Fifth Circuit Ends Injunction Against Nation's Harshest Anti-Gay Law
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed a federal trial court's decision halting the implementation of one the harshest anti-gay…
June 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM
2 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed a federal trial court's decision halting the implementation of one the harshest anti-gay laws in the country, ruling that LGBT plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge a Mississippi measure that allows for discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs.
In his decision, Judge Jerry Smith wrote that the plaintiffs could not prove they'd been injured by the law. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the new Mississippi statute, known as HB 1523, which dictates that state government shall not take any “discriminatory action” against those who deny employment, housing, or the placement of foster or adoptive children to LGBT people because of “religious beliefs of moral convictions.”
“None of these plaintiffs has clearly shown an injury-in-fact, so none has standing,” Smith wrote. “Under this current record, the plaintiffs have not shown and injury-in-fact caused by HB 1523 that would empower the district court or this court to rule on its constitutionality,” Smith added.
The background to the Fifth Circuit's June 22 decision in Barber v. Bryant is as follows, according to the opinion.
The plaintiffs are Mississippi residents and includes religious leaders who do not agree with the law. They asserted LGBT residents are injured by the message HB 1523 sends: that Mississippi state government disapproves of them.
The plaintiffs claimed the law endorses specific religious beliefs in violation of the Establishment Clause and that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it provides different protections for residents based on those beliefs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOvertime Rewind: Texas Court Ruling Unravels FLSA Salary Level Increases
4 minute readDivided 5th Circuit Shoots Down Nasdaq Diversity Rules
Uvalde Shooting 'Fresh in Everyone's Mind:' Lone Dissenting Judge Disagrees with School's Disciplinary Decision Over Pellet Gun
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250