A Stitch in Haste

Various stories of note:

ITEM: A special commission formed to evaluate New Jersey’s “separate but equal” regime of civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples will reportedly recommend that the framework be scrapped in favor of full marriage equality:

“This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children,” the report says [PDF - 79 pages]. The findings of the commission’s 13 members were unanimous.

I highlighted in this post why civil unions are, as a matter of law, not the same of marriage, and have repeatedly predicted that New Jersey will, either legislatively or judicially, enacted full equality.

ITEM: A federal trial judge in Florida has rediscovered so-called “New Commerce Clause” jurisprudence and has declared the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), which is one component of the Adam Walsh Act (“AWA”), unconstitutional:

SORNA is not a comprehensive economic regulation of an interstate market. To be clear, SORNA is comprehensive. … However, the stated purpose of SORNA is to establish a national sex offender registry to “protect[] the public from sex offenders and offenders against children.” This is not economic.

The judge went to great lengths to distinguish this case from Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case that seemed to signal the end of “New Commerce Clause” jurisprudence. He declined, however, to strike down the entire AWA, though many legal analysts insist that it too violates the Commerce Clause.

The case is U.S. v. Myers, No. 08-60064 (S.D. Fl., December 9, 2008) (PDF – 82 pages). One of many old sex offender posts (with “Related Posts” links) here. Background on another Commerce Clause challenge to a different provision of the AWA here. (Via Sex Crimes Blawg.)

ITEM: Still in Florida, a high school student is suing her school after she was suspended and removed from AP classes for posting a negative (but non-threatening) remark about a teacher on her Facebook page. The entry was made off school grounds, not during school hours and not using school property. In the wake of Morse v. Frederick (a/k/a the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case), schools and courts have increasingly infringed upon the First Amendment rights of students while not physically at school — examples here and here; see also the Stitch in Haste Podcast #1. (Meanwhile, this article highlights two similar cases in the Third Circuit, but in which the students used social networking sites to create false and disparaging profiles of school officials.)

ITEM: Henry Waxman, perhaps the leading activist legislator in America, has introduced a bill giving the FDA authority to censor direct-to-consumer advertising of newly approved drugs. Waxman’s rationalization is that new drugs might not be safe — despite the fact that FDA approval of a new drug means that it has been declared “safe and effective.” I have long insisted, most recently here, that truthful commercial advertising should enjoy full First Amendment protection.

Filed under: Constitutional Issues, Law, Updates