|
|
|
High court seems skeptical of mandatory public union fees
Legal Interview |
2016/01/17 07:30
|
The Supreme Court appears ready to deliver a major setback to American unions as it considers scrapping a four-decade precedent that lets public-sector labor organizations collect fees from workers who decline to join.
During more than an hour of oral arguments Monday, the high court's conservative justices seemed likely to side with a group of California teachers who say those mandatory fees violate the free-speech rights of workers who disagree with a union's positions.
Labor officials fear unions' very existence could be threatened if workers are allowed to get all the benefits of representation without at least paying fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The case affects more than 5 million workers in 23 states and Washington, D.C.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected arguments by lawyers for the state of California and the California Teachers Association that the current fee system is needed to prevent non-members from becoming "free riders" — workers who reap the rewards of union bargaining and grievance procedures without paying for it.
"The union basically is making these teachers compelled riders for issues on which they strongly disagree," Kennedy said, noting the political nature of bargaining issues like teacher salaries, merit promotions and class size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court raises doubts over Puerto Rico sovereignty
Court News |
2016/01/15 07:29
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised doubts about whether Puerto Rico should be treated as a sovereign state with powers that go beyond its status as a territory of the United States.
The justices considered the question during arguments in a criminal case involving two men who claim that Puerto Rico and the federal government can't prosecute them for the same charges of selling weapons without a permit.
The double jeopardy principal prevents defendants from being tried twice for the same offense. But there is an exception that allows prosecution under similar state and federal laws, since states are considered separate sovereigns.
Several justices said Puerto Rico's power to enforce local laws really comes from Congress, which in theory could take it away.
The case has broad political and legal implications that could affect Puerto Rico on issues ranging from taxation and bankruptcy to federal benefits. It comes as the high court prepares to hear a separate dispute later this year over whether the financially struggling Puerto Rican government can give its municipalities the power to declare bankruptcy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida asks court to deny inmate's execution-delay request
Headline Legal News |
2016/01/13 07:30
|
Florida has asked the state's high court to reject a condemned inmate's request to delay his execution based on the U.S. Supreme Court's finding that Florida's procedure for imposing the death penalty is illegal.
In a brief filed Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's office said the U.S. Supreme Court's finding should not be applied retroactively to already-settled death penalty cases.
Ruling on the Hurst v. Florida case Tuesday, the nation's highest court ruled 8-1 that Florida's procedure is flawed because it allows judges, not juries, to decide death sentences.
Attorneys for convicted killer Michael Lambrix cited the ruling in their request for a new sentencing hearing for him.
Lambrix is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Feb. 11.
It wasn't clear when the court would rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rejects appeal over Homeland Security records
Legal Business |
2016/01/12 07:31
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a public interest group seeking to get internal records from the Department of Homeland Security about its protocol for shutting down wireless networks during emergencies.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the agency could refuse to release the documents under an exception to the Freedom of Information Act for disclosures that could endanger lives.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center argued that the appeals court construed the law too broadly so that the government could conceal any records by claiming they concern security measures.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agency didn't need to specify exactly whose life would be endangered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Dahmer's lawyer suspended by Supreme Court
Headline Legal News |
2015/12/25 01:15
|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer's attorney for two months over a series of ethics violations tied largely to an attempt to help a client recover money spent on fake John Lennon memorabilia.
The justices also ordered Gerald Boyle to take courses in law office management and to pay $24,900 to cover the costs of the disciplinary proceedings against him.
Boyle rose to prominence in southeastern Wisconsin law circles after he defended Dahmer. The serial killer was sentenced to life in prison after confessing to 17 murders. Another inmate killed Dahmer in 1994. Boyle also gained fame for defending former Green Bay Packers star Mark Chmura against sexual assault charges. Chmura was ultimately acquitted in 2001.
Boyle didn't immediately return a voicemail left Wednesday at his Milwaukee office.
According to court documents, the state Office of Lawyer Regulation brought six misconduct counts against Boyle last year. Five counts were connected to a man who paid out-of-state galleries tens of thousands of dollars for a microphone Lennon had used and sketches the Beatles front man had drawn.
The man, identified only as D.P. in the documents, hired Boyle to represent him in efforts to recover his money after he learned the memorabilia was fake.
Boyle improperly deposited $65,000 in advance fees from D.P. in his office's operational account rather than in a client trust fund, according to court documents. The attorney also failed to prepare written fee agreements or explain in writing the basis for the fees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't order immediate evaluation of mogul Redstone
Attorney News |
2015/12/22 17:28
|
A judge Monday declined to order a medical examination of Sumner Redstone but ruled that lawyers for his former companion can take the sworn testimony of two of the ailing media mogul's doctors.
Judge David J. Cowan also ruled that Redstone's longtime attorney, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, may also be deposed about his recent interactions with Redstone, but that any testimony he gives should be restricted to details about medical issues.
The rulings were made in a case pursued by Manuela Herzer, Redstone's former girlfriend who until recently had control over his medical care. She was kicked out of his home in October and contends that the 92-year-old can no longer carry on conversations or make informed decisions.
Redstone's attorney, Gabrielle Vidal, has objected to an independent evaluation of the doctor, citing recent evaluations by his doctors including a brain scan that didn't find any signs of impairment.
She praised Monday's ruling, saying Herzer's actions in the case represent a disregard for Redstone's welfare. |
|
|
|
|
|
ACLU to appeal court ruling in Missouri drug testing case
Court Watch |
2015/12/21 17:29
|
The American Civil Liberties Union said it plans to appeal a federal court ruling that upheld a technical college’s plan to force every incoming student to be tested for drugs.
Tony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU’s Missouri chapter, told the Jefferson City News Tribune that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given the organization until Jan. 4 to file a petition seeking a rehearing by either the same three-judge panel that issued the ruling earlier this month, or by all of the active 8th Circuit judges.
“We intend to request both,” Rothert said. “While rehearing is difficult to obtain, we are fortunate in this case to have a majority decision that is poorly crafted and departs from 8th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.”
The ACLU filed the federal lawsuit in 2011 challenging a mandatory drug-testing policy Linn State Technical College’s Board of Regents approved in June of that year. The school since has changed its name to State Technical College of Missouri.
The lawsuit argued the policy violated the students’ Fourth Amendment right “to be secure . against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
When it started the program, the school said the testing policy was intended “to provide a safe, healthy and productive environment for everyone who learns and works at Linn State Technical College by detecting, preventing and deterring drug use and abuse among students.”
Under the policy, students had to pay a $50 fee for the drug test and could be blocked from attending if they refused to be tested.
U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey issued a ruling in September 2013 that limited the drug testing to five Linn State programs. But in its 2-1 vote earlier this month, the federal appeals court panel overturned her ruling as too narrow. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|