|
|
|
Appeals court to take up San Francisco jail suit
Legal News |
2013/12/02 12:38
|
A federal appeals court is set to take up a lawsuit over a former San Francisco sheriff's decision to remove male deputies from female housing units at the county's jail.
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey made the decision in 2006 in response to inmate complaints of sexual misconduct. More than two dozen male and female deputies have since sued, saying it is discriminatory.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/1adufFe) that a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to consider the case next Wednesday.
Attorneys for the deputies say not one sexual misconduct claim made by a female inmate against a male deputy was sustained in the 16 years before the sheriff' policy change.
City attorneys dispute that, saying three deputies resigned and two others were suspended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Knox appeals slander case to European court
Attorney News |
2013/11/29 10:12
|
Lawyers for Amanda Knox filed an appeal of her slander conviction in Italy with the European Court of Human Rights, as her third murder trial was underway in Florence.
The slander conviction was based on statements Knox made to police in November 2007 when she was being questioned about the slaying of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in the house they shared in Perugia.
Knox says she was coerced into making false statements blaming the slaying on bar owner Patrick Lumumba.
"The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith's murder, which was a violation of my human rights," Knox said in a statement released Monday as the appeal was filed.
Knox was convicted of slander at her first trial in December 2009. That conviction was upheld during the appeal that resulted in her 2011 murder acquittal.
Knox has returned to Seattle, where she is a student at the University of Washington. She is not attending the third trial being held in an appeals court in Florence.
The European Court for Human Rights is an international court in Strasbourg, France, that oversees the European Convention on Human Rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Will Take up New Health Law Dispute
Court Line News |
2013/11/29 10:10
|
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama's health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.
The justices said they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.
The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company's claims.
The court said the cases will be combined for arguments, probably in late March. A decision should come by late June.
The cases center on a provision of the health care law that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide a range of preventive health benefits, including contraception.
In both instances, the Christian families that own the companies say that insuring some forms of contraception violates their religious beliefs.
The key issue is whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose. Nearly four years ago, the justices expanded the concept of corporate "personhood," saying in the Citizens United case that corporations have the right to participate in the political process the same way that individuals do.
"The government has no business forcing citizens to choose between making a living and living free," said David Cortman of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian public interest law firm that is representing Conestoga Wood at the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wash. court says gun limits OK before conviction
Legal News |
2013/11/25 14:40
|
Washington's high court upheld a state law Thursday that prohibits some suspects in serious criminal cases from possessing a firearm before they have been found guilty of a crime.
The state Supreme Court said in a 5-4 ruling that the law did not violate the Second Amendment rights of a man who was eventually convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.
Justices in the majority opinion wrote the law is limited in scope and duration.
"The State has an important interest in restricting potentially dangerous persons from using firearms," Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote in the majority opinion.
The law prohibits people from having a firearm if they have been released on bond after a judge found probable cause to believe the person has committed a serious offense.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Roy Steven Jorgenson, who authorities said was found with two guns in his car while he was free on bond after a judge had found probable cause to believe Jorgenson had shot someone.
In one of the dissenting opinions, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that the Legislature may reasonably regulate the right to bear arms. But he said those regulations must comport with due process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court won't toss NYC stop-frisk rulings
Court Line News |
2013/11/25 14:40
|
A federal appeals court refused Friday to toss out court rulings finding that New York City carried out its police stop-and-frisk policy in a discriminatory manner, ending what was likely the city's last chance to nullify the decisions before the arrival of a new mayor who has criticized the tactic.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a five-page order Friday, saying the city could make its arguments to toss out the rulings when its appeal of the decisions of U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin is heard next year.
Last month, the same appeals panel had suspended the effects of Scheindlin's rulings and removed her from the case, saying she misapplied a related ruling that allowed her to take the stop-and-frisk case and made comments to the media during a trial that called her impartiality into question.
The city had argued that the panel's decision to remove Scheindlin meant it should also nullify her rulings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law
Law Firm News/Texas |
2013/11/22 09:47
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to continue enforcing abortion restrictions that opponents say have led more than a third of the state's clinics to stop providing abortions.
The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The court's conservative majority refused the plea of Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics to overturn a preliminary federal appeals court ruling that allowed the provision to take effect. The four liberal justices dissented.
The case remains on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That court is expected to hear arguments in January, and the law will remain in effect at least until then.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the liberal justices, said he expects the issue to return to the Supreme Court once the appeals court issues its final ruling.
The Texas Legislature approved the requirement for admitting privileges in July.
In late October, days before the provision was to take effect, a trial judge blocked it, saying it probably is unconstitutional because it puts a "substantial obstacle" in front of a woman wanting an abortion.
But a three-judge appellate panel moved quickly to overrule the judge. The appeals court said the law was in line with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed for abortion restrictions so long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Priscilla Owen noted that the Texas law would not end the procedure, only force women to drive a greater distance to obtain one.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in support of the high court order Tuesday, said the clinics could not overcome a heavy legal burden against overruling the appeals court. The justices may not do so "unless that court clearly and demonstrably erred," Scalia said in an opinion that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion Tuesday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
