When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8—the 2008 ballot initiative to outlaw gay marriage—he said the motivation for the majority of voters was clear.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote in his sweeping, 136-page decision announced August 4 in San Francisco. "These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8."

In Walker's reasoning, religion amounts to a "private moral view," which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. While some legal scholars say Walker's decision lands on firm legal ground—a law must advance a secular purpose to pass constitutional muster—some religious leaders accuse the judge of trying to scrub faith from the public square.

On August 5, Prop 8's supporters filed an appeal of Walker's decision. Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm involved in the litigation, said the religious freedom argument will play an important role as the case moves up the federal judicial ladder—including, potentially, the U.S. Supreme Court.

The doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death is due back in court for a scheduling hearing that will determine when prosecutors will publicly present some of their evidence.

Dr. Conrad Murray is required to attend Monday's hearing, during which a Los Angeles judge is expected to schedule a preliminary hearing for later this year.

The judge will decide at that hearing whether there is enough evidence for the involuntary manslaughter case against the cardiologist to continue. Murray, who maintains offices in Las Vegas and Houston, was charged in February for administering a lethal dose of anesthetic propofol to Jackson.

Murray has pleaded not guilty and his attorneys have said the physician did not give Jackson anything that "should have" killed him.

A paralegal and her husband have been indicted on suspicion of embezzling more than $1 million from the law firm where she worked.

The suspects are Rosanne and Michael Stogner. A grand jury indicted them this month in a series of thefts from Oaxaca, Bernal & Associates between March 2001 and May 2007.

Rosanne Stogner declined Monday to talk about the charges and her attorney, Dolph Quijano, did not return calls.

Rosanne Stogner was employed at the law firm at 1515 Montana as a paralegal and an office manager from 1999 to 2007, according to a complaint affidavit by police. Her responsibilities included preparing case files and paying bills.

But she also allegedly paid herself money to which she was not entitled.

Police alleged in the affidavit that Stogner made out checks to herself, to her husband, to his fence company and even to her daughter's personal trainer.

Nobody disputes that driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous. In fact, it's one of the most deadly crimes. You won't get any serious arguments from anybody that people should be allowed to drive while impaired. Nobody would dispute that you are far more likely to die at the hands of a DUI driver than at the hands of a serial killer or by gang violence.

The dispute is not about the problem of impaired driving, but rather about what to do about it. Every year, many states increase the jail time, fines and other penalties for DUI offenders. There is little evidence that increased punishment deters impaired driving. In fact, there's no conclusive evidence that suggests that the average would-be drunk driver even considers the penalties before turning on the ignition and hitting the road.

Most state lawmakers increase the penalties because it is politically popular to do so, and it’s the only thing they can think of doing. In most states, the average DUI convict spends no more than a day or two in jail for a first offense, and no longer than a year for a third offense. After that, the states have a tremendous range.

It seems for most offenders, a first, second or third DUI arrest is the wake-up call they need, and very few people get caught more than three times in their lifetime. In states such as Washington that have systems that treat and educate for alcohol and drug issues, there is a ray of hope that recidivism may be reduced. In states such as Arizona, where the focus is on punishment rather than treatment, DWI convictions often do little for a would-be repeat offender than take them off the road temporarily while they are incarcerated.

David Boies challenged America’s lawyers to “bring the rule of law to its full fruition here in this country … to fulfill the goals and lofty rhetoric of our founding fathers,” as the keynote speaker at the Opening Assembly of the 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco.

The rule of law was the assembly theme, as ABA members gathered in the Herbst Theater of the War Memorial Veterans Building, site of the signing of the charter of the United Nations in 1945.  

President Carolyn B. Lamm pointed to ABA efforts from activities of the Section of International Law to such projects as the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative, the Rule of Law Initiative and the World Justice Project as advancing United Nations goals to spread democracy based on law around the world.

Boies, co-counsel with Ted Olson in winning a federal district court ruling Wednesday that overturned California’s Proposition 8, cited “numerous challenges to the rule of law in our own country,” in applying that theme at home.

When our nation was born, it consisted of “wes” and “theys,” Boies said, with the “wes” being white male property owners and the “theys” comprising everyone else.  As the national history unfolded, the circle of “wes” expanded to encompass more and more segments of society.  

“We have an opportunity to expand the circle of ‘wes’ until there are no more ‘theys,’” said Boies, urging lawyers to work toward ensuring that “liberty and equality and protection of individual rights is something that every citizen equally enjoys.”

To achieve that goal, Boies identified four challenges confronting his audience.

First, he suggested the rule of law works best when adversaries have equivalent resources, whether those resources are plentiful or sparse.   But the “time when our system tends to break down is when one party has tremendous resources and the other party does not.”  Those are the times that “threatened to undermine the protections of the rule of law… [and lawyers] need to find ways to reduce the imbalance,” he said.  He urged reducing procedural advantages that favor the “better resourced party,” and urged lawyers to not “use discovery as a war of attrition,” for example. 
   
Second, he called for “better tools to help juries” decide important but complex cases, such as allowing jurors to ask questions and take notes on testimony.

His third challenge was to “improve judges and the judicial machinery,” citing a “crisis in terms of financing the justice system in the United States.”  First year associates in his law firm are paid higher salaries than federal district court judges, and state court judges earn even less, he said.  “If we can’t afford to spend a fraction of what we are spending to expand that system to Iraq, something is wrong with our sense of priorities,” he maintained.  

All lawyers must stand up for the independence of judges, resisting threats to their safety when they make unpopular decisions, said Boies, noting that there already have been threats to harm the judge who  ruled in the Proposition 8 litigation.

Boies’ cited predictably equal application of the law without regard to the identity of the parties as the final challenge to the rule of law, saying that when rights depend on who is asserting them, “the rule of law is undermined.”

BP PLC said Monday that it has made an initial deposit of $3 billion into a $20 billion spill-recovery fund.

BP said it was making the deposit earlier than the originally scheduled Sept. 30 deadline to show its commitment to restoring the livelihoods of people affected by the worst offshore oil spill in history. The company said it would make an additional $2 billion deposit in the fourth quarter.

In June, BP agreed to set up the fund following a meeting between company Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and then-Chief Executive Tony Hayward with U.S. President Barack Obama and senior administration officials.

BP said the account would be administered by a newly established trust overseen by former U.S. District Judge John Martin and by Kent Syverud, dean of the Washington University School of Law. Citigroup Inc. will serve as corporate trustee.

"We are pleased that BP made an initial contribution and has taken an important step toward honoring its commitment to the President and the residents and business owners in the Gulf region," Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli said in a statement. "We have made clear that the company still needs to ensure that the necessary funds will be available if something happens to the subsidiary that established the trust and we look forward to completion of an appropriate security arrangement in the near future."

In Arizona, the shooting death of a rancher blew the lid off simmering anger over border security and helped solidify support for a tough new immigration law. A similar eruption threatens in Virginia following the death of a Catholic nun in a car accident involving a man in the country illegally and accused of drunken driving.

The Benedictine Sisters of Virginia tried to discourage using the death of Sister Denise Mosier as a "forum of the illegal immigration agenda" and pleaded for a focus on "Christ's command to forgive."

"The sisters' mission is peace and love," said Corey Stewart, chairman of Prince William County's Board of Supervisors. "My mission is law enforcement and the protection of public safety."

Prince William County, about 25 miles southwest of Washington, D.C., stepped up its immigration enforcement in 2007 amid explosive growth of its Hispanic and immigrant populations. Under Stewart's leadership, the county implemented a local policy requiring police to determine the immigration status of all people arrested on suspicion of violating state or local laws.