|
|
|
Court rejects appeal over Senate filibuster rules
Legal News Feed |
2014/11/04 15:22
|
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a public interest group and four members of Congress who challenged the Senate filibuster as unconstitutional.
The justices let stand a lower court ruling that said Common Cause and the lawmakers did not have legal standing to pursue the case.
The plaintiffs argued that Senate rules requiring at least 60 votes to bring legislation to a vote violates the constitutional principle of majority rule. A federal appeals court said the lawsuit was filed against the wrong parties.
The case was brought against Vice President Joe Biden in his role as president of the Senate, and against the Senate's secretary, parliamentarian and sergeant at arms.
Common Cause says it can't sue the Senate directly because that is barred under the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause.
Last year, the Senate voted to end use of the filibuster rule from blocking most presidential nominees. Democrats said they ended the rule out of frustration that Republicans were routinely using the tactic to block President Barack Obama's nominees for pivotal judgeships and other top jobs.
But 60 votes are still required to end filibusters against legislation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court throws out Chiquita terror payment claims
Legal News Feed |
2014/07/29 13:50
|
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday threw out claims potentially worth billions of dollars against produce giant Chiquita Brands International made by relatives of thousands of Colombians killed during years of bloody civil war.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the Colombian claims. The lawsuits accused Chiquita of assisting in the killings by paying $1.7 million to a violent right-wing paramilitary group known as the AUC, the Spanish acronym for United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.
Chiquita, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, formerly operated large banana plantations in Colombia through its Banadex subsidiary. Chiquita insists it was the victim of extortion and was forced to pay the AUC or face violence directed at its employees and assets in Colombia.
The majority cited a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum that imposed limits on attempts by foreigners to use U.S. courts to seek damages against corporations for human rights abuses abroad. Chiquita had insisted that ruling meant the Colombians' lawsuit had to be tossed out.
"We are gratified that the U.S. Court of Appeals has now agreed with us and the claims have been dismissed," said Chiquita spokesman Ed Loyd in an email statement. "The decision reinforces what Chiquita has maintained from the beginning — that Chiquita is not responsible for the tragic violence that has plagued Colombia."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court gives OJ lawyers a week to resubmit appeal
Legal News Feed |
2014/06/03 13:06
|
O.J. Simpson's lawyers were given another week Friday to reformat and resubmit an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a new trial in the kidnapping and armed robbery case of the former football star.
In the order, Chief Justice Mark Gibbons agreed to accept a supersized 20,000-word document that Simpson's lawyers had submitted before a May 21 deadline if it complies with court formatting rules.
"Basically they want it to be double-spaced," court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said.
The document hasn't been made public, and the seven justices haven't decided whether to rehear oral arguments in case. The court rejected an initial appeal by Simpson in September 2010.
Simpson attorney Patricia Palm said she was glad the justices agreed to accept the 19,933 words she submitted nine days ago. The new deadline is June 6.
Palm noted the court frequently accepts briefs longer than its 14,000-word limit in complex cases.
Palm and Simpson appeal lawyers Ozzie Fumo and Tom Pitaro want the court to reconsider the contention that Simpson got bad legal advice, that his trial lawyer had a conflict of interest, and that Simpson's 2008 Las Vegas trial was tainted by his notoriety. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Says Mich. Can't Block Indian Casino
Legal News Feed |
2014/05/30 15:22
|
A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Michigan can't block the opening of an off-reservation American Indian casino because the state's legal challenge is barred by tribal sovereign immunity.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court said the state could not shutter the Bay Mills Indian Community's casino about 90 miles south of its Upper Peninsula reservation.
The ruling was a win for Indian tribes, which have increasingly looked to casinos as a source of revenue and have relied on immunity to shield them from government interference. But it's a disappointment for Michigan and more than a dozen others states that say the decision will interfere with their ability to crack down on unauthorized tribal casinos.
Michigan argued that the Bay Mills tribe opened the casino in 2010 without permission from the U.S. government and in violation of a state compact. The tribe had purchased land for the casino with earnings from a settlement with the federal government over allegations that it had not been adequately compensated for land ceded in 1800s treaties.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only allows a state to bring lawsuits challenging casinos operating on Indian lands. But the Bay Mills casino was opened outside the tribe's reservation, Kagan said, placing it outside the law's coverage.
Since the casino does not fall under federal gaming laws, Kagan said it is subject to the ordinary tribal immunity that extends to off-reservation commercial activities. Kagan said it doesn't matter that the casino was authorized, licensed and operated from the tribe's reservation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
