|
|
|
Supreme Court leaves in place two Biden environmental regulations
Court News |
2024/10/05 08:11
|
The Supreme Court left in place Friday two Biden administration environmental regulations aimed at reducing industry emissions of planet-warming methane and toxic mercury.
The justices did not detail their reasoning in the orders, which came after a flurry of emergency applications to block the rules from industry groups and Republican-leaning states. There were no noted dissents.
The high court is still considering challenges to a third Environmental Protection Agency rule aimed at curbing planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
The regulations are part of a broader effort by the Biden administration aimed at curbing climate change that includes financial incentives to buy electric vehicles and upgrade infrastructure, and rules tightening tailpipe pollution standards for cars and trucks.
The industry groups and states had argued the EPA overstepped its authority and set unattainable standards with the new regulations. The EPA, though, said the rules are squarely within its legal responsibilities and would protect the public.
An EPA spokesperson said Friday the agency is pleased that the Supreme Court denied applications to stay the final methane and mercury rules. EPA believes the rule tightening methane emissions from oil and gas drilling will deliver major climate and health benefits for all Americans, while the mercury rule will limit hazardous pollution from coal-fired power plants, spokesperson Remmington Belford said.
The methane rule will build on innovative technologies and solutions that many oil- and gas-producing states and companies are already using or have committed to use, while the mercury and air toxics rule “will ensure that the nation’s coal-fired power plants meet up-to-date standards for hazardous air pollutants,” Belford said.
Both rules are firmly grounded in the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, he said. The Supreme Court has shot down other environmental regulations in recent years, including a landmark decision that limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in 2022, and another that halted the agency’s air-pollution-fighting “good neighbor” rule.
The methane rule puts new requirements on the oil and gas industry, which is the largest emitter of the gas that’s a key contributor to climate change. A lower court previously refused to halt the regulation.
Methane is the main component in natural gas and is far more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term. Sharp cuts in methane emissions are a global priority — including the United States — to slow the rate of climate change.
The methane rule targets emissions from existing oil and gas wells nationwide, rather than focusing only on new wells. It also regulates smaller wells that will be required to find and plug methane leaks.
Studies have found that smaller wells produce just 6% of the nation’s oil and gas but account for up to half the methane emissions from well sites. The plan also calls for a phased-in requirement for energy companies to eliminate routine flaring, or burning of natural gas that is produced by new oil wells.
The states challenging the rule called the new standards “impossible to meet” and said they amounted to an “attack” on the industry.
The mercury rule, meanwhile, came after a reversal of a move by the Trump administration. It updated regulations that were more than a decade old for emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants that can affect the nervous system, kidneys and fetal development.
Industry groups and conservative-leaning states argued emissions were already low enough, and the new standards could force the shuttering coal-fired power plants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court will weigh Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun makers
Court Watch |
2024/10/03 13:30
|
The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether to block a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against leading U.S. gun manufacturers over allegations their commercial practices have helped caused much bloodshed there.
The gun makers asked the justices to undo an appeals court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to go forward despite broad legal protections for the firearm industry.
A federal judge has since tossed out the bulk of the lawsuit on other legal grounds, but Mexico could appeal that dismissal. Mexico argues the companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The government estimates 70% of the weapons trafficked into Mexico come from the United States.
The defendants include big-name manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. They say Mexico has not shown the industry has purposely done anything to allow the weapons to be used by cartels and is trying to “bully” gunmakers into adopting gun-control measures.
Originally filed in 2021, the lawsuit was initially tossed out by a district court who cited legal protections for gun makers from damages resulting from criminal use of firearms. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case under an exception to that law. The gunmakers appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing they have followed lawful practices and the case has no business in American courts.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor in Boston again dismissed the case against six of the eight companies in August, ruling Mexico had not provided concrete evidence that any those companies’ activities in Massachusetts were connected to any suffering caused in Mexico by guns.
Still, with some claims remaining and an appeal possible, the gun makers argue the 1st Circuit ruling could hang over the industry for years if allowed to stand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New rules regarding election certification in Georgia to get test in court
Court News |
2024/09/30 09:26
|
Two controversial new rules passed by Georgia’s State Election Board concerning the certification of vote tallies are set to face their first test in court this week.
The Republican majority on the State Election Board — made up of three members praised by former President Donald Trump praised by name at a recent rally — voted to approve the rules last month. Democrats filed a legal challenge and argue the rules could be used “to upend the statutorily required process for certifying election results in Georgia.”
A bench trial, meaning there is a judge but no jury, is set to begin Tuesday before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney.
One of the rules provides a definition of certification that includes requiring county officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results, but it does not specify what that means. The other includes language allowing county election officials “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections.”
A series of recent appointments means Trump-endorsed Republicans have had a 3-2 majority on the State Election Board since May. That majority has passed several new rules over the past two months that have caused worry among Democrats and others who believe Trump and his allies may use them to cause confusion and cast doubt on the results if he loses this crucial swing state to Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s presidential election.
Another rule the board passed more recently requires that poll workers count the number of paper ballots — not votes — by hand on election night after voting ends. A separate lawsuit filed by a group headed by a former Republican lawmaker initially challenged the two certification rules but was amended last week to also challenge the ballot counting rule and some others that the board passed.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and an association of county election officials had cautioned the state board against passing new rules so close to the election. They argued it could cause confusion among poll workers and voters and undermine public trust in the voting process.
The challenge to the certification rules filed by Democratic groups and others asks the judge to confirm that election superintendents — a multi-person election board in most counties — have a duty to certify an election by the deadline provided in the law and have no discretion to withhold or delay certification. They ask that it should be declared invalid if the judge believes either of the rules allows such discretion.
Lawyers for the State Election Board argue the Democrats are asking the judge to “declare what is already enshrined in Georgia law,” that county certification is mandatory and must occur by 5 p.m. the Monday after the election, or the next day if Monday is a holiday, as it is this year. They also argue the challenge is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity and seeks relief that isn’t appropriate under the law.
The challenge was filed by the state and national Democratic parties, as well as county election board members from counties in metro Atlanta, most chosen by the local Democratic Party, as well voters who support Democrats and two Democratic state lawmakers running for reelection. It was filed against the State Election Board, and the state and national Republican parties joined the fight on the board’s side.
The Democrats concede in their challenge that the two rules “could be read not to conflict with Georgia statutes” but they argue “that is not what the drafters of those rules intended.”
“According to their drafters, these rules rest on the assumption that certification of election results by a county board is discretionary and subject to free-ranging inquiry that may delay certification or render it wholly optional,” they wrote in a court filing.
They also note that numerous county election officials around the state have already sought to block or delay certification in recent elections and “the new rules hand those officials new tools to do so again in November.”
State lawyers argue that since the argument against the rules is based on the alleged intent of the people who presented them or the way some officials could interpret them, rather than on the text of the rules themselves, the challenge should be thrown out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Hong Kong journalist is sentenced to prison in sedition case
Topics in Legal News |
2024/09/27 09:27
|
A Hong Kong court sentenced a former editor of a shuttered news publication to 21 months in prison on Thursday in a sedition case that is widely seen as an indicator of media freedom in the city, once hailed as a beacon of press freedom in Asia. A second editor was freed after his sentence was reduced because of ill health and time already served in custody.
Former Stand News editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam are the first journalists convicted under a colonial-era sedition law since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Chung was sentenced to 21 months, while Lam was also sentenced but allowed to go free.
The news outlet was one of last in Hong Kong that dared to criticize authorities as Beijing imposed a crackdown on dissidents following massive pro-democracy protests in 2019.
The closure came months after the demise of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, whose jailed founder Jimmy Lai is battling collusion charges under a tough national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020.
Last month, the court found Chung and Lam guilty of conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious materials, along with Best Pencil (Hong Kong) Ltd., Stand News’ holding company. They faced up to two years in prison and a fine of 5,000 Hong Kong dollars (about $640).
Judge Kwok Wai-kin began the sentencing hearing two hours after the scheduled time. The journalists’ lawyer, Audrey Eu, requested a sentence mitigation, saying Lam had been diagnosed with a rare disease and she was concerned that he could not be treated by the hospital handling his case if he were sent to jail again.
She argued that they be sentenced to up to time served, saying their case was different because they were journalists whose duties were to report different people’s views. The pair were detained for nearly a year after their arrests before being released on bail in late 2022.
In his sentencing, Kwok said the defendants were not genuine journalists but had participated in the territory’s resistance movement.
Kwok wrote in his verdict in August that Stand News had become a tool for smearing the Beijing and Hong Kong governments during the 2019 protests. He ruled that 11 articles published under the defendants’ leadership carried seditious intent, including commentaries written by activist Nathan Law and veteran journalists Allan Au and Chan Pui-man. Chan, who is also Chung’s wife, earlier pleaded guilty in the Apple Daily case and is in custody awaiting her sentence.
Kwok said Lam and Chung were aware of and agreed with the seditious intent, and that they made Stand News available as a platform to incite hatred against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and the judiciary.
Eu told the court that the articles in question represented only a small portion of what Stand News had published. The defendants also stressed their journalistic mission in their mitigation letters.
On Thursday morning, dozens of people waited in line to secure a seat in the courtroom. Former Stand News reader Andrew Wong said he wanted to attend the hearing to show his support, though he felt it was like “attending a funeral.” Wong, who works in a non-governmental organization, said he expected the convictions last month, but still felt “a sense that we’ve passed a point of no return” when he heard the verdict.
“Everything we had in the past is gone,” he said. Their trial, which began in October 2022, lasted some 50 days. The verdict was postponed several times for reasons including a wait for an appeal outcome in another landmark sedition case.
Hong Kong was ranked 135 out of 180 territories in Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index, down from 80 in 2021, and 18 in 2002.
Self-censorship has also become more common during the political crackdown on dissent following the 2019 protests, with increased reports of harassment against journalists in recent months. In March, the city government enacted another new security law that raised concerns about further curtailment of press freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Singaporean minister pleads guilty to receiving illegal gifts
Legal Interview |
2024/09/24 06:48
|
A former Singaporean cabinet minister pleaded guilty to charges of receiving illegal gifts Tuesday, in the Asian financial hub’s first ministerial criminal trial in nearly half a century.
Former Transport Minister S. Iswaran pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing justice and four of accepting gifts from people with whom he had official business. The court set Oct. 3 for sentencing, Channel News Asia reported.
Iswaran, 62, was initially charged with 35 counts but in a twist at the start of the trial, prosecutors said they would proceed with only five, while reducing two counts of corruption to receiving illegal gifts. Prosecutors said they will apply for the remaining 30 charges to be taken into consideration for sentencing. No reasons were given for the move.
Iswaran received gifts worth over 74,000 Singapore dollars ($57,000) from Ong Beng Seng, a Singapore-based Malaysian property tycoon, and businessperson Lum Kok Seng. The gifts included tickets to Singapore’s Formula 1 race, wine and whisky and a luxury Brompton bike. Ong owns the right to the local F1 race, and Iswaran was chair of and later adviser to the Grand Prix’s steering committee.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers said it will decide whether to charge Ong and Lum after the case against Iswaran has been resolved.
In mitigation, defence counsel Davinder Singh asked the court to limit any jail term to no more than eight weeks, according to CNA. He said Iswaran had no motive in accepting the gifts other than personal friendship with the men, but he recognized it was wrong to do so and admitted guilt after the graft charges were dropped. There was no suggestion that the government’s impartiality and integrity had been undermined, Singh added.
But prosecutors called for a jail term of 6-7 months. Deputy Attorney General Tai Wei Shyong said in his submission that not punishing such acts would send a signal that such acts are tolerated. Singapore ‘s ministers are among the world’s best-paid. Although the amount involved in Iswaran’s case appeared to be relatively minor, his indictment is an embarrassment to the ruling People’s Action Party, which prides itself on a clean image.
The last Cabinet minister charged with graft was Wee Toon Boon, who was found guilty in 1975 and jailed for accepting gifts in exchange for helping a businessperson. Another Cabinet minister was investigated for graft in 1986, but died before charges were filed.
Iswaran had resigned just before he was charged. His trial comes just over four months after Singapore installed new Prime Minister Lawrence Wong after Lee Hsien Loong stepped down after 20 years.
Lee has said before he stepped down that Iswaran’s case was dealt with vigorously according to the law and vowed to uphold his government’s reputation for honesty and incorruptibility. The case could cast a shadow on the PAP ahead of general elections due by late 2025. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
