|
|
|
Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court
Law & Politics |
2018/03/23 04:41
|
The Supreme Court is taking up its second big partisan redistricting case of the term amid signs the justices could place limits on drawing maps for political gain.
The justices are hearing arguments Wednesday in an appeal filed by Republicans in Maryland. They complain that Democrats who controlled the state government in 2011 drew a congressional district for the express purpose of ousting the Republican incumbent and replacing him with a Democrat.
In Wisconsin, Democrats are challenging legislative districts drawn by Republicans statewide. Those districts gave Republicans a huge majority in a state that otherwise is closely divided between the parties.
The Supreme Court has never struck down districts for being too partisan.
A decision in favor of opponents of partisan gerrymandering could cut into the political power of the dominant party in states in which one party controls the state government.
The court is expected to issue decisions in both cases by late June.
Maryland's 6th Congressional District had been centered in rural, Republican-leaning northwestern Maryland and had elected a Republican to Congress for 20 years. Incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett won re-election in 2010 by 28 percentage points.
But in the 2011 redistricting, Democrats altered the district to take in some Democratic suburbs of Washington, D.C. The new district had 62,000 fewer Republicans and 33,000 more Democrats. Bartlett lost the 2012 election by 21 percentage points.
Republican voters who sued over the changes said the state violated their First Amendment rights.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, is defending the district as competitive for both parties. Frosh said the district has elected a moderate Democrat, and in 2014, a friendlier year for Republican candidates, the victory margin of Democratic Rep. John Delaney dropped to less than 2 percentage points, though it rose again in 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agency: School boards, counties should stay out of court
Employment Law |
2018/03/23 04:40
|
School districts across North Carolina will present fall funding requests in the coming weeks, with the threat of costly and lengthy litigation if local county commissioners can't see eye-to-eye with school board members on spending.
The General Assembly's government watchdog agency told legislators Monday they should pass a law barring school districts from suing when funding disagreements can't be settled through formal mediation.
The Program Evaluation Division recommended the new law instead direct a county fund a district when mediation is exhausted through a formula based on student membership and inflation.
Some committee members hearing the agency report questioned whether it was worth changing the law since school funding impasses reached the courts just four times between 1997 and 2015. It took 21 months on average to resolve them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah teen appears in court in school backpack bomb case
U.S. Legal News |
2018/03/21 04:41
|
A 16-year-old is facing attempted murder and other charges after prosecutors say he tried to ignite an explosive device in a backpack at his southern Utah high school.
The teen also was charged Monday in juvenile court in St. George with misdemeanor graffiti and abuse of a flag for allegedly cutting up an American flag and spray-painting words including "ISIS" on a wall at a different high school in nearby Hurricane.
The FBI determined the group was not involved. The Deseret News reports the boy remains in juvenile detention pending another court appearance. No explosion resulted and no one was hurt March 5 after the backpack was found emitting smoke in a common area of Pine View High School.
Charging documents say the boy told police that if someone got hurt, he probably wouldn't care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Reinhardt, liberal circuit court judge, dies at 87
Law Firm Press |
2018/03/20 04:40
|
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal stalwart on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for nearly four decades, died Thursday in Southern California. He was 87.
Reinhardt died of a heart attack during a visit to a dermatologist in Los Angeles, court spokesman David Madden said.
"As a judge, he was deeply principled, fiercely passionate about the law and fearless in his decisions," 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said in a statement. "He will be remembered as one of the giants of the federal bench."
Reinhardt was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 and went on to become the sixth longest-serving judge on the court.
He was considered to be one of the most liberal judges on the 9th Circuit and his rulings often placed him on the side of immigrants and prisoners. Reinhardt wrote a 2012 opinion striking down California's gay marriage ban.
He also wrote a 1996 opinion that struck down a Washington state law that prohibited doctors from prescribing medication to help terminally ill patients die.
Last year he wrote in an opinion that a Trump administration order to deport a man who entered the country illegally nearly three decades ago and became a respected businessman in Hawaii was "inhumane" and "contrary to the values of the country and its legal system."
Reinhardt was "brilliant - a great legal mind and writer - but he was equally hard working," said Hector Villagra, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.
Villagra, who clerked for Reinhardt in 1995, said he once found the judge in his chambers at 11 p.m. on a Saturday writing a dissent to the court's decision not to rehear a death penalty appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California court body has paid $500K to settle sex claims
U.S. Legal News |
2018/03/18 04:42
|
The policymaking body for California's courts says it has paid more than $500,000 in taxpayer funds since 2011 to settle five complaints of sexual harassment against judges and court employees.
The Judicial Council released the figures on Friday. They were first reported by the legal publication, the Recorder.
The council said three of the complaints were against judges and two were against court employees.
The council said it has paid another roughly $80,000 since 2010 to investigate sexual harassment allegations against five judicial officers.
It did not disclose any names or details of the individual cases.
The Judicial Council's figures come as California's Legislature has been embroiled in sexual misconduct scandals that have brought down several lawmakers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears case alleging unconstitutional 6th District gerrymander
Headline News |
2018/03/18 04:40
|
U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed frustration with partisan gerrymandering on Wednesday as they heard arguments in a case challenging Maryland’s 6th Congressional District.
The case, which alleges a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland at the same time justices are considering the constitutionality of an alleged Republican gerrymander in Wisconsin, has some legal experts wondering whether the justices might be on the verge of establishing a standard that would allow judicial intervention in partisan gerrymandering cases for the first time in the court’s history.
The 6th District challenge was brought by seven Maryland residents, including three from Frederick County, who argue that the district — which includes southwestern parts of Frederick County and the city of Frederick — was unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Democrats and punish Republicans during the reapportionment process after the 2010 census.
The justices heard arguments in the Wisconsin political gerrymandering case in October, but have not yet released an opinion.
The Maryland and Wisconsin cases both focus on unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, but there are some important differences. The Maryland case challenges the redrawing of a single federal district to favor Democrats, while the Wisconsin case is based on the statewide redrawing of Wisconsin State Assembly districts to favor Republicans.
The two cases also allege different violations of voters’ rights: The Maryland case claims retaliation against Republican voters under a First Amendment framework, while the Wisconsin plaintiffs are alleging a violation of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
