|
|
|
Court upholds judge’s finding that Tesla acquisition of Solar City was fair
Top Court Watch |
2023/10/16 17:25
|
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered two internet sellers of gun parts to comply with a Biden administration regulation aimed at ghost guns, firearms that are difficult to trace because they lack serial numbers.
The court had intervened once before, by a 5-4 vote in August, to keep the regulation in effect after it had been invalidated by a lower court. No justice dissented publicly from Monday’s order, which followed a ruling from a federal judge in Texas that exempted the two companies, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group and Defense Distributed, from having to abide by the regulation of ghost gun kits.
Other makers of gun parts also had been seeking similar court orders, the administration told the Supreme Court in a filing.
“Absent relief from this Court, therefore, untraceable ghost guns will remain widely available to anyone with a computer and a credit card — no background check required,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote.
The regulation changed the definition of a firearm under federal law to include unfinished parts, like the frame of a handgun or the receiver of a long gun, so they can be tracked more easily. Those parts must be licensed and include serial numbers. Manufacturers must also run background checks before a sale - as they do with other commercially made firearms.
The requirement applies regardless of how the firearm was made, meaning it includes ghost guns made from individual parts or kits or by 3D printers.
The regulation will be in effect while the administration appeals the judge’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans — and potentially the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court upholds procedural vote on governor’s education overhaul
Law & Court News |
2023/10/13 11:16
|
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the procedural vote that allowed Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ education overhaul to take effect immediately, rejecting a judge’s ruling that threw into question the way state laws have been fast-tracked into enforcement over the years.
The state Supreme Court’s 6-1 decision has no effect on the education law that the Republican governor signed in March and is already in effect. The law created a new school voucher program, raised minimum teacher salaries and placed restrictions on classroom instruction pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity before the fifth grade.
But the ruling rejects the argument that the Legislature violated the state constitution with its votes for the measure to take effect immediately. Opponents of the law argued that the emergency clause for the law, which requires a two-thirds vote, should have been taken up separately from the legislation. Lawmakers commonly vote on a bill and its emergency clause at the same time.
Justices ruled that this approach for the education law was constitutional, noting that the votes are recorded separately in House and Senate journals.
“The House Journal indicates a separate roll call and vote for the emergency clause. Likewise, the Senate Journal indicates a separate roll call and vote for the emergency clause,” Justice Barbara Webb wrote in the ruling. “Thus, according to the official record, the emergency clause was passed in compliance with article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution.”
Sanders, who took office in January, hailed the ruling.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of the LEARNS Act is a historic victory for Arkansas parents, teachers, and students,” she posted on X, formerly Twitter, calling the ruling a “crushing defeat” for opponents of the law.
Ali Noland, an attorney for the plaintiffs who challenged the law, criticized the court’s decision and said the lawsuit was moot for two months since the overhaul was already in effect.
“Today’s Arkansas Supreme Court ruling makes it much harder for Arkansans to hold their government accountable for willfully violating the Arkansas Constitution,” Noland said in a statement.
Justices in June lifted the Pulaski County judge’s order that blocked enforcement of the law. Without the emergency clause, the law wouldn’t have taken effect until August. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biden’s second try at student loan cancellation moves forward with debate
Law & Court News |
2023/10/10 12:22
|
President Joe Biden’s second attempt at student loan cancellation began moving forward Tuesday with a round of hearings to negotiate the details of a new plan.
In a process known as negotiated rulemaking, 14 people chosen by the Biden administration are meeting for the first of three hearings on student loan relief. Their goal is to guide the Education Department toward a proposal after the Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first plan in June.
The negotiators all come from outside the federal government and represent a range of viewpoints on student loans. The panel includes students and officials from a range of colleges, along with loan servicers, state officials and advocates including the NAACP.
In opening remarks, Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said the student debt crisis has threatened to undercut the promise of higher education.
“Student loan debt in this country has grown so large that it siphons off the benefits of college for many students,” Kvaal said in prepared remarks. “Some loans made to young adults stretch into retirement with no hope of being repaid. These debt burdens are shared by families and communities.”
Biden directed the Education Department to find another path to loan relief after the conservative court ruled that he couldn’t cancel loans using a 2003 law called the HEROES Act.
The latest attempt will rest on a sweeping law known as the Higher Education Act, which gives the education secretary authority to waive student loans — although how far that power extends is the subject of legal debate. The department is going through the negotiated rulemaking process to change or add federal rules clarifying how the secretary can cancel debt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rep. George Santos’ former campaign treasurer will plead guilty to a federal felony
Top Court Watch |
2023/10/05 10:37
|
The ex-campaign treasurer for U.S. Rep. George Santos is scheduled to enter a guilty plea to an unspecified felony in connection with the sprawling federal investigation of financial irregularities surrounding the indicted New York Republican, prosecutors say.
Nancy Marks is a veteran Long Island political operative. Marks served as the campaign treasurer and close aide to Santos during his two congressional bids. Marks resigned amid growing questions about Santos’ campaign finances and revelations Santos had fabricated much of his life story.
Marks’ plea is scheduled to take place in a Central Islip courtroom on Thursday afternoon. It comes as Santos faces a 13-count federal indictment centered on charges of money laundering and lying to Congress in an earlier financial disclosure.
The investigation of the first-term congressman has also engulfed Marks, a key behind-the-scenes figure in Long Island Republican politics who built a business as a treasurer and consultant to dozens of local, state and federal candidates.
Marks has faced questions about the congressman’s unusual campaign filings, including a series of $199.99 expenses, just below the legal limit for disclosure. Santos, in turn, has sought to pin the blame for his unexplained finances on Marks, who he claims “went rogue” without his knowledge.
Any deal with prosecutors that requires Marks to testify in the case against Santos could be a severe blow to the Republican, who faces charges that he embezzled money from his campaign, lied in financial disclosures submitted to Congress and received unemployment funds when he wasn’t eligible.
While Santos has admitted fabricating key parts about his purported background as a wealthy, well-educated businessman, questions remain about what he did for work, as well as the true source of more than $700,000 he initially claimed to have loaned his campaign from his own personal fortune.
Santos has pleaded not guilty to charges he duped donors, stole from his campaign and lied to Congress about being a millionaire, all while cheating to collect unemployment benefits he didn’t deserve. He has defied calls to resign.
A formal complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center with the Federal Election Committee alleges that unknown groups may have illegally funneled money into the Santos campaign. The complaint, filed last January, named Marks along with Santos. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge blocks 2 provisions in North Carolina’s new abortion law
Topics in Legal News |
2023/10/02 14:24
|
A federal judge on Saturday blocked two portions of North Carolina’s new abortion law from taking effect while a lawsuit continues. But nearly all of the restrictions approved by the legislature this year, including a near-ban after 12 weeks of pregnancy, aren’t being specifically challenged and remain intact.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an order halting enforcement of a provision to require surgical abortions that occur after 12 weeks — those for cases of rape and incest, for example — be performed only in hospitals, not abortion clinics. That limitation would have otherwise taken effect on Sunday.
And in the same preliminary injunction, Eagles extended beyond her temporary decision in June an order preventing enforcement of a rule that doctors must document the existence of a pregnancy within the uterus before prescribing a medication abortion.
Short of successful appeals by Republican legislative leaders defending the laws, the order will remain in effect until a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a physician who performs abortions challenging the sections are resolved. The lawsuit also seeks to have clarified whether medications can be used during the second trimester to induce labor of a fetus that can’t survive outside the uterus.
The litigation doesn’t directly seek to topple the crux of the abortion law enacted in May after GOP legislators overrode Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto. North Carolina had a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks before July 1, when the law scaled it back to 12 weeks.
The law, a response to the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade, also added new exceptions for abortions through 20 weeks for cases of rape and incest and through 24 weeks for “life-limiting” fetal anomalies. A medical emergency exception also stayed in place.
On medication abortions, which bill sponsors say also are permitted through 12 weeks of pregnancy, the new law says a physician prescribing an abortion-inducing drug must first “document in the woman’s medical chart the ... intrauterine location of the pregnancy.”
Eagles wrote the plaintiffs were likely to be successful on their claim that the law is so vague as to subject abortion providers to claims that they broke the law if they can’t locate an embryo through an ultrasound because the pregnancy is so new. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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
