|
|
|
Court seems reluctant to block state bans on medical treatments for minors
Headline News |
2024/12/04 20:05
|
Hearing a high-profile culture-war clash, a majority of the Supreme Court seemed reluctant Wednesday to block Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
The justices’ decision, not expected for several months, could affect similar laws enacted by another 25 states and a range of other efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use.
The case is coming before a conservative-dominated court after a presidential election in which Donald Trump and his allies promised to roll back protections for transgender people.
In arguments that passed the two-hour mark Wednesday, five conservative justices voiced varying degrees of skepticism of arguments made by the Biden administration and lawyers for Tennessee families challenging the ban.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted in the majority in a 2020 case in favor of transgender rights, questioned whether judges, rather than lawmakers, should be weighing in on a question of regulating medical procedures, an area usually left to the states.
”The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts said in an exchange with ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio.
The court’s three liberal justices seem firmly on the side of the challengers. But it’s not clear that any of the court’s six conservatives will go along. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in 2020, has yet to say anything.
Four years ago, the court ruled in favor of Aimee Stephens, who was fired by a Michigan funeral home after she informed its owner that she was a transgender woman. The court held that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.
The Biden administration and the families and health care providers who challenged the Tennessee law are urging the justices to apply the same sort of analysis that the majority, made up of liberal and conservative justices, embraced in the case four years ago when it found that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in employers’ decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate.
The issue in the Tennessee case is whether the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
Tennessee’s law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, but not “across the board,” lawyers for the families wrote in their Supreme Court brief. The lead lawyer, Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, is the first openly transgender person to argue in front of the justices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court backs Texas over razor wire installed on US-Mexico border
Headline News |
2024/11/26 03:22
|
A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that Border Patrol agents cannot cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border in the town of Eagle Pass, which has become the center of the state’s aggressive measures to curb migrant crossings.
The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for Texas in a long-running rift over immigration policy with the Biden administration, which has also sought to remove floating barriers installed on the Rio Grande.
Texas has continued to install razor wire along its roughly 1,200-mile (1,900 kilometers) border with Mexico over the past year. In a 2-1 ruling, the court issued an injunction blocking Border Patrol agents from damaging the wire in Eagle Pass.
“We continue adding more razor wire border barrier,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott posted on the social platform X in response to the ruling. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Wednesday.
Some migrants have been injured by the sharp wire, and the Justice Department has argued the barrier impedes the U.S. government’s ability to patrol the border, including coming to the aid of migrants in need of help. Texas contended in the lawsuit originally filed last year that federal government was “undermining” the state’s border security efforts by cutting the razor wire.
The ruling comes ahead of President-elect Donald Trump returning to office and pledging a crackdown on immigration. Earlier this month, a Texas official offered a parcel of rural ranchland along the U.S.-Mexico border to use as a staging area for potential mass deportations.
Arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped 40% from an all-time high in December. U.S. officials mostly credit Mexican vigilance around rail yards and highway checkpoint. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court overturns actor Jussie Smollett's 2019 conviction in hate crime hoax case
Headline News |
2024/11/18 07:52
|
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday overturned actor Jussie Smollett's conviction on allegations that he staged a racist and homophobic attack against himself in downtown Chicago in 2019 and lied to police.
Smollett's appeal argued that a special prosecutor should not have been allowed to intervene after the Cook County state's attorney initially dropped charges. The state's highest court heard arguments in September.
Smollett, who is Black and gay, claimed two men assaulted him, spouted racial and homophobic slurs and tossed a noose around his neck, leading to a massive search for suspects by Chicago police detectives and kicking up an international uproar. Smollett was on the television drama "Empire," which filmed in Chicago, and prosecutors alleged he staged the attack because he was unhappy with the studio's response to hate mail he received.
A jury convicted him of five counts of disorderly conduct in 2021. Smollett has maintained his innocence.
His attorneys have argued that the case was over when the Cook County state's attorney's office dropped an initial 16 counts of disorderly conduct after Smollett performed community service and forfeited a $10,000 bond. intervene after the Cook County state's attorney initially dropped charges.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday overturned actor Jussie Smollett's conviction on allegations that he staged a racist and homophobic attack against himself in downtown Chicago in 2019 and lied to police.
Smollett's appeal argued that a special prosecutor should not have been allowed to intervene after the Cook County state's attorney initially dropped charges. The state's highest court heard arguments in September.
Smollett, who is Black and gay, claimed two men assaulted him, spouted racial and homophobic slurs and tossed a noose around his neck, leading to a massive search for suspects by Chicago police detectives and kicking up an international uproar. Smollett was on the television drama "Empire," which filmed in Chicago, and prosecutors alleged he staged the attack because he was unhappy with the studio's response to hate mail he received.
RELATED STORY | Sean 'Diddy' Combs lawyers claim seizure of writings from cell is 'outrageous government conduct'
A jury convicted him of five counts of disorderly conduct in 2021. Smollett has maintained his innocence.
His attorneys have argued that the case was over when the Cook County state's attorney's office dropped an initial 16 counts of disorderly conduct after Smollett performed community service and forfeited a $10,000 bond. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
VA asks US Supreme Court to reinstate removals of 1,600 voter registrations
Headline News |
2024/10/25 23:02
|
Virginia on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to allow the state to remove roughly 1,600 voters from its rolls that it believes are noncitizens.
The request comes after a federal appeals court on Sunday unanimously upheld a federal judge’s order restoring the registrations of those 1,600 voters, whom the judge said were illegally purged under an executive order by the state’s Republican governor.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin says he ordered the daily removals in an effort to keep noncitizens from voting. But U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles ruled late last week that Youngkin’s program was illegal under federal law because it systematically purged voters during a 90-day “quiet period” ahead of the November election.
The Justice Department and a coalition of private groups sued to block Youngkin’s removal program earlier this month. They argued that the quiet period is in place to ensure that legitimate voters aren’t removed from the rolls by bureaucratic errors or last-minute mistakes that can’t be rectified in a timely manner.'
The ruling Sunday from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, sided with the judge who ordered the restoration of voters’ registrations.
The appeals court said Virginia is wrong to assert that it is being forced to restore 1,600 noncitizens to the voter rolls. The judges found that Virginia’s process for removing voters established no proof that those purged were actually noncitizens.
Youngkin’s executive order, issued in August, required daily checks of data from the Department of Motor Vehicles against voter rolls to identify noncitizens.
State officials said any voter identified as a noncitizen was notified and given two weeks to dispute their disqualification before being removed. If they returned a form attesting to their citizenship, their registration would not be canceled.
The plaintiffs said that, as a result of the program, a legitimate voter and citizen could have his or her registration canceled simply by checking the wrong box on a DMV form. The plaintiffs presented evidence showing that at least some of those removed were in fact citizens.
A similar lawsuit was filed in Alabama, and a federal judge there last week ordered the state to restore eligibility for more than 3,200 voters who had been deemed ineligible noncitizens. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the 3,251 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.
The appeal filed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday by Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Jason Miyares, asks the high court to intervene by Tuesday. Without any intervention, the injunction issued last week by Giles requires Virginia to notify affect voters and local registrars by Wednesday of the restorations she ordered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New rules regarding election certification in Georgia to get test in court
Headline News |
2024/09/30 16:26
|
Two controversial new rules passed by Georgia’s State Election Board concerning the certification of vote tallies are set to face their first test in court this week.
The Republican majority on the State Election Board — made up of three members praised by former President Donald Trump praised by name at a recent rally — voted to approve the rules last month. Democrats filed a legal challenge and argue the rules could be used “to upend the statutorily required process for certifying election results in Georgia.”
A bench trial, meaning there is a judge but no jury, is set to begin Tuesday before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney.
One of the rules provides a definition of certification that includes requiring county officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results, but it does not specify what that means. The other includes language allowing county election officials “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections.”
A series of recent appointments means Trump-endorsed Republicans have had a 3-2 majority on the State Election Board since May. That majority has passed several new rules over the past two months that have caused worry among Democrats and others who believe Trump and his allies may use them to cause confusion and cast doubt on the results if he loses this crucial swing state to Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s presidential election.
Another rule the board passed more recently requires that poll workers count the number of paper ballots — not votes — by hand on election night after voting ends. A separate lawsuit filed by a group headed by a former Republican lawmaker initially challenged the two certification rules but was amended last week to also challenge the ballot counting rule and some others that the board passed.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and an association of county election officials had cautioned the state board against passing new rules so close to the election. They argued it could cause confusion among poll workers and voters and undermine public trust in the voting process.
The challenge to the certification rules filed by Democratic groups and others asks the judge to confirm that election superintendents — a multi-person election board in most counties — have a duty to certify an election by the deadline provided in the law and have no discretion to withhold or delay certification. They ask that it should be declared invalid if the judge believes either of the rules allows such discretion.
Lawyers for the State Election Board argue the Democrats are asking the judge to “declare what is already enshrined in Georgia law,” that county certification is mandatory and must occur by 5 p.m. the Monday after the election, or the next day if Monday is a holiday, as it is this year. They also argue the challenge is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity and seeks relief that isn’t appropriate under the law.
The challenge was filed by the state and national Democratic parties, as well as county election board members from counties in metro Atlanta, most chosen by the local Democratic Party, as well voters who support Democrats and two Democratic state lawmakers running for reelection. It was filed against the State Election Board, and the state and national Republican parties joined the fight on the board’s side.
The Democrats concede in their challenge that the two rules “could be read not to conflict with Georgia statutes” but they argue “that is not what the drafters of those rules intended.”
“According to their drafters, these rules rest on the assumption that certification of election results by a county board is discretionary and subject to free-ranging inquiry that may delay certification or render it wholly optional,” they wrote in a court filing.
They also note that numerous county election officials around the state have already sought to block or delay certification in recent elections and “the new rules hand those officials new tools to do so again in November.”
State lawyers argue that since the argument against the rules is based on the alleged intent of the people who presented them or the way some officials could interpret them, rather than on the text of the rules themselves, the challenge should be thrown out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Singaporean minister pleads guilty to receiving illegal gifts
Headline News |
2024/09/24 13:48
|
A former Singaporean cabinet minister pleaded guilty to charges of receiving illegal gifts Tuesday, in the Asian financial hub’s first ministerial criminal trial in nearly half a century.
Former Transport Minister S. Iswaran pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing justice and four of accepting gifts from people with whom he had official business. The court set Oct. 3 for sentencing, Channel News Asia reported.
Iswaran, 62, was initially charged with 35 counts but in a twist at the start of the trial, prosecutors said they would proceed with only five, while reducing two counts of corruption to receiving illegal gifts. Prosecutors said they will apply for the remaining 30 charges to be taken into consideration for sentencing. No reasons were given for the move.
Iswaran received gifts worth over 74,000 Singapore dollars ($57,000) from Ong Beng Seng, a Singapore-based Malaysian property tycoon, and businessperson Lum Kok Seng. The gifts included tickets to Singapore’s Formula 1 race, wine and whisky and a luxury Brompton bike. Ong owns the right to the local F1 race, and Iswaran was chair of and later adviser to the Grand Prix’s steering committee.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers said it will decide whether to charge Ong and Lum after the case against Iswaran has been resolved.
In mitigation, defence counsel Davinder Singh asked the court to limit any jail term to no more than eight weeks, according to CNA. He said Iswaran had no motive in accepting the gifts other than personal friendship with the men, but he recognized it was wrong to do so and admitted guilt after the graft charges were dropped. There was no suggestion that the government’s impartiality and integrity had been undermined, Singh added.
But prosecutors called for a jail term of 6-7 months. Deputy Attorney General Tai Wei Shyong said in his submission that not punishing such acts would send a signal that such acts are tolerated. Singapore ‘s ministers are among the world’s best-paid. Although the amount involved in Iswaran’s case appeared to be relatively minor, his indictment is an embarrassment to the ruling People’s Action Party, which prides itself on a clean image.
The last Cabinet minister charged with graft was Wee Toon Boon, who was found guilty in 1975 and jailed for accepting gifts in exchange for helping a businessperson. Another Cabinet minister was investigated for graft in 1986, but died before charges were filed.
Iswaran had resigned just before he was charged. His trial comes just over four months after Singapore installed new Prime Minister Lawrence Wong after Lee Hsien Loong stepped down after 20 years.
Lee has said before he stepped down that Iswaran’s case was dealt with vigorously according to the law and vowed to uphold his government’s reputation for honesty and incorruptibility. The case could cast a shadow on the PAP ahead of general elections due by late 2025. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
After just a few hours, U.S. election bets put on hold by appeals court ruling
Headline News |
2024/09/14 18:20
|
Just hours after it began, legal betting on the outcome of U.S. Congressional elections has been put on hold by a federal appeals court.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order Thursday night temporarily freezing the matter until it can consider and rule on the issue. No timetable was initially given.
The court acted at about 8:30 p.m. Thursday, mere hours after a federal judge cleared the way for the only bets on American elections to be legally sanctioned by a U.S. jurisdiction.
U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb permitted New York startup company Kalshi to begin offering what amounts to bets on the outcome of November elections regarding which parties win control of the House and Senate.
The company’s markets went live soon afterwards, and Kalshi accepted an unknown amount of bets, which it called “contracts.”
The Thursday night order put a halt to any further such bets. What might happen to those already made was unclear Friday.
Neither Kalshi nor the commission immediately responded to messages seeking comment Friday.
The ruling came after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appealed Cobb’s ruling, warning that allowing election bets, even for a short period of time, risked serious harm from people trying to manipulate the election for financial purposes.
The Thursday night order put a halt to any further such bets. What might happen to those already made was unclear Friday.
Neither Kalshi nor the commission immediately responded to messages seeking comment Friday.
The ruling came after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appealed Cobb’s ruling, warning that allowing election bets, even for a short period of time, risked serious harm from people trying to manipulate the election for financial purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
