|
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin voter ID law
Legal Focuses |
2014/10/13 16:34
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Wisconsin from implementing a law requiring voters to present photo IDs, overturning a lower court decision that would have put the law in place for the November election.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the law constitutional on Monday. The American Civil Liberties Union followed that up the next day with an emergency request to the Supreme Court asking it to block the ruling.
On Thursday night, the U.S. Supreme Court did so, issuing a one-page order that vacated the appeals court ruling pending further proceedings. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the application should have been denied because there was no indication that the 7th Circuit had demonstrably erred.
The voter photo identification law has been a political flashpoint since Republican legislators passed it in 2011. The GOP argues the mandate is a common sense step toward reducing election fraud. Democrats maintain no widespread fraud exists and that the law is really an attempt to keep Democratic constituents who may lack ID, such as the poor, minorities and the elderly, from voting.
The law was in effect for the February 2012 primary but subsequent legal challenges put it on hold and it hasn't been in place for any election since.
The ACLU and allied groups persuaded a federal judge in Milwaukee to declare the law unconstitutional in April.
Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision. A three-judge panel ruled last month that the state could implement the law while it considered the merits of the case, sparking outrage from the ACLU, its allies and Democrats who contended that state election officials couldn't re-implement the law in time for the Nov. 4 elections and that chaos would reign at the polls.
A flurry of legal jousting ensued. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court last week to take emergency action to block the appeals panel's decision. On Monday the 7th Circuit issued a full ruling declaring the law constitutional, a decision that was all but certain given the initial order allowing the state to move ahead, promoting the ACLU to follow Tuesday with another emergency request to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears dispute over pay for security checks
Headline News |
2014/10/13 16:34
|
Workers who fill customer orders for Internet retailer Amazon might be out of luck in their quest to be paid for time they spend going through security checkpoints each day.
Several Supreme Court justices expressed doubts Wednesday during arguments over whether federal law entitles workers to compensation for security measures to prevent employee theft.
The case is being watched closely by business groups concerned that employers could be liable for billions of dollars in retroactive pay for security check procedures that have become routine in retail and other industries.
Workers have battled for decades with employers over what tasks they should or shouldn't be paid for. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that workers must be paid for time putting on protective gear for work, but not for time waiting to take it off. And the court has found that butchers deserve to be paid for time sharpening their knives, which are essential to working at a meatpacking plant.
The latest dispute involves two former workers at a Nevada warehouse who say their employer, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., made them to wait up to 25 minutes in security lines at the end of every shift. Integrity provides staffers for Amazon warehouses.
Amazon spokeswoman Kelly Cheeseman says the company's data shows that warehouse employees walk through security screenings "with little or no wait."
A federal appeals court ruled last year that the workers, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, deserved to be paid because the anti-theft screenings were necessary to the primary work performed by warehouse workers and it was done for the employer's benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
French court extends adoption rights to lesbians
Legal Focuses |
2014/09/29 13:23
|
France's highest court has ruled that married lesbians are allowed to adopt their partner's child born through in vitro fertilization or other medically assisted reproduction.
The Cour de Cassation's ruling is a consequence of the legalization of gay marriage in France last year.
France allows assisted reproduction only for heterosexual couples who have been together at least two years. The restriction has sent many gay couples abroad — many of them going to neighboring Belgium or Spain to have access to fertility treatment.
Upon return to France, French law recognized only the birth mother as the legal parent.
The court ruled Tuesday that married lesbians may adopt children born by their partners through assisted reproduction performed outside of France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court-martial for Missouri drill sergeant resumes
Court Watch |
2014/09/29 13:22
|
The military court-martial of a Missouri sergeant accused of sexually assaulting eight female soldiers has resumed.
A verdict is expected Wednesday after a three-day trial for 30-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Angel M. Sanchez, who is accused of using his supervisory position with the 14th Military Police Brigade to threaten some of the women he was tasked with training.
Sanchez pleaded guilty to three charges at the outset of the military judicial hearing. His accusers said the incidents took place in the bathroom of the female barracks as well as in an office shared by drill sergeants.
Most of the allegations involved women at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, but some involved women in Afghanistan and Fort Richardson, Alaska. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses woman's conviction in child's death
Legal Focuses |
2014/09/22 14:57
|
A state appeals court Wednesday overturned the conviction of a South Texas woman imprisoned for capital murder in the 2006 salt poisoning death of her 4-year-old foster son.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial for Hannah Overton of Corpus Christi. She was sentenced to life in prison without parole in the death of Andrew Burd.
Overton has argued she had ineffective counsel during her 2007 trial, and the state's highest appeals court agreed.
The court in its ruling noted Overton's defense attorneys opted not to present the testimony of an expert medical witness. The court said it "was not a reasonable decision" to withhold testimony by the physician that could have benefited Overton.
She also argued that prosecutors had withheld evidence in her trial, but the appeals court did not address that claim.
Overton contended Andrew had emotional and medical problems, including an eating disorder in which he'd consume odd food items. The boy had elevated sodium levels when he died at a Corpus Christi hospital. Tests also showed he had bleeding on the brain and swelling. A doctor who examined the child testified at Overton's trial that he could have survived if taken to the hospital earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case of American jailed in Cuba back in US court
Headline News |
2014/09/22 14:57
|
An attorney for a Maryland man who has spent over four years jailed in Cuba argued before a federal appeals court that his client should be allowed to sue the U.S. government over his imprisonment.
An attorney for Alan Gross, who was a government subcontractor when he was detained in Cuba in 2009, appeared Friday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
A lower court judge dismissed Gross' lawsuit against the government in 2013, but Gross' lawyers appealed.
Gross was arrested while setting up Internet in Cuba as part of a project for the government's U.S. Agency for International Development. Cuba considers USAID's programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine its government and Gross was given a 15-year prison sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
