|
|
|
ACLU to appeal court ruling in Missouri drug testing case
Headline Legal News |
2016/01/30 14:10
|
The American Civil Liberties Union said it plans to appeal a federal court ruling that upheld a technical college’s plan to force every incoming student to be tested for drugs.
Tony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU’s Missouri chapter, told the Jefferson City News Tribune that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given the organization until Jan. 4 to file a petition seeking a rehearing by either the same three-judge panel that issued the ruling earlier this month, or by all of the active 8th Circuit judges.
“We intend to request both,” Rothert said. “While rehearing is difficult to obtain, we are fortunate in this case to have a majority decision that is poorly crafted and departs from 8th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.”
The ACLU filed the federal lawsuit in 2011 challenging a mandatory drug-testing policy Linn State Technical College’s Board of Regents approved in June of that year. The school since has changed its name to State Technical College of Missouri.
The lawsuit argued the policy violated the students’ Fourth Amendment right “to be secure . against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
When it started the program, the school said the testing policy was intended “to provide a safe, healthy and productive environment for everyone who learns and works at Linn State Technical College by detecting, preventing and deterring drug use and abuse among students.”
Under the policy, students had to pay a $50 fee for the drug test and could be blocked from attending if they refused to be tested.
U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey issued a ruling in September 2013 that limited the drug testing to five Linn State programs. But in its 2-1 vote earlier this month, the federal appeals court panel overturned her ruling as too narrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Costa Rica soccer chief pleads not guilty in FIFA probe
Headline Legal News |
2015/12/18 16:46
|
The former head of the Costa Rican football federation has pleaded not guilty in the U.S. after being charged in a sprawling investigation of bribes and kickbacks involving FIFA, soccer's governing body.
Eduardo Li pleaded not guilty during an initial appearance Friday in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.
Authorities say Li was extradited to the U.S. a week after withdrawing his appeal against being sent. He was brought to New York on Friday.
Li's attorney says his client voluntarily returned to the U.S. and intends to fight the allegations.
About 20 soccer officials have been indicted on charges stemming from the U.S. investigation of corruption in the sport. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas Supreme Court to take up school funding case
Headline Legal News |
2015/11/06 14:52
|
A case that has the potential to increase funding for Kansas schools goes before the state Supreme Court today, the same day that economists, legislative researchers and officials in Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration are expected to announce new, more pessimistic revenue projections.
Four districts that are suing the state have asked justices to lift a stay on a lower court ruling and release state funds to public school districts. A three-judge Shawnee County District Court panel found in June that the state’s newly enacted strategy for financing 286 school districts and cuts to state aid for low-income school districts were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court approved Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s request for a stay on the order while he pursued an appeal. The state argues in court filings that “doomsday predictions” about students and the state suffering because of how schools are being funded “have proven to be pure hyperbole.”
Education, from K-12 through the collegiate level, is the state’s largest expenditure, accounting for 62 percent of its budget. Any increase in education spending has the potential to create budget havoc when the Legislature reconvenes in January.
Since the current fiscal year began in July, tax collections have fallen about 4.1 percent short of expectations, at $1.8 billion. The state has struggled to balance its budget since Republican legislators slashed personal income taxes in 2012 and 2013 at Brownback’s urging, in an effort to stimulate the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California appeals court rejects right-to-die lawsuit
Headline Legal News |
2015/11/01 09:33
|
A California appeals court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit by three terminally ill patients that sought to clear the way for doctors to prescribe fatal medication to them and others like them who want the option of taking their lives.
A state law that makes helping someone commit suicide a crime clearly applies to physicians who provide patients lethal drugs, a division of the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled.
"We believe prescribing a lethal dose of drugs to a terminally ill patient with the knowledge the patient may use it to end his or her life goes beyond the mere giving of advice and encouragement and falls under the category of direct aiding and abetting," Associate Justice Alex McDonald wrote.
The ruling affirmed a lower court decision that dismissed the lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought against the state by Christy O'Donnell and two other terminally ill California residents.
O'Donnell suffers from Stage IV cancer of the left lung and was given less than six months to live in May when the lawsuit was filed.
California has since approved right-to-die legislation, though it will not likely go into effect in time to benefit the three patients, the appeals court acknowledged.
John Kappos, an attorney for the patients, said they are considering all options, including an appeal to the California Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds injunction halting health mandate
Headline Legal News |
2015/09/18 17:13
|
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Barack Obama's health care law unjustly burdens religiously affiliated employers by forcing them to help provide insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, even though they can opt out of directly paying for it.
The ruling by a three-judge 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in St. Louis upheld lower court decisions that sided with plaintiffs who included three Christian colleges in Missouri, Michigan and Iowa.
The 25-page opinion conflicts with all other federal appellate courts, which have found in the U.S. government's favor.
As religiously affiliated entities, those colleges victorious with Thursday's ruling don't have to pay directly for their workers' birth control. Instead, they can seek an accommodation that requires their insurance providers to pay for it. But the groups still say the scheme makes them complicit in the providing of contraception and subjected them to possible fines for noncompliance.
Circuit Judge Roger Wollman, writing the ruling on the panel's behalf, wrote that the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process of the Affordable Care Act substantially burdens the plaintiffs' exercise of religion.
Those plaintiffs included Heartland Christian College in Newark, Missouri, Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, and Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as well as Bethel, Missouri-based CNS International Ministries Inc., a nonprofit provider of addiction services.
The Justice Department, which has called the lawsuits meritless and an attempt to prevent female employees from obtaining coverage, defended the federal government in the cases but directed The Associated Press' questions Thursday to the White House, where a statement called the rulings disappointing.
"As all of the other seven U.S. courts of appeals to address this issue have held, the contraceptive accommodation process strikes the proper balance between ensuring women have equal access to health care and protecting religious beliefs," that statement read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court weighs Justice deal to settle Iran charges
Headline Legal News |
2015/09/12 18:04
|
A federal appeals court on Friday considered whether a judge could reject as too lenient a deal to settle criminal charges against a Dutch company accused of illegally selling aircraft parts to Iran, Sudan and Myanmar.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard arguments in a case involving the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute Fokker Services BV under an agreement that called for $21 million in penalties.
A federal judge earlier this year refused to accept the deal, which he called "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Fokker Services' conduct in a post-9/11 world."
The dispute comes as the Justice Department this week trumpeted its commitment to hold company executives more accountable for corporate fraud. The new guidance follows persistent criticism that the department has not been aggressive enough in prosecuting individuals for financial misconduct, including after the mortgage crisis that led to an economic meltdown.
The Justice Department says the judge is interfering with the discretion of prosecutors, but that argument faced resistance from the three-judge panel hearing the case. All three appellate judges agreed that courts have some authority to decide whether to accept settlements, though they disagreed over the extent of that authority.
"You have a very steep hill to climb," Judge David Sentelle told Justice Department lawyer Aditya Bamzai during arguments that took place on the 14th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
