|
|
|
Justices to weigh Trump census plan to exclude noncitizens
Legal Business |
2020/10/17 09:51
|
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up President Donald Trump’s policy, blocked by a lower court, to exclude people living in the U.S. illegally from the census count that will be used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives. Never in U.S. history have immigrants been excluded from the population count that determines how House seats, and by extension Electoral College votes, are divided among the states, a three-judge federal count said in September when it held Trump’s policy illegal.
The justices put the case on a fast track, setting arguments for Nov. 30. A decision is expected by the end of the year or early in January, when Trump has to report census numbers to the House. Trump’s high court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, could take part in the case if, as seems likely, she is confirmed by then. Last year, the court by a 5-4 vote barred Trump from adding a census question asking people about their citizenship. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month, was part of that slim majority. Barrett would take Ginsburg’s seat.
“President Trump has repeatedly tried ? and failed ? to weaponize the census for his attacks on immigrant communities. The Supreme Court rejected his attempt last year and should do so again,” said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Dale Ho, representing a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups that challenged Trump’s plan in court.
Trump left it to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, to figure out how many immigrants are not living legally in each state. The outcome of the census case could affect the distribution of political power for the next 10 years. The census also helps determine the distribution of $1.5 trillion in federal funding annually. The administration told the court that the president retains “discretion to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment based on their immigration status.”
Trump’s violation of federal law is “not particularly close or complicated,” the ACLU said in a court filing arguing that the court shouldn’t hear the case. The Supreme Court separately allowed the administration to end the actual census count this week, blocking a court order that would have kept the count going until the end of the month.
The court did not take action on two other administration appeals of controversial policies on asylum seekers and the border wall that also were ruled illegal by lower courts. Since early last year, the administration has made asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for U.S. court hearings, which has forced tens of thousands of people to return to Mexico. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Court Won't Take up Ex-Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' Case
Legal Business |
2020/10/05 09:15
|
The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision that allowed a lawsuit to move forward against a Kentucky clerk who was jailed in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The high court said Monday it would not take the case involving Kim Davis, the former clerk of Rowan County, and two same-sex couples who had sued her. Soon after the 2015 Supreme Court decision in which same-sex couples won the right to marry nationwide, Davis, a Christian who has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, stopped issuing all marriage licenses.
That led to lawsuits against her, and a judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses. She spent five days in jail after refusing. Davis had argued that a legal doctrine called qualified immunity protected her from being sued for damages by couples David Ermold and David Moore as well as James Yates and Will Smith. Their case will now move forward. Davis, a Republican, ultimately lost her bid for reelection in 2018. Democrat Elwood Caudill Jr. is now the county’s clerk.
Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas wrote for himself and Justice Samuel Alito that while he agreed with the decision not to hear the case, it was a "stark reminder of the consequences" of the court's 2015 decision in the same-sex marriage case. Because of that case, he wrote, “those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul" of the case “and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court OK’s $800M settlement for MGM Resorts, Vegas victims
Legal Business |
2020/10/01 09:20
|
A court on Wednesday approved a settlement totaling $800 million from casino company MGM Resorts International and its insurers to more than 4,400 relatives and victims of the Las Vegas Strip shooting that was the deadliest in recent U.S. history. The action makes final a deal settling dozens of lawsuits on the eve of the third anniversary of the mass shooting that killed 58 people and injured more than 850 at an open-air concert near the Mandalay Bay resort.
“By the grace of God, myself and my family are going to be OK,” said Stephanie Fraser, a plaintiff in the lawsuit from La Palma, California. “I needed to be able to protect our kids.” Clark County District Court Judge Linda Bell, in her brief order, cited “near-unanimous participation in the settlement among potential claimants.” Authorities said more than 22,000 people were attending an outdoor music festival when a gunman firing military-style weapons from windows on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay rained rapid-fire bullets into the crowd. Fraser’s husband of 13 years, Brian Fraser, a vice president at a mortgage company, died after being shot in the chest as they danced while country music singer Jason Aldean performed.
“Brian is missed beyond words by all of us — all of our family and all of our friends,” Stephanie Fraser told The Associated Press. The couple had four children and stepchildren. She and her attorney, Dan Robinson, declined to say how much they’ll receive in the settlement. “With this coming to an end, it brings closure and allows us to put pieces back together,” Fraser said. “Brian would want that for us.” MGM Resorts, owner of the hotel and the concert venue, acknowledged no liability. It will pay $49 million, while its insurance companies will pay $751 million.
“We are grateful that the decision brings families, victims and the community closer to closure,” the company said in a statement. It noted the anniversary of the Oct. 1, 2017, event, calling it “a time of great sadness and reflection.” Memorial ceremonies are scheduled Thursday at several venues in Las Vegas, including a reading of the names of the slain beginning at 10:05 p.m. — the time the first shots rang out. Attorney Robert Eglet, the plaintiffs’ lawyer who spent a year arranging the settlement with clients, legal firms and attorneys in at least 10 states, said the amounts to be disbursed will be determined by two retired judges and he’s hopeful that payments will begin going out by the end of the year.
“There’ve been no objections and we expect no appeals,” Eglet told The Associated Press. “We’ll send out notices of the order. After 30 days the $800 million will be deposited.” The case will be dismissed at that time, he added. “Our firm and the other leadership firms hope it helps victims and their families find some sense of closure and healing,” said Mark Robinson Jr., a California attorney representing Fraser and more than one-third of the shooting victims.
Eglet previously said that everyone involved “recognized there are no winners in long, drawn-out litigation with multiple trials where people and the community are reliving the event every time we try a case.” A line-by-line list of victims, identified by their initials only, runs for more than 170 pages of a 225-page civil complaint filed Sept. 9 seeking compensation and punitive damages from MGM Resorts. It accused the casino company of negligence, wrongful death and liability in the 2017 shooting.
Plaintiffs came from nearly every state in the U.S., at least eight Canadian provinces, the United Kingdom, Iran and Ireland. In various lawsuits, victims and families accused MGM Resorts of failing to protect people at the concert venue or stop the shooter from amassing an arsenal of weapons and ammunition over several days before he opened fire.
Millions of dollars could go to the most severely and permanently injured, Eglet said, depending on factors including age, number of dependents, type of injuries, previous and future medical treatment, and ability to work. A minimum $5,000 would go to each person who filed a claim for unseen injuries and did not seek medical attention or therapy. Court filings in the case don’t mention the gunman, Stephen Paddock, who killed himself before police closed in. Las Vegas police and the FBI determined the 64-year-old retired accountant and high-stakes poker player meticulously planned the attack and acted alone. They theorized he may have sought notoriety, but said they never determined a clear motive for the attack. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court allows public nuisance suits against 3 Alabama casinos
Legal Business |
2020/09/27 09:40
|
Courts in two rural counties were wrong when they dismissed lawsuits filed by the state seeking to have three casinos declared public nuisances, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The decision meant the state can resume cases challenging operations at VictoryLand in Macon County as well as White Hall Entertainment and Southern Star Entertainment in Lowndes County.
Neither the state attorney general’s office nor an attorney on the side of a company involved with the casinos immediately replied to messages seeking comment.
The state, which has repeatedly attempted to shut down gambling halls with electronic games resembling slot machines, filed separate lawsuits in 2017 asking courts to declare that the casinos, located east and west of Montgomery, were public nuisances because they promoted illegal gambling.
The defendants asked courts to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that state courts did not have the power to hear the cases and claiming the attempted shutdowns were wrong since the state did not include Wind Creek casinos operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in the case.
A county judge sided with the casino operators and dismissed the Macon County lawsuit last year, and the justices considered both cases for purposes of appeal since they involved issues that were virtually identical.
In a 74-page opinion written by Associate Justice Kelli Wise, the court ruled the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, based in Atmore, was not an “indispensable party” to the dispute and did not have to be included in the complaints. A federal court has already barred the the state from trying to make public nuisance claims against the tribe's operations, Justice Brady Mendheim wrote in a separate opinion.
in Atmore, was not an “indispensable party” to the dispute and did not have to be included in the complaints. A federal court has already barred the the state from trying to make public nuisance claims against the tribe's operations, Justice Brady Mendheim wrote in a separate opinion.
While the county judges both determined they lacked the legal power to consider the cases, helping lead to the dismissals, the state argued the courts can consider the suits. The justices agreed and sent the cases back to circuit court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
On guns, abortion, high court could become more conservative
Legal Business |
2020/09/26 09:40
|
If Congress confirms President Donald Trump's nominee to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court would become more conservative, and also perhaps more ready to tackle certain hot-button issues like abortion and guns. Chief Justice John Roberts would also likely become less able to steer the outcome in divisive cases.
Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18 at 87, was the leader of the liberal wing of the court, which had been split 5-4 between conservatives and liberals. Roberts had, on occasion, sided with the liberals. But if Trump fills Ginsburg's seat, there will be six conservative justices, three of them appointed by him.
Here are several big issues that are poised to come before the justices where a more solidly conservative majority could make a difference. A week after the presidential election, the court will hear arguments in bid by the Trump administration and Republican-led states to overturn the Obama-era health care law. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, coverage for more than 20 million people is at stake, along with the law’s ban on insurance discrimination against Americans with pre-existing medical conditions.
A more conservative court might be seen as more sympathetic to striking down the Affordable Care Act, but the court might still choose not to. The justices have less drastic options. For example, the court could invalidate “Obamacare’s” now toothless requirement that most Americans carry health insurance, and leave in place core provisions such as subsidized health insurance, Medicaid expansion and protection for people with medical problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
