|
|
|
Alabama begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples
Court Watch News |
2015/02/09 15:26
|
Alabama began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Monday despite an 11th-hour attempt from the state's chief justice - an outspoken opponent - to block the weddings.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday morning that it wouldn't stop the marriages, and shortly after, probate judges began granting the licenses to couples, some of whom had been lined up for hours and exited courthouses to applause from supporters.
"It's about time," said Shante Wolfe, 21. She and Tori Sisson of Tuskegee had camped out in a blue and white tent and became the first in the county given a license.
Most probate judges issued the licenses despite Chief Justice Roy Moore's Sunday night order that they refuse. It was a dramatic return to defiance Moore, who was removed from the post in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal court order to remove a washing machine-sized Ten Commandments from the state judicial building. Critics lashed out that Moore had no authority to tell county probate judges to enforce a law that a federal judge already ruled unconstitutional.
Susan Watson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said she has heard of four counties where judges have refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two justices once open to cameras in court now reconsider
Press Release |
2015/02/03 16:15
|
Two Supreme Court justices who once seemed open to the idea of cameras in the courtroom said Monday they have reconsidered those views, dashing even faint hopes that April's historic arguments over gay marriage might be televised.
In separate appearances, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could fundamentally change the nature of the high court.
Sotomayor told an audience in West Palm Beach, Florida, that cameras could change the behavior of both the justices and lawyers appearing at the court, who might succumb to "this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom."
"I am moving more closely to saying I think it might be a bad idea," she said.
During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras and would try to soften other justices' opposition to cameras.
Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, Kagan told an audience that she is "conflicted" over the issue and noted strong arguments on both sides.
Kagan said that when she used to argue cases before the court as Solicitor General, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were for each case "and really look as though they are trying to get it right."
But Kagan said she is wary now of anything "that may upset the dynamic of the institution."
She pointed to Congress, which televises floor proceedings, saying lawmakers talk more in made-for-TV sound bites than to each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romanian court sentences judge to 22 years in bribe case
Headline Court News |
2015/02/03 16:14
|
A court has sentenced a judge to 22 years in prison on charges that he took bribes to rule favorably in several cases involving one of Romania's richest businessmen.
The Bucharest Appeals Court also confiscated a luxury car and money from Mircea Moldovan. The ruling is not yet final.
Businessman Dan Adamescu was also sentenced to four years and four months while judge Elena Roventa received five years and 10 months. Two other judges were also sentenced to prison.
Adamescu was convicted of instructing his lawyer — who threw himself under a train after the judges were arrested — to bribe the judges 20,000 euros ($17,700 ) in December 2013 to rule in his favor in several insolvency cases involving his companies. Adamescu denies wrongdoing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court weighs suit in US Marshals shooting
Network News |
2015/01/30 09:41
|
An appeals court is deciding whether deputy U.S. marshals who shot and wounded a teenage driver eight years ago may be sued in federal court, a case that's unfolding amid a national debate about police use of force and the legal protections afforded to law enforcement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments last month and could issue an opinion soon.
The case of driver Michael Fenwick raises questions about how police can deal with fleeing individuals and the role video should play in analyzing a police pursuit. A case that presented similar issues was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year after fascinated justices watched dashboard camera video of the chase.
The key issue for the appeals court is whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, a legal principle that shields government officials from being sued unless their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. A lower-court judge in 2013 allowed the case to go forward, saying there were legitimate questions about whether excessive force was used, but rejected many other arguments from Fenwick's lawyer.
An appeals court ruling in favor of the marshals would end the case. But if the judges prove sympathetic to arguments that the shooting was unjustified, the case would be returned to the trial court, where it could ultimately reach a jury and add to a body of law that is still developing. That's a potentially heavy legal burden, given past court decisions that give law enforcement leeway in firing at fleeing suspects if they feel endangered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court refuses to halt execution of Ga. man
Court Watch News |
2015/01/30 09:41
|
The Supreme Court has refused to halt the execution of a Georgia man whose lawyers say he is ineligible to be executed because he is intellectually disabled. Warren Lee Hill's lawyers argue he shouldn't be executed because he is intellectually disabled.
The justices on Tuesday turned away a last-minute plea from Warren Lee Hill. He is scheduled to be executed at 7 p.m. at the state prison in Jackson, Georgia.
Different courts have intervened with temporary reprieves at the last minute on three previous occasions. Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have granted Hill another reprieve.
State and federal courts had already rejected his filings this time around, and the State Board of Pardons and Paroles —the only entity authorized to commute his sentence to life in prison — denied him clemency Tuesday. Hill has filings pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now the only potential barrier between him and a lethal injection of the drug pentobarbital.
"The clemency board missed an opportunity to right a grave wrong," Brian Kammer, a lawyer for Hill, said in an emailed statement Tuesday. "It is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that an unconstitutional execution of a man with lifelong intellectual disability is prevented."
Hill was sentenced to serve life in prison for the 1986 killing of his 18-year-old girlfriend, who was shot 11 times. While serving that sentence, he beat a fellow inmate, Joseph Handspike, to death using a nail-studded board. A jury in 1991 convicted Hill of murder and sentenced him to death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EU appeals Hamas court ruling taking group off terror list
Lawyer News |
2015/01/19 14:46
|
The European Union foreign policy chief says the bloc is launching an appeal against last month's EU court ruling that ordered the Palestinian group Hamas removed from its terror list for technical reasons.
Federica Mogherini said Monday the council of ministers will challenge some of the court's finding and consider future action to avoid similar annulments.
Hamas was put on the EU terrorist list as part of broader measures to fight terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and its funds were frozen. Hamas has long contested the classification.
An EU high court on Dec. 17 said the reason for listing it was based too much on media and Internet reports, and not enough on acts examined by competent authorities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona sheriff could face civil contempt hearing in court
Court Watch News |
2015/01/19 14:39
|
An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.
But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.
At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.
Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.
Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
