Kendall Coffey on Spike Lee Tweet Lawsuit

Former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey appeared on the Steve Malzberg Show last week to discuss current legal cases.  One of the cases involved a family that is suing film maker Spike Lee.  Lee posted an address on Twitter that he claimed was the address of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Florida teen Trayvon Martin.  The address was incorrect, however, and the couple actually at the posted address recieved threatening letters and harassment.

Spike Lee tweeted an address he thought was George Zimmerman's

The George Zimmerman case gained a lot of attention from racial equality advocates and Lee was likely trying to incite the harassment directed at Zimmerman.  The couple is suing Spike Lee for either defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Kendall Coffey explained that while the case is sympathetic there may not be enough legal grounds for the lawsuit.

"People who value the law as you and I do like to say that for every wrong there must be a remedy.  This certainly seems like a wrong, at least the way it’s presented by the plaintiffs.  And one might think there must be some kind of remedy if indeed they suffered what we understand could well have been a firestorm of threats and abuse. 
"But a few years back the Supreme Court of Florida decided that the kind of claim for what they call violation of privacy, putting somebody or casting somebody in a false light through publicity that’s damaging, that by itself is no longer, in the state of Florida, a valid basis to bring a claim for damages. 
"What these individuals would have to claim is either something called intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it’s hard to think that they can show enough intentionality.  Maybe they can on the part of Spike Lee.  Or, they can present it as a claim of defamation, maybe they can get somewhere.  But, despite what makes us all sympathetic, if indeed what happened here is as they describe it, I’m not convinced they’re going to get to first base, and certainly not to second base, in terms of a lawsuit.  Given that the decision the Supreme Court of Florida made, which actually gives less protection for individuals whose privacy rights are invaded and are wrongly subjected to negative publicity.”

Kendall Coffey: Church and State Issues Will Go to Supreme Court

Should prayer be allowed at town hall meetings?

Kendall Coffey appeared on the Steve Malzberg Show on Thursday, November 7th to analyze current legal cases in the news.  The major discussion revolved around a case against the town of Greece, New York.  The case involves whether opening town meetings with a prayer is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Kendall Coffey commented on the case, and alluded to a future where the supreme would need to make a decision on religious traditions used in public forums.

“Of course the Supreme Court session began with these traditional words that included 'God save the United States and this honorable court.' Whatever your religious background, if you have money you will see the words in God we trust. So it is recognized fundamentally that it is part of the fabric of our country."

Coffey, a former U.S. Attorney, said that the major difference between legal prayer and illegal prayer in public settings is whether the pray is only a recognition of a greater authority, or if it is pushing specific agenda.

Kendall Coffey suspects that town of Greece will win, partly because the Obama administration has come out on favor of the practice of public prayer in this insance, and supports the town.  What makes the case interesting, is that it may serve as a catalyst for the issue to be heard by the supreme court.

What will the Supreme Court say about public prayer?

“This particular practice I think is going to be a very close call.  I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court validates and supports the town council in allowing this kind of public prayer because of the decision thirty years ago.  Recognizing that there is a higher power than any of us is part of our tradition whether it’s on our dollar bills or it’s when the Supreme Court is seated.  Keep an eye out not only for the result on this, I suspect the town will win, but whether the opinion is written in such a way that signals further development in what could be an emerging conflict or controversy.  Perhaps some new law.  This whole concept is emotional, and profoundly important, of church and state.”

Kendall Coffey regularly goes "Spinning the Law" with Steve Malzberg on Newsmax.

Kendall Coffey: Abortion Law has Political Agenda

Abortion Bill protest in Austin/ Flickr CC via Do512

A new law in Texas includes some of the toughest restrictions on abortion in the country.  The legal battle over the legality of some of the rules has been fierce.  Last week a judge ruled that the law would prevent a woman's right to an abortion and blocked its implementation.  Another court refuted that several days later.

The biggest issue in the law requires doctors that perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the site. Another provision bans abortions after twenty weeks, except if the health of the woman is in danger. If a pregnant woman wants to induce an abortion by taking a pill, the state will require the pills to be taken in the presence of a doctor at a certified abortion facility. Lastly, beginning next September, all abortions must take place in a facility that meets the infrastructure requirements for an ambulatory surgical center.

Steve Malzeberg asked Kendall Coffey about the Texas law during the weekly "Spinning the Law" segment on the Steve Malzberg Show on Newsmax.  Malzberg commented on the requirement for doctors to have hospital practice privileges.  This is what Kendall Coffey said:

 

“That is certainly one of the issues.  Advocates of the law would say that abortion doctors had to be admitted with privileges in a nearby hospital, within thirty miles.  As you know, one of the things that establishes a credential for a doctor is to be granted privileges to practice in a local hospital.  It’s not automatically done, it’s not rightly done, it’s not as easy, frankly, as getting admitted to the state bar association.  It’s a significant validation of your professionalism and ability to grant the privileges to practice in a hospital.   

"Apparently a number of the doctors that perform this kind of procedure don’t have those privileges within thirty miles.  The Texas legislature has said that it’s a requirement and the judge following what is the law as of today presumably made the right decision of the existing law but advocates of these kind of laws, they aren’t simply trying to thumb their nose at the U.S. constitution.  They have a very thoughtful strategy for picking particular issues.  This is a type of strategy that no one should dismiss.  The outcome of this particular issue at the lower court level is not surprising.  But what’s going to happen when it gets to Washington and the nine Supreme Court justices will look at it? That’s much harder to predict.”

Wendy Davis/ Flickr CC via Do512

The law received the most media attention when legislator Wendy Davis performed a marathon filibuster to try and prevent it from being passed.  Wendy Davis is now running for governor of Texas.