|
|
|
Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care
Court Watch |
2015/02/04 09:25
|
Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court weighs suit in US Marshals shooting
Court Watch |
2015/01/30 10:00
|
An appeals court is deciding whether deputy U.S. marshals who shot and wounded a teenage driver eight years ago may be sued in federal court, a case that's unfolding amid a national debate about police use of force and the legal protections afforded to law enforcement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments last month and could issue an opinion soon.
The case of driver Michael Fenwick raises questions about how police can deal with fleeing individuals and the role video should play in analyzing a police pursuit. A case that presented similar issues was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year after fascinated justices watched dashboard camera video of the chase.
The key issue for the appeals court is whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, a legal principle that shields government officials from being sued unless their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. A lower-court judge in 2013 allowed the case to go forward, saying there were legitimate questions about whether excessive force was used, but rejected many other arguments from Fenwick's lawyer.
An appeals court ruling in favor of the marshals would end the case. But if the judges prove sympathetic to arguments that the shooting was unjustified, the case would be returned to the trial court, where it could ultimately reach a jury and add to a body of law that is still developing. That's a potentially heavy legal burden, given past court decisions that give law enforcement leeway in firing at fleeing suspects if they feel endangered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Argentine court says US fugitive can be extradited
Court Watch |
2015/01/05 15:22
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman at center of 1961 Supreme Court case dies
Court Watch |
2014/12/11 11:35
|
A woman who stood up to police trying to search her Ohio home in 1957 and ultimately won a landmark Supreme Court decision on searches and seizures has died.
Dollree Mapp died Oct. 31 in Conyers, Georgia. A relative and caretaker, Carolyn Mapp, confirmed her death Wednesday and said she died on the day after her birthday at the age of 91.
Mapp's Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, is a staple of law school textbooks and considered a milestone case on the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before conducting a search. The case curbed the power of police by saying evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures could not be used in state court.
Mapp's path to the U.S. Supreme Court began on May 23, 1957, when three Cleveland police officers arrived at her home. There had just been a bombing at the home of Don King, who later became famous as a boxing promoter, and police believed that a person wanted for questioning was hiding in Mapp's home. The officers demanded to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. More officers later arrived and police forced open a door, according to a summary of the case in the Supreme Court opinion.
When the officers confronted Mapp, one held up a piece of paper, claiming it was a warrant, and Mapp snatched it away. After a struggle an officer got the paper back, Mapp was handcuffed for being "belligerent," and officers searched her home. They didn't find the person they were looking for, but they did find some pornographic books and pictures. At the time, an Ohio law made having obscene material a crime, and Mapp was convicted, though she said the materials belonged to a former boarder. Prosecutors never produced a search warrant at trial.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned Mapp's conviction in a 6-3 decision, ruling in 1961 that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in state court. The court had previously ruled that this was the case in federal court, but Mapp's case extended the "exclusionary rule" to states where the vast majority of criminal prosecutions take place, broadening the protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post reporter charged in Iran after day in court
Court Watch |
2014/12/08 13:56
|
A Washington Post reporter detained in Iran for more than four months was formally charged Saturday after a day-long proceeding in a Tehran courtroom, the newspaper reported.
Jason Rezaian, the newspaper's bureau chief in Tehran since 2012, appeared in court almost five months after he was arrested July 22. The charges were the first against him since the arrest, the Post said. He is an Iranian-American who holds dual citizenship.
The newspaper, quoting a source familiar with the case, said the nature of the charges against him were not immediately clear to those not present in the courtroom. The State Department has repeatedly raised the subject of Rezaian and other Americans jailed in Iran during talks with the government about a deal to curb Iran's nuclear capacity and ease international sanctions.
The State Department tweeted early Sunday that Secretary of State John Kerry was "disappointed and concerned" with the latest developments and called on the Iranian government to drop any charges against Rezaian "and release him so he can be reunited with his family."
His detention has been extended to mid-January in recent days because the investigation is continuing, the Post said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Las Vegas Accident & Injury Attorney
Court Watch |
2014/11/07 11:04
|
Drummond Law Firm has a tremendous amount of experience in both the litigation and settlement of personal injury matters. When you become the victim of personal injury, it is important that you meet with an attorney who can help you defend your rights against the insurance companies. One client of Attorney Craig W. Drummond was awarded twelve times the amount of her medical costs in 2011! This was one of the largest dental injury jury verdicts ever awarded in the state of Nevada. The Las Vegas Accident & Injury Attorneys at the Drummond Firm are here for you.
In 2013, Drummond successfully represented a client in front of the Supreme Court of Nevada. In landmark case Humphries v. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 85 (Nov. 7, 2013), the doors were opened for patrons to sue the bar/property/casino for not keeping them safe in the event of an attack (instead of the actor in the attack).
Just as the big insurance companies have lawyers protecting their interests, the little guy should have someone looking out for them too. Our lawyers will communicate directly to you, without middle men, to keep you updated about your case. In addition to legal protection, we have a network of medical professionals to help you heal from injuries sustained as well.
Drummond Law Firm will work on your injury case on a contingency fee, meaning we collect 0 money from you upfront. We are paid directly out of the amount we recover for you. Before you commit to us, we will explain in detail about how this process works. Our fees are always reasonable and fair, and in addition to explaining how we are paid, we will explain your future payment as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
