|
|
|
Court gives government a win in young immigrants' cases
Legal Interview |
2017/10/24 01:09
|
A federal appeals court handed the U.S. government a victory Tuesday in its fight against lawsuits opposing a decision to end a program protecting some young immigrants from deportation.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan directed Brooklyn judges to expeditiously decide if a court can properly review the decision to end in March the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. The government insists it cannot.
Activists are suing the government in New York, California, the District of Columbia and Maryland. DACA has protected about 800,000 people, many of them currently in college, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families that overstayed visas.
A three-judge 2nd Circuit panel issued a brief order after hearing oral arguments. It said the government will not have to continue to produce documents or submit to depositions before the lower court decides whether the cases can proceed. It also said it will only decide the issue of whether to order the lower court to limit document production once those issues are addressed.
Attorney Michael Wishnie, who argued for plaintiffs suing the government, praised the appeals court for having "moved swiftly to address the government filings in this case."
And he noted that a Brooklyn judge gave the government until Friday to submit written arguments on the legal issues the appeals court said must be resolved before the case proceeds. The plaintiffs must submit their arguments by Nov. 1.
Earlier Tuesday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim M. Mooppan told the appeals court panel the government planned to ask the Brooklyn federal court by early next week to dismiss the lawsuits.
He said lawyers fighting the government were engaging in a "massive fishing expedition" for documents and testimony that would reveal the deliberative processes at the highest levels of the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. He called it "wholly improper."
Mooppan seemed to get a sympathetic ear from appeals judges, with one of them saying the government's opponents seemed to be pursuing "a disguised application under the Freedom of Information Act."
"There are a lot of different ways this is very wrong, your honor. That might be one of them," Mooppan said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court says man deserves new trial because jurors slept
Law Firm News |
2017/10/22 01:09
|
The highest court in Massachusetts says a man convicted of involuntary manslaughter should get a new trial because two jurors at his original trial slept during testimony.
The Supreme Judicial Court said Thursday the judge in the 2011 trial of Anthony Villalobos erred by failing to question the jurors about what they had missed while napping.
Villalobos was one of a dozen men charged in what was called the "tuxedo killing." The suspects, some wearing black tuxedos with red vests, went to a Boston club in August 2009 after attending a funeral and got into a fight with another group outside. Jose Alicea died of injuries sustained in the fight.
Prosecutors called Thursday's decision "disappointing and frustrating" but have not yet decided whether to retry. Villalobos has already been released from prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court, for now, blocks immigrant teen's access to abortion
Legal Interview |
2017/10/20 01:09
|
An appeals court is blocking, for now, an abortion sought by a pregnant 17-year-old immigrant being held in a Texas facility, ruling that the government should have time to try to release her so she can obtain the abortion outside of federal custody.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its ruling Friday hours after arguments from lawyers for the Trump administration and the teenager. The court ruled 2-1 that the government should have until Oct. 31 to release the girl into the custody of a sponsor, such as an adult relative in the United States. If that happens, she could obtain an abortion if she chooses. If she isn't released, the case can go back to court.
The judge who dissented wrote that the court's ruling means the teen will be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy for "multiple more weeks."
The teen, whose name and country of origin have been withheld because she's a minor, is 15 weeks pregnant. She entered the U.S. in September and learned she was pregnant while in custody in Texas.
She obtained a court order Sept. 25 permitting her to have an abortion. But federal officials have refused to transport her or temporarily release her so that others may take her to have an abortion. A lower federal court ruled that she should be able to obtain an abortion Friday or Saturday, but the government appealed.
Federal health officials said in a statement that for "however much time" they are given they "will protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies" in their facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighing whether graffiti mecca was protected by law
Legal Interview |
2017/10/15 01:09
|
For two decades, Jerry Wolkoff let graffiti artists use his crumbling Queens warehouse complex as a canvas for their vibrant works. Artists gave the spot the name "5Pointz" — a place where all five New York City boroughs come together — but painters traveled from as far as Japan and Brazil to tag, bomb and burn at what became a graffiti mecca and a tourist destination.
But like most graffiti, it didn't last. Wolkoff whitewashed the building in 2013 then tore it down to build luxury apartment towers.
Four years later, some of the artists whose work was destroyed are in court, arguing that even though the building belonged to Wolkoff, the art was protected by federal law.
A trial that started Tuesday at a federal court in Brooklyn will determine whether the artists should be compensated for the lost work.
More than 20 artists sued Wolkoff under the Visual Artists Rights Act, or VARA, a 1990 federal statute that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork.
A trial that started Tuesday at a federal court in Brooklyn will determine whether the artists should be compensated for the lost work.
More than 20 artists sued Wolkoff under the Visual Artists Rights Act, or VARA, a 1990 federal statute that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork.
Barry Werbin, an attorney specializing in intellectual property, said the case is significant because no lawsuit under the statute has been tried by a jury before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court extends house arrest for Russian theater director
Law Blogs |
2017/10/11 01:08
|
A court in Russia's capital ruled Tuesday to extend the house arrest of a widely revered theater and film director.
Kirill Serebrennikov was detained and put under house arrest in August in a criminal case that sent shockwaves across Russia's art community and raised fears of return to Soviet-style censorship.
Moscow's Basmanny District Court decided to keep Serebrennikov under house arrest until Jan. 19 per investigators' request.
Investigators have accused him of scheming to embezzle about $1.1 million in government funds allocated for one of his productions and the projects he directed between 2011 and 2014.
Serebrennikov has dismissed the accusations as absurd.
High court to hear appeal in Newtown gun maker lawsuit
The appeal of a decision to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Newtown school shooting is headed to Connecticut's highest court next month.
The state Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments Nov. 14 in the civil case brought against North Carolina-based Remington Arms by some of the Newtown victims' families.
A Superior Court judge dismissed the case last year. At issue were exceptions to a federal ban on most lawsuits against gun makers. The judge rejected the families' argument that the suit is allowed under the exceptions.
Newtown shooter Adam Lanza used a Remington-made, AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and six educators. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
