|
|
|
Ninth Circuit rules on 'no-fly' list
Court Watch |
2008/08/20 07:07
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that those placed on the government's "no-fly list" can challenge their inclusion on the list in federal district courts. The issue came before the court in a case brought by a woman on the list, in which a district court had ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because of a law exempting Transportation Security Administration orders from federal trial court review. Reversing the decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Terrorist Screening Center which actually maintains the list is a subsection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is therefore subject to review by the district courts:
Our interpretation of section 46110 is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list? There was no hearing before an administrative law judge; there was no notice-and comment procedure. For all we know, there is no administrative record of any sort for us to review. So if any court is going to review the government’s decision to put Ibrahim’s name on the No-Fly List, it makes sense that it be a court with the ability to take evidence. The court also held that the woman could not bring two related claims because they were “inescapably intertwined” with TSA orders. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.
In July, the US terror watchlist, which includes the no-fly list, was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for being too large, containing inaccuracies, and lacking safeguards to prevent the unnecessary targeting of passengers for additional security screenings. In March, the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a report saying that FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list, that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission, and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged. In response to the audit, FBI Assistant Director John Miller said that the agency was working with the DOJ and other partner agencies to "ensure the proper balance between national security protection and the need for accurate, efficient, and streamlined watchlist processes." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sixth Circuit Upholds Nudity Ban in Ohio
Court News |
2008/08/19 07:27
|
Ohio's prohibition on nudity and sexual activity at establishments where alcohol is served is not unconstitutional, the 6th Circuit ruled.
The district court had issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the Ohio Liquor Control Commission's Rule 52.
J.L. Spoons Inc., the owner of a group of Ohio strip clubs, had claimed that Rule 52 violated its First Amendment rights, because some artistic dance performances may be found to violate the rule.
Judge Siler overruled the district court, stating that the rule is not unconstitutionally over-broad.
"Persons desiring to perform mainstream works of art involving nudity and sexual activity may do so in an establishment that is not licensed to sell liquor," Siler wrote. "Mainstream works of art that merely suggest sexual activity will not be burdened." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second Circuit Protects Plaintiff's Anonymity
Court Watch |
2008/08/18 08:27
|
A woman who filed a lawsuit for physical and sexual assault should be allowed to remain anonymous, the 2nd Circuit ruled in a question of first impression.
Judge Cabranes found that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's case due to her refusal to give her name.
While plaintiffs usually must state their names to give the opposition a chance to mount a defense, Cabranes ruled that the district court stuck to the letter of the law without considering whether plaintiff had a legitimate need to keep her identity hidden.
"The district court did not balance the plaintiff's interest in proceeding anonymously against the interests of the defendants and the public," Cabranes wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th Circ. upholds denial of Oregon domestic partnership
Court Watch |
2008/08/15 07:12
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not violate the constitutional rights of voters who signed a petition to hold a referendum on a state law establishing same-sex domestic partnerships. Bradbury struck over 200 signatures from the petition after officials found that many of the signatures did not match those on voter registration cards. He then announced that the petition was approximately 100 signatures short of the required number. Voters were not permitted to contest the decision by introducing extrinsic evidence, and so signators brought suit, alleging violations of due process and equal protection guarantees. The Ninth Circuit held that any burden placed on the plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote was minimal and held that there had been no constitutional violations:
The Secretary’s procedures already allow chief petitioners and members of the public to observe the signature verification process and challenge decisions by county elections officials. The value of additional procedural safeguards therefore is negligible, and the burden on plaintiffs’ interests from the state’s failure to adopt their proposed procedures is slight at most.
Plaintiffs had unsuccessfully asserted that Oregon was required to provide them with an opportunity to "rehabilitate" the stricken signatures, and also argued that the lack of uniform statewide rules for verifying referendum signatures violated Bush v. Gore.
The US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in February that the domestic partnership law should be allowed to take effect after it was suspended last December. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law last May after it was passed by the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate. The law would have taken effect on January 1 of this year had there been no lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truck Driver Sues For Bridge Collapse
Court News |
2008/08/14 07:18
|
A truck driver was crushed and trapped in his truck when a highway overpass collapsed, and his horrified wife watched his rescue on live television, Robert and Carol Sylvester claim in Butte County Court.
The Sylvesters sued FCI Constructors, of Vista, and Granite Construction Co., of Watsonville, who were working on State Route 149 between SR 99 and SR 70 before and during the July 31, 2007 collapse. The Sylvesters say the defendants "were put on notice of safety violations at the construction site of the freeway overpass" before July 31. And, they say, "several minutes prior to the eventual collapse of the overpass false work defendants were on notice or should have been on notice that the structure was unsafe, unstable, moving, and likely to collapse."
The complaint continues: "Carol Sylvester witnessed the event where her husband was trapped in the debris of the collapsed freeway overpass via live television. Plaintiff was aware that her husband was in fact injured in the ongoing event and was aware of reports of his injuries during the event."
The Sylvesters demand punitive damages. They are represented by James McKenna with Peters, Rush, Habib & McKenna. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
