|
|
|
Supreme Court: Trump can use Pentagon funds for border wall
Law Firm News |
2019/07/23 11:28
|
The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.
The court’s five conservative justices gave the administration the green light on Friday to begin work on four contracts it has awarded using Defense Department money. Funding for the projects had been frozen by lower courts while a lawsuit over the money proceeded. The court’s four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.
The justices’ decision to lift the freeze on the money allows President Donald Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term. Trump tweeted after the announcement: “Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”
The Supreme Court’s action reverses the decision of a trial court, which initially froze the funds in May, and an appeals court, which kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.
The case the Supreme Court ruled in began after the 35-day partial government shutdown that started in December of last year. Trump ended the shutdown in February after Congress gave him approximately $1.4 billion in border wall funding. But the amount was far less than the $5.7 billion he was seeking, and Trump then declared a national emergency to take cash from other government accounts to use to construct sections of wall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dutch court needs more time to rule on Crimean treasures
Law Firm News |
2019/07/01 11:30
|
An appeals court in Amsterdam said Tuesday it needs more time to rule on the ownership of a valuable trove of historical artefacts loaned to a Dutch museum by four museums in Crimea shortly before the region’s annexation by Russia in 2014.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal said in an interim ruling that it needs “greater clarity” on the competing claims by Ukraine and the museums in Crimea. The court says it expects to deliver a final judgment in six to nine months.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea left the approximately 300 artefacts, including bronze swords, golden helmets and precious, gems in a legal limbo, as both Ukraine and the Crimean museums now controlled by Russia have demanded their return by Amsterdam’s Allard Pierson Museum.
“It is now a question of deciding who has the strongest rights; either the Crimean museums claiming a right of operational management under Ukrainian law, or the Ukrainian State claiming ownership of the Crimean treasures,” the court said.
The Dutch museum had borrowed the artifacts for an exhibition that opened a month before the annexation. It has kept them in storage pending resolution of the cultural tug-of-war and declined comment on the legal proceedings.
The court ruled that the Amsterdam museum was entitled to hold onto the artefacts “in view of the complex situation in Crimea.”
Among the objects in the exhibition are a solid gold Scythian helmet from the 4th century B.C. and a golden neck ornament from the second century A.D. that each weigh more than a kilogram (two pounds).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court strikes down ‘scandalous’ part of trademark law
Law Firm News |
2019/06/25 11:15
|
The Supreme Court struck down a section of federal law Monday that prevented businesses from registering trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory to California fashion brand FUCT.
The high court ruled that the century-old provision is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark applications a year as a result of the provision. Those who were turned away could still use the words they were seeking to register, but they didn’t get the benefits that come with trademark registration. Going after counterfeiters was also difficult as a result.
The Trump administration had defended the provision, arguing that it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences.
The high court’s ruling means that the people and companies behind applications that previously failed as a result of the scandalous or immoral provision can re-submit them for approval. And new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or immoral.
Justice Elena Kagan said in reading her majority opinion that the most fundamental principle of free speech law is that the government can’t penalize or discriminate against expression based on the ideas or viewpoints they convey. She said Lanham Act’s ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks does just that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon city stops jailing poor who can't pay court debts
Law Firm News |
2019/06/16 16:45
|
The eastern Oregon city of Pendleton has stopped jailing people unable to pay fines, a city official said, following the settlement of a federal lawsuit contending city officials were running a debtors' prison.
The East Oregonian reports in a story on Saturday that city attorney Nancy Kerns said city court officials recently adopted new policies that ban the use of jail time for fines arising from minor violations.
"No person shall be incarcerated for the inability and lack of financial resources to pay financial obligations to the Court, including fines, costs and restitution," the policy states.
The policy also requires the city court to consider defendants' ability to pay and appoint attorneys to indigent defendants who face jail time.
Anglea Minthorn spent nearly two months in jail in 2017 for owing about $1,000.
She sued in early 2018, contending the city was violating the U.S. Constitution by incarcerating a debtor unable to pay the debt.
Minthorn's "experience is not unique," the lawsuit said. "It is a reflection of how defendants operate a modern-day debtors' prison in which people who cannot afford to pay court-imposed fines arising out of minor violations are arrested, incarcerated, and fined further."
The lawsuit described Minthorn as a low-income person with disabilities who struggled to get stable housing, medical care and food. The lawsuit said she was hospitalized for 74 days in 2016 because of stroke-like symptoms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residents sue Tennessee city over code violations court
Law Firm News |
2019/05/16 13:59
|
Residents of Nashville, Tennessee, are suing to close the city's environmental code enforcement court, saying it was improperly implemented and unfairly affects poor citizens.
The Tennessean reports the lawsuit was filed Tuesday against the city and state Attorney General Herbert Slatery. The court has collected just over $1.8 million in fines since 2008. The lawsuit focuses on a state constitution provision that says local acts or laws targeting a specific county must include provisions approved by the local legislative body.
The code enforcement court was created by state lawmakers in 1993. In 1994, the City Council voted to enable the court's creation. However, the provision says local acts that don't include the council vote are void, thereby negating the council's later vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
