Latest 2 Cases: California v. Lamoureux (Constitutional Law), AMCAL Chico LLC v. Chico Unified School Dist. (Government & Administrative Law)

Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Same-Sex Civil Unions Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DAVID S. KEMP, CHARLES E. BINKLEY

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Read More

Stigma and the Oral Argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains why stigma is a central concept that came up during oral argument before the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Griffin points out that some religions have long supported racial discrimination, citing their religious texts, but courts prohibited such discrimination, even by religious entities. Griffin argues that just as religious organizations should not enjoy religious freedom to stigmatize people of color, so they should not be able to discriminate—and thus stigmatize—people based on sexual orientation.

Read More

California v. Lamoureux

Docket: D077361(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 5, 2020

Judge: Judith McConnell

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Patty Ann Lamoureux was convicted by jury for felony murder. The trial court vacated the conviction and resentenced her under Penal Code section 1170.95, the resentencing provision of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.). Lamoureux was released from custody for time served and, although she had excess custody credits, the trial court exercised its discretion to place her on parole supervision for the statutory maximum of three years. On appeal, Lamoureux contended the trial court erred in declining to apply her excess custody credits to offset her three-year parole supervision period. Additionally, she claimed: the court failed to articulate a rational method of computation when it imposed a $560 restitution fine; erred by not applying her excess custody credits to offset her restitution fine; and miscalculated her presentence custody credits. With respect to the offset, the Court of Appeal determined the trial court did not err in declining to reduce Lamoureux's parole supervision period by her excess custody credits. As to Lamoureux's remaining arguments, the Court of Appeal concluded she forfeited the challenge to restitution by failing to object at trial court. The issue of her entitlement to additional presentence custody credits was moot, but those excess custody credits had to be applied to offset the restitution fine in its entirety.

AMCAL Chico LLC v. Chico Unified School Dist.

Docket: C087700(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 5, 2020

Judge: Vance W. Raye

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Plaintiff AMCAL Chico, LLC (AMCAL) constructed a dormitory complex that would house unmarried university students within the boundaries of defendant Chico Unified School District (the District). The District imposed school impact fees on the complex, and AMCAL filed suit seeking a refund of the fees. The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment. AMCAL appealed, arguing the fees had to be refunded because: (1) the District failed to comply with Government Code section 66001; (2) the fee was an invalid special tax; and (3) the fee was an improper taking. The Court of Appeal determined the imposed fee was reasonable and complied with the Mitigation Fee Act. Therefore, the fee was not an invalid tax, nor was it a taking.