|
|
|
Supreme Court: Trump can use Pentagon funds for border wall
Law Firm News |
2019/07/25 10:28
|
The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.
The court’s five conservative justices gave the administration the green light on Friday to begin work on four contracts it has awarded using Defense Department money. Funding for the projects had been frozen by lower courts while a lawsuit over the money proceeded. The court’s four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.
The justices’ decision to lift the freeze on the money allows President Donald Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term. Trump tweeted after the announcement: “Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”
The Supreme Court’s action reverses the decision of a trial court, which initially froze the funds in May, and an appeals court, which kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.
The case the Supreme Court ruled in began after the 35-day partial government shutdown that started in December of last year. Trump ended the shutdown in February after Congress gave him approximately $1.4 billion in border wall funding. But the amount was far less than the $5.7 billion he was seeking, and Trump then declared a national emergency to take cash from other government accounts to use to construct sections of wall.
The money Trump identified includes $3.6 billion from military construction funds, $2.5 billion in Defense Department money and $600 million from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man in A$AP Rocky case allegedly hit with bottle, kicked
Law Firm News |
2019/07/22 10:29
|
The man allegedly assaulted by American rapper A$AP Rocky and two other men in Stockholm was kicked while on the ground and hit with a bottle, Swedish prosecutors said in court documents obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
The 500 pages of documents also included allegations that Rocky pushed the man to the ground and photos of the alleged victim's cuts, bruises and blood-stained clothes.
The Grammy-nominated rapper and the two others "deliberately, together and in agreement" attacked the man, identified as Mustafa Jafari, on June 30, prosecutors said in the Stockholm District Court documents.
Rocky, whose real name is Rakim Mayers, has said he acted in self-defense. He has been in custody since July 3 and faces charges that carry a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
A lawyer for Jafari, Magnus Stromberg, said the alleged beating started when one of A$AP Rocky's guards "grabbed him by the neck and dragged him away." Jafari didn't provoke the assault, and "this situation has been very stressful for him," Stromberg said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kosovo prime minister who resigned heads to war crimes court
Law Firm News |
2019/07/22 10:29
|
The former prime minister of Kosovo left Tuesday for The Hague to be questioned by a special court investigating alleged war crimes by members of the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army two decades ago.
Ramush Haradinaj resigned as prime minister a week ago so as "not to be questioned as the country's leader" by the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, which is looking into crimes against ethnic Serbs allegedly committed during and after Kosovo's 1998-99 war.
"Today, as Ramush Haradinaj, as a citizen of Kosovo, I travel to the Hague for the third time, to prove that the Freedom Soldiers of Kosovo were always aligned with justice & the righteous cause!," Haradinaj tweeted.
At the time of the war, Kosovo was a Serbian province and Haradinaj was a top commander for the Kosovo Liberation Army. A former parliamentary speaker, a presidential adviser and other former KLA commanders also are expected to be questioned this week by the special tribunal.
The court, which is part of the Kosovo judicial system despite being based in the Netherlands, started questioning former Kosovo fighters this year.
Haradinaj was prosecuted for alleged war crimes and acquitted twice before. A United Nations tribunal first cleared him of war crimes and crimes against humanity charges in 2008. The appeals chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia concluded in 2010 that witnesses had been intimidated. It sent the case back for a partial retrial. Haradinaj and two other former KLA commanders were acquitted in November 2012. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court strikes down ‘scandalous’ part of trademark law
Law Firm News |
2019/06/25 11:15
|
The Supreme Court struck down a section of federal law Monday that prevented businesses from registering trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory to California fashion brand FUCT.
The high court ruled that the century-old provision is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark applications a year as a result of the provision. Those who were turned away could still use the words they were seeking to register, but they didn’t get the benefits that come with trademark registration. Going after counterfeiters was also difficult as a result.
The Trump administration had defended the provision, arguing that it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences.
The high court’s ruling means that the people and companies behind applications that previously failed as a result of the scandalous or immoral provision can re-submit them for approval. And new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or immoral.
Justice Elena Kagan said in reading her majority opinion that the most fundamental principle of free speech law is that the government can’t penalize or discriminate against expression based on the ideas or viewpoints they convey. She said Lanham Act’s ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks does just that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
