|
|
|
Trump repeats criticism of court that halted 1st travel ban
Law Firm Press |
2017/04/25 13:50
|
President Donald Trump is once again taking aim at a federal appeals court district that covers Western states, saying he is considering breaking up a circuit that is a longtime target of Republicans and is where his first travel ban was halted.
Yet it would take congressional action to break up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Republicans have introduced bills this year to do just that.
Asked Wednesday during a White House interview by the Washington Examiner if he'd thought about proposals to break up the court, Trump replied, "Absolutely, I have."
"There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous," he told the Examiner. He accused critics of appealing to the 9th district "because they know that's like, semi-automatic."
The comments echoed his Twitter criticism of the court Wednesday morning.
Trump called U.S. District Judge William Orrick's preliminary injunction against his order stripping money from so-called sanctuary cities "ridiculous" on Twitter. He said he planned to take that case to the Supreme Court. However, an administration appeal of the district court's decision must go first to the 9th Circuit.
Republicans have talked for years about splitting the circuit into two appellate courts, but earlier legislative proposals have failed, most recently in 2005. Those battles have often pitted lawmakers from California against members from smaller, more conservative states.
Critics say the court has a liberal slant, a high caseload and distances that are too far for judges to travel. The circuit is the largest of the federal appellate courts, representing 20 percent of the U.S. population. It includes California, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
The circuit has 29 judges, many more than the 5th, which is the next largest circuit with 17 judges. It was created in 1891 when the American West was much less populated.
Democrats have opposed the split. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was a leading opponent in the 2005 push, which she said was politically motivated. She has suggested adding judges to the court instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senate GOP 'goes nuclear,' clearing way for Trump court pick
Law Firm Press |
2017/04/11 15:05
|
Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" in the Senate Thursday, unilaterally rewriting the chamber's rules to allow President Donald Trump's nominee to ascend to the Supreme Court.
Furious Democrats objected until the end, but their efforts to block Judge Neil Gorsuch failed as expected. Lawmakers of both parties bemoaned the long-term implications for the Senate, the court and the country.
"We will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court," said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
The maneuvering played out in an atmosphere of tension in the Senate chamber with most senators in their seats, a rare and theatrical occurrence.
First Democrats mounted a filibuster in an effort to block Gorsuch by denying him the 60 votes needed to advance to a final vote. Then Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky raised a point of order, suggesting that Supreme Court nominees should not be subjected to a 60-vote threshold but instead a simple majority in the 100-member Senate.
McConnell was overruled, but appealed the ruling. And on that he prevailed on a 52-48 party line vote. The 60-vote filibuster requirement on Supreme Court nominees was effectively gone, and with it the last vestige of bipartisanship on presidential nominees in an increasingly polarized Senate.
A final confirmation vote on Gorsuch is expected Friday and he could then be sworn in in time to take his seat on the court later this month and hear the final cases of the term.
The maneuvering played out with much hand-wringing from all sides about the future of the Senate, as well as unusually bitter accusations and counter-accusations as each side blamed the other. The rules change is known as the "nuclear option" because of its far-reaching implications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribunal: India, Italy should agree on Italian marine's bail
Law Firm Press |
2016/05/07 05:22
|
India and Italy should work toward an agreement to allow an Italian marine to return home while an arbitration process continues in the fatally shootings of two Indian fishermen in 2012, a tribunal said Tuesday.
The two countries should present their arguments over relaxing the marine's bail conditions to India's Supreme Court, the tribunal in The Hague said.
The case against Salvatore Girone and another Italian marine, Massimiliano Latorre, has strained relations between the two countries, which disagree on the facts of the case and who has jurisdiction. Italy has also complained bitterly about the fact that, in four years, India has never formally charged the two with a crime.
An arbitration tribunal is hearing the dispute over jurisdiction, and in the ruling announced Tuesday said the two countries should approach India's Supreme Court about changing Girone's bail terms to allow him to return to Italy. Latorre has been in his home country since September 2014 on medical treatment after suffering a stroke in India.
Both India and Italy welcomed the tribunal's ruling, which had been shared with officials from the two countries on Monday. India was happy that the ruling confirmed its jurisdiction to decide bail, while Italy found relief in the possibility of Girone's return.
"We see the tribunal's order not just as a recognition of India's consistent positions and key arguments but also as an affirmation of the authority of the Supreme Court of India," Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, speaking Tuesday in Parliament on behalf of the foreign affairs minister.
In Rome, the defense minister expressed confidence that Italy would be proven right through the arbitration process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NC Supreme Court considers status of private school vouchers
Law Firm Press |
2015/02/16 21:06
|
The state Supreme Court is about to decide whether millions of dollars in taxpayer money that started flowing this year to pay student tuition at private and religious schools continues for a second year.
The state's highest court hears arguments Tuesday on a ruling last summer that the Opportunity Scholarships program violates the state constitution because religious schools can discriminate based on faith. Wake County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood also said privately run K-12 schools are not required to meet state curriculum standards.
Supreme Court justices showed they're in a hurry to decide whether private school vouchers will continue by latching on to the case early. Parents are already looking ahead and the deadline for them to submit scholarship applications for the next academic year is March 1.
So far, more than $4.2 million has paid for 1,200 students to attend 216 private schools around the state, according to the State Education Assistance Authority. That's a fraction of the 5,500 students whose families sought one of the scholarships, said Darrell Allison, who heads a group that advocates for expanding the program. Three out of four applicants for the vouchers, which pay private schools up to $4,200 per child per year to schools that admit them, were minority students.
"There are literally thousands of families who are looking forward to their day in court — desperately hopeful for a favorable ruling," Allison, president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, said in a statement.
The program opened this year to families whose income qualified their children for free or discounted school lunches, a ceiling of about $44,000 for a family of four. Eligibility increases for the year starting in August as the ceiling rises to nearly $59,000 per family.
Opponents of the voucher law complain that it violates the constitution because money from collected taxes goes to religious schools that have the option of ruling out students who don't follow their faith's beliefs, turning away the disabled or refusing the children of gay parents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay marriage bans in South will be heard in federal court
Law Firm Press |
2015/01/13 21:18
|
Bans on gay marriage in three staunchly conservative Southern states were to get a hearing in a federal appeals court Friday — the latest legal battle over an issue expected to be settled by the nation's highest court.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear arguments from state attorneys from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi — all of which passed bans on same-sex marriages — and from the lawyers arguing against the bans.
The cases represent what could be among the last argued in federal court before the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue. The high court on Friday was eyeing the possibility of putting gay marriage on its calendar for this term.
Gay marriage is now legal in 36 states and Washington, D.C., as bans on gay and lesbian marriages have been struck down across the nation.
The appellate court in New Orleans took the highly unusual step of consolidating appeals from the three Southern states into one session, which is expected to last about three hours Friday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Argentine court says US fugitive can be extradited
Law Firm Press |
2015/01/06 00:12
|
Argentina's Supreme Court has ruled that an American who took refuge and started a new life in the South American country can be extradited to face charges that he killed his wife over a decade ago, a court spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.
Kurt Sonnenfeld moved to Argentina in 2003 and sought asylum after prosecutors in Denver charged him with first-degree murder. The decision to extradite him brings to an end a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Argentine courts that centered in part on differences over the death penalty.
In the ruling, which was made Dec. 11, the justices said U.S. prosecutors had assured Argentina that "the death penalty will not be imposed, or if it were ruled, it will not be exercised in this case." The ruling said the executive branch will have final say on an extradition and doesn't specify when it may take place.
Maria Bourdin, a spokeswoman for Argentina's Supreme Court, confirmed the ruling but declined to comment beyond what was in it. Calls to the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires on Saturday seeking comment were not immediately returned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
