|
Grex > Coop11 > #206: Oral Arguments in Cyberspace v. Engler Set for this Friday, Oct. 27 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Oral Arguments in Cyberspace v. Engler Set for this Friday, Oct. 27
| 
Oct 24 11:54 UTC 2000 |
Oral arguments in Cyberspace v. Engler are scheduled for this
Friday, October 27 at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinatti. I just received the following email message about
this from ACLU attorney Michael Steinberg. Note that he's
inviting folks to ride down with him for the hearing; anyone
interested can email him at the address given below.
-----
I just wanted to remind you that oral argument in Cyberspace v. Engler
is on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Last
week, Chris Hansen of the National ACLU and I met with Andy Nickelhoff
to help prepare Andy for oral argument. I am confident that Andy will
make us all proud, just as he did in the trial court.
I will be driving down to Cincinnati in our new van and I would welcome
some company. Any of the ACLU law students or Cyberspace members are
welcome to come. I will be leaving Ann Arbor at 4 a.m. on Friday and I
plan to be back in Ann Arbor by dinner. It should be fun and it is
obviously a very important case. Anyone who is interested should email
me.
To find out more about the lawsuit, check out the site of our lead
plaintiff, Cyberspace Communications: http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/
To see the brief the ACLU filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, see: http://aclumich.org/briefs/cyberspace-vs-engler.htm
Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
msteinberg@aclumich.org
P.S. Please feel free to send the above message to your respective
groups.
|
| 13 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 1 of 13:
|
Oct 26 04:23 UTC 2000 |
This message is missing the time that the hearing starts. Evidentally early
if Mr Steinberg is leaving Ann Arbor at 4am.
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 13:
|
Oct 26 20:30 UTC 2000 |
I believe that Mike stated in an earlier message that the court
opens for business at 8:30.
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 13:
|
Oct 28 19:15 UTC 2000 |
Arguments in our case were made a little after 9, I think (I wasn't watching
the clock).
We had a panel of three very conservative judges, 2 Reagan appointees and a
Bush appointee, but all three are apparently very strong on first amendment
issues.
The tenor of the questions asked by the panel and their overall demeanor
suggests that they will likely rule in our favor, however, a ruling is not
expected for four to six months, and inthis instance, the ruling is only on
the preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law during the
litigation of it, not on the actual constitutionality of the law itself.
Speaking for the plaintiffs was Andrew A. Nickelhoff of Sachs, Waldman,
O'Hare, Helveston, Bogas & McIntosh. Mr. Nickelhoff eloquently argued our
case, and it was a pleasure to observe his performance in this endeavor.
Also present was attorney Michael A. Bamberger of Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal of New York, who submitted an amicus brief based on his case against
a similar law in another state (Maryland, I think, or else it might have been
the ACLU vs. Reno case against the CDA). Mr. Bamberger will be emailing me
a copy of the amicus brief, which will be added to our lawsuit web page:
http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/
(or linked at least).
And finally, in attendance also were attorney Michael J. Steinberg, Legal
Director of the Aclu of Michigan, and representing the plaintiff
organizations, myself, STeve Andre and Marcus Watts.
Thanks very much to Michael, Andrew and Michael for all their work in this
case!
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 13:
|
Oct 28 20:43 UTC 2000 |
I'll second the thanks. And state how impressed I am that Eric,
STeve, and Marcus were willing and able to embark on the journey
to Cincinnati in the wee hours of the morning.
So if I read you correctly, the appeals court is not going to rule
on the substance of the law, only the injunction against enforce-
ment. If so, it sounds like this could drag on for quite some
time.
|
steve
|
|
response 5 of 13:
|
Oct 28 21:33 UTC 2000 |
Thats correct. Now, if the appeals courts clearly rules in our
favor, as I understand it we could then ask judge Tarnow back in
Detroit for a motion of summary dismissal, based on the facts that
were presented last year. It does seem like we'd have a good chance
on that.
Still, it will drag on: 3 to 6 months was the estimate I heard
for a ruling. So I can see it taking another couple of years if
we take the long route...
|
scg
|
|
response 6 of 13:
|
Oct 28 23:15 UTC 2000 |
Summary dismissal would dismiss our lawsuit and let the law stand, if I
understand things correctly. I think it's summary judgement that you're
talking about.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 13:
|
Oct 29 07:29 UTC 2000 |
That's correct. Based on Judge Tarnow's opinion as written when he
issued the prliminary injunction, it seems likely that a motion for
summary judgement would be successful, and if this particular appellate
panel rules in our favor on the prelim, then it seems unlikely that the
state would appeal the summary ruling.
|
steve
|
|
response 8 of 13:
|
Oct 30 16:55 UTC 2000 |
Righto, wrong "summary".
|
dpc
|
|
response 9 of 13:
|
Nov 1 19:18 UTC 2000 |
Sounds like our team is ahead, and in a good position for a total
victory. Remember - the law is not in effect, so delays are
*in our favor.*
|
mary
|
|
response 10 of 13:
|
Nov 22 11:19 UTC 2000 |
Just in, this mail from Mr. Steinberg:
******************************************
We just received some good news from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit about the appeal in Cyberspace v. Engler. We won!
Last week, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming Judge
Tarnow's decision to grant a preliminary injunction (i.e., upholding
Judge Tarnow's decision to stop the Michigan Internet Censorship Act
from going into effect while the case is being litigated). The Court of
Appeals opinion is only 2 pages and essentially states that Judge Tarnow
did not abuse his discretion in ruling that we were likely to win the
case on its merits. The opinion does not address the legal issues in
detail and it is not going to be published in the law books.
The case now returns to the trial court for further proceedings unless
the Attorney General decides to appeal further (which I think is
unlikely). We have not spoken yet to the Attorney General's office
about what it plans to do next. If the case returns to the trial court,
we may begin preparing for trial or one or both sides might make a
motion asking the judge to decide the case without a trial. I will let
you know what will happen next as soon as I know. Congratulations!
Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
********************************************
Yeah!
|
spooked
|
|
response 11 of 13:
|
Nov 22 21:47 UTC 2000 |
W O O H O O !!!
|
aruba
|
|
response 12 of 13:
|
Nov 23 19:32 UTC 2000 |
Great news!
|
dpc
|
|
response 13 of 13:
|
Nov 29 21:02 UTC 2000 |
Good show! One more loss for His Grimness the Governor.
|