CIRCUIT | CASE | SUBJECT | LEVEL OF REVIEW | RESULT |
First | Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (2008) | Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy | Intermediate scrutiny | Valid |
Second | No case | |||
Third | U.S. v. Extreme Associates, 431 F.3d 150(2005) | Obscenity | Rational basis | Valid |
Fourth | No case | |||
Fifth | Reliable Consult. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (2008); see also U.S. v. Coil 442 F.3d 912 (2006) (obscenity) | Sex toy ban | Rational basis | Invalid |
Sixth | Beecham v. Henderson County, Tennessee, 422 F.3d 372 (2005); see also Flaskamp v. Dearborn Public Schools, 385 F.3d 935 (2004) | Firing for adultery | Rational basis | Valid |
Seventh | No case | |||
Eighth | No case | |||
Ninth | Witt v. Secretary USAF, 527 F.3d 806, (2008) | DADT | Intermediate scrutiny | Invalid |
Tenth | Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762 (2008) | Firing for adultery | Rational basis | Valid |
Eleventh | Lofton v. Secretary FDFC, 358 F.3d 804 (2004); Wililams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 131 (2007) | Adoption ban; Sex toy ban | Rational basis (both) | Valid (both) |
D.C. | No case |
sex • law • policy • feminism • porn • privacy • kink • speech • constitution
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Lawrence v. Texas Scorecard: Federal
A long, long time ago, I promised to bring to this space a scorecard showing the application of Lawrence v. Texas by the lower courts. At long last, here it is. I haven't tried to give a detailed analysis, but simply to provide the cases, the state action or policy subject to challenge, the level of due process scrutiny applied, and the result.
Labels:
adultery,
constitution,
family law,
lawrence v. texas,
military,
pornography,
privacy,
queer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment