9th Circuit Oral Argument Highlights - challenge of prostitution law
My extensive notes from Court at http://phxlist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=19046
(Link is not competition - no ads or reviews for years due to new Arizona law)
i should add even if we win at the 9th Circuit the likely result is only that it will be remanded back to the Federal District Court to rehear or a full trial. The case got to the 9th Circuit on appeal from the summary judgment against us (ESLPERP) at the Federal District Court level.
The hearing is getting a lot of media attention in California - for example, good summary at http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Appeals-court-in-SF-allows-challenge-to-state-law-12292093.php
AZ law is very similar to California prostitution law and we are also in the 9th district.
If "we" lose back in Federal Court (if we win this round at the 9th) any final decision by District could again be appealed to the 9th. So this will be tied up in the courts for years.
In Canada, it took over 10 years to get their Supreme Court decision declaring the law against incalls (bawdy houses) unconstitutional - outcall had always been legal. The key for why prostitution laws were unconstitutional was "harm reduction". It was clear to the Supreme Court the illegal status of incalls, etc. created harm. Therefore under the Charter of Rights of Canada, prostitution laws were struck down.
but is there a potential downside?
For example, if this goes to SCOTUS in a few years, and Captain Crazy manages to pack SCOTUS with right wing fruitcakes, is there a chance they'll undo the protections obtained in the landmark case from Texas about 20 years ago that upheld sexual rights BCDs?
Any thoughts on that?
but is there a potential downside?
For example, if this goes to SCOTUS in a few years, and Captain Crazy manages to pack SCOTUS with right wing fruitcakes, is there a chance they'll undo the protections obtained in the landmark case from Texas about 20 years ago that upheld sexual rights BCDs? Any thoughts on that?
In order to challenge Lawrence v Texas someone else in a similar situation be arrested and start a new case. I don't under the facts of Lawrence v Texas that it could be overturned by another case unless you had extremely religious doctrine judges that believed gay sex was a sin and there was some compelling reason to make it illegal. That would not be likely in my opinion.
but the current political situation in Washington and beyond gives me pause.
shouldn't it/will it be a key argument in tossing out anti P4P laws?
If not, why not? It would seem to be very congruent to the reasons P4P should be legal, or does the addition of financial aspects toss the game into a whole other ballpark?
Lawrence v Texas only applies to a private sodomy case with no pay. Yes, the payment makes it another ballpark.
The state argues buying sex is not a "fundamental right" Therefore, has to be based on a rational basis. If not a fundamental right, the test rests on whether the State has a "compelling interest" to have it illegal - also issue if can protect from "evils" by lesser means. i.e. restrict to only be illegal on streets, enforce kidnapping for forced prostitution, sexual assault laws etc vs making prostitution in total illegal.
The State isn't arguing against Lawrence morality etc. However Lawrence talked about enduring relationships the State argues is not involved in prostitution in addition to all the "evils" associated with prostitution (sex trafficking, children etc) as a State "compelling interest."
Our attorney did a great job while State attorney was at a loss for detailed challenges by judges and just kept going back to her talking points like politicians do about evils and no enduring relationship.
On a Canadian board someone pointed out most of the "evil" is due to the illegal status vs the harm reduction model in Canada that doesn't target in private consenting adults making it much safer for both sex workers and customers.
then shouldn't all the dating bars be shut down?
Sorry if I'm trying to make sense of all of this. 8o)
Laws do not always make sense but politicians that make the laws just go with what they think their voters want or their lobbyists that support them financially.
I believe that any concerns that SCOTUS will get "too far right" and will get "moralistic" are unfounded. Trump is clearly headed in the direction of strict constructionists on the court. These people tend to be more Libertarian in the classic sense. In that, the government needs to get out of people's lives unless it can be proven it needs to be. We will never see a legislature or Congress pass legal prostitution laws. If anyone thought that Social Security was the 3rd rail of politics, they never even had legalizing prostitution on the radar. No, it will be a SCOTUS decision that finally knocks down a state's prostitution laws. And, I believe it will be an argument over women's rights to their own bodies. I also believe that this recent exposition of Hollywood's problems with sexual exploitation of women is going to keep the train on the tracks as they struggle with actually empowering women instead of merely paying lip service to the idea.
That's my $0.02