An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.
But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.
At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.
Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.
Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
High court rejects military contractors appeals
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away three appeals from military contractor KBR Inc. that seek to shut down lawsuits over a soldier's electrocution in Iraq and open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.
One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.
Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.
The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.
The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.
The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.
One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.
Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.
The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.
The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Fate of thousands at stake in Massachusetts court arguments
The highest court in Massachusetts is hearing arguments in a case that
could determine the fate of thousands of people convicted of drug crimes
based on tainted evidence.
The American Civil Liberties Union says many of those affected are afraid to vacate their guilty plea and seek a new trial because they can be prosecuted for crimes dropped when they entered their plea deal.
The ACLU will argue Thursday morning that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should declare that any defendant who seeks a new trial cannot be convicted of a more serious offense or given a longer sentence.
The case comes after former state drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan admitted she faked test results and tampered with evidence.
Dookhan was sentenced to at least three years in prison in 2013.
The American Civil Liberties Union says many of those affected are afraid to vacate their guilty plea and seek a new trial because they can be prosecuted for crimes dropped when they entered their plea deal.
The ACLU will argue Thursday morning that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court should declare that any defendant who seeks a new trial cannot be convicted of a more serious offense or given a longer sentence.
The case comes after former state drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan admitted she faked test results and tampered with evidence.
Dookhan was sentenced to at least three years in prison in 2013.
Nebraska court could hold up Keystone pipeline
The Republican-led Congress appears ready to approve the Keystone XL oil
pipeline, but no matter what actions are taken in Washington, the
entire 1,179-mile project could be delayed until Nebraska signs off on
the route.
After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months or years could pass before construction begins in that state.
Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.
The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.
The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.
President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision, and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress over energy and environmental policy.
After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months or years could pass before construction begins in that state.
Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.
The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.
The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.
President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision, and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress over energy and environmental policy.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Idaho gay marriage fight appealed to Supreme Court
Idaho's governor and attorney general have filed separate petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, fighting against gay marriage and arguing that the state's case has national consequences.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Idaho since an October ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has struck down bans across the West.
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's filing Friday states that the issue is a matter of a state's right to define marriage without the federal government's involvement.
"This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance: Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman," Wasden said in the petition.
Gov. Butch Otter's petition, filed Tuesday, states that the high court should review Idaho's case alone or in addition to a pending case involving the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the right of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee to decide whether to allow gay marriage.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Idaho since an October ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has struck down bans across the West.
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's filing Friday states that the issue is a matter of a state's right to define marriage without the federal government's involvement.
"This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance: Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman," Wasden said in the petition.
Gov. Butch Otter's petition, filed Tuesday, states that the high court should review Idaho's case alone or in addition to a pending case involving the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the right of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee to decide whether to allow gay marriage.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)