Appellate Law

, ,

Asserting the Religious Freedom of Your Customers: Free “Exercise” and the Curious Case of CHRO v. Edge Fitness

, ,

By Richard Luedeman

Pending at the Connecticut Supreme Court is a dispute between Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) and the fitness club chains Edge Fitness, LLC, and Club Camel, Inc. (“the Gyms”), that raises issues of national significance regarding public accommodations, sex and gender discrimination, and religious freedom. In a brief filed in CHRO v. Edge Fitness, LLC, several religious organizations have defended the lower court’s remarkable religious freedom theory for upholding the Gyms’ practice of offering women-only exercise spaces. They contend that Connecticut’s Act Concerning Religious Freedom (“CACRF”)—the analogue of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)—compels an exception to Connecticut’s antidiscrimination statute to allow businesses like the Gyms to segregate customers by sex in order to accommodate a subset of customers whose religious beliefs favor the segregation of persons by sex under the banner of “modesty.” . . .

, ,

Following the 2018 Supreme Court Decision Striking Down a Federal Ban on Sports Gambling: Should States Look to Bet and Cash In?

, ,

By Matthew Netti

As Justice Alito expressed in his majority opinion in a 2018 Supreme Court decision, “[t]he legalization of sports gambling is a controversial subject.” Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1484 (2018). Not only is the subject controversial; the effect it has on the country moving forward is unpredictable . . .

, , , , , ,

Smartphones and Compelled Decryption: An Interview with Attorney David Rangaviz

, , , , , ,

By David Rangaviz and Miranda Jang

Under what circumstances can a citizen be forced to unlock their smartphone for government inspection? On March 6, 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Dennis Jones, in which the Court held that the government can compel a suspect to unlock their smartphone, and so disclose all of its contents, if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect knows the passcode to the phone in question. The SJC held that the only “testimonial” aspect to an act of decryption is just the person saying that he or she knows the code to the target phone. Jones was the first decision from any state supreme court in the country to set out the constitutional rules around compelled decryption, which is one of the most significant self-incrimination issues in the digital age . . .

, ,

UPDATE – Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Finds Doctrine of Abatement Ab Initio Outdated, Reinstates Aaron Hernandez’s Conviction

, ,

By Monica Delateur

On April 19, 2017, former New England Patriots football player Aaron Hernandez committed suicide at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center outside of Boston, Massachusetts.  At the time of Hernandez’s death, the appeal of Hernandez’s conviction for the murder of Odin Lloyd was pending in front of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. This high-profile suicide sparked a debate around the doctrine of abatement ab initio, applied in Massachusetts as well as a number of states at the time of Hernandez’s death . . .

,

What is abatement and why is everyone in MA talking about it? (Updated February 7, 2018)

,

By Monica Delateur

With the discussion surrounding Aaron Hernandez’s conviction, acquittals, and suicide, are you wondering why there is also a discussion of abatement? Though not necessarily a new legal development, abatement could allow Hernandez’s conviction to be avoided. Read on for a quick summary . . .