|
|
|
High court looks at race in college admissions
Human Rights |
2012/10/12 16:07
|
Nine years after the Supreme Court said colleges and universities can use race in their quest for diverse student bodies, the justices have put this divisive social issue back on their agenda in the middle of a presidential election campaign.
Nine years is a blink of the eye on a court where justices can look back two centuries for legal precedents. But with an ascendant conservative majority, the high court in arguments Wednesday will weigh whether to limit or even rule out taking race into account in college admissions.
The justices will be looking at the University of Texas program that is used to help fill the last quarter or so of its incoming freshman classes. Race is one of many factors considered by admissions officers. The rest of the roughly 7,100 freshman spots automatically go to Texans who graduated in the top 8 percent of their high school classes.
A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008.
The simplest explanation for why affirmative action is back on the court's calendar so soon after its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger is that the author of that opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, has retired. Her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, has been highly skeptical of any use of racial preference.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in the 2003 decision, probably holds the deciding vote, and he, too, has never voted in favor of racial preference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds seek full court review of cigarette warnings
Litigation |
2012/10/09 16:06
|
The U.S. government is asking a federal appeals court to rehear a challenge to a Food and Drug Administration requirement that tobacco companies to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.
The Justice Department filed a petition Tuesday asking for the full court to rehear the case after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed in August a lower court ruling blocking the mandate, saying it ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections. However, the court rarely grants such appeals.
Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., sued to block the mandate to include warnings to show the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy. The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-NFL WR Hurd pleads not guilty to new charges
Criminal Law |
2012/10/06 15:26
|
Former NFL receiver Sam Hurd pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a new indictment accusing him of trying to obtain cocaine and marijuana while he was out on bond awaiting trial on charges of trying to start a drug ring in the Chicago area.
The indictment filed last month is based on allegations that Hurd asked a cousin, Jesse Tyrone Chavful, to buy drugs. Chavful signed a guilty plea agreement Monday to one count of conspiracy to possess five or more kilograms of cocaine — documents in which Chavful said Hurd contacted him at his T-shirt shop in San Antonio and asked to "get him cocaine and marijuana."
According to the documents, Chavful said he set up a deal to purchase the drugs but was arrested.
Hurd's attorney, Jay Ethington, has said Chavful is lying, but Chavful's attorney, Laura Harper, said her client simply wanted to come clean.
Hurd entered his plea in federal court in Dallas, appearing in an orange jail uniform and standing next to Ethington. He's been in custody since August after failing two drug tests and the Chavful allegations surfaced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't hear anti-gay marriage group appeal
Human Rights |
2012/10/04 15:26
|
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from a national anti-gay marriage group that tried to thwart Maine's campaign disclosure law requiring it to release its donor list.
The high court turned aside an appeal from the National Organization for Marriage, which donated $1.9 million to a political action committee that helped repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law.
Maine's campaign disclosure law requires groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence elections to register and disclose donors. NOM contends that releasing the donor list would stymie free speech and subject donors to harassment, but the lower court refused to throw out the law.
Voters repealed Maine's gay marriage law in 2009, but it's on the ballot again this November.
For now, the 2009 donor list remains under wraps.
The state ethics commission is still investigating whether NOM falls under the state's ballot question committee requirements, said its executive director, Jonathan Wayne.
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is an important development, but no decision has been reached by the commission regarding the National Organization for Marriage's 2009 activities," he said.
Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, which supports the gay marriage proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot, said gay marriage supporters don't care so much about who's on NOM's list of donors but rather want the organization to play by the same rules as everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices step back from Pa. court funding dispute
Court Watch |
2012/09/28 16:44
|
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is declining a request by county governments that the justices force the General Assembly to provide more money for state courts and bring more uniformity to the court system.
The court ruled unanimously on Wednesday against the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and 10 counties. The decision could end litigation over funding levels and uneven standards across the state that goes back a quarter century.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille's written opinion says there's been progress in recent years and the justices believe that "further enhancements" of the state courts should be a product of cooperation among the three branches of government.
An association spokesman says he's disappointed, while spokesmen for state House and Senate leaders didn't immediately respond to messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court grants appeals from 2 people without lawyers
Criminal Law |
2012/09/26 16:44
|
Well-heeled clients pay tens of thousands of dollars to hit the legal jackpot — Supreme Court review of their appeals. But on Tuesday, the court decided to hear cases filed by two people who couldn't afford or didn't bother to hire an attorney.
One was written in pencil and submitted by an inmate at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. The other was filed by a man with no telephone living on Guam.
Neither case seems destined to join the ranks of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark 1960s case filed by a prisoner with no lawyer that established a criminal defendant's right to a lawyer. Both show, however, that when the court is looking to resolve finicky legal issues and the right case shows up, it doesn't matter whether the author of the appeal wears a natty suit or prison garb.
Longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein called the granting of two such lawyerless cases at the same time "unheard of." But both cases chosen by the justices will help resolve the ability of civilians to sue the government over claims of improper actions of federal and military employees on the job.
Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., sued the government after accusing prison guards at the Special Management Unit of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook's claim was unsubstantiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mo. high court hears arguments on incentive fund
Law Center |
2012/09/22 15:27
|
Missouri Supreme Court judges are weighing two potentially contradictory sections of legislation while deciding whether a new law creating an incentive fund for high-tech businesses can take effect.
Arguments Wednesday before the high court focused on the bill's contingency clause, which made the program effective only if lawmakers also passed a separate economic development bill during a 2011 special session. A trial judge struck down the entire law earlier this year, ruling the contingency clause was unconstitutional.
During an appeal to the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office argued that judges should focus a severability clause that also was contained in the bill. That section said that if part of the measure were struck down, other portions of the bill could still be allowed to take effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
