15,940
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
<!-- {{REF}} -->
→Proceedings: Wikify.
'''Fishbeck v. North Dakota''' is a North Dakota legal case from the year of 1996 that was filed by Donna Fishbeck and others on behalf of her infant son, Jonathan Fishbeck, who had been [[circumcised]]. The plaintiffs were represented by [[Zenas Baer]] of Hawley, Minnesota. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. It named the State of North Dakota as the defendant.<ref name="complaint1996">{{Construction SiteREFweb |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmdistrict1.htm#Original%20Complaint |archived= |title=Complaint |trans-title= |language= |last=Baer |first=Zenas |init=Z |author-link=Zenas Baer |publisher= |website=boystoo.com |date=1996-06-07 |accessdate=2020-06-06 |format= |quote=}}</ref> North Dakota, had in 1995, passed a law to protect the [[genital integrity]] of females, but not males. The suit sought to extend that protection to boys under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.<ref name="complaint1996" /> ==Proceedings== The defendant, North Dakota, argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.<ref>{{REFweb |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmdistrict2.htm |archived= |title=Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss |trans-title= |language=English |last=Baer |first=Zenas |init=Z |author-link=Zenas Baer |publisher= |website=boystoo.com |date=1996-09-11 |accessdate=2020-06-06 |format= |quote=}}</ref> Patrick A. Conmy, District Judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case and it was dismissed without a ruling on the merits of the case.<ref name="memorandum1996">{{REFweb |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmdistrict2.htm |archived= |title=Memorandum and Order |trans-title= |language=English |last=Conmy |first=Patrick |author-link= |publisher= |website=boystoo.com |date=1996-10-22 |accessdate=2020-06-06 |format= |quote=}}</ref> The Court commented:<blockquote>All of the filings in the matter are extremely well done. The medical exhibits are detailed and scholarly and the credentials of those taking opposite sides on the issue of the value of routine male infant [[circumcision]] are most impressive.<ref name="memorandum1996" /></blockquote> Judge Conmy observed:<blockquote>The goal of the plaintiffs is to have routine male infant circumcision stopped. This may very well be a worthwhile goal.<ref name="memorandum1996" /></blockquote> ==Appeal==The plaintiffs appealed the ruling of Judge Conmy to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring this case.<ref>{{REFweb |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmappeal2.htm |archived= |title=Judgment, ND4038-ND |trans-title= |language= |last=Arnold |first=Richard |author-link= |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |website=boystoo.com |date=1997-06-03 |accessdate=2020-06-06 |format= |quote=}}</ref> This case was dismissed on procedural grounds. At no time were the merits of the case considered.{{SEEALSO}}* [[Gajewski v. State of North Dakota (2010)]]
{{LINKS}}
* http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmdistrict1.htm
* http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmappeal1.htm
[[Category:'... v. ...']]
[[Category:Litigation]]
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]