|
|
|
NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act
Court Watch |
2012/10/22 14:50
|
Saying the gay population has "suffered a history of discrimination,"
a divided federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a
federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was
unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue expected to reach the U.S.
Supreme Court soon.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested in adding its
voice to several other rulings already at the high court's doorstep by
issuing its 2-to-1 decision only three weeks after hearing arguments
on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was
unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, the 2nd Circuit,
like a federal appeals court in Boston before it, found no reason the
Defense of Marriage Act could be used to deny benefits to married gay
couples. It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued the
government in 2010, saying the law required her to pay $363,053 in
federal estate tax after her partner of 44 years died.
Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying discrimination
against gays should be scrutinized by the courts in the same
heightened way as discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At
the time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in the
workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny, as it is referred to
in legal circles, would mean government discrimination against gays
would be assumed to be unconstitutional.
"The question is not whether homosexuals have achieved political
successes over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether
they have the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful
discrimination," said Jacobs, who was appointed to the bench in 1992
by President George H.W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court begins new term with human rights case
Court Watch |
2012/10/04 16:48
|
The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a high-stakes dispute between businesses and human rights groups over accountability for foreign atrocities.
The justices appeared ready to impose new limits on lawsuits brought in U.S. courts over human rights violations abroad.
The argument was the first in a term that holds the prospect for major rulings about affirmative action, gay marriage and voting rights.
Meeting on the first Monday in October, as required by law, the justices entered the crowded marble courtroom for the first time since their momentous decision in late June that upheld President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The lineup of justices was the same as in June, but the bench had a slightly different look nonetheless. Justice Antonin Scalia was without the glasses he no longer needs following cataract surgery over the summer.
Chief Justice John Roberts formally opened the term and the court turned quickly to its first argument.
The dispute involves a lawsuit filed against Royal Dutch Petroleum over claims that the oil company was complicit in abuses committed by the Nigerian government against its citizens in the oil-rich Niger Delta. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court grants appeals from 2 people without lawyers
Court Watch |
2012/09/27 15:27
|
Well-heeled clients pay tens of thousands of dollars to hit the legal jackpot — Supreme Court review of their appeals. But on Tuesday, the court decided to hear cases filed by two people who couldn't afford or didn't bother to hire an attorney.
One was written in pencil and submitted by an inmate at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. The other was filed by a man with no telephone living on Guam.
Neither case seems destined to join the ranks of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark 1960s case filed by a prisoner with no lawyer that established a criminal defendant's right to a lawyer. Both show, however, that when the court is looking to resolve finicky legal issues and the right case shows up, it doesn't matter whether the author of the appeal wears a natty suit or prison garb.
Longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein called the granting of two such lawyerless cases at the same time "unheard of." But both cases chosen by the justices will help resolve the ability of civilians to sue the government over claims of improper actions of federal and military employees on the job.
Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., sued the government after accusing prison guards at the Special Management Unit of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook's claim was unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio man pleads guilty to scamming storm victims
Court Watch |
2012/08/29 11:18
|
A man accused of ripping off storm victims in Ohio and Kentucky has pleaded guilty to nine counts of theft.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said Joshua Salyers entered the guilty pleas in Hamilton County court in southern Ohio Tuesday. He admitted stealing more than $43,000 from the victims.
DeWine spokesman Mark Moretti said the 39-year-old Salyers ran a storm damage restoration business and took money from homeowners in Butler, Hamilton and Stark counties in Ohio and in Campbell County, Ky., to repair their homes after storms in 2010 and in 2011.
But Moretti said Salyers never began the work and refused to refund the money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders Chevron to stop drilling for oil
Court Watch |
2012/08/02 16:37
|
A federal court has given Chevron Corp. and driller Transocean Ltd. 30 days to suspend all petroleum drilling and transportation operations in Brazil until the conclusion of investigations into two oil spills off the coast of Rio de Janeiro.
The court says in a statement posted Wednesday on its web site each company will be fined 500 million reals ($244 million) for each day they fail to comply with the suspension.
About 155, 000 gallons of oil crude began seeping from cracks in the ocean floor at the site of a Chevron appraisal well in November. Two weeks later, the National Petroleum Agency said the seepage was under control. But in March, oil again started leaking and Chevron voluntarily suspended production in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
