|
|
|
Court allows certain issue ads before elections
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/27 15:04
|
| A closely divided Supreme Court made it easier on Monday for corporations, labor unions and special interest groups to broadcast certain issue advertisements right before an election. Ruling ahead of next year's presidential and congressional elections, the high court's conservative majority by a 5-4 vote narrowed the reach of a 2002 federal campaign finance law that seeks to limit the influence of money in politics. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, said the law is unconstitutional as applied to issue ads that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group wanted to broadcast before the 2004 election. The ruling was a victory for the group Wisconsin Right to Life, which argued the law violated its free-speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution. "The First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it," Roberts wrote. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." The court upheld a ruling that the ads were not election ads covered by the law, but were general issue ads that did not aim to influence voters. The court's four liberals dissented and said campaign finance reform laws seek to protect the integrity of elections from huge amounts of money. "After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention," Justice David Souter said for the dissenters. The part of the law at issue in the ruling bans corporations, unions and special interest groups from using unrestricted money to run television or radio ads that refer to a candidate for federal office two months before a general election or one month before a primary election. In 2003, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote upheld the law, including the ban on certain issue ads broadcast before an election. But since then, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast the decisive vote in 2003, has retired and has been replaced by the more conservative Justice Samuel Alito, Bush's other appointee to the court, who joined the majority opinion. The ads criticized Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin for supporting efforts to block confirmation of several of Bush's judicial nominees. Because Feingold, a Democrat, was running for re-election at the time, the ads were prohibited. Feingold had co-written the landmark campaign finance law, along with Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is running for president. McCain called it regrettable that the court carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election. "It is important to recognize, however, that the court's decision does not affect the principal provision of the (law), which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns," he said. One of McCain's Republican presidential rivals, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, hailed the ruling "Score one for free speech," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bong goes the court in free-speech ruling
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/26 15:44
|
| The U.S. Supreme Court needlessly chipped away at First Amendment free-speech guarantees with a ruling elevating a high-school prank to a dangerous promotion of drug use. The 6-3 ruling miscast the case before the court as about drugs. But it was about a student's right to speech. Five years ago, high-school senior Joseph Frederick stood across the street from his school and unfurled a 14-foot banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Frederick and other students from the Juneau, Alaska, school were just off school property attending a nonschool event, an Olympic Torch relay. Frederick's sign was ambiguous. Was the 18-year-old supporting drugs or Christianity? The ambiguity matters because it places Frederick's sign within the confines of protected speech. Supreme Court members, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, convinced themselves that Frederick's banner was a public promotion of the use of illegal drugs. School authorities, according to Roberts — joined by Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy — did not violate Frederick's constitutional rights when they went across the street, snatched his sign and ripped it to shreds. The Supreme Court recognized student political speech with its 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines (Iowa) School District. Justice Stephen Breyer, while siding with the majority, asserts that Frederick and his bong-hits banner make for an inadequate foundation on which to limit students' right to political speech. The court's dissenters - Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg - go further. Stevens, penning the dissent, called the student's banner "nonsense" and the court's ruling a reach for broad censorship that would ban speech that advocated for medicinal marijuana use or other related messages. The majority worries that illegal drugs are a serious danger in schools. This argument gets some sympathy but not enough to trample on the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Finds Missing Pants Not Worth $54M
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/25 18:28
|
A judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a case against a dry cleaner that claimed $54 million in damages for a pair of missing pants.
The case was brought by Roy L. Pearson, himself a judge. He originally sought $67 million from the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners. He calculated the amount by estimating years of law violations, adding almost $2 million in common law claims for fraud.
The Chungs denied Pearson's allegations and insisted that the pants they tried to give him were those he had brought in.
The saga began in May 2005, when Pearson took several pairs of pants to Custom Cleaners for alteration as he prepared to start his new job as an administrative law judge. He alleged that he'd brought in a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, but when he came to collect them the Chungs tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his.
'Project Runway' for the t-shirt crowd
During a two-day trial earlier this month, Pearson said that when he took the pants to Custom Cleaners, his financial situation was ruinous - he had just been ordered to pay $12,000 in attorney's fees to his ex-wife and his credit cards were at their limit.
Pearson, representing himself during the trial, claimed millions of dollars in attorney fees and millions more in punitive damages for what he called fraudulent advertising under the law.
He also claimed that a sign in the store's window that promised "Satisfaction Guaranteed" was an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer without limitation.
The Chungs' attorney argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction. District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff agreed.
In a 23-page conclusion, Bartnoff ruled that Custom Cleaners had not violated the city's Consumer Protection Act. She wrote: "A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute."
Pearson had "not met his burden of proving that the pants the defendants attempted to return to him were not the pants he brought in for alteration" she said.
Bartnoff awarded court costs to the defendants. The Chungs - who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the case - are attempting to have their attorney's fees paid by Pearson.
Their attorney, Chris Manning, said his clients "are relieved that we are past this stage. Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated. Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."
He added: "Hopefully Mr. Pearson doesn't take this any further on appeal, but we expect him to."
During the two-day trial, Soo Chung said that "economically, emotionally and healthwise as well, it has been extremely hard for us." She started the business with her husband after they moved to the United States from South Korea in 1992. Top of page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Rules in "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/25 18:19
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case that schools do not violate a student’s First Amendment free-speech rights by punishing speech that appears to promote drugs at a school-sponsored event.
The Court reversed the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Morse v. Frederick by deciding that Joseph Frederick, a former student at Juneau-Douglas High School, was not protected by the First Amendment when he held up a banner with the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across the street from his school during a 2002 Olympic torch relay. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States, states the ruling was made in favor of Principal Deborah Morse and the school because the banner could be interpreted as a pro-illegal drug-use message at a school-sanctioned activity.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the Roberts opinion while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and gave a partial dissent to the opinion.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of Frederick, using the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, and finding that Morse’s actions are unconstitutional because the banner did not “materially or substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”
But the Supreme Court’s decision cites the Court’s 1986 Bethel School District v. Fraser decision — a case involving sexually suggestive speech delivered at a high school assembly — to justify its decision in Morse, stating that students in public schools do not have the same constitutional rights as adults and arguing that the standard set by Tinker is not absolute.
The Court agreed with Morse that the 14-foot banner could be read as a promotion of drug use, deciding that the “Bong Hits” message could be interpreted as either encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or celebrating of drug use. The Court also agreed that the speech took place at a school-sponsored event, although the banner was held up off campus on a public street.
“Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick,” the decision reads.
Stevens, who wrote the dissents and was joined by Ginsburg and Souter, wrote that the First Amendment should not be curtailed by a “nonsense banner” containing “an oblique reference to drugs.”
“[I]t is one thing to restrict speech that advocates drug use,” Stevens wrote. “It is another thing entirely to prohibit an obscure message with a drug theme that a third party subjectively — and not very reasonably — thinks is tantamount to express advocacy.”
Breyer in his partial dissent stated that the Court should have only held that Frederick cannot seek monetary damages for being disciplined and that attempting to resolve the First Amendment question is “unwise and unnecessary.
Jason Brandeis, staff attorney for the Alaska ACLU and co-counsel for Frederick said he is concerned that the decision will set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech that does not create a disruption of the educational environment.
“This decision seems to create a drug exception to First Amendment with respect to student speech without any real justification about why the student free speech can be censored,” he said.
Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said although he is disappointed in the decision, he sees it as a narrow ruling that only allows school officials to limit student speech that promotes illegal drug use and not speech relating to discussion of political and social issues.
“It’s disappointing that the Court once again felt the need to diminish student First Amendment protection at a time when teenagers’ understanding and appreciation for the First Amendment is so incredibly low,” he said. “The last thing the country needs is a court ruling that further diminishes its relevance to their lives.”
Frederick, then an 18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, said he had his banner confiscated and was suspended 10 days — five days for displaying the banner and five days for refusing to divulge the names of the other participants and quoting Thomas Jefferson: “Speech limited is speech lost.”
Frederick, who later said he deliberately unfurled the banner to test “the limits” of his free speech, filed a lawsuit against Morse and the Juneau School Board in a federal district court after losing appeals to the superintendent and board. The court ruled in favor of the school, but Frederick took his case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling by deciding that “[n]o educational function was disrupted” by the banner and that the school had violated the First Amendment.
The school board asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court heard oral arguments March 19.
A number of diverse organizations, ranging from the traditionally conservative Alliance Defense Fund to the Drug Policy Alliance filed amicus briefs to the court in support of Frederick. Many groups, including the National School Boards Association and Drug Abuse Resistance Education, filed for Morse.
Frederick, who recently returned from studying in China, could not be reached for comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Battle Looms Over Tacoma Billboards
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/25 18:15
|
Ten years ago, the City of Tacoma adopted strict new rules limiting the size and placement of billboards. Nothing bigger than 300 square feet. Nothing closer than 250 feet to a residential area, church or school, historic district, playground or park.
More than two-thirds of the city’s billboards didn’t conform, but nothing happened right away. The billboard industry, which lobbied hard to block the limits, was given 10 years to bring the signs into compliance or remove them.
The deadline is Aug. 1.
But it doesn’t appear anything will happen then, either. Clear Channel Outdoor – the sole owner of billboards under the city’s jurisdiction – is gearing up for a legal battle similar to those waged by billboard owners throughout the country.
The first indication came this week when the city received a response to a letter sent to a Clear Channel representative in Seattle earlier this month reminding him of the approaching deadline, and asking for a schedule by Friday of how the company intended to comply with the city’s ordinance.
Chris Artman, president of Clear Channel Outdoor Northwest, told The News Tribune on Thursday that his company wants to meet with Tacoma officials to work out a solution. “This isn’t something that needs to end up in litigation,” Artman said.
The same day, the city received a letter from a Clear Channel attorney stating that the city’s ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Even if it was enforceable, the company would be owed $50 million or $60 million to remove the signs, wrote Seattle attorney Paul Taylor.
“Clear Channel’s billboards in Tacoma are worth millions of dollars,” Taylor said. “Absent an agreed resolution, Clear Channel has no choice but to vigorously protect its interest. There will be protracted, expensive multi-year litigation.”
Tacoma’s tightening of the rules came partly in response to the sprouting of billboards on tribal property along Interstate 5 – which the city could do nothing about – as well as a 600-square-foot billboard erected at South Union Avenue and Center Street. Then-Mayor Brian Ebersole referred to the city’s billboards as ugly and obnoxious, and wanted to ban them.
After facing intense lobbying from the billboard industry, the City Council approved the ordinance with a 10-year amortization period that officials said was intended to give billboard owners time to recoup their investments. The action, characterized at the time as the beginning of a slow death for billboards, was considered preferable to an outright ban, which a city planner said would require the city to compensate billboard owners and the land owners who lease to the billboard companies to the tune of $40 million to $60 million.
Since then, the City of Federal Way lost a court battle over its sign code when a business owner refused to comply at the end of an amortization period. Two lower courts sided with the business, saying that amortization period alone wasn’t sufficient compensation, and the city must either compensate the owner for the loss of his sign or allow it to remain. The city appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
In its letter to Clear Channel, Tacoma’s building official appears to concede that the city may need to compensate the company for the loss of some signs, namely those that fall under the state’s Scenic Vistas Act. City officials are still calculating how many they believe would fall under the law, but they think it’s in the neighborhood of 30 of the 193 nonconforming Clear Channel billboards.
Clear Channel’s attorney said the company has 83 billboards that are visible from a state highway and are subject to compensation under state law. He identified the highways as Interstate 5, and highways 16, 705, 7, 163 and 509.
The conservative value of those structures is between $12 million and $15 million, Taylor estimated. But the city would also have a constitutional obligation to compensate Clear Channel for the remainder of the company’s signs, which would bring the required payment up to the $50 million or $60 million range, he said.
In addition, the landlords who lease to Clear Channel would be entitled to compensation for lost rent, Taylor said, adding that he has reason to believe one or more landlords will be bringing a class action lawsuit against the city.
Billboard operators have become highly skilled at opposing regulations, often using the court system to delay enforcement of rules and drive up the cost to local governments, said Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America.
The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization opposes billboards and other so-called visual pollution. But Fry said Tacoma shouldn’t back down. Unless the city’s ordinance was badly written, the city will eventually prevail, he predicted.
William Brinton, a Jacksonville, Fla., attorney who serves on the board of directors of Scenic America, said billboard operators work from a predictable playbook.
“They have three tactics,” Brinton said. “One: Delay. Two: See the first tactic. Three: Delay.”
Local governments generally fare better when they take the fight to the industry, Brinton said. In some cases, it’s true that governments need to compensate billboard companies for taking down signs, Brinton said. But the amount of compensation isn’t specified, and local governments can try to reach a settlement that lets the billboard company keep the sign up for a period of time in lieu of cash.
“At the end of the day, it comes down to the spine of the elected officials and the skill of the lawyer,” Brinton said.
Councilman Tom Stenger signaled a willingness to take on the struggle by noting the city’s successful drive to ban minicasinos. “Why wouldn’t we beat the billboard industry?” he asked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arreste Made in Ohio Murder Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/06/25 17:28
|
A Canton woman was arrested Sunday on an obstruction of justice charge in the case of a nine-months pregnant woman whose body was found in a park, The FBI said.
Agents and Stark County sheriff's deputies arrested Myisha Ferrell, described as a former classmate of the man being held for arraignment on murder charges, after breaking down the door of her apartment and searching it Saturday night, FBI agent Scott Wilson said.
The sheriff's department refused to discuss anything about the arrest, saying any information made public would hurt their case. Ferrell was to be arraigned on Monday, Wilson said.
Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler on Sunday identified the body found in Cuyahoga Valley National Park Saturday as that of Davis, with the dead fetus still inside her womb.
Davis' boyfriend, a police officer, was arrested and was to be arraigned on murder charges Monday, authorities said. Investigators have refused to comment on the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Davis' body and the arrest of Bobby Cutts, Jr., of North Canton.
Stark County sheriff's deputies with a search warrant on Saturday night used a battering ram break down the door of the apartment of a high school classmate of Cutts. Justin Lindstrom, 27, an upstairs neighbor of Ferrell's, said the officers spent two hours searching before leaving with several brown paper bags filled with items and bottles of bleach from the basement.
Wilson would only say that Ferrell's arrest was connected to the Davis case. He would not describe what the deputies seized or say how she was involved.
Lindstrom said he had not seen the downstairs tenant on Saturday or Sunday and rarely spoke to the woman, except to ask her to turn her music down. He said he didn't notice anything out of the ordinary around the time Davis disappeared. Lindstrom said Ferrell lives with her 11-year-old daughter.
Lindstorm said the two of them never hit it off.
"She's not exactly your ideal neighbor. She and I haven't gotten along since day one," said Lindstrom, who moved into the building in January. He said she had parties every night.
"We're talking carloads at a time - four and five carloads -and until 3 or 4 in the morning," Lindstrom said.
Ferrell worked at a local Denny's restaurant until quitting her job on Friday, Lindstrom said. A manager at Denny's, who declined to give his name, confirmed that Ferrell had worked there but declined to comment further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
