|
|
|
Supreme Court rules in favor of arbitration
Headline News |
2012/01/10 17:16
|
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that disputes between consumers and companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings can be handled in business-friendly arbitration, rather than federal court.
The justices voted 8-1 to reverse a federal appeals court ruling allowing consumers to sue in federal court, the latest in a string of recent high court decisions in favor of arbitration. The consumers said they were promised an initial $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees in the first year they had the credit card.
But the court, with only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting, agreed with the companies' argument that the dispute must be settled through arbitration, under an agreement that the customers signed to receive the card.
The federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, says consumers have a right to sue, which the federal appeals court in San Francisco interpreted as a right to go to court, rather than be forced to submit to arbitration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court says Texas can enforce abortion law
Legal Career News |
2012/01/10 17:16
|
A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks' temporary order against enforcing the law, saying Sparks was incorrect to rule that doctors who oppose it had a substantial chance of winning their case. The court's opinion systematically dismantles the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, one of the key arguments for not enforcing the law.
"The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information," the opinion concluded.
Sparks ruled in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by requiring that they show and describe the sonogram images and describe the fetal heartbeat, all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.
The appeals court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "upheld an informed-consent statute over precisely the same 'compelled speech' challenges made" in the current Texas case.
Earlier rulings have found laws requiring doctors to give "truthful, nonmisleading and relevant" information are reasonable regulation, not ideological speech requiring strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, the appeals court said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas electoral maps at issue before Supreme Court
Lawyer Blog News |
2012/01/09 17:45
|
A federal law says states and localities with a history of discrimination cannot change any voting procedures without first getting approval from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington. Yet Texas is asking the Supreme Court to allow the use of new, unapproved electoral districts in this year's voting for Congress and the state Legislature.
The outcome of the high court case, to be argued Monday afternoon, could be another blow to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. In 2009, the justices raised doubts about whether Southern states still should need approval in advance of voting changes more than 40 years after the law was enacted.
The case also might help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in 2013, with Republicans in a stronger position if the court allows Texas to use electoral districts drawn by the GOP-dominated Legislature.
The complicated legal fight over Texas' political maps arises from the state's population gain of more than 4 million people, most of them Latino or African-American, in the 2010 census, and involves federal district courts in Texas and Washington, as well as the Supreme Court. It has come to a head now because Texas needs to be able to use some maps to hold elections this year.
The state has so far failed to persuade three judges in Washington, including two appointees of Republican President George W. Bush, to sign off on new political maps adopted by the Legislature. The justices jumped into the case at Texas' request after judges in San Antonio who are hearing a lawsuit filed by minority groups drew their own political lines for use in the 2012 elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices criticize EPA's dealings with homeowners
Legal Career News |
2012/01/08 17:46
|
Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners.
The justices were considering whether to let an Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as "protected wetlands." Mike and Chantell Sackett wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can't challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.
Justice Samuel Alito called EPA's actions "outrageous." Justice Antonin Scalia noted the "high-handedness of the agency" in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPA's contention that the Sacketts' land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court hears case on Arizona ski resort
Legal Career News |
2012/01/08 17:46
|
A federal appeals court is hearing arguments in a case that challenges the planned use of reclaimed water for snowmaking at an Arizona ski resort.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case Monday morning in San Francisco.
The Save the Peaks Coalition and a group of citizens want the U.S. Forest Service to do a more thorough environmental analysis on the health and safety risks of using treated wastewater for artificial snow.
A lower court has ruled that the Forest Service adequately considered the impacts of the snowmaking plan and that the record supported the agency's decision to allow it.
More than a dozen tribes consider the mountain sacred. American Indian tribes argued unsuccessfully in a separate case that the plan violated religious freedom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gov't defends core of health care overhaul
U.S. Legal News |
2012/01/07 00:05
|
The Obama administration defended the health care overhaul in a filing Friday with the Supreme Court that calls the law an appropriate response to a "crisis in the national health care market."
The administration filed a written submission in the high court's biggest case this term, with the potential to affect President Barack Obama's bid for re-election.
The government called on the court to uphold the core requirement that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty. One federal appeals court struck down the so-called individual mandate as exceeding Congress' power under the Constitution. But two other federal appeals courts upheld the law and agreed with the administration's argument that Congress was well within its power to adopt that requirement.
Florida and 25 other states, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, told the court in separate briefs that if the justices strike down the individual requirement, they should invalidate the rest of the law as well. Thirty-six Republican senators echoed the states' argument in their own filing.
The law is aimed at extending health insurance coverage to more than 30 million previously uninsured people and would, by 2019, leave just 5 percent of the population uninsured, compared with about 17 percent today, according to the Congressional Budget Office. About half of the increase would come from the individual requirement; the rest would come from an expansion of Medicaid and other provisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
