ZiefBrief

CA Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage

The California Supreme Court ruled today that language within California laws designating marriage as a union solely between "a man and a woman" is "unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute."  A larger excerpt of the court's holding appears below:

[W]e conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional. . . .

[I]t is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference.

Economic Prospects for Attorneys

The Chicago Tribune has a story this week about the financial realities of practicing law that's worth a read. 

New Internet Meme Would Make Great Law School Final Exam Question

What would you do if you came home one day and found a mob of 30 people looting your home? Robert Salisbury, a Jacksonville, Oregon contractor, faced such a crowd and it appears that the Internet is to blame. Someone placed an announcement on Craigslist stating that Salisbury was moving and that everything was up for grabs -- and grab they did. The distraught  homeowner said "I informed them I was the owner, but they refused to give the stuff back, they showed me the Craigslist printout and told me they had the right to do what they did." Eventually, the local constabulary arrived, but not before several cars and trucks filled with Salisbury's possession had fled the scene. Read the full Seattle Times article here.

This incident is eerily similar to one that took place about a year ago in Tacoma, Washington. In that case the police were successful in tracking down the author of the bogus ad and she was later charged with second-degree burglary, malicious mischief and criminal impersonation. Read the full Seattle Times article here.

Original link in the decidedly non-legal blog, BoingBoing

Scalia's Oscar the Grouch Comment

A recent Law.com article notes that Justice Scalia mentioned Oscar the Grouch in his dissenting opinion in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, released last Tuesday.  When I was a kid, Oscar the Grouch was my favorite Sesame Street character (this fact will come as little surprise to some of my colleagues, I'm sure!), so I was thrilled to see him make an appearance in Supreme Court jurisprudence.  I even attempted to name one of my first dolls after Oscar, but because my 2-year-old pronunciation of "Oscar" left something to be desired, she ended up with the more gender-neutral name of "Soccer."

I was curious whether any other children's TV show characters or childhood icons have made it into Supreme Court cases.  I found one mention of the Lone Ranger in Justice Scalia's dissent in  Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).  I also found a discussion of Fred Rogers' testimony in Justice Stevens' opinion in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (Fred Rogers is Mr. Rogers of the beloved TV show, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood). But no mention of Big Bird, Cookie Monster, Barbie, Batman and Robin, Wonder Woman, or a host of other characters.  However, I fully expect to see more popular culture references from Justice Scalia in the future since he has managed to work in two such references in the last 13 years. 

Photo Credit:  Oscar the Grouch, by AlbinoFlea, accessed on Flickr on March 20, 2008.
 

Meth Labs and Lawsuits

We've all heard of lawsuits over mold infestation or lead contamination within residential properties, but apparently, if you're looking for a new home, you need to worry about more than just mold, old paint, and other maintenance issues.  You've also got to worry about meth.  According to this Law.com article, residents are suing landlords and the individuals from whom they purchased homes, alleging health problems stemming from the property's former use as a meth lab.  According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, meth production can use chemicals known to cause cancer, such as benzene, and living in a former meth lab can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, respiratory difficulties, and a whole host of other nasty health problems 

The problem is severe enough that 13 states now require owners of residences formerly used as meth labs to clean them up before they can sell the properties or use them as homes  again.  Not surprisingly, California is on top of this problem -- our legislature has already passed the Methamphetamine Contaminated Property Cleanup Act of 2005, Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 25400.10 et seq.  This legislation sets forth clean-up standards for properties that have been contaminated by meth labs and requires local health officers and property owners to take certain actions whenever they receive notification of a meth lab on or adjacent to residential property.  For those of you interested in delving deeper (and who wouldn't be?), you can find the Act's legislative history here.

California Supreme Court Hears Arguments Tomorrow in Same Sex Marriage Cases

The San Francisco Chronicle has an extensive article this morning about tomorrow's oral arguments on the same sex marriage cases at the California Supreme Court.  Briefs by the parties can be found here.  Interested in watching the arguments live?  You can view them at the following locations (9 am to noon):  the Milton Marks Conference Center in the basement of the court building at 350 McAllister Street, SF; Hastings College of the Law, 198 McAllister Street, SF, first-floor auditorium; limited seating at the Koret Auditorium of the San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin Street.

Looking for resources about same sex marriage legal developments in California?  Check out UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies page, "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Overview and Issues." The page includes links to newspaper articles, public opinion polls, bibliographies, and advocacy group websites. 

One in 100 Americans Behind Bars -- Pew Report Released

The Chronicle of Higher Education points out in this article that a new report on the US prison population and spending has just been released. The report is the work of the Pew Center of the States and is titled One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008 (click here to link directly to a 37 page .pdf file.)  Why the interest by the Chronicle of Higher Education, you may ask? Well, it turns out that there are now 5 states (Vermont, Michigan, Oregon, Connecticut, and Delaware) that spend more on corrections than they do on higher education. California, with an $8.8 Billion budget for corrections is very close to this mark spending 83 cents on correction for every dollar spent on higher education. This report is a treasure trove of statistics and bibliographical information for anyone interested in prisons, policy, or the general population.  

The Mother of all Jury Questionnaires

Anne Reed over at Deliberations has posted a proposed jury questionnaire for the upcoming federal corruption trial of former Orange County sheriff Mike Corona, his mistress, and his wife. It's a remarkable document -- because of its length and because of the extraordinarily detailed questions. Anne makes a great point in her post -- a proposed questionnaire of this length can be used by other attorneys as a voir dire checklist of sorts.  Here are some highlights from the Corona proposed questionnaire:

The defense's proposed questions: 

• Which statement do you agree with more? Birds of a feather flock together or opposites attract?
• Have you ever flown on a private jet?
• For you personally, what is the most offensive English curse word or profanity in use today?
• What are your feelings about marriage in general?

I am heartily glad I'm not a potential juror in Orange County! 

Protections for Workers' Online Recreational Activities

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've heard the story about Anthony Ciolli, a Penn law student who was once "Chief Education Director" for the controversial message board site, AutoAdmit.  Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge withdrew its job offer to Ciolli after the firm discovered that Ciolli was involved in the AutoAdmit controversy.  There have been other widely-publicized stories about employers that fire employees for online activities. 

In most states, nothing prevents employers from disciplining or firing employees for such activities.  But according to this informative Law.com article by Harry Valetk, some states have crafted broad legislative protections for employees' legal off-the-clock activities.  In fact, California Labor Code Section 96(k) states that the California labor commissioner can bring claims on behalf of employees who lose wages as a result of "demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises."   New York and North Dakota also have statutes that protect employees from being disciplined for engaging in lawful activities during nonworking hours.  If you don't work in a state that protects employees' off-the-clock activities, consider taking a look at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal Guide for Bloggers for tips on how to blog without jeopardizing your career.

Memo to Associates: Lose the Uggs!

According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, law firm associates are having a hard time figuring out what to wear to the office. The disgruntled partners interviewed for this story told the WSJ that associates are just not getting that suits are still an essential part of good lawyering.  Tom Mills, a partner in Winston & Strawn's Washington office, called associate attire "abysmal."  (Note the spiffy pocket hanky in Tom Mills' website profile photo -- very sharp!)  Renee Brissette, a partner at Manatt Phelps in New York, admitted that she chose to give a coveted assignment to a well-dressed associate instead of to a "brilliant" but slovenly associate who wouldn't improve his attire.  And at Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, associates who wore their Ugg boots all day allegedly received a note reminding them to "change out of their snow boots" after they arrived at the office. 

The bottom line -- if you're working in a mid-sized to large law firm, you should follow your mom's advice and "dress for success" when you have client meetings or courtroom appearances.  Wondering what that means?  Check out the excellent "Guide to Dressing for Interviews with Legal Employers" (short PDF) for some tips on dressing for important occasions from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law's career services staff.  Although the tips were created for OCI, new associates can use them to choose the right wardrobe for the courtroom or boardroom.  For those working in a "business casual" office, here are some good tips from Virginia Tech's career services office.

Photo credit: "UGG australia" by chrisjohnbeckett, Creative Commons license.