Judge refuses to block Mississippi anti-LGBT law

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

A federal judge in Mississippi has allowed to stand a new state law that permits people to deny wedding services to same-sex couples based on religious objections.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves argued in his four-page order that since none of the lawsuit's plaintiffs would be harmed by the law in the immediate future, a preliminary injunction would be inappropriate.

"Here, none of the plaintiffs are at imminent risk of injury," Reeves wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi said the measure, set to take effect on July 1, unconstitutionally discriminates against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mississippi-lgbt-idUSKCN0Z62I3

---

World | Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:55pm EDT

[SoCalNative]

1. Judge needs to be removed from the bench

eom

[Eugene]

2. It's a defensible ruling under the law.

Besides, Judge Reeves was appointed by Barack Obama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_W._Reeves

[Initech]

3. How much is the AFA paying him?

[sakabatou]

4. I'm sick to death of these "religious freedom" shit that's been going around lately

[elljay]

5. An Explanation from an Attorney

This was a ruling on a petition for a Preliminary Injunction. An Injunction is an order that stops or restrains a particular action and is a frequent order at the end of a trial (you win your case against someone counterfeiting your goods and they are enjoined from selling those goods). A Preliminary Injunction is an order that stops or restrains the particular action immediately and before the all of the evidence is heard at a trial. Obviously, it is an extreme remedy because there is no guaranteed that the person being enjoined is actually going to lose the case. Most states/federal courts use variations of the following four conditions to determine whether to issue a Preliminary Injunction:

1) that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law; 2) that the balance of harm favors the movant; 3) that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case; and 4) that the public interest favors the granting of the injunction.

In the Mississippi case, the judge apparently found that there was "no imminent risk of injury," which sounds like a variation of the first condition. The article states that the couple who filed suit was "engaged to be married within the next three years." That is not a good fact when seeking a Preliminary Injunction because they have just admitted that they will not be imminently injured if they wait up to three years to get married. Frankly, if I were the attorney filing this case, I would have informed my clients that they would be very unlikely to get a Preliminary Injunction based on that fact alone. It might be different if one of them were terminally ill and not likely to survive longer than a couple of months or if there were some other reason why they absolutely had to get married immediately.

It is really difficult to get a Preliminary Injunction in a case because the courts don't like to enjoin conduct without a thorough evaluation of the evidence. The next step will be a trial and I assume that the requested remedy will be an Injunction preventing enforcement of the law. The judge's ruling is inconvenient to be sure, but not necessarily an indicator of the final ruling.

Hope this explanation helps a bit!

[csziggy]

6. Thank you - that makes much more sense. nt

[elljay]

7. You are most welcome

Legal articles can be very problematic because they often gloss over key points and then everyone jumps to their own conclusions based on the subject matter. Many legal articles nowadays are actually press releases from one side or the other, stating their positions as if those are the proven facts to influence the jury or to create public pressure against the other side. I think we've all been conditioned by too many years of Law and Order, Boston Legal, LA Law and all of the other highly entertaining but totally inaccurate shows about our legal system.

[dlwickham]

8. unfortunately it's the right ruling

the plaintiffs really don't have standing since they haven't been affected by the law

the ACLU needs to find someone who has been denied services under the law and then refile the suit