|
|
|
Familiar, divisive social issues on Supreme Court agenda
Court Watch |
2015/10/02 20:31
|
The Supreme Court is starting a new term that promises a steady stream of divisive social issues, and also brighter prospects for conservatives who suffered more losses than usual in recent months.
The justices are meeting in public Monday for the first time since a number of high-profile decisions in June that displayed passionate, sometimes barbed disagreements and suggested some bruised feelings among the nine judges.
The first case before the court involves a California woman who lost her legs in a horrific accident after she fell while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. The issue is whether she can sue the state-owned Austrian railway in U.S. courts.
Even before the justices took the bench Monday, they rejected hundreds of appeals that piled up over the summer, including San Jose, California's bid to lure the Athletics from Oakland over the objection of Major League Baseball.
Future cases will deal with abortion, religious objections to birth control, race in college admissions and the power of public-sector unions. Cases on immigration and state restrictions on voting also could make it to the court in the next nine months.
The term will play out against the backdrop of the presidential campaign, in which some candidates are talking pointedly about the justices and the prospect of replacing some of them in the next few years. Four justices are in their 80s or late 70s, led by 82-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Commentators on the left and right say the lineup of cases suggests that conservatives will win more often than they will lose over the next few months, in contrast to the liberal side's success last term in gay marriage, health care and housing discrimination, among others.
"This term, I'd expect a return to the norm, in which the right side of the court wins the majority, but by no means all of the cases," said Georgetown University law school's Irv Gornstein.
One reason for the confidence is that, as Supreme Court lawyer John Elwood said: "This is a term of sequels." Affirmative action and union fees have been at the court in recent terms and the justices' positions are more or less known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects ex-NY Fed employee's retaliation claim lawsuit
Court Watch |
2015/09/24 06:21
|
A New York-based federal appeals court has rejected claims of a former employee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who says she was fired for her probe into the banking firm Goldman Sachs.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Wednesday upheld a lower-court ruling dismissing Carmen Segarra's lawsuit.
She claimed the New York Fed interfered with her examination of Goldman Sachs' legal and compliance divisions and directed her to change findings.
The appeals court was particularly dismissive of Segarra's effort to hold three New York Fed employees responsible. It said the effort was "speculative, meritless, and frankly quite silly."
The Federal Reserve oversees Wall Street's biggest financial institutions.
Last year, Senate Democrats accused the Fed of being too close to big banks it regulates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court suspends Pennsylvania attorney general's law license
Court Watch |
2015/09/23 06:21
|
Pennsylvania's highest court on Monday ordered the temporary suspension of state Attorney General Kathleen Kane's law license, a step that could trigger efforts to remove her from office as she fights perjury, obstruction and other charges.
The unanimous order by the state Supreme Court's five justices also could prompt a legal challenge from the first-term Democrat.
The one-page decision by the justices — three Republicans and two Democrats — dealt with a petition by state ethics enforcement lawyers who accused Kane of admitting that she had authorized the release of information that allegedly should have been kept secret. That allegation is also central to the criminal case against her.
In the meantime, it creates the unprecedented situation of leaving the state's top law enforcement official in charge of a 750-employee office and a $93 million budget but without the ability to act as a lawyer.
The state constitution requires the attorney general to be a licensed lawyer. But the court said in the order that its action should not be construed as removing her from office, raising the thorny question of how her office will decide which duties she can or cannot do.
Kane and her lawyers did not say Monday whether she would appeal or challenge the order, which was issued through an emergency process usually reserved for lawyers who are brazenly stealing from clients or behaving erratically in court.
In statements issued through her office, Kane, 49, said she was disappointed in the court's action and would not resign. She maintained her innocence and vowed to continue to fight to clear her name.
Then, Kane called attention to a pornographic email scandal uncovered by her office that involved numerous current and former officials there and claimed the job last year of a state Supreme Court justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chile appeal court upholds convictions in Americans' killing
Court Watch |
2015/09/08 00:22
|
A Chilean appeals court has upheld the conviction of a retired brigadier general and a former civilian air force employee in the killing of two Americans shortly after the 1973 military coup that overthrew democratically elected President Salvador Allende.
The Appeals Court of Santiago on Saturday confirmed the 7-year sentence given to retired Gen. Pedro Espinoza Bravo as the mastermind in the killings of documentary filmmaker Charles Horman, 31, and journalist Frank Teruggi, 24. The court also ratified the 2-year sentence for retired civilian air force employee Rafael Gonzalez Berdugo for his complicity in Horman's death.
The Americans' deaths were the subject of the 1982 film "Missing" by Constantin Costa-Garvas, with Jack Lemmon playing Horman's father.
Espinoza Bravo and Gonzalez Berdugo are currently behind bars in other criminal cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court overturns county's longest-ever drug sentence
Court Watch |
2015/09/04 20:22
|
Pennsylvania Superior Court has overturned the longest drug sentence ever imposed in a central Pennsylvania county as "manifestly unreasonable and excessive."
Blair County Senior Judge Thomas Peoples imposed the 104½- to 216-year sentence four years ago against 43-year-old Gene "Shorty" Carter, of Philadelphia. Carter had been convicted of running a major heroin ring — while still serving time in a halfway house for a previous drug conviction.
The judge, who has since died, imposed mandatory sentences for 16 separate crimes Carter committed, then ran them consecutively.
Although the appeals court upheld those convictions, the Altoona Mirror reports Friday that the court ordered Carter must be resentenced.
The court cited a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision which determined juries must decide whether mandatory sentences are warranted, not judges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm & Attorney Directory |
| Law Firm PR News provides the most current career information of legal professionals and is the top source for law firms and attorneys. |
| Lawyer & Law Firm Directory |
|
|
Law Firm PR News RSS
