|
|
|
Utah's same-sex marriage ban back in court
Legal Business |
2013/12/23 12:04
|
A federal judge on Monday is set to consider a request from the state of Utah to block gay weddings that have been taking place since Friday when the state's same-sex marriage ban was overturned.
U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled Utah's law passed violates gay and lesbian couples' rights under the 14th Amendment.
Lawyers for the state want the ruling put on hold as they appeal the decision that has put Utah in the national spotlight because of its long-standing opposition to gay marriage. Shelby will hold a hearing on the request Monday morning.
On Sunday, a federal appeals court rejected the state's emergency request stay the ruling, saying they couldn't rule on a stay since Shelby hasn't acted on the motion before him.
Following Shelby's surprising ruling Friday afternoon, gay and lesbian couples rushed to a county clerk's office in Salt Lake City to get marriage licenses. More than 100 couples wed as others cheered them on in what became an impromptu celebration an office building about three miles from the headquarters of the Mormon church. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay couples wed in Utah after judge overturns ban
Headline Topics |
2013/12/23 12:01
|
Elisa Noel rushed to the county clerk's office with her partner immediately after learning that a federal judge overturned Utah's ban on gay marriage. They waited in line for a wedding license and were married in an impromptu ceremony punctuated with Noel giving the officiant a high-five.
"I can't believe this is Utah," Noel said moments after a ceremony that took place about 3 miles from the headquarters of the Mormon church.
Others had a similar reaction after a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that declared Utah's voter-approved ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The recent appointee by President Obama said the ban violates the constitutional rights of gay couples and ruled Utah failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.
The ruling prompted a frenzy of activity by lawyers and gay couples. The Republican governor blasted the ruling as going against the will of the people. Gay couples rushed to the Salt Lake County Clerk's office en masse to secure marriage licenses, waiting in line by the dozens and getting married on the spot by the mayor and ministers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge ousts defendant twice from Guantanamo court
Press Release |
2013/12/20 10:33
|
The military judge presiding over the Sept. 11 war crimes tribunal at Guantanamo ejected one defendant from the courtroom twice Tuesday for speaking out of turn, adding a bit of drama to an otherwise dry pretrial motions hearing at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
Ramzi Binalshibh, one of five Guantanamo prisoners charged with orchestrating the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, refused repeated warnings to stop trying to address the judge about what he claims are efforts by guards to keep him awake at night with banging sounds inside his cell.
But the judge, whose courtroom was repeatedly disrupted when the defendants were arraigned in May 2012, was having none of it. Army Col. James Pohl ordered troops to remove Binalshibh and place him in a holding cell.
Then the same scene repeated itself in the afternoon session, and the judge warned it would happen again if the defendant tried again on Wednesday. "If he is disruptive he will be escorted from the courtroom," Pohl told the lawyers for Binalshibh.
He also said he was concerned that the prisoner might shout out classified information, prompting courtroom censors to cut the sound. "I don't know what he'll say," he said.
Both removals occurred as the judge asked Binalshibh if he understood he has the right to be absent from the remainder of the pretrial motions hearing this week. The four other defendants also answered in the affirmative.
Binalshibh used the question as an opportunity to repeat claims that prison authorities use sounds and vibrations to keep him awake at night inside Camp 7, the high-security section of Guantanamo where he and the other defendants in the Sept. 11 case are held. Prosecutors say they have looked into the matter and were assured that no noises are being made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing: Which court should hear coastal lawsuit?
Press Release |
2013/12/20 10:32
|
A legal tug-of-war continues in a state levee board's lawsuit against 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies over the erosion of wetlands.
The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East wants U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown to send the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, where the board filed it in July.
Attorneys for Chevron USA Inc. got the lawsuit moved to federal court in August, arguing that federal laws govern many of its claims.
Since then, lawyers have filed hundreds of pages of arguments and exhibits just on the question of which court should hear the case.
Brown scheduled arguments Wednesday.
The lawsuit says oil and gas canal and pipeline work has contributed to the erosion of wetlands that protect New Orleans when hurricanes move ashore. Corrosive saltwater from a network of oil and gas access and pipeline canals has killed plants that anchored the wetlands, letting waves sweep away hundreds of thousands of coastal land, it says.
Gov. Bobby Jindal has blasted the lawsuit as a windfall for trial lawyers and his coastal protection chief, Garret Graves, said the suit would undermine Louisiana's work with the industry to rebuild wetlands. An association of state levee districts voted to oppose the suit.
Since then, however, two coastal parishes heavily dependent on the industry have filed lawsuits of their own raising similar issues.
Earlier this month, the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association sued the state's attorney general, accusing him of illegally approving the Southeast Louisiana board's contract with lawyers who filed its lawsuit.
The association contends that Buddy Caldwell had no authority to approve the contract and that the suit will have "a chilling effect on the exploration, production, development and transportation" of Louisiana's oil and gas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$15 SeaTac minimum wage challenged in court
Legal Business |
2013/12/16 10:40
|
A King County Superior Court judge declined Friday to immediately rule on a challenge to the voter-approved $15 an hour minimum wage requirement for airport workers in Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
Judge Andrea Darvas said she'll issue a ruling with reasoning after Christmas Day but before January 1. Parties in the case had been expecting a ruling Friday.
The measure is scheduled to go into effect on January 1.
Last month voters in the city of SeaTac narrowly approved the measure, which would require a $15 minimum wage, a handful of paid sick days and other standards to around 6,000 workers at the airport and related industries, like hotels and rental car companies.
However, the legal fight over the measure is not expected to end with Darvas' ruling. An eventual appeal to the state Supreme Court could come from either side, depending on her ruling.
The challenge to the newly approved measure is being led by Alaska Airlines Group and other businesses. They say that an initiative approved by city residents doesn't have power over the airport, which is operated by the Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle, a public entity, agrees.
Alaska Airlines Group also says state law prohibits initiatives from packaging laws. So they're arguing that the multiple requirements in the measure, such as the minimum wage and paid sick days, constitute packaging multiple laws into one initiative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court vacates ban on US horse slaughter
Headline Topics |
2013/12/16 10:40
|
A federal appeals court on Friday removed a temporary ban on domestic horse slaughter, clearing the way for companies in New Mexico, Missouri and Iowa to open while an appeal of a lawsuit by animal protection groups proceeds.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver lifted the emergency injunction it issued in November after The Humane Society of the United States and others appealed the ruling of a federal judge in Albuquerque. The judge said the U.S. Department of Agriculture followed proper procedure in issuing permits to Valley Meat Co. in Roswell, N.M., Rains Natural Meats of Gallatin, Mo., and Responsible Transportation in Sigourney, Iowa.
The appeals court's order Friday said the groups had "failed to meet their burden for an injunction pending appeal."
Blair Dunn, an attorney for Valley Meat and Rains Natural Meats, said the order lifts the emergency status of the case, meaning it will likely be months before a final decision is issued.
Dunn said the plants are ready to open, although they could agree to remain shuttered if the plaintiffs agree to post a sufficient bond to cover the companies' losses should they ultimately prevail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY court: Reporter shielded in Colo. shooting case
Headline Court News |
2013/12/12 13:13
|
A Fox News reporter is protected by New York law from being forced to reveal her sources for a story about the suspect in the mass shooting that left 12 people dead in a suburban Denver movie theater last year, the state's top court ruled Tuesday.
The state's shield law supports refusing to recognize a Colorado court's petition for a subpoena, the New York Court of Appeals ruled, 4 to 3.
Lawyers for the suspect, James Holmes, wanted New York-based reporter Jana Winter brought to Colorado to name two law officers who told her Holmes had mailed a notebook depicting violence to a psychiatrist. They argued that the sources violated a judge's gag order, may have lied under oath about that and won't be credible as trial witnesses.
"There is a substantial likelihood that a New York reporter will be compelled to divulge the identity of a confidential source (or face a contempt sanction) if required to appear in the other jurisdiction _ a result that would offend the core protections of the shield law, a New York public policy of the highest order," the court said in overturning a mid-level appeals court's decision supporting the subpoena.
One dissenting judge said New York's law does not protect Winter because the privileged communications with her sources took place in another state. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
