|
|
|
Court rules for environmentalists in water fight
Legal News Digest |
2014/04/17 14:36
|
An appeals court said Wednesday that federal officials should have consulted wildlife agencies about potential harm to a tiny, threatened fish before issuing contracts for water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act when it failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service in renewing 41 contracts a decade ago. The appeals court sent the case back to a trial judge for further proceedings.
The ruling arises from one of several lawsuits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmentalists seeking to protect the Delta smelt. The ruling won't affect water flows because protections for the smelt were kept in place during the lawsuit.
"This about how we are going to manage the water in the future," said Douglas Obegi, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Water-rights holders and government lawyers argued that consultation wasn't necessary because the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was required to renew the contracts and had no discretion over terms of the agreement that would control water levels in the Delta. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before US appeals court
Legal News Digest |
2014/04/17 14:35
|
Court arguments over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will center on whether voters singled out gay people for unfair treatment when they overwhelmingly defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Judges at a federal appeals court in Denver will hear arguments Thursday from lawyers representing a couple challenging Oklahoma's ban and the Tulsa County clerk who refused to grant them a license. The judges heard a similar case from Utah last week.
Oklahoma voters approved the ban in 2004 by a 3-1 margin. The Tulsa couple tried to obtain a marriage license shortly afterward.
A federal judge overturned the ban in January, saying it violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for the state say voters have a right to set their own laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court date reset in Vegas Strip bird death case
Legal News Digest |
2014/04/15 14:28
|
A court appearance was postponed Monday in Nevada for a University of California, Berkeley, law school graduate completing prison boot camp for beheading an exotic bird during a drunken chase at a Las Vegas Strip resort.
Prosecutor Frank Coumou says Justin Alexander Teixeira's court date was rescheduled to May 5.
Teixeira is facing three to five years' probation before he can ask to have his felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.
Whether Teixeira is admitted to practice law in California could on depend on whether a felony remains on his record.
He pleaded guilty last May to killing another person's animal in the October 2012 death of a helmeted guineafowl at the Flamingo hotel-casino.
Two other Berkeley students entered pleas to reduced misdemeanor charges, paid fines and served community service. |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court voids overall contribution limits
Legal News Digest |
2014/04/03 15:33
|
The Supreme Court struck down limits today in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.
The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.
But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.
The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court sides with Alaska on roadless rule
Legal News Digest |
2014/03/28 10:55
|
A divided federal appeals court panel on Wednesday sided with the state of Alaska in reversing a decision that reinstated prohibitions on road-building and the harvesting of timber in the nation's largest national forest.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had articulated "a number of legitimate grounds" in a 2003 decision to temporarily exempt the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska from the Roadless Rule, which contains the prohibitions.
A lower court judge, in 2011, had found the decision to be arbitrary and capricious.
The appeals court panel sent the matter back to the district court to determine whether additional environmental review is required. Ninth Circuit Court Judge M. Margaret McKeown dissented, saying the justification for the overturning the lower court's decision was missing. |
|
|
|
|