|
|
|
Obama's power over immigration drives Supreme Court dispute
Legal Business |
2016/04/15 06:42
|
The raging political fight over immigration comes to the Supreme Court on Monday in a dispute that could affect millions of people who are in the United States illegally.
The court is weighing the fate of Obama administration programs that could shield roughly 4 million people from deportation and grant them the legal right to hold a job.
Among them is Teresa Garcia of suburban Seattle, who has spent 14 years in the United States illegally after staying beyond the expiration of her tourist visa in 2002.
She's already gotten much of what she wanted when she chose not to return to her native Mexico. Her two sons are benefiting from an earlier effort that applies to people who were brought here illegally as children. Garcia's 11-year-old daughter is an American citizen.
Now, she would like the same for herself and her husband, a trained accountant who works construction jobs. Neither can work legally.
"To have a Social Security number, that means for me to have a better future. When I say better future, we are struggling with the little amount of money my husband is getting for the whole family. It makes for stress every day. We struggle to pay for everything," Garcia said.
The programs announced by President Barack Obama in November 2014 would apply to parents whose children are citizens or are living in the country legally. Eligibility also would be expanded for the president's 2012 effort that helped Garcia's sons. More than 700,000 people have taken advantage of that earlier program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The new program for parents and the expanded program for children could reach as many as 4 million people, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court to swear in large group of deaf lawyers
Court News |
2016/04/13 06:43
|
Mobile phones ordinarily are strictly forbidden in the marble courtroom of the nation's highest court, but the justices are making an exception next week when roughly a dozen deaf and hard-of-hearing lawyers will be admitted to the Supreme Court bar.
The lawyers will use their phones to see a real-time transcript as they take part in an April 19 swearing-in ceremony featuring the largest group of hearing-impaired attorneys ever admitted at one time to practice before the high court.
Advocates for deaf lawyers say they hope the event will encourage others with disabilities to pursue legal careers.
"We wanted to do an event that would help break down stereotypes and demonstrate clearly that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals can achieve anything they set their minds to," said Anat Maytal, a New York lawyer and president of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association.
Nearly 4,000 lawyers join the Supreme Court bar each year, though the vast majority will never actually represent a client there. Membership requires a $200 fee, membership in a state bar for three years and sponsorship by two current Supreme Court bar members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court rules Mississippi can resume Google inquiry
Court News |
2016/04/12 06:43
|
Mississippi's attorney general can resume an investigation into whether Google facilitates illegal behavior, an appeals court ruled.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned a district judge who had sided with Google. U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate ruled last year that the unit of Alphabet Inc. didn't have to answer a subpoena by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
Hood began complaining in 2012 that Google wasn't doing enough to prevent people from breaking the law. In October 2014, he sent a 79-page subpoena demanding Google produce information about a wide range of subjects, including whether Google helps criminals by allowing its search engine to lead to pirated music, having its autocomplete function suggest illegal activities and sharing YouTube ad revenue with the makers of videos promoting illegal drug sales. Instead of complying, Google sued.
The appeals court also dissolved the lower judge's injunction that had barred Hood from bringing any civil or criminal lawsuits against the Mountain View, California-based company, saying that a mere subpoena wasn't enough to rule that Hood was acting in bad faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court sends part of Wisconsin voter ID case back to judge
Court Watch |
2016/04/11 06:44
|
A judge must consider whether Wisconsin's voter photo identification law applies to people who face daunting obstacles in obtaining identification, a three-judge federal appellate panel ruled Tuesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty filed a federal lawsuit in 2011 challenging the law. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman struck the law down in April 2014, saying it unfairly burdens poor and minority voters who may lack such identification.
But a three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ultimately reversed him and upheld the law that October, ruling Wisconsin's law is substantially similar to one in Indiana that the U.S. Supreme Court declared constitutional. The law was in effect for last week's presidential primary.
The ACLU and the national homeless center have continued to argue, however, that voters who face stiff hurdles in getting a photo ID should be allowed to vote by affidavit. They say those voters include people who can't obtain IDs because of name mismatches or other errors in birth certificates or other necessary documents; those who need a credential from another agency such as the Social Security Administration that they can't get without a state photo ID; or those who need a document that no longer exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US House staffers subpoenaed by federal court
Opinions |
2016/04/09 06:43
|
Four congressional staffers have told the U.S. House that they've been subpoenaed by the federal court in Springfield, Illinois, where a grand jury is conducting a probe into the spending of former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock.
The financial chief for the House, Traci Beaubian, and three other staff members wrote letters notifying the chamber about the subpoenas that were read on the House floor Monday, the Chicago Tribune reported based on House records noting the letters were received and video of the letters being read. The letters did not mention the subject of the subpoenas.
Schock, the one-time rising GOP star from Peoria, came under intense scrutiny in early 2015 for his spending, including redecorating his office in the style of TV's "Downton Abbey." He left office in March 2015 amid questions about congressional and campaign spending.
He has since been issued at least two grand jury subpoenas seeking campaign and congressional records. FBI agents also have removed boxes and other items from his central Illinois campaign office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York's top court: Parents can legally eavesdrop on kids
Legal Business |
2016/04/06 17:35
|
New York's highest court says parents can legally eavesdrop on young children, establishing an exception to state law against wiretaps without the consent of at least one person on a call.
The Court of Appeals split 4-3 in deciding such monitoring is justified when a parent or guardian reasonably believes it would be in the child's best interests to listen to and tape phone conversations.
Tuesday's ruling is in a case involving a cellphone recording of Anthony Badalamenti threatening to beat a 5-year-old boy. The boy's biological father made the recording.
Badalamenti lived with the boy's mother. He was convicted of child endangerment, assault and weapon possession.
His attorney challenged the tape as inadmissible evidence.
The ruling upheld a decision by a mid-level appeals court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada court hears casino mogul Adelson's defamation case
Headline Legal News |
2016/04/05 17:37
|
Nevada's highest court is being asked if a political group defamed casino mogul Sheldon Adelson in 2012 with an Internet ad alleging that he used prostitution-tainted money from casinos in China to fund Republican presidential campaigns in the United States.
A key question during Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments on Monday was whether online point-and-click "hyperlinks" are comparable to footnotes on a printed page — and whether they were enough to inform ad readers that Adelson denied the prostitution claim when it was made in a civil lawsuit.
"This Web page wasn't designed to be fair," Daniel Polsenberg, an attorney for Adelson, told the five justices hearing the case. "It states that Mr. Adelson approved of prostitution. That's not enough."
Lee Levine, attorney for the National Jewish Democratic Council, said hyperlinks are familiar to most Internet users, and as convenient for readers as footnotes and endnotes in books and articles.
The justices also heard related arguments about whether Nevada's anti-SLAPP law protected the council when criticizing one of the world's wealthiest men. The statute aims to prevent so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Adelson accuses the Washington-based council and two of its executives of "assassinating" his character by falsely claiming that he personally approved illegal activities in Macau resorts owned by Sands China Limited, a subsidiary of Las Vegas Sands.
Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands, denied the claims when they were made public as part of a wrongful termination lawsuit filed in Nevada state court by former Sands China executive Steven Jacobs. That case is not yet resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
