Court Roundup

Oregon
Judiciary must give benefits to same-sex spouse
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A federal appellate judge ruled this week the judiciary must grant health care benefits to the same-sex spouse of a federal public defender in Portland.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harry Pregerson said in a ruling Wednesday that the court’s administrative office discriminated against Alison “Tex” Clark when it refused to add her spouse to Clark’s benefit plan. Pregerson ruled that Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban — Measure 36, enacted by voters in 2004 — and the federal Defense of Marriage Act are both unconstitutional.
His ruling, however, applied only to Clark because it was an internal administrative decision about a court employee and doesn’t overturn Oregon’s gay marriage ban. It’s the latest in a string of decisions in favor of gay employees of the federal judiciary.
Clark said the ruling was exciting, especially because the judge so forcefully tore down Oregon’s gay-marriage ban.
As an assistant federal public defender, Clark is an employee of the judicial branch. She married Anna Campbell last June in British Columbia and three weeks later applied for federal-employee health benefits for her spouse.
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts denied her request, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
A challenge to DOMA is currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, along with a Ninth Circuit employee’s effort to secure for spousal benefits for her same-sex partner.
The judge ordered the federal officials to grant Clark’s request for benefits or grant her back pay for the cost of purchasing similar benefits. The agency could not be reached after business hours Thursday.
The judge issued his ruling in his capacity as chair of the Ninth Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, not as a federal appellate judge. The opinion is not officially published.

West Virginia
Mine expansion plan headed to state high court
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) — The three-year-old battle over the proposed expansion of a northern West Virginia surface mine is now headed for the state Supreme Court.
The Sierra Club is appealing a March ruling in Kanawha County Circuit Court that favored the state Department of Environmental Protection and Patriot Mining, a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Arch Coal.
Patriot wants to expand the New Hill Mine near Cassville by 225 acres and is trying to modify its water pollution permits.
But environmentalists argue that coal ash runoff will pollute Scotts Run.
The Dominion Post says coal ash is used at the strip mine to reduce the site’s acid mine runoff pollution.
The Environmental Quality Board blocked the expansion and ordered DEP to rewrite the permit to impose new federal guidelines for conductivity and other pollutants.
Patriot and the DEP challenged the board’s order, and last month, Stuckey sided with them.
He ruled the board exceeded its authority by attempting to impose federal water quality standards without considering the DEP’s interpretation and also said that infringing on the department’s authority was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The Sierra Club, however, argues Stuckey failed to acknowledge the EQB’s independent authority under state law.