The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the new federal rules for smog reduction on Friday, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency "has failed to heed the restrictions on its discretion set forth in the Act."

The smog standards were introduced in 2004 and required roughly 470 counties designated as "non-attainment" areas to reduce the level of smog within a three to seventeen year period. The court said the time period did not align with the federal Clean Air Act and held that EPA enforcement was not strict enough in states where smog levels have increased.

According to EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood, the EPA has not yet determined if it will seek an en banc rehearing of the case, stating that the "EPA is committed to ensuring our nation's ozone air quality standards are implemented to protect public health and the environment." 

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the new federal rules for smog reduction on Friday, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency "has failed to heed the restrictions on its discretion set forth in the Clean Air Act."

The smog standards were introduced in 2004 and required roughly 470 counties designated as "non-attainment" areas to reduce the level of smog within a three to seventeen year period. The court said the time period did not align with the federal Clean Air Act and held that EPA enforcement was not strict enough in states where smog levels have increased.

According to EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood, the EPA has not yet determined if it will seek an en banc rehearing of the case, stating that the "EPA is committed to ensuring our nation's ozone air quality standards are implemented to protect public health and the environment."

A federal appeals court Friday suspended a November order by US District Judge Richard Leon requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency to reinstate certain housing payments  to Hurricane Katrina victims. The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order in response to FEMA's request to allow the agency to delay action on the shelter program at least until March when the appeals court will hear arguments in the case.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) filed the lawsuit on behalf of displaced hurricane evacuees alleging violations of their due process rights. Leon granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction against the payments stoppage, maintaining that FEMA had failed to provide evacuees with adequate explanations for their denials of housing assistance and their means of appeal under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Leon's order also required FEMA to explain to evacuees in plain English why they are no longer eligible for funding.

President Bush granted pardons to 16 people on Thursday, including some convicted of drug crimes and others who were involved in fraud and kickback schemes. Bush additionally commuted the sentence of another man who had been convicted of drug offenses.

Bush has issued a total of 113 pardons in his six years as president, the fewest issued by any president since World War II. Former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Reagan issued 457, 77, and 406 respectively during their tenures in office.

WASHINGTON – An Anchorage, Alaska, man has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of allegedly forcing underage and adult women to have sex with men in exchange for money, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Nelson P. Cohen for the District of Alaska announced today.

The 28-count superseding indicted returned by a federal grand jury in Alaska on Dec. 15, 2006, charges Don Arthur Webster Jr., aka “Jerry Starr,” 49, with four counts of sex trafficking of a child using force, fraud or coercion, two counts of attempted sex trafficking of a minor using force, fraud or coercion, and five counts of sex trafficking of an adult using force, fraud or coercion. The superseding indictment was unsealed following a hearing in Anchorage today.

In addition, Webster was charged with various drug-related offenses, including three counts of distribution of cocaine base – commonly known as “crack” cocaine – to a pregnant woman, four counts of distribution of cocaine base to a child, and five counts of distribution of cocaine base. The charges are in addition to charges in the original indictment returned Nov. 14, 2006 – one count each of manufacturing, possessing with intent to distribute and maintaining a place to manufacture, distribute and use cocaine. The indictment includes two forfeiture counts, involving property located at 3411 Oregon Drive in Anchorage – one count based on property derived from proceeds of the crimes charged in the sex trafficking counts of the indictment and one count based on the drug trafficking charges.

“This indictment alleges a shocking pattern of sexual exploitation, threats of violence and drug trafficking by the defendant, all for his own financial gain,” said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division. “The Department of Justice is deeply committed to the vigorous prosecution of predators who force young women into lives of prostitution and despair.”

According to the indictment, Webster operated a number of businesses named Foxy Roxies, Sunshine Girls, American Beauties, Kotton Kandy, Tiffani’s, Tickle Your Fancy, and Lickety Split in Anchorage. While these businesses purport to be “escort services” in which an individual would pay for another person’s “time and company,” the indictment charges that they were in fact fronts for Webster’s illegal prostitution business.

Webster allegedly provided adult women and underage girls to engage in sex acts in exchange for money with men who called the escort service phone lines. The indictment describes Webster’s prostitution business as operating on an “out call” basis, meaning that the females would meet the caller at his residence or at a hotel paid for by the caller. According to the indictment, the caller would pay a fixed hourly rate plus a transportation fee to have sex with the female who would meet him. Certain regular callers could request that the female meeting him provide him with illegal drugs, known as an “issue,” for an additional fee. The female allegedly obtained the illegal drugs to give to the caller from Webster or someone acting at his direction.

As described in the indictment, when a female met a caller for sex, it was called “going on a date.” The females allegedly were not allowed to keep any part of the money they collected in payment for the sex acts. Webster required them to turn over all of the money to him or to a designated representative, who would give him the money. After a female turned over her money, he or a designated representative allegedly would distribute an “issue” to the female, typically a gram of “crack” cocaine.

Webster is also accused of being physically violent with the females working for him, and allegedly would threaten them with harm if they disobeyed him or attempted to leave. The indictment further alleges that he would take possession of a female’s personal property and identification when she moved into one of his residences.

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of up to life in prison.

This case is being investigated by Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Anchorage Police Department. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Audrey J. Renschen of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Alaska and Trial Attorney Alexandra Gelber of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

The California Supreme Court unanimously voted Wednesday to reexamine the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage, projecting that the case could be heard in court as early as next summer. All seven justices of the court signed an order, filed in San Francisco, agreeing to review an October appeals court decision that upheld state laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Briefs in the case are due by this spring.

The court will consider a total of six consolidated cases: four filed by the city of San Francisco and 19 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, and two filed by traditional values groups opposing such a right. Although the court grants review of only a small percentage of the cases appealed to it, its decision to take up the marriage cases was not a surprise. The review was sought not only by same-sex marriage supporters, but also, in an unusual move, by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who won the lower court decision. Lockyer, who has defended the state marriage laws, filed a brief earlier this month urging that a decision by the state's highest court was needed to provide "finality and certainty for the citizens of California.''

Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said yesterday, "Californians need and deserve clarity on this issue as soon as possible. People of this state have rightly expected all along that clarity would be provided by the state Supreme Court.'' Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said, "We are delighted that the court ruled so quickly and unanimously to grant review. "We are very hopeful the court will stand up for basic fairness and bring an end to the current ban on marriage for an entire group of Californians,'' Minter said. The attorney represents 11 gay and lesbian couples who filed one of the lawsuits before the court. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, "Marriage equality is the major civil rights issue of our time, and the state's highest court clearly recognizes it should have the final word on the issue in California.'' But Glen Lavy, a lawyer for a group opposing same-sex marriage, said, "We hope the court will recognize that it is valid to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That is what marriage has always meant in California.''

Same-sex marriage supporters contend the California constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process and privacy provide a right to marriage. In opposition, Lockyer has argued it is reasonable for the state to limit marriage to heterosexual couples while giving same-sex couples the same rights and protections through domestic partnerships. The Proposition 22 group and the Campaign for California Families take the opposing arguments a step farther and say that marriage between a man and a woman is better for children. The six cases stem from the legal battle over San Francisco's short-lived stint of granting same-sex marriage licenses in 2004.

The city issued about 4,000 licenses between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004, when the state Supreme Court halted the practice on grounds of an administrative law issue. But the high court said at the same time that the broader constitutional question could be raised in Superior Court lawsuits, which were then filed by the city of San Francisco and gay and lesbian couples. In March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that there is a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But a Court of Appeal panel in San Francisco overturned that decision on Oct. 5 by a 2-1 vote.

The court majority said the Legislature and voters had a rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples while at the same time giving same-sex couples equal benefits through the state's domestic partnership system. Justice William McGuinness wrote in that ruling, "Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.''