|
|
|
Texas Voter ID Law to be Tested in a Federal Court
Topics in Legal News |
2012/07/09 15:43
|
The fate of Texas' controversial new voter ID law - which requires voters to show photo identification at the polls - is set to be decided this week in a federal court in Washington.
The state, which claims the law will prevent voter fraud, is seeking to persuade a three-judge panel to uphold the statute. The Justice Department and a slew of intervening groups say the law disproportionately affects minority voters, violating the federal Voting Rights Act. They want it thrown out.
The case will be a test of the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, which was designed to protect minorities' rights to vote.
The Justice Department set up this week's court fight when it blocked implementation of the law in March. Texas quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court, bringing the two sides back to Washington for the second time in months.
The two sides spent two weeks earlier this year arguing in front of a similar three-judge panel about Texas' redrawn congressional maps. As now, the Justice Department claimed Texas was violating the federal Voting Rights Act. No final decision has been made in that case, but a federal court has approved interim maps that have allowed Texas elections to go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. court won't rehear union case without justice
Law & Court News |
2012/07/06 16:36
|
The state Supreme Court won't reconsider a lawsuit challenging Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining law without Justice Michael Gableman.
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne had argued Republicans violated the state's open meetings law during debate on the measure. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2011 the law stands.
Ozanne in December asked the court to reconsider the case. He argued the Michael, Best & Friedrich law firm both defended the law and gave Justice Michael Gableman free legal help in the past, raising questions of impropriety.
The prosecutor demanded Gableman recuse himself from further proceedings. Gableman refused, saying he could be impartial.
The Supreme Court tied 3-3 Friday on Ozanne's request to rehear the case without Gableman. It would have taken four votes to proceed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court throws out FCC penalties for cursing, nudity
Topics in Legal News |
2012/06/22 11:09
|
Broadcasters anticipating a major constitutional ruling on the government's authority to regulate what can be shown and said on the airwaves instead won only the smallest of Supreme Court victories Thursday.
The justices unanimously threw out fines and other penalties against Fox and ABC television stations that violated the Federal Communications Commission policy regulating curse words and nudity on television airwaves.
Forgoing a broader constitutional ruling, however, the court concluded only that broadcasters could not have known in advance that obscenities uttered during awards show programs on Fox stations and a brief display of nudity on an episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue" could give rise to penalties. ABC and 45 affiliates had been hit with proposed fines totaling nearly $1.24 million. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Union must give fee increase notice
Top Court Watch |
2012/06/21 12:21
|
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.
"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the judgment but wrote their own opinion. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds," Sotomayor wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with state in DNA case
Law & Court News |
2012/06/18 13:11
|
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a rape conviction over objections that the defendant did not have the chance to question the reliability of the DNA evidence that helped convict him.
The court's 5-4 ruling went against a run of high court decisions that bolstered the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them.
Justice Clarence Thomas provided the margin of difference in the case to uphold the conviction of Sandy Williams, even though Thomas has more often sided with defendants on the issue of cross-examination of witnesses.
The case grew out of a DNA expert's testimony that helped convict Williams of rape. The expert testified that Williams' DNA matched a sample taken from the victim, but the expert played no role in the tests that extracted genetic evidence from the victim's sample.
And no one from the company that performed the analysis showed up at the trial to defend it.
The court has previously ruled that defendants have the right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports used at trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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
