New York Injury Attorney Blog

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Phelps-Roper v. Strickland

Here’s the good news: Common decency still has a recongnized place in America, notwithstanding indicators to the contrary.

Topeka Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church cannot protest at funerals in Ohio. These are the lovely people who believe God is punishing America for the sin of homosexuality by killing Americans, including soldiers. These “church” members believe that “protesting at funerals is an effective way to convey the message of their church.” To make them even more effective messengers, their preferred venues are funerals of soldiers where, as we’ve seen on TV, they share such inspirational messages as “God Hates Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Thank God for 9/11.”

Ohio law proscribes protests at funerals. It’s been the law since 1957 with two amendments since. The original law regulated picketing at funerals and funeral processions. The amendments put time limits on protests (from one hour before to one hour after the funeral), specified a 300 foot buffer zone for permitted protests and expanded the definition of “protest” to include “other protest activities.”

Plaintiff, the charming Shirley Phelps-Roper, contended that she wanted to protest at Ohio funerals in the future and that the law violated her Constitutional right to free speech. She had been protesting at funerals for quite some time making a name for herself and for her church along the way.

While the District Court struck down that part of the statute that prohibited protests at “funeral processions” (since it created a “floating buffer zone” which was Constitutionally overbroad) it upheld the rest of the law. So too did the Court of Appeals. It found that the Funeral Protest Provision was content-neutral (no one could protest at funerals, not just the loving members of Westboro Baptist); it served an important governmental interest—balancing the First Amendment rights of protestors with the rights of funeral attendees to grieve, memorialize and gather in honor of the deceased, and; the funeral protest provision is narrowly tailored—300 feet away and no protests from one hour before to one hour after. As the court noted, there are other ways for these protestors to get their message out and “Phelps-Roper is not entitled to her best means of communication.”

Here’s the really sick part: Ms. Phelps-Roper “does not claim that funeral protests are [even] her most effective channels of communication” or that “mourners at a funeral are...her primary audience.” For her, a “funeral is the occasion of her speech, not its audience.”

Well isn’t that special.

Solidiers die and at the moment of heart-breaking grief and remembrance, Phelps-Roper sees her chance for 15 minutes of fame by reviling the dead with hate-filled venomous speech. Pathetic. But still protected. Partly.

Maybe Westboro Baptist would be better off knowing what God loves rather than what it claims God hates. After all, the Bible says we should “comfort all who mourn,” and that those who do so will be called “oaks of righteousness.” Those who do what Phelps-Roper and her “church” do are more like poison oak. And if they really believe what's written in the Bible, they will have to answer for spreading it in God's name.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , Homosexuality , It's My Right! , Religion , Speech , Strange but True , U.S. Court of Appeals

Bookmark:

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Casillas v. Daines

It’s only money, except when you’re looking for Medicaid to pay for gender reassignment, or what was previously known as a sex-change operation. Without the state’s cash, Terri Casillas could not obtain the operation "she" claimed she needed. The state refused to pay. The court refused to make the state pay.

Ms. Casillas was born male but identified as a woman from age 16 and lived as one from the time she was 20. When she was about 28, she was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID or transsexualism), a form of depression “defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex” (hence the need for gender reassignment). For twenty-four years Ms. Casillas underwent hormone therapy courtesy of Medicaid, which caused her to develop breasts and a “more traditionally female body.” When Medicaid funding ended, the plaintiff paid her own way. When she could no longer afford it, therapy stopped and Ms. Casillas “began to exhibit male characteristics.” This was the point of no return for Ms. Casillas, so she sued the New York State Department of Health to make them pick up the tab for the ultimate remedy: gender reassignment, i.e.,“vaginoplasty (removal of the penis and creation of a vagina) with orchiectomy (removal of the testes).”

It turns out there is a 1997 Department of Health regulation which restricts Medicaid payments for gender reassignment. Ms. Casillas claimed this limitation violated her federal right to obtain such a procedure, which was guaranteed under federal statutes and the US Constitution. The court disagreed. It found that the state can limit medical services based on criteria such as “medical necessity” or “utilization control” (control over the distribution of limited resources through Medicaid). Moreover, if the state had a valid medical reason not to cover such procedures, it didn’t have to. The state identified numerous concerns about gender reassignment, including that “serious complications” could result from such surgery and that the long-term effects of the lifetime hormone therapy that would be required were unknown. Accordingly, the state’s refusal to pay was neither irrational, discriminatory nor a violation of Ms. Casilla’s statutory or Constitutional rights.

In this age of breakthrough medical technology where there are procedures from butt, breast and calf implants, to male sexual enhancement or labiaplasty (look it up!), to cryogenics, the court seemed to recognize that valid lines need to be drawn with respect to state-funded health care and that Medicaid cannot pick up the tab for every medical procedure available. You can’t always get what you want under Medicaid, but you can get what you need.

Finally, Ms. Casillas argued that what she wanted removed surgically was akin to a mastectomy, where a breast is removed because of a medical condition affecting the body part. As she saw it, GID similarly affected a body part (by causing her depression and discomfort) and the surgery should be approved. Since the state pays for one procedure, it should pay for the other and the offending part should be taken off courtesy of Medicaid.

That argument did not cut it, according to the court. And neither would Medicaid.

The case was dismissed.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , Damages , It's My Right! , U.S. District Court

Bookmark:

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Frazier v.Winn

In the 70's TV show Welcome Back Kotter, Juan Epstein always had a note for his teacher. And every note was “signed Epstein’s Mother.” That won’t cut it in Florida public Schools where the state Pledge Law requires public school students from K to 12 to recite the pledge at the beginning of each day. The only way to be excused from this obligation is by an authentic written request from the student’s parent. Once you submit a note, you can exercise your right to remain silent during the pledge, but the law still requires you to respectfully stand at attention.

Cameron Frazier thought he was old enough to take a stand on sitting out the pledge. The high-school junior challenged the statute claiming the Pledge Law violated his First Amendment rights. The court’s answer to his objection was basically “Sit Down!”

Mr. Fraizier claimed the statute “robbed him of his right to make an independent decision.” The court disagreed. While it overturned that part of the statute that requires students to stand if they opted out of the pledge (the constitutional right to sit during the pledge was long ago established), it determined that the Pledge Law is “largely a parental-rights statute.” Accordingly, it concluded that “the State’s interest in recognizing and protecting the rights of parents on some educational issues is sufficient to justify the restriction of some students’ freedom of speech.” The only way out of the pledge for Cameron Frazier was a real note, signed Frazier’s mother.

Depending how you score this, it’s either one against the rights of free speech, or one for the rights of parents. Funny how age and circumstance can affect your view of what is and isn’t constitutional. Now if only the courts would rule on our children's right to opt out of cleaning their rooms or taking out the garbage...

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Culture War , It's My Right! , Speech

Bookmark:

U.S. Supreme Court: District of Columbia v. Heller

Here’s what the Second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The debate between advocates of gun control and defenders of the right to bear arms has focused on whether, as gun controllers read it, the Second Amendment guarantees that right to a “well regulated Militia” (whatever that is), or as gun owners see it, to individuals, since “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In another 5 - 4 decision, the Supreme Court took dead aim at the question and put the issue to rest. Kind of. It said the DC law which prohibited the registration of hand guns (to deter their purchase), required individuals to keep lawfully owned guns unloaded and disassembled or rendered inoperative by a trigger lock even in the home (making them worthless as tools of self defense), violated the Second Amendment. Such a restrictive law is really a prohibition of handguns, and the court shot it down.

The court went on to emphatically state that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, but still recognized that the right is not unlimited, and that reasonable restrictions and regulations (such as carry permits, prohibitions on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill) have been (and can be) upheld under the Second Amendment.

The debate about our individual right to bear arms is over and the Supreme Court has given gun ownership advocates new ammunition to strike down unlawful restrictions on handguns. It remains to be seen if legislators have the creativity to enact laws (see U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.) which keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing the guaranteed right of law-abiding citizens to own one.

Posted by Mark A. Eskenazi | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Guns , It's My Right! , U.S. Supreme Court

Bookmark: