|
|
|
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 won't block early voting in Ohio
Court News |
2012/10/19 14:50
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for voters in the
battleground state of Ohio to cast ballots on the three days before
Election Day, giving Democrats and President Barack Obama's campaign a
victory three weeks before the election.
The court refused a request by the state's Republican elections chief
and attorney general to get involved in a battle over early voting.
Ohio is among 34 states, plus the District of Columbia, where people
can vote early without giving any reason. About 30 percent of the
swing state's total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in
before Election Day in 2008. Crucial to Obama's win that year was
early voting in Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.
Obama won Ohio four years ago, but Republican rival Mitt Romney is
making a strong play for it this year. No GOP candidate has won the
White House without Ohio in his column.
Obama's campaign and Ohio Democrats had sued state officials over
changes in state law that took away the three days of voting for most
people but made exceptions for military personnel and Ohioans living
overseas.
Their lawsuit cited a recent study saying nearly 105,000 people voted
in the three days before the election in 2008, and they argued
everyone should have the chance to vote on those days. They also said
eliminating the opportunity for most Ohio residents to vote in person
on those days, while giving military or overseas voters the chance to
do so, leads to unequal treatment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court lets stand telecom immunity in wiretap case
Court News |
2012/10/12 11:01
|
The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.
The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.
Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.
The case stemmed from surveillance rules passed by Congress that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 King Co. candidates vying for Attorney General
Attorney News |
2012/10/10 11:01
|
The two men competing to be Washington's next attorney general are co-workers, but that's about as much similarity King County Councilmen Reagan Dunn and Bob Ferguson will admit to.
Dunn, a Republican, and the Democrat Ferguson have been trying to draw differences for months in their quest to succeed incumbent Rob McKenna, the GOP's candidate for governor.
With about month left until the general election, Ferguson appears to have an advantage. He garnered more votes than Dunn in the August primary, and recent polls show him ahead. But Dunn expects leads to flip flop until Election Day. He put $100,000 of his own money into his campaign in September, according to campaign filings.
Ferguson has offered himself as an independent-minded lawyer who is not afraid to leave party politics behind, while Dunn has touted his experience as a U.S. prosecutor.
A fourth-generation Washingtonian first elected in 2003 to the County Council, Ferguson was an attorney at a prominent Seattle law firm before entering politics.
If elected, Ferguson said he'd create a task force to look into an environmental crimes unit, seek remedies for gangs and continue the practice of consumer protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
