|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-DC councilmember pleads guilty to theft
Court Feed News |
2012/01/06 19:05
|
A former D.C. councilmember pleaded guilty Friday to embezzling more than $350,000 in government funds earmarked for youth sports and arts programs and admitted that he spent the money on a luxury SUV, travel to exclusive golf courses and clothing.
Harry Thomas Jr., resigned his council seat Thursday night — a condition of his plea agreement — just hours after being charged with theft from programs receiving federal funds and filing a false tax return.
The plea resolves one of several pending investigations into D.C. government, including a federal probe of the campaign of first-term Mayor Vincent Gray.
Thomas, who for months had maintained his innocence, did not directly address the accusations in federal court but replied, "Guilty as charged, your honor" when asked how he wished to plead. He later read a statement outside the courthouse apologizing to his family and his constituents.
The tax return charge accuses Thomas of failing to report about $350,000 in income between 2007 and 2009. He was also ordered to forfeit an SUV and a motorcycle that were seized last month by federal agents who raided his northeast Washington home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear case of Franky the drug dog
Legal Career News |
2012/01/06 18:06
|
In a case closely watched by law enforcement nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a Florida police dog's sniff outside the front door of a house with a marijuana growing operation is an illegal search.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi wants the justices to reverse a state Supreme Court decision that the K-9's sniff runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. Eighteen states and the territory of Guam have filed a brief in support of Bondi's position, concerned that other state courts might start issuing similar decisions.
"If the Florida Supreme Court's decision stands, it could have a profound chilling effect on law enforcement efforts to combat illegal drugs," the states' filing says. "The Florida Supreme Court's decision jeopardizes the states' ability to use this crucial tool to discover illegal drugs prior to their distribution."
The case arose from the December 2006 arrest of Joelis Jardines at a Miami-area house where 179 marijuana plants were confiscated. Miami-Dade Police Department officers obtained a search warrant after one of their dogs, a chocolate Lab named Franky, detected the odor of pot from outside the front door.
The trial judge threw out the evidence, agreeing with Jardines' attorney that the dog's sniff was an unconstitutional intrusion into the home. An appeals court reversed that ruling, but the state Supreme Court sided in April with the original judge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
