|
|
|
Court won't consider giving man new trial
Network News |
2012/05/18 22:28
|
The Supreme Court won't consider giving a man convicted in the death of a Texas toddler a new trial because the medical examiner changed her opinion on the cause of death.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Neil Hampton Robbins, convicted in the death of 17-month-old Tristen Skye Rivet, who died on May 12, 1998.
At the trial, Dr. Patricia Moore testified that Tristen's death was a homicide caused by asphyxia. But Moore later changed her opinion and said the cause of death was undetermined. Robbins asked for a new trial but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal refused, saying there is no conclusive evidence of Robbins' innocence and that it wasn't proven that the state purposefully used false testimony.
Some patients' fate could hinge on Supreme Court
If the Supreme Court strikes down President Barack Obama's health care law, it wouldn't just be politicians dealing with the fallout.
Nearly 62,000 patients with serious medical conditions would be out of luck.
They're the "uninsurables," people turned away by insurance companies because of medical problems but covered through a little-known program in the law called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. The plan would have to shut down if the entire law is invalidated.
Cancer patient Kathy Thomas is worried she'll be uninsured again without the program. The Florida small businesswoman credits the coverage for saving her life this year when she had to be hospitalized with a serious respiratory infection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds key voting rights provision
Legal Business |
2012/05/17 22:28
|
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, rejecting an Alabama county's challenge to the landmark civil rights law.
The provision requires state, county and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department, or from a federal court in Washington, for any changes to election procedures. It now applies to all or parts of 16 states.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Congress developed extensive evidence of continuing racial discrimination just six years ago and reached a reasonable conclusion when it reauthorized section 5 of the law at that time.
The appellate ruling could clear the way for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested in a 2009 opinion that the court's conservative majority might be receptive to a challenge to section 5.
Judge David Tatel wrote for the Court of Appeals majority that the court owes deference to Congress' judgment on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution
Court Watch News |
2012/05/16 22:29
|
An upstate New York town violated the constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity, a federal court of appeals ruled Thursday.
In what it said was its first case testing the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the town of Greece, a suburb of Rochester, should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open monthly meetings. The town's lawyer says it will appeal.
From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.
Galloway and Stephens sued and, in 2010, a lower court ruled there was no evidence the town had intentionally excluded other faiths.
A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court's stance could spur immigration laws
Headline Topics |
2012/04/30 09:25
|
Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.
"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."
That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
