|
|
|
Govt asks justices to stay out of immigration case
Topics |
2011/11/11 09:35
|
The Justice Department on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a lawsuit involving Arizona's immigration law, saying lower courts properly blocked tough provisions targeting illegal immigrants.
The state law is a challenge to federal policy and is designed to establish Arizona's own immigration policy, the department's solicitor general said in a filing with the justices. Arizona says the law is an effort to cooperate with the federal government.
One provision requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally. In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of that and other key provisions in the Arizona law.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking to overturn the judge's decision and wants Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that the issues are of compelling, nationwide importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court likely to overturn Calif. law on livestock
Court Watch |
2011/11/10 09:38
|
The Supreme Court seemed ready Wednesday to block a California law that would require euthanizing downed livestock at federally inspected slaughterhouses to keep the meat out of the nation's food system.
The court heard an appeal from the National Meat Association, which wants a 2009 state law blocked from going into effect. California barred the purchase, sale and butchering of animals that can't walk and required slaughterhouses under the threat of fines and jail time to immediately kill nonambulatory animals.
But justices said that encroached on federal laws that don't require immediate euthanizing.
The federal law does not require me immediately to go over and euthanize the cow. Your law does require me to go over and immediately euthanize the cow. And therefore, your law seems an additional requirement in respect to the operations of a federally inspected meatpacking facility, Justice Stephen Breyer told a California lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ala. county files for largest municipal bankruptcy
Headline News |
2011/11/10 09:38
|
Alabama’s most populous county filed what became the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in an effort to retake control of its beleaguered sewer system and wipe away as much of its whopping $4.15 billion in debt as possible.
Jefferson County’s Chapter 9 filing on Wednesday gives it protection from creditors while it develops and negotiates a plan for adjusting its debts. It could accomplish that by extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, or refinancing the debt by obtaining a new loan.
Perhaps the biggest is the potential impact on the county’s 658,000 residents, who could be asked to pay higher sewer rates. Officials say it’s too early to assess the full impact, though bankruptcy filings can lead to layoffs, tax increases, pension reductions for public workers, and spending cuts on things like schools and roads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds conviction in Pa. murder case
Court Watch |
2011/11/09 09:12
|
The Supreme Court used its first opinion of the new term on Tuesday to uphold the murder conviction of a man in a Pennsylvania grocery store shooting.
The high court on Tuesday upheld Eric Greene's conviction in the 1993 shooting death of the owner of a grocery store in North Philadelphia.
Greene had complained that the confessions of some of the men who were with him at the time of the shooting should not have been introduced at his trial since they were not testifying. The introduction of those redacted confessions violated his right to confront his accusers, Greene said.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had decided a similar case in 1998 that would have supported Greene's claim.
The Supreme Court, which heard arguments on this case in October, unanimously agreed with the lower court. The 1998 decision in Gray v. Maryland came after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Greene's case, noted Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the term's first opinion of an argued case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif high court hears debate over worker breaks
Topics |
2011/11/09 08:56
|
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a high-interest case contending restaurant managers must order meal and rest breaks for tens of thousands of workers rather than leave compliance to their discretion.
The case was initially filed eight years ago against Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by chain restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.
The case has generated immense interest among labor-law lawyers and a variety of industries grappling with defining responsibilities for meal and rest periods.
Lawyers for the workers argue that not ordering the breaks is a passive way to take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues at busy times.
Brinker's attorney countered that requiring businesses to control the breaks of workers is unmanageable and that taking such breaks should be left to the discretion of employees.
The court's decision is due in 90 days, with the resolution possibly worth millions of dollars to lawyers and companies enmeshed in class-action lawsuits hinging on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court rejects Texas redistricting maps
Headline News |
2011/11/09 08:56
|
Texas cannot proceed with elections under new redistricting maps without a trial, a Washington-based federal court ruled Tuesday, saying the state used an inadequate analysis to determine whether new districts discriminate against minorities.
In a brief ruling, the court agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that the GOP-led Legislature used an improper standard for measuring minority voting strength. The order clears the way for a trial and all but guarantees the 2012 elections will be conducted with temporary, court-drawn maps.
The temporary maps, being drawn by a San Antonio court, are expected to boost Democratic efforts to regain control over Congress. That's because the maps will likely protect minority seats and provide a lifeline to at least one Democratic incumbent who had been imperiled.
The San Antonio court, considering a parallel legal fight over the maps, already has pushed back the start of the candidate filing period to Nov. 28.
The legal fight centers around a requirement in the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act that certain states with a history of discrimination, including Texas, be granted preclearance before changes in voting practices can be enacted.
The legal standard is whether proposed changes have the purpose or effect of diminishing voting rights based on race or color.
The Justice Department contends Texas' legislative and congressional maps are retrogressive, meaning minority voters' ability to elect their candidates of choice is diminished. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
