|
|
|
High court action on voting aims to avoid chaos
Headline Court News |
2014/10/13 16:31
|
In seemingly contradictory voting-rights actions just a month before November's elections, the Supreme Court has allowed new Republican-inspired restrictions to remain in force in North Carolina and Ohio while blocking Wisconsin's voter identification law.
But there's a thread of consistency: In each case, the court appears to be seeking a short-term outcome that is the least disruptive for the voting process.
Another test of the court's outlook on voter ID laws could come from Texas, where the state is promising to appeal a ruling that struck down its strict law as unconstitutional racial discrimination.
None of the orders issued by the high court in recent days is a final ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. The orders are all about timing — whether the laws can be used in this year's elections — while the justices defer consideration of their validity.
In some ways, these disputes over the mechanics of voting are like others that crop up frequently just before elections as part of last-minute struggles by partisans to influence who can vote.
Republican lawmakers say the measures are needed to reduce voter fraud. Democrats contend they are thinly veiled attempts to keep eligible voters, many of them minorities supportive of Democrats, away from the polls.
Court rulings at various levels have also revealed partisan divisions. Most judges who voted to uphold the restrictive laws or allow them to take effect while the legal fights play out are Republican appointees. Most of those voting to strike down the laws or prevent them from being enforced were appointed by Democratic presidents. That is true even at the Supreme Court.
The high court has laid out one area of agreement: a general rule discouraging courts in general from letting potentially disruptive changes take effect at the last minute.
"The idea that courts should not impose a new set of voting rules just before an election is not a new one," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine law school.
This year, that idea appears to have led the Supreme Court to outcomes that on the surface appear to be inconsistent, Hasen said. One problem in reading too much into the orders is that they were issued with little explanation.
But in each case, the court took issue with lower court rulings that would have changed the rules too close to an election, Hasen said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court throws out Chiquita terror payment claims
Headline Court News |
2014/07/28 13:14
|
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday threw out claims potentially worth billions of dollars against produce giant Chiquita Brands International made by relatives of thousands of Colombians killed during years of bloody civil war.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the Colombian claims. The lawsuits accused Chiquita of assisting in the killings by paying $1.7 million to a violent right-wing paramilitary group known as the AUC, the Spanish acronym for United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.
Chiquita, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, formerly operated large banana plantations in Colombia through its Banadex subsidiary. Chiquita insists it was the victim of extortion and was forced to pay the AUC or face violence directed at its employees and assets in Colombia.
The majority cited a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum that imposed limits on attempts by foreigners to use U.S. courts to seek damages against corporations for human rights abuses abroad. Chiquita had insisted that ruling meant the Colombians' lawsuit had to be tossed out.
"We are gratified that the U.S. Court of Appeals has now agreed with us and the claims have been dismissed," said Chiquita spokesman Ed Loyd in an email statement. "The decision reinforces what Chiquita has maintained from the beginning — that Chiquita is not responsible for the tragic violence that has plagued Colombia." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules against HealthSouth in auditor dispute
Headline Court News |
2014/06/16 14:41
|
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled against Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corp. on Friday in a legal dispute linked to the accounting fraud that rocked the rehabilitation company more than a decade ago.
The justices rejected an appeal filed by HealthSouth in a legal fight involving its one-time auditing company, Ernst & Young.
Shareholders filed a complaint on behalf of HealthSouth blaming Ernst & Young for failing to detect the $2.6 billion accounting scam that occurred under former CEO Richard Scrushy, who was acquitted of criminal charges in 2005. A civil court later held him responsible for the swindle.
An arbitration panel ruled against HealthSouth in a complaint aimed at making Ernst & Young share responsibility for the fraud, and HealthSouth appealed to Jefferson County Circuit Court. That court sided with the auditor, and HealthSouth appealed again.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice James Main, upheld the ruling against HealthSouth. The justices said there was no evidence the arbitration decision against HealthSouth was fundamentally unfair or that the panel engaged in any misconduct.
Evidence showed HealthSouth inflated its earnings by some $2.6 billion from the late 1990s through the early 2000s, when the scheme was uncovered. Fifteen HealthSouth employees pleaded guilty and jurors convicted one other.
Scrushy blamed everything on underlings but later served time in federal prison after being convicted in a bribery scheme involving former Gov. Don Siegelman, who remains in prison in Oakdale, La.
Scrushy, who maintains his innocence to all charges, now lives in Texas and sometimes lectures about corporate fraud. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court sides with EPA on not setting new standard
Headline Court News |
2014/05/27 13:38
|
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency was justified in not establishing a new air quality standard for acid rain.
The EPA decided in 2012 after a lengthy rulemaking proceeding that it needed further scientific study before it could set a new air quality standard for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur.
Environmental groups claimed that EPA's failure to issue a new multi-pollutant rule violated the Clean Air Act.
In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it was turning aside the environmental groups' petition for judicial review because the EPA could not form a reasoned judgment as the Clean Air Act requires.
"EPA did not simply leave in place the old standard," said appeals judge A. William Randolph. "Although it did not promulgate a new standard, it identified the data gaps that prevented it from doing so and initiated a data-collection program designed precisely to fill those gaps and facilitate future regulation."
Once EPA found that the two current standards were inadequate with respect to acid rain, the agency sought to determine what new multi-pollutant standard would be appropriate, the judges said. EPA recognized that a new national ambient air quality standard would necessarily be more complex than those set historically for just one pollutant, the court wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
