Thursday, November 30, 2006
FEMA Ordered to Restore Evacuees’ Housing Aid
“FEMA has to restore housing assistance and pay back rent to thousands of Hurricane Katrina evacuees who had been deemed ineligible for long-term housing assistance, a federal judge ruled yesterday.” According to The New York Times, “The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote that the agency also had to improve an appeals process that evacuees had long said was confusing, contradictory and amounted to an arbitrary denial of help.”
Justices Hear Climate Debate
The Los Angeles Times reports, “The Supreme Court appeared closely divided Wednesday over an environmental challenge to the Bush administration's refusal to regulate the greenhouse gases that are believed to cause global warming.” The article explains that the outcome will probably turn on the opinion of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s centrist who did not tip his hand during the argument but joined the court's liberal bloc in June to preserve broad federal regulation of wetlands.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
U.S. Currency Discriminates Against Blind, Judge Rules
A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the government illegally discriminated against blind people by printing its paper currency on bills of the same size that could not be distinguished by touch. According to The New York Times, “The judge, James Robertson of Federal District Court, ordered the Treasury Department to start discussing within 30 days potential remedies, including different note sizes for different denominations and raised numerals and perforated dots on the bills.”
Justices Reject N.Y. Times in Leak Case
“The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the New York Times and two of its reporters from a prosecutor's probe into who leaked word of planned raids on two Muslim charities five years ago,” reports The Los Angeles Times. According to the report, “The decision clears the way for federal prosecutors to review the phone records of the two reporters for several weeks in the fall of 2001.”
Court Declines School-Choice Appeal
“The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a school-choice case out of Maine,” reports The Washington Times, “where a group of families says it's unfair that state law bars them from using funds provided by the state's existing school-choice program to send their children to religious schools.”
Friday, November 17, 2006
Jailed Freelance Journalist Loses Request for Rehearing
“A federal appeals court has denied a request for a rehearing from a freelance video journalist and blogger who has been jailed for three months for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation of a violent anticapitalist protest.,” reports The New York Times. The report explains that the decision Wednesday by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals means that the blogger, Josh Wolf, could be kept in jail until July, when the term of the grand jury expires, making his incarceration the longest of any American journalist in recent American history.
Ruling: Illegals May Sue for Wages at U.S. Levels
“Illegal immigrants injured on construction jobs can sue for the future income they would have earned in this country at American wage levels, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.” According to The New York Sun, “The ruling does not apply to illegal immigrants who use false documents or otherwise lie about their immigration status to get jobs.”
Monday, November 13, 2006
Court Refuses Request in U.S. Man's Case
“The Supreme Court refused Monday to intervene to keep an American facing a death sentence in Iraq from being handed over to authorities in Baghdad,” reports The Associated Press. According to the report, Muhammad Munaf has been in military custody in Iraq since last year leading up to his death sentence handed down last month by an Iraqi judge for his role in the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Baghdad.
New Court Hearings Scheduled This Week for Two Iranian Women Sentenced to Death by Stoning
According to Lily Mazahery, President of the Legal Rights Institute in Washington, DC:
The lawyers representing two women sentenced to death by stoning for engaging in "inappropriate relationships" with men announced that their clients will face new trials this week. According to counsel for Hajieh Esamailvand, the court in the city of Jolfa has summoned Hajieh back for additional interrogation on Thursday, November 16, 2006. Hajieh's counsel remains hopeful that competent legal representation and defense during the new trial will lead to the dismissal of the charges against her client. She goes on to explain that Hajieh's statements in court during her previous trial was taken to mean that she had committed adultery when, in fact, Hajieh had used the term "zena" to inform the court that she was raped by the man who had murdered her husband. Such an erroneous interpretation of the word "zena," (which, in Farsi is used to describe adultery, fornication, debauchery, and rape,) led the court to find Hajieh guilty of adultery and sentence her to death by stoning. Similarly, lawyers representing Parisa Akbari are contesting the sentence of death by stoning issued against their client. The Judiciary of High Council ( i.e. Islamic Republic of Iran's Supreme Court) has ordered a re-evaluation in Parisa's case. Branch 15 of the Judiciary of High Council is scheduled to hold a hearing on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 to re-evaluate the charges against Parisa and her husband. One of the lawyers representing Parisa at the new hearing states that he has prepared an excellent legal defense in Parisa's case, and that he is confident that the court will rule in his client's favor.
Judge Tosses Suit Challenging City Logo
The Associated Press reports, “A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop the city of Las Cruces - a name that means ‘the crosses’ in Spanish - from using three Christian crosses on its logo.” According to the report, “Three plaintiffs had contended the city government's use of crosses violated the First Amendment by endorsing and advancing a religion.”
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Group Can Seek White House, FDA Records About Plan B Pill
“A federal magistrate judge has ruled that a reproductive-rights group can seek White House e-mails and other documents as part of its lawsuit promoting broader access to the ‘morning-after’ pill,” reports The Washington Post. According to the report, “The ruling by Viktor V. Pohorelsky allows the Center for Reproductive Rights to subpoena more than three years of Plan B-related communications between the White House's domestic-policy office and select Food and Drug Administration officials.”
Abortion Cases Draw Throngs to High Court
USA Today has this article discussing yesterday’s oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court addressing the issue of partial-birth abortion. According to the report, “The disputes over Congress' ban of a procedure it calls ‘partial birth’ abortion represent a key test of whether the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts will take a harder line against abortion rights now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key supporter of such rights, has retired.”
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Roberts Court Faces First Abortion Cases
The Christian Science Monitor reports, “Wednesday, the US Supreme Court takes up two cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.” And as the report explains, “The cases offer a first look at how the high court under Chief Justice Roberts will approach the divisive issue of abortion.”
Court Asked to Apply Sentencing Rule Retroactively
USA Today reports, “A lawyer for a convicted rapist seeking to cut his client's prison time urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to retroactively apply its 2004 decision that limited judges' discretion in sentencing.” According to the report, “A decision, which could affect thousands of criminal cases, might clarify complicated sentencing standards and affect when convicts are able to appeal their cases based on any favorable high court ruling that comes after their trial.”
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Despite Flawed Defense, a Death Sentence Stands
The New York Times has this report discussing a federal appellate court’s decision to leave standing a death sentence handed down to defendant whose attorney failed to conduct even basic background checks—even the defendant’s true identity, family history and history of abuse. The report begins, “Defense lawyers in capital cases are often criticized for conducting superficial investigations of their clients’ backgrounds, but Ferdinand Radolovich’s performance in a Kentucky case, one that ended in a death sentence, may have set a new standard.”
