|
|
|
Ohio Republicans defending state congressional map in court
Attorney Blog News |
2019/03/11 10:46
|
Attorneys for Ohio Republican officials will call witnesses this week to defend the state's congressional map.
A federal trial enters its second week Monday in a lawsuit by voter rights groups that say the current seats resulted from "an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." Their witnesses have included Democratic activists and voters who have expressed frustration and confusion with districts that have stayed at 12 Republicans, four Democrats, since they were drawn ahead of the 2012 elections.
Attorneys for the Republican officials being sued say the map resulted from bipartisan compromise, with each party losing one seat after population shifts in the 2010 U.S. Census caused Ohio to lose two congressional seats.
Among potential GOP witnesses is former U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) of West Chester, Ohio. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case about indigent drivers and drivers' licenses in court
Top Court Watch |
2019/03/09 10:46
|
A federal court judge will hear motions in a lawsuit over a North Carolina law that mandates the revocation of drivers' licenses for unpaid traffic tickets even if the driver can't afford to pay.
Advocacy groups sued in May, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. A hearing will be held Wednesday in Winston-Salem on motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification.
The judge also will consider a motion by the defendant, the commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles, for a judgment in his favor.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups sued on behalf of indigent residents facing license revocation or whose licenses have been revoked.
They're asking that a judge declare the law unconstitutional, saying it violates due process rights under the 14th Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land
Top Court Watch |
2019/03/07 10:54
|
The Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to rule that a 40-foot-tall cross that stands on public land in Maryland is constitutional, but shy away from a sweeping ruling.
The case the justices heard arguments in is being closely watched because it involves the place of religious symbols in public life. But the particular memorial at issue is a nearly 100-year-old cross that was built in a Washington, D.C., suburb as a memorial to area residents who died in World War I.
Before arguments in the case, it seemed that the memorial's supporters, including the Trump administration, had the upper hand based on the court's conservative makeup and its decision to take up the matter. On Wednesday, even liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer suggested that they could join a narrow ruling upholding this particular memorial.
Kagan noted that the cross is a symbol linked with soldiers killed in World War I.
"When you go into a World War I battlefield, there are Stars of David there, but because those battlefields were just rows and rows and rows of crosses, the cross became, in people's minds, the pre-eminent symbol of how to memorialize World War I dead," she said, adding that there are no religious words on the Maryland cross and that it sits in an area with other war memorials. She asked, "So why in a case like that can we not say essentially the religious content has been stripped of this monument?"
Breyer, for his part, asked a lawyer arguing for the cross' challengers what she thought about saying that "history counts" and that "We're not going to have people trying to tear down historical monuments even here."
"What about saying past is past?" he said at another point during arguments conducted in a courtroom whose friezes include depictions of Moses and Muhammed and that began, as always, with the marshal's cry: "God save the United States and this honorable court."
The cross's challengers include three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, a group that includes atheists and agnostics. They argue that the cross's location on public land violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others. They say the cross should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk. The group lost the first round in court, but in 2017 an appeals court ruled the cross unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislators give final OK to keep Court of Appeals at 15
Law & Court News |
2019/03/07 10:53
|
The North Carolina Court of Appeals should remain at 15 judges with legislation now heading to Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's desk that repeals a 2017 law Republicans pushed that would reduce its seats to 12.
The House gave final legislative approval to the measure on Wednesday. It should end litigation Cooper filed challenging the law, which directs three judgeships be eliminated as vacancies arise. No eliminations have yet occurred.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals should remain at 15 judges with legislation now heading to Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's desk that repeals a 2017 law Republicans pushed that would reduce its seats to 12.
The House gave final legislative approval to the measure on Wednesday. It should end litigation Cooper filed challenging the law, which directs three judgeships be eliminated as vacancies arise. No eliminations have yet occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rules for Alabama death row inmate
Attorney Blog News |
2019/03/05 10:53
|
The Supreme Court is ordering a new state court hearing to determine whether an Alabama death row inmate is so affected by dementia that he can't be executed.
The justices ruled 5-3 on Wednesday in favor of inmate Vernon Madison, who killed a police officer in 1985. His lawyers say he has suffered strokes that have left him with severe dementia.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals in siding with Madison.
The high court ruling is not the end of the case. Justice Elena Kagan says in her majority opinion that, if the state wants to put Madison to death, an Alabama state court must determine that Madison understands why he is being executed.
The justices have previously said the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment means that people who are insane, delusional or psychotic cannot be executed.
But Kagan, reading a summary of her ruling, said, "Based on our review of the record, we can't be sure that the state court recognized that Madison's dementia might render him incompetent to be executed."
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who last year would have allowed the execution to proceed without hearing the case, dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was not yet on the court when arguments took place in early October.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
