|
|
|
Supreme Court Will Take up New Health Law Dispute
Legal Focuses |
2013/11/29 17:52
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law
Legal Focuses |
2013/11/22 17:29
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court reverses pot conviction over evidence
Legal Focuses |
2013/11/11 21:27
|
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the conviction of a Beaverhead County man for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, saying he was convicted based on insufficient evidence.
The court ruled in a 4-1 decision that state prosecutors presented the testimony of just one witness, who said Anthony James Burwell provided her with marijuana in exchange for baby-sitting his two daughters while he went to work in summer 2011.
Jennifer Jones told authorities that the night before she was supposed to baby-sit, she and Burwell smoked a bowl of a substance she said was marijuana, describing it as "green with orange hairs," according to the opinion written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath.
Jones identified Burwell in a list of "people to narc on" that she wrote while in police custody, McGrath wrote. She gave a vague description of the man and said he lived next door to her friend, according to the opinion.
Officers concluded Jones was referring to Burwell, found that he had a medical marijuana card and charged him in October 2011. He was convicted in district court and sentenced to 10 years, with five years suspended.
"Officers never searched Burwell's residence, never attempted a controlled buy and never discovered any marijuana in his possession," McGrath wrote.
No expert analyzed Jones' description of the substance, no other witnesses backed her testimony and she did not describe the effects of the substance, McGrath wrote.
The evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was a dangerous drug, the chief justice wrote.
Justice Jim Rice dissented, saying that the majority opinion ignores significant circumstantial evidence and that it was up to the jury that convicted Burwell to determine the facts.
Burwell acknowledged that he did not pay Jones cash for baby-sitting and that Burwell and his son were medical marijuana cardholders permitted to grow the drug at home, Rice wrote.
"The testimony here, of a lay witness identifying marijuana from prior experience with the drug, along with the confirming circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to establish the identity of the substance," Rice wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 plead not guilty to killing students near USC
Legal Focuses |
2013/11/08 22:18
|
Two men have pleaded not guilty to killing two Chinese graduate students who were shot as they sat in a parked car near the University of Southern California last year.
The Los Angeles Times says 20-year-old Javier Bolden and 21-year-old Bryan James entered the pleas Thursday to murder charges.
Prosecutors say the men killed engineering students Ming Qu and Ying Wu a mile from campus in April of last year while stealing their cellphones. Authorities say GPS data was used to track Wu's phone, leading to the arrests.
At a preliminary hearing last month, prosecutors played a recording of a wiretapped phone call between Barnes and Bolden, in which they apparently discussed the attack on the students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court favors Abercrombie in Okla. suit over hijab
Legal Focuses |
2013/10/04 20:12
|
A federal appeals court has dismissed claims by an Oklahoma woman who says she wasn't hired by Abercrombie & Fitch because her headscarf conflicted with the retailer's dress code, which has since been changed.
A federal judge initially sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Samantha Elauf. The EEOC alleged that Elauf wasn't hired in 2008 at an Abercrombie store in Tulsa's Woodland Hills Mall because her hijab violated the clothing retailer's "Look Policy."
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Tuesday. The court said Elauf never told Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation, even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview.
The Ohio-based company changed its policy three years ago. It recently settled similar lawsuits in California. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
