It’s been ten years since Lawrence v Texas saw anti-sodomy laws declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but I suppose stupidity is eternal. At least the District Attorney is ending the absurdity by refraining from prosecution. There may yet be hope for Baton Rouge.

Steve Semeraro at the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog:

Government actors are charged with a duty to act in the public interest and thus can generally be trusted to restrain trade only when the public will benefit. Private actors, by contrast, are driven by the desire to maximize profit and will thus restrain trade when it is privately beneficial but harms the public interest. On 26 November, the Supreme Court will reenter the fray, hearing oral argument in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System.

This is an interesting part of antitrust law: the exemption from antitrust liability for state actors and, in very limited circumstances, private actors acting under the supervision of the state. These issues are more relevant than you may think if you’re not a law student/lawyer/professor/large-scale businessperson.

Consider my recent Amazon prediction, or the reach of international competition law.

Find more information about FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System at SCOTUSblog, or read the 11th Circuit’s opinion at Google Scholar.

Larry Neumeister, for AP:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge’s findings that the 1996 [“Defense of Marriage Act”] was unconstitutional.

This is good news. The holding was based on the intermediate scrutiny constitutional standard and declared DOMA violative of Equal Protection.

The dissent in the 2-1 decision came from Judge Chester Straub, who said “courts should not intervene where there is a robust political debate because doing so poisons the political well, imposing a destructive anti-majoritarian constitutional ruling on a vigorous debate.”

It is the duty of a court to intervene where legislation violates constitutional protections, and that is exactly what DOMA does with regard to same-sex marriage.

There is no valid argument to the contrary.

If the Supreme Court fails to strike this law down when it comes to them some time in the next year, and fails to confirm that our Constitution disallows discrimination with regard to who citizens love solely on the basis of a majoritarian religious belief, it will be the darkest legal day in my lifetime thus far.