JURIST: New York high court rules same-sex spouses of state employees entitled to benefits

[JURIST] The New York Court of Appeals [official website] on Thursday dismissed a challenge [opinion, PDF] to two policies that provide benefits to same-sex couples married outside of the state. The first policy was a 2006 decision by the Westchester County executive to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of county employees. The second policy was a 2006 decision [memorandum, PDF] by the president of the New York Civil Service Commission, mandating an extension of full benefits to all spouses of state employees enrolled in the New York State Health Insurance Plan. Prior to that decision, extension of benefits to same-sex spouses was at the discretion of the individual state agencies. In explaining the court’s decision to affirm the Appellate Division’s dismissal, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. stated that in regards to the Westchester policy, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of specific harms resulting from the policy, relying instead on, “bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity.” In regards to the State Civil Service Commission policy, Pigott noted that under sections 161 and 164 of the New York Civil Service Laws[legislative materials], the commission president is authorized to establish a health insurance plan for state officers and their dependents, and that the president has discretion to define the scope of dependents for purposes of benefits. In a concurring opinion joined by three others, Judge Carmen Ciparick stated that she would have simply affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that, “same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our State’s longstanding marriage recognition rule.”

Currently, New York does not permit same-sex marriages [JURIST news archive], but in April, Governor David Patterson announced legislation [JURIST report] that would allow same-sex couples to be married in the state. That legislation was approved [JURIST report] by the state assembly in May, and a senate vote isexpected before the end of the year [NYT report]. Patterson had previously issued an order to all state agencies in 2008 to recognize same-sex marriages, citing a New York Appellate Division ruling [JURIST reports] that same-sex marriages performed out of state are entitled to recognition in New York.

Unbearable Pain: India’s Obligation to Ensure Palliative Care

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/10/28/unbearable-pain-0

The Human Rights Watch organization has written this report, which talks about the difficulties faced by patients in major cancer hospitals across India. Released in October 2009, this 102-page report takes an investigative look into the pain treatment situation in these hospitals. The report identifies three key obstacles to improving the availability of pain treatment and palliative care, including restrictive drug regulations and the failure to train doctors about pain treatment methods. Visitors will find that the report is divided into several major sections including “Palliative Care and Pain Treatment in India” and “The Plight of Patients”. Additionally, interested parties can also view the appendices attached to the report. An online slide show and a video feature round out the site.

Rhode Island governor vetoes burial rights for domestic partners

[JURIST] Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri [official profile] vetoed legislation [text, PDF] on Tuesday that would have allowed domestic partners, including those in same-sex relationships, to claim the body of their partner and to make funeral arrangements. Neither domestic partnerships or civil unions are recognized in Rhode Island, and the bill would have required that a same-sex partner produce documentation establishing the nature of the relationship, such as proof of a joint bank account, mortgage, or car registration, and that the relationship had lasted for a year or longer. In his letter to lawmakers [text, PDF] explaining the veto, Carcieri said:

This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of State of Rhode Island decide.

The sponsors of the bill, Senator Rhonda Perry and Representative David Segal [official profiles] have promised to push for an override [AP report] of the veto in the state legislature, where Democrats hold enough seats to make that possible.

The veto of the burial rights bill comes amid a larger battle in Rhode Island over same-sex marriage, which, according to a Brown University poll [press release], has the approval of 60 percent of registered voters in the state. Rhode Island and Maine remain the only two states in New England that do not recognize same-sex marriage. Advocates for same-sex couples have been met with mixed results over the last few years. Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage was vetoed in Maine [JURIST report] last week, but similar legislation was successful in New Hampshire and Vermont [JURIST reports] earlier this year. Legislation to the same end was passed [JURIST report] by the New York State Assembly in May, but has since stalled in the state senate. In April, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned [JURIST report] that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following the supreme courts of Connecticut, California, and Massachusetts [JURIST reports]. Last November, California voters approved Proposition 8 [JURIST report], making California the first state to outlaw same-sex marriage after legalizing it.

 

JURIST Reports: Montana court rules assisted suicide legal

Andrew Gilmore 

 

[JURIST] The Montana First Judicial District [Montana courts materials] ruled Friday that terminally ill patients in the state have the right to commit physician-assisted suicide. The case, Baxter v. Montana [complaint, PDF] was brought by a number of terminally-ill Montanans, their doctors, andCompassion & Choices [advocacy website], an organization supporting the legalization of physician assisted suicide. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that their right to assisted suicide was guaranteed by the Montana Constitution [text; analysis, PDF], specifically under provisions relating to their rights of privacy, individual dignity, due process, equal protection, and the right to seek safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In her opinion, Judge Dorothy McCarter held [AP report] that under the Montana Constitution, terminally ill individuals have the right to die with dignity, and have the right to obtain self-administered medications to hasten death if they find their suffering to be unbearable. McCarter also held that physicians prescribing those medications are protected from homicide prosecution by state protection of the patient’s right to die.

Last month, voters in Washington state approved a ballot initiative [JURIST report] that will allow terminally ill, legally competent adults to obtain lethal prescriptions without exposing themselves, their physicians, or others to criminal penalties. The Washington measure is modeled on neighboring Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act [official materials], enacted in 1997 and upheld [JURIST report] by the US Supreme Court in 2006.

Hannah’s Choice: Saying No to a New Heart

By NANCY GIBBS Time.com

Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008

Hannah Jones, 13, has turned down a lifesaving heart transplant to die at home with her family. (Read full text of article)

FINDLAW: Challenge to California’s Same Sex Marriage Ban as Invalid Constitutional Revision

STRAUSS V. HORTON (Full Text of Petition)
(California Supreme Ct., Nov. 5, 2008) – Six same sex couples, along with Equity California, filed a petition for relief from the recently passed Proposition 8, which sought to change California’s Constitution by adding “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The suit argues that Proposition 8 is an invalid revision, rather than an amendment of California’s Constitution, which cannot be enacted through ballot initiative. Petitioners seek an immediate stay against enforcement of Prop 8 until its validity is determined.

Related Resources
• California Constitution Article 18 on Amending versus Revising the Constitution
• Same-Sex Marriage: A Historical Introduction
• March 2005 California Supreme Court Opinion Recognizing Same Sex Marriage Rights
• FindLaw Special Coverage: Same Sex Marriage

Municipalities File Suit Against CA Prop. 8

Law.com – Fighting Over Voter-Approved Ban on Gay Marriage Puts Squeeze on California’s Chief Justice

 



Legal groups and three city attorneys asked the California Supreme Court on Wednesday to invalidate Proposition 8, arguing that the voter-approved ban on gay marriage is a constitutional revision that should have been processed through the Legislature, not the ballot box. 

The lawsuit throws the hot-potato issue of same-sex unions back to the high court just six months after four justices infuriated social conservatives by declaring that marriage rights extend equally to both gay and straight couples. And it snares Chief Justice Ronald George, author of the majority opinion in In re Marriage Cases, in a political vise as his scheduled 2010 retention election approaches.

 

The Pleadings and points of law filed by the municipalities can be viewed here.

Backscatter Security Scanner Images

As promised in last week’s class discussion here are some images produced by the most intrusive of the new scanning technology.

 
Here is a news article on the images above.
 

Here is a briefing on the subject from the Electronic privacy Information Center (“EPIC”).

Here is the official Transportation Security Administration information.

Sen. Feingold Criticizes Warrantless Laptop Seaches

[JURIST] US Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) [official website] has criticized the Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) [official website] warrantless searches and seizures of travelers’ laptops and other digital devices at the US border, calling the searches anunacceptable invasion of privacy [hearing materials]. The Supreme Court has held that reasonable suspicion is not necessary to conduct routine searches at the border, but searches of laptops and other digital devices are analogous to more invasive practices such as strip searches, said Feingold, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution [official website]. In his opening statement at a congressional hearing on this issue last week, Feingold said [speech text]:

Ideally, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would evolve to protect Americans’ privacy in this once unfathomable situation. But if the courts can’t offer that protection, then that responsibility falls to Congress. Customs agents must have the ability to conduct even highly intrusive searches when there is reason to suspect criminal or terrorist activity, but suspicionless searches of Americans’ laptops and similar devices go too far. Congress should not allow this gross violation of privacy.

For the very latest legal news on Paper Chase, click here. For the latest newsworthy legal documents, video, live webcasts and more, visit JURIST’s home page. 

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS1 minute ago

The ruling paves the way for California to become the second state where gay men and lesbians can marry.
Text of the Opinion