Lawyer Blog News
Today's Date: Lawyer Blog News & List
Travel ban is headed back to a federal appeals court in Virginia
Environmental | 2017/12/04 08:32
Thirteen judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be asked to decide if the ban violates the constitution by discriminating against Muslims, as opponents say, or is necessary to protect national security, as the Trump administration says.

The hearing scheduled Friday comes four days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can fully enforce the ban even as the separate challenges continue before the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit and the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit appeals courts.

The 4th Circuit is being asked to reverse the decision of a Maryland judge whose injunction in October barred the administration from enforcing the ban against travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen who have bona fide relationships with people or organizations in the U.S. The ban also applies to travelers from North Korea and to some Venezuelan government officials and their families, but the lawsuits didn't challenge those restrictions.

Trump announced his initial travel ban on citizens of certain Muslim-majority nations in late January, bringing havoc and protests to airports around the country. A federal judge in Seattle soon blocked it, and courts since then have wrestled with the restrictions as the administration has rewritten them. The latest version blocks travelers from the listed countries to varying degrees, allowing for students from some of the countries while blocking other business travelers and tourists, and allowing for admissions on a case-by-case basis.

Opponents say the latest version of the ban is another attempt by Trump to fulfill his campaign pledge to keep Muslims out of the U.S. The administration, however, says the ban is based on legitimate national security concerns.

The 4th Circuit rejected an earlier version in May, finding that it "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination" toward Muslims. The judges cited Trump's campaign pledge on Muslim travelers, as well as tweets and remarks he has made since taking office.


Arkansas judge blocks state from issuing birth certificates
Lawyer Blogs | 2017/12/02 08:33
An Arkansas judge on Friday blocked the state from issuing any birth certificates until officials are able to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state's birth certificate law illegally favors heterosexual parents.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox on Friday set aside his orders requiring the state and three same-sex couples go into mediation on how to fix the state law to comply with the U.S. high court's order. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge earlier this week asked the state Supreme Court to stay or lift Fox's mediation order.

"This case has been pending for over two years and it has been more than six months since the United States Supreme Court ruled the Arkansas statutory scheme unconstitutional," Fox wrote in his order. "There are citizens and residents of the state of Arkansas whose constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis."


Fox last month had threatened to halt the issuance of birth certificates if both sides couldn't find language by Jan. 5 to be stricken from the law. Rutledge told the court this week that both sides had agreed on an order on how to comply with the high court ruling, but Fox rejected it. A spokeswoman for Rutledge said the AG's office was reviewing Fox's order and did not have an immediate comment.

In his order, Fox said he was hopeful Gov. Asa Hutchinson would have the authority to fix the birth certificate law through executive action. If the state is unable to fix the law, Fox said, the injunction would be in effect until lawmakers could address the issue. Lawmakers are not scheduled to convene again until February for a session focused on the budget. Hutchinson could call a special session.




Supreme Court rejects case over Mississippi Confederate emblem
Court Alerts | 2017/11/28 21:19
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected hearing a case that challenges the use of Confederate imagery in the Mississippi state flag.

Carlos Moore, an African-American attorney from Mississippi, argued that the flag represents "an official endorsement of white supremacy."

"The message in Mississippi's flag has always been one of racial hostility and insult and it is pervasive and unavoidable by both children and adults," Moore said in his court appeal.

"The state's continued expression of its message of racial disparagement sends a message to African-American citizens of Mississippi that they are second-class citizens."

The justices did not comment on their decision to decline Moore's appeal to have the flag ruled as an unconstitutional symbol of slavery, The Associated Press reported.

"We always knew it was a long shot," Moore told the news wire.

After a lower court rejected the lawsuit for lack of standing in April, Moore appealed the case to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had given the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause too narrow of an interpretation.


Walker signs bill inspired by cabin-owners' court fight
Legal News Center | 2017/11/28 05:19
Just five months after an adverse ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court had her in tears, Donna Murr was celebrating Monday after Gov. Scott Walker signed into law a bill that gives Wisconsin property owners more rights.

The Murr family fought for more than a dozen years, and all the way to the Supreme Court, for the ability to sell undeveloped land next to their cottage along scenic Lake St. Croix in western Wisconsin.

One of two property rights bills Walker signed Monday will give the family the right to sell or build on substandard lots if the lots were legal when they were created.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Murrs in June, but hours later state Rep. Adam Jarchow was on the phone with Donna Murr promising her he would take the fight to the Legislature.

"It's been a long road," Murr said after she and six other family members came to Walker's Capitol office for his signing of the bill Jarchow and Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, introduced. "It just felt like a culmination of everything we've worked for, coming to a head today after so many years of struggling and battling."

Donna Murr's parents bought two adjacent lots in the early 1960s and built a cottage on one but left the other vacant as an investment. In 2004, Donna Murr and her siblings wanted to sell the undeveloped lot to help pay for renovations to the cottage, but county officials barred the sale because conservation rules from the 1970s treat the two lots as a single property that can't be divided.

The regulations were intended to prevent overcrowding, soil erosion and water pollution. The county argued before the Supreme Court that not enforcing the rules would undermine its ability to minimize flood damage and maintain property values in the area.

But the family claimed those rules essentially stripped the land of its value and amounted to an uncompensated seizure of the property. They sought compensation for the vacant property they were forbidden to sell. The government argued, and the Supreme Court agreed in June, that it's fair to view the property as a whole and said the family is owed nothing.

Now with the law changed in Wisconsin, the Murr family can sell the vacant section. Donna Murr said she and her siblings will take some time to decide what to do next.



Court: Stress no grounds for rescinding guilty pleas
Attorney Blogs | 2017/11/26 09:19
An appeals court in Chicago says a lower court in Indiana was right to refuse to permit a couple to rescind their guilty pleas in a tax case on grounds their prosecution caused them severe stress.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said stress was common to anyone facing prosecution and wasn't sufficient reason to take back pleas. It added that neither George nor Barbara Gasich could claim they were under some "Napoleonic delusions" when they chose to plead guilty.

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports the Gasiches were indicted in 2014 for making fraudulent claims. Prosecutors said they'd asked for $475,000 in refunds when they owed the IRS far more than that.

The Gasiches were formerly from St. John, Indiana, but lived in Florida when they were arrested.



Court: Colorado county wrongly OK’d asphalt plant near homes
Attorney Blogs | 2017/11/25 05:19
A Colorado court has overturned Weld County’s approval of a $20 million concrete and asphalt plant currently under construction, saying the county had evidence the plant would violate noise standards.

The Greeley Tribune reports the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday the county commissioners improperly approved the Martin Marietta Materials plant near a residential neighborhood.

The site is also near an organic farm and a planned wedding venue along U.S. 34 between Greeley and Loveland.

Officials for Martin Marietta and Weld County said they were reviewing the decision before deciding their next steps. County commissioners approved the plant in August 2015 and neighbors filed suit a month later.

Construction began in October of 2015, and Martin Marietta regional vice president David Hagerman says the plant is nearly complete.


[PREV] [1][2][3][4][5][6].. [1202] [NEXT]
   Lawyer Blog Network
All
Lawyer Blogs
Court Alerts
Bankruptcy
Business Law
Class Action News
Criminal Law
Labor & Employment
Legal News Feed
Legal News Center
Headline News
Law & Politics
Attorney Blogs
Lawyer News
Law Firm Blogs
Law Firm News
Attorneys News
Environmental
DUI DWI Laws
Legal World
   Lawyer Blog
Lawyer Blog Network is the leading guide serving the legal industry and providing legal counsel, advertising strategies, law firm news, current cases and latest legal information for lawyers. A prominent source for Lawyer Blog, legal news and law firm news.
   Recent Updates
Court reverses itself and restores ..
Greek high court to rule on Russian..
UK banker back in Hong Kong court f..
Schimel asks Supreme Court to block..
Supreme Court declines gay rights w..
Idaho man upset with court tries to..
Travel ban is headed back to a fede..
Arkansas judge blocks state from is..
Supreme Court rejects case over Mis..
Walker signs bill inspired by cabin..
Court: Stress no grounds for rescin..
Court: Colorado county wrongly OK’..
Trappers ask court to throw out law..
Court case exposes rift in Germany'..
Belgian court pushes back extraditi..
The Latest: Senate panel approves t..
Steve Mostyn, Houston attorney and ..
   Law Firm Resource Links
  American Bar Association
  Lawyers Occupational Outlook
  American Law Schools
   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Denver, Colorado Drug Crimes Lawyer
www.vanlandinghamlaw.com
Cobb County Criminal Attorney
Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyer
www.andrewschwartzlaw.com
Oregon Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer Eugene. Family Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Law Office Web Designs
Attorney Website Designs
www.webpromo.com
New Rochelle Personal Injury
Trip/Slip and Fall Accidents
www.kboattorneys.com
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
Chicago, IL Business Attorney
Corporate Lawyer
Roth Law Group, LLC.
www.rothlawgroup.com
Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Lawyer
Miami Sex Crimes Lawyer
www.mishalilaw.com
Fort Washington Employment Law Firm
Attorney Marc E. Weinstein
www.meweinsteinlaw.com
 
© Lawyer News. All rights reserved.

Review tips and up to date legal news. With up to date legal articles leading the way as a top resource for attorneys and legal practitioners. Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Lawyer Blog News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.