By the way, even though the AG will not appeal, the Governor has filed a notice of appeal so that the case will presumably move forward with the citizens of Mississippi paying a private law firm to carry the ball. Or perhaps an attorney in the governor's office will pursue the appeal, since that is who signed the notice of appeal. ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of James Oleske [jole...@lclark.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:54 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mississippi AG Hood declines to appeal adverse decision on HB1523
In his statement, the AG indicates that one of his two reasons for not appealing is that HB 1523 "did not change state or federal law" and, thus, is an "empty bill." However, while it is true that MS does not have a statewide LGBT rights law that would be affected by HB 1523, the city of Jackson recently enacted an LGBT rights ordinance that would be affected, as HB 1523 defines "state government" to include "a political subdivision of the state." The conflict was highlighted by one of the attorneys challenging HB 1523 a month ago: "Jackson lawyer Rob McDuff, who is challenging Mississippi's House Bill 1523, said the amended ordinance contrasts with the state's pending religious freedom law. 'One problem with 1523 is that it limits, in some situations, the legal protection that people have against discrimination,' McDuff said Wednesday. "This is illustrated by the Jackson city ordinance we just passed. 'The city of Jackson has a right to prohibit discrimination within the city limits, and 1523 threatens to diminish that protection.'" http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2016/06/14/jackson-council-passes-anti-discrimination-provision/85903510/ The second reason the AG gives for not appealing is his opposition to "discriminating against" "one segment of our population." This is where he invokes "Jesus' primary directives." I think the AG would be on firmer ground if he instead (or at least in addition) invoked the Equal Protection Clause when making that second point. - Jim On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net<mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> wrote: (of course, I think he should have appealed, but that is another story) On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net<mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> wrote: Thank you. This is what I thought you meant, and it is internally consistent with what I know of your view on such issues. My personal position is that he could have conveyed the same message in a way that served good purposes-- calming religious tensions-- without using the reasoning as part of his core decisions. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: Michael: Thank you for asking. Of course I have no objection to protecting the least among us, let alone to the Golden Rule. Those are wonderful aspirations and guides to behavior, and they might even appropriately be considered in government decision-making, including even in deciding when to concede a lawsuit. But this is a case of an Attorney General publicly suggesting that an official decision of his was made by virtue of "Jesus's directive." And in an Establishment Clause case, at that! I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional for a state official to make decisions based upon injunctions of religious authorities (or, at least, that's not typically justiciable); but I do think it is inappropriate to publicly invoke such religious authority in explaining the basis for one's action on behalf of the state. I've been involved in many such decisions, and can't imagine any government official so much as proposing to invoke Jesus's authority as the basis for an appeal decision, let alone actually announcing it. If, however, my reaction is not universally shared (or my experiences are less-than-universal), please feel free to ignore the final word of my post -- suffice it to say that, at a minimum, an AG invoking Jesus certainly is noteworthy, whatever one thinks of its propriety. [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net<mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> wrote: Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh." On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy neighbor." Sigh. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu<mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu>> wrote: Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will not appeal Judge Reeves' decision http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html ________________________________
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
