|
|
|
High court rules against steelworkers' claim
Press Release |
2014/01/27 14:07
|
The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.
The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immigration
Press Release |
2014/01/24 13:45
|
Federal authorities would limit the use of shackles on immigrants who appear before immigration judges under a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to avoid shackling immigrants at the San Francisco immigration court in many hearings. Immigrants will still be shackled at a type of brief, procedural hearing in which several detainees are addressed at the same time.
A federal judge in San Francisco was scheduled to consider Thursday whether to approve the settlement in the lawsuit filed in 2011 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and others.
ACLU attorney Julia Harumi Mass said the agreement applies only to the San Francisco court, which serves more than 2,000 immigrants a year who are in ICE custody at three county jails in Northern California.
The lawsuit says detainees at the San Francisco court wear metal restraints on their wrists, ankles and waists and that most are bused from jails several hours away, spending hours in shackles before, during and after their hearings.
Under the proposed settlement, detainees will not be restrained at bond or merits hearings unless they pose a safety threat or risk of escape. Except in limited circumstances, they will remain shackled at master calendar hearings, which are held for larger numbers of immigrants for brief, procedural issues like scheduling.
Immigration courts are staffed by judges working for the U.S. Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, not the judiciary. The judges decide whether immigrants can remain in the country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-Sex Marriage on Hold
Press Release |
2014/01/06 11:19
|
The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.
The court issued a brief order blocking any new same-sex unions in the state.
The order grants an emergency appeal by the state following the Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.
More than 900 gay and lesbian couples have married since then.
The high court order will remain in effect until the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to uphold Shelby's ruling.
The state's request to the Supreme Court was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from Utah and the five other states in the 10th Circuit. Sotomayor turned the matter over to the entire court.
The action now shifts to Denver, where the appeals court will consider arguments from the state against same-sex marriage as well as from the three gay and lesbian couples who challenged the ban in support of Shelby's ruling. The appeals court had twice rebuffed the state's plea to stop gay weddings pending appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah asks Supreme Court to block gay marriage
Press Release |
2014/01/02 14:23
|
Utah took its fight against gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the high court to suspend same-sex unions that became legal when a judge struck down the state's voter-approved ban.
The heavily Mormon state wants the marriages to stop while it appeals a judge's decision, which said banning gay couples from marrying violates their right to equal treatment under the law.
In papers filed Tuesday, the state asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to overturn a decision that has led to more than 900 gay marriages in Utah. Sotomayor handles emergency requests from Utah and other Rocky Mountain states.
Sotomayor responded with a request for legal briefs from same-sex couples by Friday at noon. She can act by herself or get the rest of the court involved.
"Numerous same-sex marriages are now occurring every day in Utah," Utah lawyers complain in the filing. "Each one is an affront not only to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels, but also to this court's unique role as final arbiter."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court denies appeal in arson case
Press Release |
2013/12/30 14:34
|
The Montana Supreme Court has denied a petition for post-conviction relief filed by a Billings man who argued that a District Court judge misinterpreted the state's arson law and that he had ineffective attorneys.
The Dec. 20 Supreme Court ruling left in place a five-year suspended sentence given to Lionel Scott Ellison in 2009 for an October 2007 fire that damaged a woman's car.
Ellison in 2008 entered a no-contest plea to arson on the advice of his attorney, Jeffrey Michael. Pleading no contest means a person admits no guilt for the crime, but the court can determine the punishment.
Ellison then changed his mind and his attorney, having Herbert "Chuck" Watson file a motion to withdraw the no-contest plea, contending Ellison didn't enter it knowingly or voluntarily. But a District Court judge rejected the request, and in May 2009 Ellison received a five-year suspended sentence.
He appealed the District Court's decision, and the Montana Supreme Court in November 2009 sided with the lower court.
In February 2011, Ellison filed for post-conviction relief, arguing the arson statute only applied to property valued at over $1,000. He said that because the damaged vehicle was worth less, there was no factual basis for his no-contest plea. He also argued that Michael and Watson provided ineffective counsel for allowing him to enter a plea for a charge that had an insufficient factual basis and that Watson didn't use those grounds on appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
