One of the best legal blogs is How Appealing. It recently had this post:
So much for that U.S. Supreme Court victory: This past April, in a case captioned Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the convicted defendant who was challenging his extended traffic stop detention for purposes of a drug dog sniff. You can access the ruling at this link.
On remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the defendant’s conviction must stand given the state of Eighth Circuit law before the Supreme Court’s reversal in this very case. You can access [that] ruling at this link.
Then there was a piece in The Huffington Post:
A Tennessee judge said the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide has left him unable to determine what constitutes divorce.
A Signal Mountain couple, Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner, are still legally married even though they don’t want to be because of Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton’s stance, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
“The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,” Atherton wrote in his decision.
“With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage,” he added.
Lawyers for the Bumgardners did not immediately return a request for comment from The Huffington Post.
Regina Lambert, one of the lawyers who represented Tennessee plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage in June, told the Guardian that Atherton was “grandstanding.”