|
|
|
W.Va. court hears 'rescue' funding arguments
Headline Legal News |
2012/09/05 15:33
|
Whether West Virginia Supreme Court candidate Allen Loughry receives additional public funds for his campaign hinges on whether the U.S. Supreme Court sees a difference between elections for the judiciary and races for other political posts, the state court was told during a hearing Tuesday.
Adam Skaggs, lawyer for the Republican hopeful, argued that legislative and executive branch officeholders are expected to favor agendas and interest groups that helped them win. But judges are supposed to harbor no bias, and West Virginia created the public financing pilot program amid concerns about campaign cash influencing the judiciary, said Skaggs, an official with the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school.
"The state has compelling interests in the context of judicial elections that are absent from any other type of election," Skaggs told the court.
The point is crucial to Loughry's pursuit of "rescue" funds, normally triggered by spending by a traditionally financed candidate or outside group. With two, 12-year terms up on the court this year, Loughry alone among the four Supreme Court candidates has sought and received funding through the pilot program. Provided $350,000 for the general election, Loughry is seeking another $144,500 or so in matching funds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court removes key civil service protection
Headline Legal News |
2012/08/22 14:32
|
A federal appeals court ruling that has taken key civil service protection away from government employees involved in national security work will have far-reaching implications, advocates for federal workers say.
Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a whistle-blower advocacy group, said Tuesday that the appeals court has given agencies "a blank check to cancel all government accountability in civil service law."
In a 2-1 decision Friday involving two Defense Department employees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the Merit Systems Protection Board is prohibited from reviewing dismissals and demotions of government employees who hold "noncritical sensitive" positions, regardless of whether those jobs require access to classified information.
The dissenting judge in the case said the decision "effectively nullifies" the 1978 civil service law. Advocates for federal workers point out that federal employees in "noncritical sensitive" jobs work at many federal agencies, making the impact of the ruling government-wide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court overturns $1M award against U of M, Smith
Headline Legal News |
2012/08/08 12:33
|
The Minnesota Supreme Court has overturned a $1 million award against the University of Minnesota and men's basketball coach Tubby Smith over the hiring of an assistant coach.
Jimmy Williams quit his job as an assistant coach at Oklahoma State in 2007 because he believed Smith had hiring authority when he offered him an assistant coaching job. Minnesota later withdrew the offer because Williams had NCAA rules violations during a previous stint as an assistant for the Golden Gophers more than 20 years ago.
Williams sued, and a Hennepin County jury and the state appeals court sided with him. But the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed those decisions, saying Williams was not entitled to protection against negligent misrepresentations from Smith about his hiring authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review
Headline Legal News |
2012/08/03 16:37
|
Backers of California's ban on same-sex marriages asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to overrule a federal appeals court that struck down the measure as unconstitutional, a move that means the bitter, four-year court fight over Proposition 8 could soon be resolved.
Lawyers for the coalition of religious conservative groups that sponsored the voter-approved ban petitioned the Supreme Court to review the lower court's finding that the 2008 amendment to the state constitution violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians. The request had been expected since a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-1 decision earlier this year.
If the high court declines to take the case, it would clear the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. Gay couples could get married in the state for several months before Proposition 8 passed, a right the measure was designed to take away. Same-sex couples still have the rights and benefits of marriage controlled by state law if they register as domestic partners.
The divided appeals court panel cited those conditions, which were unique to California at the time, as grounds for striking down the ban as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection. But it also went out of its way to state it was not saying similar bans in six other states it oversees were inherently unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massive LA County court layoffs to begin Friday
Headline Legal News |
2012/06/15 11:01
|
Squeezed by state budgets cutbacks, the Los Angeles County court system is launching massive job layoffs, pay cuts and transfers, court officials said Thursday.
Cutbacks that will be implemented Friday will affect 431 court employees and 56 courtrooms throughout the nation's largest superior court system.
Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon bemoaned the loss of longtime employees as well as the impact on public services.
"We are laying off people who are committed to serving the public," she said. "It is a terrible loss both to these dedicated employees and to the public."
The union representing state and municipal employees called Friday's action a "freeze on justice in Los Angeles" and warned that the county would experience "an end to timely justice" with cases being delayed for years, particularly in civil courts.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — AFSCME — planned to have representatives on hand to assist employees who will not know they are losing their jobs until they are informed individually Friday.
A spokeswoman for the California Judicial Council said other courts in the state will also be impacted by the budget cuts but will handle them individually. Los Angeles' court system, as the largest, will be the most heavily affected.
Edmon said the drastic actions are the result of a state mandate to reduce annual spending by $30 million. She noted that earlier reductions already saved $70 million, but more cuts in state support for trial courts are scheduled for the next fiscal year. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
