Family rights case set for battle in Idaho

September 24, 2010

Federal District Judge B. Lynn Winmill today set a trial date in CIR’s long-running case on behalf of the Muellers, a family whose five-week old daughter was unlawfully seized by police and state child protection officials in a Boise, Idaho, emergency room.

Corissa Mueller had brought her daughter Taige to the

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

Wait — hurry up

September 16, 2010

Today U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates stayed LaRoque v. Holder, CIR’s challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Proceedings — including consideration of our motion for summary judgment — are stayed until the court decides the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case. In that motion, DOJ contends that

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

CIR moves for summary judgment in voting rights case

August 18, 2010

Today Lead Counsel Michael Carvin filed a motion for summary judgment in CIR’s case on behalf of citizens ofKinston, North Carolina, in which we ask the court to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.

Section 5 requires “covered” jurisdictions (mostly in the South) to “preclear” any changes in voting

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

NC NAACP seeks to intervene in voting rights case

July 07, 2010

The North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP and several Kinston, NC residents moved to intervene as defendants in LaRoque v. Holder, CIR’s case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The proposed Defendant-Intervenors seek to defend the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of Section 5, which the

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

CIR files reply brief in voting rights case

July 01, 2010

CIR filed papers today responding to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss CIR’s case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, LaRoque v. Holder.  DOJ contends that neither citizens, candidates, nor voters have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 because (to speak very generally), individuals do not have a constitutional right

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

Jury finds no liability in Mueller case

June 30, 2010

CIR’s six-year fight to vindicate the constitutional rights of the Mueller family suffered a setback on June 30. After deliberating for five days, an Idaho jury found that neither the City of Boise nor an emergency room doctor violated the Muellers’ constitutional rights when, at the doctor’s behest, a Boise, Idaho,

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

CIR carries Peekaboo point

June 28, 2010

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB, nicknamed “Peekaboo”) was unconstitutional as originally conceived.  Before so ruling (and as a necessary step to doing so), the Court agreed with CIR that Peekaboo was not protected from judicial review, but could be sued by accounting firms affected

Read More → Posted in Blog

Parents’ rights case moves to trial

June 10, 2010

CIR clients Eric and Corissa Mueller’s fight to protect the right of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their minor children took a major step forward in early June when their case went to trial in federal District Court in Boise Idaho. Since the case was filed six years

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

Victory for free speech in California housing case

May 20, 2010

California resident Julie Waltz’ long fight for free speech for opponents of state subsidized housing policies came to a victorious conclusion today, when the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing agreed to implement the “Julie Waltz First Amendment Policy.” The new policy prohibits the Department from investigating citizens for housing

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates

Judge Bates denies motion for three-judge panel

May 12, 2010

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates today released a memorandum opinion denying CIR’s motion to have LaRoque v. Holder heard by a special three-judge panel.  Judge Bates ruled that a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 is not a suit “under” Section 5 because it involves “the application of provisions of

Read More → Posted in Blog, Case Updates