|
|
|
Court Upholds Rifle Sales Reporting Requirement
Lawyer News |
2013/06/01 11:10
|
A federal appeals court panel has unanimously upheld an Obama administration requirement that dealers in southwestern border states report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.
The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and two Arizona gun sellers argued that the administration overstepped its legal authority in the 2011 regulation, which applies to gun sellers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the requirement was "unambiguously" authorized under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The challengers argued that the requirement unlawfully creates a national firearms registry, but the court said because it applies to a small percentage of gun dealers, it doesn't come close to creating one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't allow challenge to surveillance law
Lawyer News |
2013/02/27 22:20
|
A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects.
With a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations can't sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can't prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.
Justices "have been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the court's majority.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was enacted in 1978. It allows the government to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects abroad for intelligence purposes. The 2008 FISA amendments allow the government to obtain from a secret court broad, yearlong intercept orders, raising the prospect that phone calls and emails between those foreign targets and innocent Americans in this country would be swept under the umbrella of surveillance.
Without proof that the law would directly affect them, Americans can't sue, Alito said in the ruling.
Despite their documented fears and the expense of activities that some Americans have taken to be sure they don't get caught up in government monitoring, they "have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted," he added. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Judges cannot indefinitely delay appeals
Lawyer News |
2013/01/08 21:34
|
The Supreme Court says federal judges cannot indefinitely delay a death row inmate's federal appeals to see if the convict can become mentally competent enough to help his lawyer.
The high court unanimously ruled Tuesday against Arizona death row inmate Ernest Gonzales and Ohio death row inmate Sean Carter.
Inmates appealing state death sentences to federal court have a right to a lawyer. But the courts never said whether the inmates have to be mentally competent enough to help their lawyers with their federal appeals. Gonzales and Carter wanted the high court to say that federal judges have discretion to hold up proceedings indefinitely until the inmates are ready.
Justice Clarence Thomas says "at some point, the state must be allowed to defend its judgment of conviction." |
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Court Upholds Domestic Partner Registry
Lawyer News |
2012/12/25 23:23
|
Gay rights advocates scored a major win Friday when an appeals court ruled Wisconsin's domestic partnership registry was constitutional, but the victory could be short-lived as conservatives pledged to take the case to the Republican-leaning state Supreme Court.
Conservatives had argued the registry bestows a status similar to marriage on same-sex couples and violates a 2006 state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage or anything substantially similar to it.
The 4th District Court of Appeals disagreed. The court noted that legislators who supported the ban repeatedly said it wouldn't prevent same-sex couples from receiving some benefits and went on to list a range of rights married couples enjoy that same-sex couples still don't, including joint property ownership, joint adoption and the ability to share health benefits even after a divorce. |
|
|
|
|
|
LA Clippers owner must pay $2.3m in fire lawsuit
Lawyer News |
2012/12/19 23:58
|
Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been ordered to pay $2.3 million to an actress who lost most of her belongings in a fire at a West Hollywood apartment building he owns.
City News Service says a Los Angeles jury ruled against Sterling on Monday in a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by Robyn Cohen, who's perhaps best known for a role in the movie "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou."
The jury is now considering additional punitive damages.
Cohen sued over a 2009 fire that was caused by an electrical problem. She said a fire alarm horn and a dozen smoke detectors in the building weren't working.
Another actress, Kim Webster, and other tenants also sued Sterling but settled before trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies rehearing on cigarette warnings
Lawyer News |
2012/12/10 13:02
|
An appeals court on Wednesday denied the federal government's request to reconsider a decision blocking a requirement that tobacco companies put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.
In its filings, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., did not provide any reason denying the request for the full court or a panel to rehear the case.
In August, a three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling blocking the Food and Drug Administration mandate, saying it ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. The government has 90 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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. |
|
|
|
|