Freed Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste says it is too soon to
celebrate because his two colleagues still face retrial in Egypt.
Greste was freed from an Egyptian prison earlier this month and his two
colleagues were released last week. He told BBC on Thursday that the
controversial court cases seem to be moving in the right direction.
Greste had initially been sentenced to seven years in jail for spreading
false information and helping the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. He was
deported from Egypt on his release.
Colleagues Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed are still in Egypt and are
required to report regularly to the police in advance of a retrial
expected to begin next week.
Their imprisonment for more than a year sparked numerous protests throughout the world.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
NC Appeals Court says DOT must pay landowners
The North Carolina Court of Appeals says the state transportation
department must pay some landowners whose property is in the path of a
proposed road in Forsyth County.
Multiple media outlets reported that a three-judge panel of the court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to refuse to hear a lawsuit by 11 landowners who said the state's designation of their land in the proposed road's path hurt their property values.
There is no indication when the road might be built.
The 11 landowners say the state's designation of their property in the path of the planned road limits what they can do with the land.
The state attorney general's office is consulting with transportation officials on the ruling. They could appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Multiple media outlets reported that a three-judge panel of the court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to refuse to hear a lawsuit by 11 landowners who said the state's designation of their land in the proposed road's path hurt their property values.
There is no indication when the road might be built.
The 11 landowners say the state's designation of their property in the path of the planned road limits what they can do with the land.
The state attorney general's office is consulting with transportation officials on the ruling. They could appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care
Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care
overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme
Court.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.
Court dismisses 3rd lawsuit against hen cage law
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a decision to dismiss a
lawsuit by a farmer that challenged a law banning the inhumane
confinement of egg-laying hens.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.
It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.
"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.
The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.
In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.
It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.
"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.
The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.
In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
High court to adopt electronic filing of cases
The Supreme Court is belatedly developing an electronic filing system
similar to those used in courts around the country, Chief Justice John
Roberts said Wednesday in his annual end-of-year report.
Roberts devoted his 10th report as chief justice to discussing the court's wary embrace of information technology over the years, which he attributed in part to the judiciary's role as neutral arbiters of a justice system that must be open to all.
Roberts said that "courts will always be prudent whenever it comes to embracing the 'next big thing.'"
The chief justice talked about the pneumatic tubes that were on the cutting edge of technology in the late 1800s, but not used by the court until its new building opened in 1935. Roberts did not once mention cameras, which are barred from the court's proceedings.
The court's new filing system could be up and running as soon as 2016, although parties in the court's cases will continue to be required to submit paper copies of every brief, Roberts said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the court should be doing more to allow the public to have meaningful access to the justices' work. "Not mentioned in his report, however, is the failure of the Supreme Court to allow even old technology, like photographs of the Supreme Court in session or live streaming of its oral arguments online," Leahy said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is about to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the court needs to do more to make its activities accessible to the public.
Roberts devoted his 10th report as chief justice to discussing the court's wary embrace of information technology over the years, which he attributed in part to the judiciary's role as neutral arbiters of a justice system that must be open to all.
Roberts said that "courts will always be prudent whenever it comes to embracing the 'next big thing.'"
The chief justice talked about the pneumatic tubes that were on the cutting edge of technology in the late 1800s, but not used by the court until its new building opened in 1935. Roberts did not once mention cameras, which are barred from the court's proceedings.
The court's new filing system could be up and running as soon as 2016, although parties in the court's cases will continue to be required to submit paper copies of every brief, Roberts said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the court should be doing more to allow the public to have meaningful access to the justices' work. "Not mentioned in his report, however, is the failure of the Supreme Court to allow even old technology, like photographs of the Supreme Court in session or live streaming of its oral arguments online," Leahy said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is about to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the court needs to do more to make its activities accessible to the public.
Appeals court won't delay or move Tsarnaev trial
The trial of marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can begin as
scheduled Monday in Boston after a federal appeals court ruled that the
defense had not met the "extraordinary" standard required to justify its
intervention.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision Saturday. Tsarnaev's lawyer had asked the court to delay the trial and move it out of Massachusetts, saying he couldn't get a fair trial in a place where so many were affected by the bombings.
The appeals court ruled 2-1 to avoid intervening in the trial's timing and location.
"The judges in the majority are satisfied that full consideration has been given to the issues raised by the petition, and it is clear that the petition falls short of meeting the requirements for issuing the extraordinary writ of mandamus," two judges said in the majority opinion. One judge dissented, saying he didn't have enough time to carefully consider the petition filed Wednesday.
One of Tsarnaev's attorneys, Miriam Conrad, declined to comment Saturday.
Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty to 30 charges connected to the April 2013 explosions that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Some of the charges carry the death penalty.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision Saturday. Tsarnaev's lawyer had asked the court to delay the trial and move it out of Massachusetts, saying he couldn't get a fair trial in a place where so many were affected by the bombings.
The appeals court ruled 2-1 to avoid intervening in the trial's timing and location.
"The judges in the majority are satisfied that full consideration has been given to the issues raised by the petition, and it is clear that the petition falls short of meeting the requirements for issuing the extraordinary writ of mandamus," two judges said in the majority opinion. One judge dissented, saying he didn't have enough time to carefully consider the petition filed Wednesday.
One of Tsarnaev's attorneys, Miriam Conrad, declined to comment Saturday.
Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty to 30 charges connected to the April 2013 explosions that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Some of the charges carry the death penalty.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Court orders release of jailed real estate mogul
A federal appeals court ordered the release Wednesday of a real estate mogul who was jailed last week in Montana after being found in contempt of court over his sale of a Mexico resort.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after onetime billionaire and Yellowstone Club founder Tim Blixseth, 64, was jailed Thursday for not giving U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon a full accounting of a 2011 hotel property sale for $13.8 million.
Blixseth's attorneys argued that the jailing was unconstitutional because Haddon had not given enough details about what he wanted. Attorney Philip Stillman said Blixseth was "elated" with the ruling and hoped to be home in Washington state by Wednesday afternoon.
"This is truly a great Christmas for Mr. Blixseth," Stillman said.
A two-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said that Haddon's incarceration order will be put on hold for 30 days while Haddon gives more specific instructions to Blixseth on how he can comply with his earlier order.
Blixseth sold the property in defiance of a court order. Haddon first demanded answers on where the money went in February.
Creditors are trying to collect on $241 million in judgments against Blixseth stemming from the Yellowstone Club's bankruptcy. The Montana resort he started in the 1990s is now under new ownership.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after onetime billionaire and Yellowstone Club founder Tim Blixseth, 64, was jailed Thursday for not giving U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon a full accounting of a 2011 hotel property sale for $13.8 million.
Blixseth's attorneys argued that the jailing was unconstitutional because Haddon had not given enough details about what he wanted. Attorney Philip Stillman said Blixseth was "elated" with the ruling and hoped to be home in Washington state by Wednesday afternoon.
"This is truly a great Christmas for Mr. Blixseth," Stillman said.
A two-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said that Haddon's incarceration order will be put on hold for 30 days while Haddon gives more specific instructions to Blixseth on how he can comply with his earlier order.
Blixseth sold the property in defiance of a court order. Haddon first demanded answers on where the money went in February.
Creditors are trying to collect on $241 million in judgments against Blixseth stemming from the Yellowstone Club's bankruptcy. The Montana resort he started in the 1990s is now under new ownership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)