|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Supreme Court asked to ponder drug dog's sniff
Legal Career News |
2012/01/04 11:23
|
Franky the drug dog's supersensitive nose is at the heart of a question being put to the U.S. Supreme Court: Does a police dog's sniff outside a house give officers the right to get a search warrant for illegal drugs, or is the sniff an unconstitutional search?
Florida's highest state court has said Franky's ability to detect marijuana growing inside a Miami-area house from outside a closed front door crossed the constitutional line. The state's attorney general wants the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.
The justices could decide this month whether to take the case, the latest dispute about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.
Many court watchers expect the justices will take up the case.
"The Florida Supreme Court adopted a very broad reading of the Fourth Amendment that is different from that applied by other courts. It's an interpretation that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court will question," said Tom Goldstein, who publishes the widely read SCOTUSblog website and teaches at the Harvard and Stanford law schools.
The case, Florida v. Jardines, is being closely monitored by law enforcement agencies nationwide, which depend on dogs for a wide range of law enforcement duties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court delays border-crossing pollution rule
Legal Career News |
2012/01/01 10:49
|
A federal court Friday put on hold a controversial Obama administration regulation aimed at reducing power plant pollution in 27 states that contributes to unhealthy air downwind.
More than a dozen electric power companies, municipal power plant operators and states had sought to delay the rules until the litigation plays out. A federal appeals court in Washington approved their request Friday.
The EPA, in a statement, said it was confident that the rule would ultimately be upheld on its merits. But the agency said it was "disappointing" the regulation's health benefits would be delayed, even if temporarily.
Republicans in Congress have attempted to block the rule using legislation, saying it would shutter some older, coal-fired power plants and kill jobs. While those efforts succeeded in the Republican-controlled House, the Senate — with the help of six Republicans — in November rejected an attempt to stay the regulation. And the White House had threatened to veto it.
The rule, finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in July, replaces a 2005 Bush administration proposal that was rejected by a federal court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
