|
|
|
Blind justice: No visual cues in high court phone cases
Court News |
2020/05/03 14:34
|
On the evening before he was to argue a case before the Supreme Court years ago, Jeffrey Fisher broke his glasses. That left the very nearsighted lawyer with an unappealing choice. He could wear contacts and clearly see the justices but not his notes, or skip the contacts and see only his notes.
It wasn’t hard to decide. “I couldn’t imagine doing argument without seeing their faces,” Fisher said.
He won’t have a choice next month. Because of the coronavirus pandemic the high court is, for the first time in its 230-year history, holding arguments by telephone. Beyond not being able to see the justices' nods, frowns and hand gestures, the teleconference arguments in 10 cases over six days present a range of challenges, attorneys said, but also opportunities.
Roman Martinez, who will argue in a free speech case, said the lack of visual cues may change what sense is most important. “Maybe it will concentrate the mind on listening,” he said.
The unprecedented decision to hold arguments by phone was an effort to help slow the spread of the virus. Most of the justices are at risk because of their age; six are over 65. And hearing arguments by phone allows them to decide significant cases by the court’s traditional summer break.
The attorneys arguing before the court include lawyers for the federal government and states as well as those in private practice. Only a few are women. Most have made multiple arguments and are familiar to the justices, although at least one lawyer is giving his first argument before the court. The Trump administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, will argue twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court tosses NY case that could have expanded gun rights
Court News |
2020/05/01 14:35
|
The Supreme Court sidestepped a major decision on gun rights Monday in a dispute over New York City’s former ban on transporting guns.
The justices threw out a challenge from gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association’s New York affiliate. The court ruled that the city’s move to ease restrictions on taking licensed, locked and unloaded guns outside the city limits, coupled with a change in state law to prevent New York from reviving the ban, left the court with nothing to decide. The court asked a lower court to consider whether the city’s new rules still pose problems for gun owners.
The anticlimactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right under the Second Amendment to keep a gun at home for self-defense.
But other guns cases remain in the high court’s pipeline, including whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry their weapons in public. Later Monday, the justices scheduled 10 cases involving gun restrictions in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, for possible discussion during their private telephone conference on Friday. The court could decide to hear one or more of those next term.
Although the opinion was unsigned, the court split 6-3 over the outcome. Gorsuch joined Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissenting from the dismissal. Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he agreed with the result, but also said the court should take up another guns case soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington Supreme Court to hear COVID-19 inmate case online
Legal Interview |
2020/04/29 14:36
|
In an historic setting, the Washington Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday while sitting alone in their separate chambers using Zoom technology in a case that addresses the safety of inmates in the state’s prisons during the coronavirus outbreak.
At the same time, conservative lawmakers, law enforcement officials and some victims plan to hold news conferences on both sides of the state to protest the release of some offenders.
At least 24 corrections employees and 13 inmates have tested positive for COVID-19, almost 100 offenders were placed in isolation and more than 1,000 are being quarantined. The majority of the positive cases occurred at the Monroe Correctional Complex where seven staff and 12 inmates have the disease.
After the virus hit the facility, the second largest in Washington, inmates filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking the justices to order Gov. Jay Inslee and Corrections Secretary Stephen Sinclair to release inmates who are older than 60, have underlying conditions and are within 60 days of their release date.
In an unanimous ruling on April 10, the justices ordered the state to devise a plan to protect inmates from the disease. Several days later, Inslee announced plans to release almost 1,000 non-violent offenders who are close to their release date.
As of Wednesday, about 41 inmates received work release furloughs, 293 had their sentences commuted and another 600 were on a list to be considered for a release into the community using electronic monitoring.
The corrections department has also told the court that it has imposed a list of measures designed to keep incarcerated people healthy, including mandatory face masks and hand-sanitizer dispensers.
Lawyers for the inmates say their efforts fall short. They say the prisons are too crowded to allow for social distancing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court declines to revisit immigrant issue during virus
Attorney News |
2020/04/26 14:36
|
The Supreme Court on Friday declined a request by states who cited the coronavirus pandemic in asking the justices to reverse course and temporarily halt a Trump administration policy that makes it harder for legal immigrants to become permanent residents if they use public benefits.
The justices in January voted 5-4 along ideological lines to allow the Trump administration to implement its policy while lawsuits against it continued.
But earlier this month lawyers for Connecticut, New York, Vermont and New York City asked the justices to reconsider. They said the Trump administration’s so-called public charge rule is hindering the states' ability to stop the spread of the coronavirus by “deterring immigrants from accessing healthcare and public benefits.”
The order from the Supreme Court on Friday was brief, with no justice noting disagreement. In January, the court’s five conservative justices allowed the Trump administration policy to go into effect over the objections of its four liberals. The court said its order Friday didn't prevent lawyers from going to a lower court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court declines to hear Nebraska, Missouri death cases
Court Watch |
2020/04/23 14:37
|
The Supreme Court is passing for now on deciding whether juries must find all facts necessary to impose a death sentence or whether judges can play a role, an issue Nebraska and Missouri death row inmates had asked the court to take up.
The high court on Monday declined to hear appeals brought by Nikko Jenkins and Craig Wood. The court, as is usual, didn't comment in turning away the cases.
Wood is on death row in Missouri after being convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing 10-year-old Hailey Owens in 2014. The jury that convicted Would couldn’t decide whether to sentence him to death or life in prison without parole. That left the decision up to the judge who oversaw Wood’s trial.
Jenkins is on death row in Nebraska after killing four people in Omaha shortly after his 2013 release from prison, where he had served 10 years for two carjackings. Jenkins pleaded no contest to the killings and a three-judge panel was appointed to sentence him. Jenkins waived his right to have a jury assess aggravating circumstances and the panel sentenced him to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
