|
|
|
Appeals court agrees to hear case involving Trump DC hotel
Headline Legal News |
2018/12/22 12:31
|
A federal appeals court agreed Thursday to take up a case accusing Donald Trump of profiting off the presidency in violation of the U.S. Constitution, giving the president's legal team its first major victory in the case.
The order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, hits the pause button on the ongoing federal court case in Maryland before deadlines to respond to subpoenas issued earlier this month seeking tax returns, receipts and other records from 13 Trump businesses and other entities.
It came just three days after Justice Department lawyers filed papers seeking a writ of mandamus appeal, criticizing U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte and arguing that that the "intrusive" discovery that has already begun would distract the president from his performance of his constitutional duties and could cause separation of powers concerns.
For Justice to succeed at the appeals level, they must meet a demanding standard that would partly rest on showing Messitte's decisions to be clearly wrong.
The lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia alleges that because Trump has not divested himself of his business holdings, foreign and domestic government spending at Trump's Washington hotel amounts to gifts to the president in violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause.
Oral arguments before the three-judge appeals court are scheduled for March, delaying what had been a brisk discovery schedule set in the district court by several months. The order also notes that lawyers should be prepared to also address substantive issues such as whether the plaintiffs in the case can even sue and, if victorious, compel the president to stop violating the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fight over report on Wynn allegations back in court Jan. 4
Headline Legal News |
2018/12/21 12:31
|
The fight over a Massachusetts Gaming Commission report on allegations of sexual misconduct against former casino mogul Steve Wynn will be back in a Nevada courtroom next month.
Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez on Thursday set a Jan. 4 court hearing on whether to extend an order blocking the report's release. It details an investigation into how Wynn Resorts handled the allegations and could affect whether the company keeps a gambling license for a $2 billion casino and hotel set to open near Boston in June.
Wynn has denied allegations of misconduct and sued last month to keep the report from going public. He argued that it contains confidential information obtained from his attorneys, which is protected by attorney-client privilege.
Wynn resigned from his company in February, and his name has been stripped from the new casino. It is now called Encore Boston Harbor.
Wynn Resorts attorney Patrick Byrne said Thursday that the company supports the investigation and is cooperating with Massachusetts regulators.
Ahead of the January hearing, Wynn's attorneys are negotiating with Wynn Resorts and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission over what interviews and documents his lawyers can review to determine if they're privileged.
The Nevada judge is expected to rule on areas where the attorneys can't agree.
The gaming commission's attorney, Michael Rawlins, questioned how much access Wynn should be given and whether the ex-mogul's lawyers would seek to review even more elements of the unpublished report.
Rawlins said in court Thursday that the commission wants to move forward quickly but "we do not want to open the investigative files of a law enforcement agency to the curious eyes of the person whose behavior is the subject of the investigation."
Judge Gonzalez said she understood why the commission was reluctant to share its information but that some documents needed to be disclosed to determine whether Wynn's attorney-client privilege was violated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uber loses UK case on worker rights, expected to appeal
Legal News |
2018/12/19 10:58
|
Lawyers say the taxi hailing app Uber has lost its appeal against a ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers in a case with broad implications for the gig economy.
Law firm Leigh Day says Britain's Court of Appeal upheld an earlier ruling that found the company's drivers are workers, not independent contractors and therefore should receive the minimum wage and paid holidays. Uber is expected to appeal.
Though the company argued that the case applies to only two drivers, Uber has tens of thousands of drivers in the U.K. who could argue they deserve the same status as the former drivers covered by decision. The court says some 40,000 drivers use the platform in the U.K., though the company said the number had grown since the submission to 50,000.
San Francisco-based Uber has expanded rapidly around the world by offering an alternative to traditional taxis through a smartphone app that links people in need of rides with drivers of private cars. That has drawn protests from taxi drivers who say Uber and similar services are able to undercut them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dutch court upholds Amsterdam’s ban on new tourist stores
Legal Interview |
2018/12/18 11:00
|
The Netherlands’ highest administrative court has upheld an Amsterdam municipality ban on new stores in the city’s historic heart that sell goods specifically to tourists.
The Council of State ruling Wednesday is a victory for the Dutch capital’s attempts to rein in the negative effects of the huge number of visitors crowding its streets.
The court says that the ban on new tourist stores in downtown Amsterdam, which went into force in October 2017, doesn’t breach European Union rules.
The ban is aimed at halting the spread of stores selling products like mementos and cheese that cater almost exclusively to tourists. The municipality argues that they spoil the city for local residents.
Millions of tourists visit Amsterdam every year, leading to overcrowding of its narrow, cobbled streets and resident complaints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado baker returns to court over 2nd LGBT bias allegation
Headline Legal News |
2018/12/16 10:57
|
Attorneys for a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds — a stand partially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — argued in federal court Tuesday that the state is punishing him again over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.
Lawyers for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, are suing to try to stop the state from taking action against him over the new discrimination allegation. They say the state is treating Phillips with hostility because of his Christian faith and pressing a complaint that they call an "obvious setup."
"At this point, he's just a guy who is trying to get back to life. The problem is the state of Colorado won't let him," Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said after the hearing. The conservative Christian nonprofit law firm is representing Phillips.
State officials argued for the case to be dismissed, but the judge said he was inclined to let the case move forward and would issue a written ruling later.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission said Phillips discriminated against Denver attorney Autumn Scardina because she's transgender. Phillips' shop refused to make a cake last year that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside after Scardina revealed she wanted it to celebrate her transition from male to female.
She asked for the cake on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider Phillips' appeal of the previous commission ruling against him. In that 2012 case, he refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Human rights court rules against Greece in Sharia law case
Legal Marketing News |
2018/12/15 10:56
|
Greece violated a prohibition on discrimination by applying Islamic religious law to an inheritance dispute among members of the country's Muslim minority, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Wednesday.
The court, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, ruled Greece violated the European Convention on Human Rights by applying Sharia law in the case, under which a Muslim Greek man's will bequeathing all he owned to his wife was deemed invalid after it was challenged by his sisters.
The man's widow, Chatitze Molla Sali, appealed to the European court in 2014, having lost three quarters of her inheritance. She argued she had been discriminated against on religious grounds as, had her husband not been Muslim, she would have inherited his entire estate under Greek law.
The European court agreed. It has not yet issued a decision on what, if any, penalty it will apply to Greece.
"Greece was the only country in Europe which, up until the material time, had applied Sharia law to a section of its citizens against their wishes," the court said in its ruling.
"That was particularly problematic in the present case because the application of Sharia law had led to a situation that was detrimental to the individual rights of a widow who had inherited her husband's estate in accordance with the rules of civil law but who had then found herself in a legal situation which neither she nor her husband had intended."
Molla Sali's husband had drawn up his will according to Greek law, and both a first instance and an appeals court initially ruled in her favor in the dispute with her sisters-in-law. But further court decisions ruled that inheritance issues within the Muslim minority had to be dealt with under Islamic religious law, and the will was deemed invalid.
Legislation concerning minorities in Greece was based on international treaties drawn up in the 1920s following the wars that broke out in the aftermath of the Ottoman empire's collapse. Civil cases involving the 100,000-strong Muslim minority in northeastern Greece were dealt with under Islamic law and presided over by a single official, a state-appointed Muslim cleric, or mufti.
But in January this year, the Greek parliament voted to limit the powers of Islamic courts. The new law, which was backed by the country's largest political parties, eliminated rules referring many civil cases involving members of the Muslim community to Sharia law. It had been brought to parliament following Sali's complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
