Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Same-Sex Civil Unions Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DAVID S. KEMP, CHARLES E. BINKLEY

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Read More

Stigma and the Oral Argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains why stigma is a central concept that came up during oral argument before the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Griffin points out that some religions have long supported racial discrimination, citing their religious texts, but courts prohibited such discrimination, even by religious entities. Griffin argues that just as religious organizations should not enjoy religious freedom to stigmatize people of color, so they should not be able to discriminate—and thus stigmatize—people based on sexual orientation.

Read More

State v. Lutz

Docket: 117496

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Ward

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop and a warrantless probable cause search of the vehicle, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Defendant was the front seat passenger in a vehicle stopped by officers for a traffic violation. Officers began removing the vehicle's occupants to facilitate a drug dog sniff, called for because of the nature of the stop and the officers' previous knowledge of Defendant. Officers observed drug paraphernalia in Defendant's immediate vicinity and called off the dog sniff before it began. Thereafter, a warrantless probable cause search of the vehicle disclosed controlled substances. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers detained the vehicle's occupants longer than lawfully permitted to accommodate the drug dog sniff. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the district court's findings, and those findings supported the district court's legal conclusions.

In re M.F.

Docket: 117301

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Carol A. Beier

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court held that the same-sex romantic partner of a woman who conceives through artificial insemination and gives birth during the couple's relationship can be recognized as a legal parent under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) when the birth mother has consented to shared parenting at the time of the child's birth. K.L., the same-sex partner in this case, sought judicial recognition of her legal parentage relationship with the child. The district court judge ruled that K.L. had no parental rights. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that K.L. can be recognized as a legal parent through use of Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2208(a)(4) if K.L. can demonstrate that she notoriously recognized her maternity and the rights and duties attendant to it at the time of the child's birth.

In re W.L.

Docket: 119536

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Carol A. Beier

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court held in this case, as in In re M.F., 312 Kan. __ (this day decided), that the same-sex romantic partner of a woman who conceives through artificial insemination and gives birth during the couple's relationship can be recognized as a legal parent under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) even if the couple has not entered into a coparenting agreement. M.S., the same-sex partner here, sought judicial recognition of her legal parentage relationship with the child. The district court judge denied parentage of M.S. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that M.S. can be recognized as a legal parent through use of Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2208(a)(4) if M.S. can demonstrate that she notoriously recognized her maternity and the rights and duties attendant to it at the time of the child's birth.