The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman also prohibits Michigan public employers from offering benefits, such as health insurance, to same-sex partners of homosexual employees. The appeals court overturned a lower court decision finding no conflict between the 2004 amendment and providing the benefits.

In its ruling Thursday, the court wrote:

It is undisputed that under the marriage amendment, heterosexual couples that have not married also may not obtain employment benefits as a couple on the basis of an agreement "recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. . . ." The amendment is grounded in the longstanding and legitimate governmental interest in favoring the institution of marriage. . . . The amendment is narrowly tailored to further the legitimate governmental interest in protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage, and not to arbitrarily or invidiously exclude individuals from the protections of the laws of this state. . . .

Because the marriage amendment does not make arbitrary or invidious distinctions in furthering the legitimate governmental interests of the state, does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Michigan constitution. . . .

The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose.
In March 2005 Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued an opinion asserting that the amendment's language barred public employers from offering domestic partner benefits. After the lower court ruling, the Michigan Senate approved resolutions preventing taxpayer money from being spent on same-sex benefits until the state Supreme Court decides the issue. The ACLU of Michigan expressed disagreement with appeals court decision, claiming that the voters were told the amendment would not affect domestic partnership benefits, and said that an appeal to the state high court is planned.

US Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald played portions of White House briefing room videos Thursday as the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby continued. Fitzgerald said the tapes show Libby's eagerness to publicly conceal conversations he had with reporters about CIA official Valerie Plame. US District Judge Reggie B. Walton allowed Fitzgerald to play portions of the videos that show former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan publicly clearing Libby's name and announcing that individuals responsible for the leak would be fired. Judge Walton did not allow Fitzgerald to show a heated question and answer session between McClellan and reporters.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation into the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby's defense team has indicated that they plan to call Libby's former boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, to testify and that Libby also plans to take the witness stand himself. Walton has denied a request from several news organizations seeking the daily release of audio recordings of arguments and testimony.

If Miller is called to answer the questions and refuses, she could face charges of perjury, as she did in July of 2005 when she was jailed after refusing to reveal sources in conjunction with the federal criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. Miller resigned her post at the Times after her release from the 85-day jail term.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the CIA leak investigation.

The Boston Passante law firm reached a temporary agreement in court today on its dissolution.

The agreement will allow the firm to pay debts and provide income to its partners for the next two months as both sides try to find a permanent solution.

Russell Boston, his wife, Wendy S. Boston, and other partners Lauren L. Benedict and David M. Cusson petitioned Bibb County Superior Court in December to dissolve the firm, and they cited problems with managing partner Brian Passante's completion of his duties.

Passante filed a countersuit earlier this week denying the allegations and blaming Russell Boston for the problems in the firm.

An appeals court reinstated a charge of conspiracy to "murder, kidnap, and maim" against accused terrorist supporter Jose Padilla, the most serious count that he will face at a trial scheduled to begin in April.

The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta yesterday reversed a lower court ruling that threw out the charge, which carries a possible sentence of up to life in prison. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami had dismissed the count, ruling it duplicated other charges.

Mr. Padilla, 36, a former Chicago gang member and alleged Al Qaeda operative, is charged with being part of a terror cell that provided money, aid, and recruits to Islamic extremists. Those charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. His case is set for trial April 16 in Miami federal court.

"We are gratified by the 11th Circuit's swift decision and look forward to presenting the evidence at trial," said Alex Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, in a statement.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals heard arguments January 10 over Judge Cooke's decision that the charges violated Mr. Padilla's right against being charged twice for the same offense. Federal prosecutors argued the charge was dropped in error, saying Judge Cooke used flawed legal analysis. Mr. Padilla has 21 days to seek a rehearing before the appeals court, according to the Justice Department.

An America citizen, Mr. Padilla was arrested in Chicago in 2002. The government initially accused him of plotting to detonate in America a "dirty bomb," a conventional explosive device that includes radioactive material for dispersal in the blast. America later said Al Qaeda trained him to blow up American apartment buildings. In November 2005, Mr. Padilla was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Prison officials are scheduled to report by February 9 on a mental competency exam of Mr. Padilla to determine whether he is fit to stand trial.

Mr. Padilla's lawyers said in court papers that he suffered mental damage because of abuse that they claim was inflicted by American authorities during the three years and five months he was held in a Navy prison in South Carolina.

JOPLIN, Mo. - A seventh grader who opened fire at a middle school will be one of the youngest suspects ever tried as an adult in Missouri, resulting in a legal response that straddles two courts.

Thomas White is accused of taking an assault rifle to Joplin Memorial Middle School on Oct. 9 and pointing it at administrators, teachers and students before firing a shot into the ceiling.

He then allegedly repeatedly tried to shoot Principal Stephen Gilbreth as Gilbreth ushered him out of the school. Police said the rifle jammed because of the improper setting of an ammunition clip in the gun. No one was wounded.

White dressed in a trench coat, camouflage pants and a crudely fashioned mask the day of the incident. He allegedly had a pellet gun, a Marine Corps manual and a map of a Kansas park campground in his backpack, authorities have said.

At White's certification hearing in December, juvenile officer April Foulkes recommended he be tried as an adult because of the seriousness of his alleged offense and the threat it posed to the community.

White, now 14, is charged with first-degree assault, armed-criminal action and attempted escape. He is being held at the Jasper County Jail, awaiting a preliminary hearing. His bond is set at $250,000.

He is one of the youngest offenders ever to be certified as an adult in the state. Three St. Louis girls, two age 14 and one 13, were tried as adults in a 2004-2005 murder case.

Missouri enacted a new juvenile crime law in 1995. The state based its policies on a philosophy that young offenders were not fully developed criminals and could be changed, said Tom Breedlove, the Division of Youth Services deputy director.

Before 1995, an offender had to be 14 or older to be certified for trial as an adult. Like many other states, Missouri lowered the age to 12 for any felony and eliminated a minimum age for the most serious violent crimes.

Judges now must hold adult-certification hearings for any juvenile accused of murder, rape, sodomy, first-degree assault, first-degree robbery or drug trafficking, and for any young offender with two prior felonies. The judge is allowed to decide whether the case should remain in juvenile court.

In White's case, if he is convicted, he faces an approach to juvenile crime known as blended sentencing and a state program involving dual courts' jurisdiction.

Foulkes said if White were to be adjudicated as a juvenile, the court's options would be limited to placing him on probation or committing him to DYS.

Brent Buerck, senior program administrator with DYS, said young offenders sentenced under the dual-jurisdiction program can actually be kept up to the age of 21. The program first began in 1996 and saw its first releases in 1999.

"With the dual jurisdictions, 83 percent of the kids who have successfully completed the program are not in prison," Buerck said.