arguments should be a fascinating debate about constitutional principles and priorities. However obscured in the peculiarities of California law distinguishing between amendments and revisions to the state constitution, the central issue for the court will be whether a commitment to protect the key liberties of unpopular minorities against majoritarian rule will trump the state's tradition of fostering populist constitutionalism through its easily accessible amendment process. IMHO, these are more difficult and more interesting questions than those raised in the underlying debate about same-sex marriage.

Fascinating substance aside, the outcome will turn on a pretty simple numbers game: which side will get to four in counting the justices it can persuade. Last year's decision granting marriage equality to gay couples was decided by a 4-3 majority. It's presumably a safe bet that the three who dissented will vote to uphold Prop 8. So the current case will be won or lost depending on whether the opponents of Prop 8 can hold all four of the justices they persuaded last year: Chief Justice George and Justices Kennard, Moreno, and Werdegar.

Especially in the spotlight will be Justice Kennard, who voted with the majority last year, but who also voted against hearing the petition of the Prop 8 opponents. No one knows whether the latter vote was motivated by a belief that the adoption of Prop 8 was so clearly valid that there was no point in hearing the case or by a belief that the challenge should have been filed first in the lower courts, rather than originally in the state supreme court.

UPDATE: The San Francisco Chronicle agrees, says to watch George and Kennard.

So, since there will (thankfully) be no color commentary by pundits to help us keep score while watching which justice says what during the argument, here is a visual guide to the players:

Left to right (their votes last year, either Majority or Dissent):

MORENO (M); KENNARD (M); WERDEGAR (M); GEORGE (M); CHIN (D); BAXTER (D); CORRIGAN (D)

Predicting how a judge will vote by the kinds of questions he or she asks during oral argument is often a fool's errand, but that won't stop anyone from trying. I will cheerfully predict that both sides will proclaim themselves extremely happy with how the argument went, and will say many nice things about how intelligent the justices are.

And then there is nothing to do but wait until the justices decide, a period of time which this court - unlike the great majority of courts - has capped by giving itself a deadline of three months to decide every case it hears. So more or less by Memorial Day, this battle will be over.

Chemerinsky: odds favor court upholding Prop 8

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:00:16 GMT

As the March 5 oral argument date draws near for the California Supreme Court to hear the challenge to Prop 8, more and more public events are focusing on the issues raised. At a forum at UC-Irvine Law School, constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky weighed in, pessimistically. From the university newspaper, with a HT to Michael Ginsborg's excellent Prop 8 legal commentary blog:Dean Chermerinsky agreed that Proposition 8 was an “enormous setback” for marriage equality but added that he still “believes [that] in [his] lifetime same-sex marriage will be allowed...

Dean Chermerinsky agreed that Proposition 8 was an “enormous setback” for marriage equality but added that he still “believes [that] in [his] lifetime same-sex marriage will be allowed throughout the United States.”

Chermerinksy said that, “The issue of marriage equality is a relatively easy one, it is about equal protection. Gays and lesbians should have the same right to express love and commitment to a marriage as heterosexuals have always had.” He added that they should have “the same opportunity to be disappointed by marriage that heterosexuals have always had.”

After pointing out the weaknesses in the most common arguments made against marriage equality, Chermerinksy then proceeded to explain the central legal question at issue in the court case: whether Proposition 8 is an amendment to or a revision of the state Constitution or not.

“The math [seems to] favor supporters of Proposition 8 not opponents of Proposition 8,” Chemerinsky said, discussing the 4-3 split of the Court when it struck down a previous ban on gay marriage. “[Supporters of proposition 8] only need to get one other vote, while opponents have to keep all four,” Chemerinsky said.

It is likely that Proposition 8 will be upheld, but that it will not be made retroactive. Thus, all marriages performed between May and November of 2008 will remain legal. However, Chemerinsky offered some hope for those who want a complete invalidation of the ban. “Those who [make predictions] often eat broken glass,” Chemerinsky said.

Three dozen amicus briefs filed in Prop 8 challenge - Updated

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:51:02 GMT

Labors unions, churches and advocacy groups spanning the ideological spectrum are weighing in on the effort to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriages. Yesterday was the deadline to file friend-of-the court briefs in the litigation seeking to overturn Proposition 8. At least three dozen amicus briefs were submitted by the close of business. More than half of the interested parties, including the California Labor Federation, the California Council of Churches and the League of Women Voters of California, asked the court to invalidate Proposition 8. Those filing briefs urging the...

At least three dozen amicus briefs were submitted by the close of business. More than half of the interested parties, including the California Labor Federation, the California Council of Churches and the League of Women Voters of California, asked the court to invalidate Proposition 8.

Those filing briefs urging the court to uphold the measure included the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.

Source: AP

UPDATE: Here's the list of all organizations and individuals signing onto briefs in support of the challenge - extremely impressive.

Recent Articles tagged state courts from LexMonitor