Esplerp vs Gascon - success in the 9th Circuit

[cbs200]

A victory for common sense and basic human rights!

The US has taken a historic step towards no longer criminalizing adult consent. What you do in your bedroom with other consenting adults is not a legitimate concern of the state.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-prostitution-legalisation-sex-work-case-allowed-go-forward-a8011306.html

[ShysterJon]

I don't think it's accurate to claim, "The US has taken a historic step towards no longer criminalizing adult consent." This decision in California isn't on the merits of the case -- it's just to allow them to have a trial. The plaintiffs could lose at trial. The case is in one federal district court in one state. Even if the plaintiffs prevail, it wouldn't set a precedent in any other state of district. So it's hardly the headline case the article (from a really crappy source, btw) claims it is.

[cbs200]

What is unclear to me in all the articles I found is if the trial will take place in the fed district court in SF (the one whose decision to dismiss the case was the subject of the appeal) or in the 9th circuit itself.

If the plaintiffs prevail at the 9th circuit level, will not similarly worded laws in all states under their jurisdiction be struck down as well? And if one were to be charged under a similarly worded TX statute, could they not file in fed court in Dallas to have the charges dismissed based on the precedent from the 9th?

If the plaintiffs prevail at the local level only in SF, the state of CA will likely appeal back to the 9th, which could set the above scenarios into motion once again.

If a future decision from the 5th disagrees with a decision from the 9th, does that practically compel a scotus review so that the fed judiciary can speak with one voice?

If either scotus or the other fed courts agree with the 9th, then it is truly over for Americas theocrats who want to make our consent decisions for us. I know that situation is still many steps away but letting the trial go forward is the first big step in my view.

The ACLU and 30 other human rights organizations are behind the case, and they don't give up. Even if they lose a battle they continue until they win the war. They did not win the first gay rights cases either but eventually they got their way and changed the world. Now they fight for the basic human rights of everyone who uses this forum. I am confident that they will eventually prevail for us as well, because they are using many of the same legal arguments.

[cbs200]

Here are a couple more links to articles about the case from domestic sources left and right

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/20/fe...s-prostitution

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/20...dges-rule.html

[Unique_Carpenter]

I almost always have issues with what newsies write up in their two minute paragraphs. Usually lacking in detail, usually slanted to what their editor wants, etc.

In this situation, Jon is correct, this is a null situation as the court only deals with should the case go to trial.

What I find interesting is that the Appeals Judges are quite up to speed on all the issues involved, and they are tearing up both the plaintiffs counsel, and the Calif AG's counsel, on those issues, but, they still find that an actual trial should proceed.

As for newsies distorting stuff, I have always found it appropriate to go to originating source. In this case, the court hearing itself:

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/v...vid=0000012398

[garhkal]

i've long felt prostitution should be legal...

[Warptcuck]

Legal, taxed and controlled similar to Nevada.
Everyone will gain, just need to make sure the girls are tested and clean.
Don't see why the guys shouldn't be tested also.
We need to protect the ladies just as much as we want to be protected from disease.

Originally Posted by garhkal

i've long felt prostitution should be legal...

[ShysterJon]

This forum isn't for normative discussions about what the law SHOULD be. That would be a subject for the Political Forum. This forum is about what the law IS.

[Crock]

Originally Posted by cbs200

What is unclear to me in all the articles I found is if the trial will take place in the fed district court in SF (the one whose decision to dismiss the case was the subject of the appeal) or in the 9th circuit itself.

If the plaintiffs prevail at the 9th circuit level, will not similarly worded laws in all states under their jurisdiction be struck down as well? And if one were to be charged under a similarly worded TX statute, could they not file in fed court in Dallas to have the charges dismissed based on the precedent from the 9th?

If the plaintiffs prevail at the local level only in SF, the state of CA will likely appeal back to the 9th, which could set the above scenarios into motion once again.

If a future decision from the 5th disagrees with a decision from the 9th, does that practically compel a scotus review so that the fed judiciary can speak with one voice?

If either scotus or the other fed courts agree with the 9th, then it is truly over for Americas theocrats who want to make our consent decisions for us. I know that situation is still many steps away but letting the trial go forward is the first big step in my view.

The ACLU and 30 other human rights organizations are behind the case, and they don't give up. Even if they lose a battle they continue until they win the war. They did not win the first gay rights cases either but eventually they got their way and changed the world. Now they fight for the basic human rights of everyone who uses this forum. I am confident that they will eventually prevail for us as well, because they are using many of the same legal arguments.

It seems that much of what you just wrote is based on an assumption that isn't correct.

It's my understanding that decisions in the US only apply to the jurisdiction of the court issuing the decision. So a District Court decision applies only to that judicial District. Appeal it to the Appellate level, and a decision might then apply to the entire 9th Circuit jurisdiction, but not to, say, Texas, which is 5th Circuit. Appeal it to the Supreme Court of the US and they make a decision, well, then that applies to the whole country.

I don't think that a District court decision will set precedent anywhere else unless it's appealed to a higher court. It may be influential, though.

Civil rights changes do tend to be a long process that involves more than just court cases. Public opinion has to change alongside those legal decisions, otherwise the legislators will just close the legal loophole.

[cbs200]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

I almost always have issues with what newsies write up in their two minute paragraphs. Usually lacking in detail, usually slanted to what their editor wants, etc.

In this situation, Jon is correct, this is a null situation as the court only deals with should the case go to trial.

What I find interesting is that the Appeals Judges are quite up to speed on all the issues involved, and they are tearing up both the plaintiffs counsel, and the Calif AG's counsel, on those issues, but, they still find that an actual trial should proceed.

As for newsies distorting stuff, I have always found it appropriate to go to originating source. In this case, the court hearing itself:

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/v...vid=0000012398

Thanks for the link! The one I found on the weekend was broken or maybe the video was not loaded yet.

I am glad it will go to trial so that it will be public record that there is no argument for putting consenting adults in jail beyond religious kookery.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by cbs200

I am glad it will go to trial so that it will be public record that there is no argument for putting consenting adults in jail beyond religious kookery.

Don't forget Prudishism..

[ck1942]

Interesting court developments above and who know how but might have impacts down the line one of these years.

Meanwhile, trials are usually held at the District level, not the appellate level.

Citing Lawrenence v. Texas high court decision.