|
|
|
High court to rule on Stolen Valor Act
Headline Topics |
2011/10/17 10:06
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether a law making it a crime to lie about having received military medals is constitutional.
The justices said Monday they will consider the validity of the Stolen Valor Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming support in 2006. The federal appeals court in California struck down the law on free speech grounds and appeals courts in Colorado, Georgia and Missouri are considering similar cases.
The Obama administration is arguing that the law is reasonable because it only applies to instances in which the speaker intends to portray himself as a medal recipient. Previous high court rulings also have limited First Amendment protection for false statements.
The court almost always reviews lower court rulings that hold federal laws unconstitutional.
The case concerns the government's prosecution of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif. A member of the local water district board, Alvarez said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration. In fact, he had never served in the military. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court seems divided over Miranda rights case
Headline Topics |
2011/10/05 10:48
|
The Supreme Court seemed split Tuesday on whether to require police to read Miranda rights to prison inmates every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court heard arguments from lawyers from the state of Michigan who want a federal appeals court decision overturning Randall Lee Fields' conviction thrown out.
Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff's deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault.
Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court
Headline Topics |
2011/09/26 09:46
|
Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices.
The legal battle is the latest round in a series of claims and counterclaims of patent breaches by the rival technology heavyweights playing out in courtrooms around the world.
Samsung Electronics Co. lawyer Bas Berghuis told a civil judge at The Hague District Court that Apple never bothered to ask about licenses before it started selling 3G-enabled iPhones.
Apple lawyer Rutger Kleemans hit back by accusing Samsung of using the patent dispute to hold Apple hostage because of Apple's legal battles accusing Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad designs.
It's a holdup, Kleemans said. Because Apple dared to take action against Samsung's copycat tactics.
Kleemans urged the court to reject the injunction request, saying the patents involved are not designed to be used as a weapon against Apple.
No date was immediately given for a ruling.
Earlier this month, a court in Duesseldorf, Germany, ruled that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because its design too closely resembled the iPad2. The ruling only applied to direct sales from the Samsung, meaning distributors who acquire the Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany. Samsung said it would appeal that judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court hears challenge to health care law
Headline Topics |
2011/09/25 09:46
|
A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.
The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.
But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a major concern that courts might not be able to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015. That's because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.
A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions — one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
