Another election will be on the November ballot in North Carolina because an appeals court judge recently resigned to take a job in private practice.
The candidate filing period for the seat on the state Court of Appeals vacated by Martha Geer begins at noon Monday at the State Board of Elections and continues until midday Friday.
Every candidate who files will appear on the fall ballot. Since Geer left her seat a couple of months ago, there won't be a primary.
The candidate with the most votes will win an eight-year term on the court, which is comprised of 15 judges who hear intermediate appeals while sitting in panels of three. Candidates already are determined for three other Court of Appeals elections set for November.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Homeland Security officials must quickly release immigrant children — but not their parents — from family detention centers after being picked up crossing the border without documentation.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that lengthy detentions of migrant children violated a 19-year-old legal settlement ordering their quick release after processing. Government lawyers had argued that the settlement covered only immigrant children who crossed the border unaccompanied by adult relatives. But the three-judge panel ruled that immigration officials aren't required to release the parents detained along with the children, reversing U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee's ruling last year.
Advocates seeking stricter immigration controls said they hoped the ruling would discourage adults crossing the border illegally from exploiting children as a way to stay out of custody in the United States.
Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies executive director and an advocate for stricter border controls, said allowing the parents to be released may have encouraged illegal immigration of adults traveling with children.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that lengthy detentions of migrant children violated a 19-year-old legal settlement ordering their quick release after processing. Government lawyers had argued that the settlement covered only immigrant children who crossed the border unaccompanied by adult relatives. But the three-judge panel ruled that immigration officials aren't required to release the parents detained along with the children, reversing U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee's ruling last year.
Advocates seeking stricter immigration controls said they hoped the ruling would discourage adults crossing the border illegally from exploiting children as a way to stay out of custody in the United States.
Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies executive director and an advocate for stricter border controls, said allowing the parents to be released may have encouraged illegal immigration of adults traveling with children.
Court denies hospital's bid to perform brain death test
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied a hospital's request to allow it to immediately perform a test to determine whether a 2-year-old who choked on a piece of popcorn is brain dead.
The court Friday denied a petition from Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, which wants to perform an apnea test on Mirranda Grace Lawson. Mirranda's family has refused to allow it.
The Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Lawsons last month but allowed them to pay a $30,000 bond barring the hospital from conducting the test while they appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The hospital asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the circuit court's bond order. The Supreme Court didn't explain why it rejected the hospital's petition.
The Lawsons' appeal is due to the state Supreme Court in September.
The court Friday denied a petition from Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, which wants to perform an apnea test on Mirranda Grace Lawson. Mirranda's family has refused to allow it.
The Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Lawsons last month but allowed them to pay a $30,000 bond barring the hospital from conducting the test while they appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The hospital asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the circuit court's bond order. The Supreme Court didn't explain why it rejected the hospital's petition.
The Lawsons' appeal is due to the state Supreme Court in September.
Kyrgyzstan sends case of jailed journalist back to court
The Supreme Court in the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday refused to release an ethnic Uzbek journalist and activist serving a life sentence after being convicted of stirring up ethnic hatred, but instead sent his case to a regional court for review. International rights groups consider Azimzhan Askarov a prisoner of conscience.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee in April urged Kyrgyzstan to release Askarov, recognizing that he had been arbitrarily detained, tortured and denied his right to a fair trial. This opened the way for a reconsideration of his case, and Kyrgyzstan's Supreme Court began hearings on Monday.
The charges against Askarov relate to ethnic unrest in the south of Kyrgyzstan in 2010 when more than 450 people, mostly ethnic Uzbeks, were killed and tens or even hundreds of thousands were displaced. He is accused of inciting the mob killing of a police officer.
Amnesty International sharply criticized the court's decision on Tuesday to keep 65-year-old Askarov in prison while a lower court reviews his case.
"It's a missed opportunity for Kyrgyzstan to do the right thing by finally releasing a man who should never have been jailed in the first place. Today's decision by the Supreme Court ignores Kyrgyzstan's obligations under international human rights law," Amnesty International senior research director Anna Neistat said in a statement.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee in April urged Kyrgyzstan to release Askarov, recognizing that he had been arbitrarily detained, tortured and denied his right to a fair trial. This opened the way for a reconsideration of his case, and Kyrgyzstan's Supreme Court began hearings on Monday.
The charges against Askarov relate to ethnic unrest in the south of Kyrgyzstan in 2010 when more than 450 people, mostly ethnic Uzbeks, were killed and tens or even hundreds of thousands were displaced. He is accused of inciting the mob killing of a police officer.
Amnesty International sharply criticized the court's decision on Tuesday to keep 65-year-old Askarov in prison while a lower court reviews his case.
"It's a missed opportunity for Kyrgyzstan to do the right thing by finally releasing a man who should never have been jailed in the first place. Today's decision by the Supreme Court ignores Kyrgyzstan's obligations under international human rights law," Amnesty International senior research director Anna Neistat said in a statement.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban restrictions
A federal appeals court's decision upholding California's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons gives lawyers a fourth chance to try to get the U.S. Supreme Court's attention on a subject directly affecting eight states and the nation's capital.
Thursday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety. It was consistent with rulings since 2012 in three other circuits upholding similar restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. The Supreme Court did not take up the issue after those rulings. Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer, has represented plaintiffs in each case. He did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.
UCLA Law School professor Eugene Volokh said he thinks there is less chance that the high court will hear the California case than the three that came before it because there are currently only eight justices.
The Supreme Court has never addressed directly whether an individual has the right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.
"It's an important question, the most important of the remaining questions on gun rights" that the Supreme Court has not addressed, Volokh said.
He predicted that the Supreme Court might eventually take up the subject if an appeals court in Washington, D.C., strikes down the city's strict gun law. Two lower court judges have issued conflicting opinions about the constitutionality of the district's law requiring that a firearm applicant demonstrate a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property" before being licensed to carry a pistol.
James B. Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law, noted the Supreme Court had decided two previous gun cases by a 5-4 vote. He said the court might be reluctant to tackle the issue until there are nine justices.
Thursday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety. It was consistent with rulings since 2012 in three other circuits upholding similar restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. The Supreme Court did not take up the issue after those rulings. Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer, has represented plaintiffs in each case. He did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.
UCLA Law School professor Eugene Volokh said he thinks there is less chance that the high court will hear the California case than the three that came before it because there are currently only eight justices.
The Supreme Court has never addressed directly whether an individual has the right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.
"It's an important question, the most important of the remaining questions on gun rights" that the Supreme Court has not addressed, Volokh said.
He predicted that the Supreme Court might eventually take up the subject if an appeals court in Washington, D.C., strikes down the city's strict gun law. Two lower court judges have issued conflicting opinions about the constitutionality of the district's law requiring that a firearm applicant demonstrate a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property" before being licensed to carry a pistol.
James B. Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law, noted the Supreme Court had decided two previous gun cases by a 5-4 vote. He said the court might be reluctant to tackle the issue until there are nine justices.
High Court won't hear dispute over birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a group of American Samoans who say the United States should grant full citizenship to people born in the U.S. territory.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship does not extend to the islands that have been a part of the country since 1900.
Current law considers American Samoans to be "nationals," not full citizens like those born in Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. Nationals are allowed to work and live anywhere in the United States, but unlike citizens, they can't vote or hold elective office.
The challengers said that the law violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that birthright citizenship does not automatically apply to the nation's unincorporated political territories.
The lawsuit was filed by a small group of American Samoans who did not have the support of the islands' government officials. The government of American Samoa has argued that automatic U.S. citizenship could undermine local traditions and practices, including rules that restrict land ownership to those of Samoan ancestry.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship does not extend to the islands that have been a part of the country since 1900.
Current law considers American Samoans to be "nationals," not full citizens like those born in Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. Nationals are allowed to work and live anywhere in the United States, but unlike citizens, they can't vote or hold elective office.
The challengers said that the law violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that birthright citizenship does not automatically apply to the nation's unincorporated political territories.
The lawsuit was filed by a small group of American Samoans who did not have the support of the islands' government officials. The government of American Samoa has argued that automatic U.S. citizenship could undermine local traditions and practices, including rules that restrict land ownership to those of Samoan ancestry.
Court Vacates $1.8M Ventura Award in 'American Sniper' Case
A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who says he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle's bestselling book "American Sniper."
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury's 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle's estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.
The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.
Messages left with Ventura's publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle's estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Kyle claimed in a subchapter called "Punching Out Scruff Face," to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL's wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that "Scruff Face" had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq.
Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle's story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury's 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle's estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.
The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.
Messages left with Ventura's publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle's estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Kyle claimed in a subchapter called "Punching Out Scruff Face," to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL's wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that "Scruff Face" had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq.
Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle's story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)