Tag Archives: Court

U.S. Top Court appears unlikely to revive immigrants plan

mmigration activists holding American flag rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s bid to save his plan to spare millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation and give them work permits ran into trouble on Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court in a case testing the limits of presidential power.

The court, with four conservative justices and four liberals, seemed divided along ideological lines during 90 minutes of arguments in the case brought by 26 states led by Texas that sued to block Obama’s unilateral 2014 executive action that bypassed Congress.

Liberal justices voiced support for Obama’s action. The conservatives sounded skeptical. A 4-4 decision would be a grim defeat for Obama because it would uphold lower court rulings that threw out his action last year and doom his quest to revamp a U.S. immigration policy he calls broken.

More than a thousand people in favor of Obama’s action staged a raucous demonstration outside the white marble courthouse on a sunny spring day, with cheery mariachi music from a red-and-black clad band filling the air. A smaller group of Obama critics staged their own rally.

In order to win, Obama would need the support of one of the court’s conservatives, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy. But they both at times hit the Obama administration’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, with tough questions.

Kennedy expressed concern that Obama had exceeded its authority by having the executive branch set immigration policy rather than carry out laws passed by Congress.

“It’s as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That’s just upside down,” Kennedy said.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Obama’s plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people – those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents – get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

Obama said the program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), was aimed at preventing families from being torn apart.

The case comes during a heated presidential campaign in which the status of the roughly 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally, most of them from Mexico and other Latin American nations, has been a central theme. Immigration is also a global concern, with Europe now struggling with a flood of immigrants fleeing violence in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

The Republican-governed states that filed suit asserted that the Democratic president overstepped his authority provided in the Constitution while his administration said he merely provided guidance on how to enforce deportation laws.

A 4-4 ruling is possible because there are only eight justices following February’s death of conservative Antonin Scalia.

POSSIBLE COMPROMISE

One possible compromise outcome would be that the court could uphold Obama’s plan in part while leaving some legal questions unresolved, including whether the government can provide work permits to eligible applicants.

Obama would also win if the justices decide the states had no legitimate grounds to sue. Texas said it had “standing” to sue because it would be hurt by the additional costs it would incur by providing driver’s licenses to those given legal status.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted the “basic problem” that the government lacks the resources to deport everyone in the country illegally, meaning it must set priorities.

“There are these people who are here to stay, no matter what,” Ginsburg said.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized Texas’ argument about the economic harm caused by Obama’s action, saying millions of immigrants “are here in the shadows” and will affect the economy “whether we want (them) to or not.”

Verrilli said the federal government has regularly launched programs aimed at giving large groups of immigrants temporary legal status as part of its role establishing enforcement priorities due to limited resources.

Asked by Roberts if the government has the power to allow all immigrants who are in the country illegally to stay, Verrilli said: “Definitely not.”

Shortly before the plan was to take effect, a federal judge in Texas blocked it after the states filed suit. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in November.

Obama’s executive action arose from frustration within the White House and the immigrant community about a lack of action in politically polarized Washington to address the status of people living in the United States illegally.

He took the action after House of Representatives Republicans killed bipartisan legislation, called the biggest overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in decades and providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, that was passed by the Senate in 2013.

Obama, stifled by Republican lawmakers on many of his major legislative initiatives, has drawn Republican ire with his use of executive action to get around Congress on immigration policy and other matters including gun control and healthcare.

(Additional reporting by Clarece Polke and Robert Iafolla)

Oklahoma Court Denies State’s Appeal on Ten Commandments Monument

The Oklahoma state Supreme Court has refused to hear the state’s appeal of their decision to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state’s capitol grounds.

The ruling to reject the appeal had the same 7-2 vote as the initial decision that claimed the monument was unconstitutional.

 

The lawsuit against the monument was brought in 2013 by the American Civil LIberties Union of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin was bold in her opposition to the court’s ruling.

“The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws,” Fallin said in a statement. “The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible. It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.”

Life Sentence Urged In Peanut Salmonella Case

The head of a peanut processing company that was convicted of conspiracy related to a salmonella poisoning outbreak is facing an unprecedented sentence of life in prison.

Stewart Parnell, the former owner of Peanut Corporation of America, was found guilty in September in 71 counts related to covering up salmonella contamination of the company’s products.

Nine people died and 700 were sickened in the 2008-2009 outbreak.

U.S. federal prosecutors filed a brief calling for the life sentence to be issued, saying the crimes committed by Parnell fall under the federal guidelines for a life sentence.

If accepted by the judge, it would be the first time someone has been sentenced to life in prison for food-safety violations.

“It was an extraordinary verdict that could result in an extraordinary amount of time in jail for a food crime,” Bill Marler, a Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illnesses, including some in the Peanut Corp. case, told the Wall Street Journal.

“A lot of them are quite relieved,” Marler told USA TODAY. “These are people whose family members died from eating peanut butter, so you can understand where they may not have much sympathy for Mr. Parnell.”

Parnell’s lawyers say the recommendation is extreme.

“The truth of the matter is Stewart Parnell ate that peanut butter; he fed it to his children and fed it to his grandchildren,” Hodges told USA TODAY. “He never intended to harm anyone.”

Colorado Theater Shooter Guilty Of Murder

A Colorado jury has found James Holmes guilty of murder in the deaths of 12 people at an Aurora, Colorado theater.

In addition to the 12 people killed, 70 others were injured in the attack on the opening night of the movie “The Dark Knight Rises.”  Holmes had entered the theater in black body armor with his hair colored red in an apparent reference to the Joker, Batman’s arch-nemesis.

The jury rejected the claims of Holmes’ defense team that he has been overtaken by his schizophrenia and that he had no control over his actions that night.

However, prosecutors showed a very detailed plan for the attack that included the booby-trapping of his apartment with explosive devices in an apparently attempt to take out law enforcement after his assault on the theater.  The prosecutors claim the plans showed that while Holmes may indeed be mentally ill, he was fully aware of his actions the night of the attack.

Holmes showed no response as the jury found him guilty on all 165 charges against him.

The jury will now take a week off before coming back to determine if Holmes will spend life in prison or be sentenced to the death penalty.

Court Rules School Violated Rights Of Student Preacher

A federal judge delivered a major victory for the religious freedom of students when he ordered a Washington school to erase the suspension records of a student who preached at school.

Cascade High School senior Michael Leal had been suspended by the school three times last October saying that his handing out of Gospel literature and preaching violated school policy.  The school told him that if he continued his actions he would be expelled for causing a “disruption” on campus.

The Pacific Justice Institute stepped in after the third suspension to defend Leal’s rights.  Now, a federal judge says the school was wrong.

“Plaintiff’s suspensions on October 2, 9, and 31, 2014, are vacated. Defendant shall remove the Notices of Disciplinary Action or Short Term Suspension dated October 2, 9, and 31, 2014, from his record,” US District Court Judge Thomas Zilly wrote in his decision and awarded Leal $1 as nominal damage.

The judge also declared the school’s policy against non-student written handouts unconstitutional.

“Defendant is hereby enjoined from enforcing the requirement that materials be ‘written and/or produced by students.’ That language is severed from the Policy and Procedure of the Everett Public Schools,” the court ordered.

The school now has a “free speech zone” where students can express views.

“Everyone needs to hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s absolutely necessary,” Leal said.  He is scheduled to graduate on June 10th.

Appeals Court Strikes Down Idaho Abortion Ban

A federal appeals court has struck down Idaho’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman who filed a class action lawsuit against the law.  She had been facing criminal charges for an abortion after 20 weeks.

Jennie McCormack illegally obtained RU-486 in 2011 through her sister.  She then kept the baby’s dead body on her porch in a plastic bag when she was found out by authorities.  She was charged with unlawful felony abortion which a state court dismissed.  She then filed suit against Idaho’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

President Carter appointed judge Harry Pregerson stated in the ruling that 20 weeks was too restrictive.

“The twenty-week ban applies regardless of whether the fetus has attained viability,” he wrote on behalf of the panel. “The Supreme Court reaffirmed in Casey that an undue burden exists if the purpose or effect of a provision of law places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus obtains viability.”

“Because [Idaho’s law] places an arbitrary time limit on when women can obtain abortions, the statute is unconstitutional,” Pregerson declared.

Idaho officials have not yet announced if they will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Marine Officer Court Martialed For Refusing To Remove Bible Verse

A U.S. Marine has been found guilty of disobeying a “lawful order” of a superior officer because she would not remove a Bible verse that she had taped onto her computer and desk.

Former Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling has posted Isaiah 54:17, “no weapon formed against me shall prosper,” on her computer along with other Bible verses that she used for inspiration.

Her staff sergeant ordered her to remove the verses but Sterling refused, saying she had the First Amendment right to have those verses at her workstation.  The next day, they had been removed by someone else.

She defended herself at trial and was found guilty of showing disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, four instances of disobeying a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer, and failing to go to her appointed place of duty.

An appellate court said because she shared the desk with another Marine, she cannot claim the order violated her religious freedom.

“The military judge found that the signs verbiage was biblical in nature, that the desk was shared with another Marine, and the signs were visible to other Marines who came to the appellant’s desk for assistance,” the court ruling states. “The implication is clear — the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical quotations in the military workplace.”

“It is not hard to imagine the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk festooned with religious quotations, especially if that service member does not share that religion,” the court ruling continued.

The Liberty Institute has now stepped in and is defending the rights of Sterling.

“If a service member has a right to display a secular poster, put an atheist bumper sticker on their car, or get a Star of David tattoo, then Lance Corporal Sterling has the right to display a small Bible verse on her computer monitor,” Mike Berry of the Liberty Institute said to the Christian Post. “If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo, or go to church on Sunday.”

“Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.”

The Liberty Institute noted that no one else was using Sterling’s desk when the incident took place, meaning the appellate court ruled with a false basis.  They also say that Sterling’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Anti-Terror Court Indicts 106 For Burning of Christian Couple in Pakistan

A Pakistani anti-terrorism court has indicted 106 people in connection with the brutal murder of a Christian couple in November 2014.

The mob had falsely accused the couple of burning a Quran.

“The challan (charge-sheet) states that Maulvi Muhammad Hussain, Maulvi Arshad Baloch and Maulvi Noorul Hassan were involved in persistent provocative speeches against the couple which led to the assembly of 400 people as a mob who then burned Shama and Shahzad alive,” the Pakistan Daily Times reported .

“After the challan was presented at the hearing, the court also held Yousaf Gujjar, the owner of the brick kiln where the couple was beaten to death, responsible.”

Guijar had been angry that the couple had not repaid him money that he claimed the couple owned and set them up for blasphemy charges.  He placed a few pages of a Quran in their trash singed as if the book had been burned.

An official with the International Christian Concern said that the incident shows the danger Christians in Pakistan face every day.

“The brutal killing of Shahzad and Shama once again highlights the extreme danger of religious fanaticism that Christians in Pakistan face on a regular basis. The accusation of blasphemy can be used for any dispute and can often prove deadly as it did today, inciting a mob to brutally murder this young couple.”

Grand Jury Formally Indicts Baltimore Officers

A grand jury in Baltimore has indicted six officers on charges connected to the Freddie Gray situation that led to massive rioting.

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the grand jury’s decision to bring charges against all the officers during a Thursday press conference.  The indictments were similar to charges Mosby announced earlier this month but a few changed due to what she called “new information in the case.”

“These past two weeks, my team has been presenting evidence to a grand jury that just today returned indictments against all six officers,” Mosby told reporters. “As our investigation has continued, additional information has been discovered, and as is often the case during an ongoing investigation, charges can and should be revised based upon the evidence.”

The officers will be formally charged on July 2nd.

The Washington Post reports that Gray had an extensive criminal record “and had a handful of convictions, mostly on charges of selling or possessing heroin or marijuana. His longest stint behind bars was about two years.”

Gray’s death sparked nationwide protests and calls for the officers to be charged with murder.

Police Officers In Baltimore Charged

Every officer connected to the arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore has now been charged with crimes by the city’s state’s attorney.

State’a Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Friday that Freddie Gray’s death was a homicide, that his arrest was illegal and that she was charging every officer involved with crimes ranging from murder to “misconduct in office.”

“The findings of our comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation, coupled with the medical examiner’s determination that Mr. Gray’s death was a homicide,” Mosby said, “has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges.”

“To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America, I heard your call for ‘no justice, no peace’. Your peace is sincerely needed, as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man.” Mosby added.

The announcement of charges was expected to take longer than less than 24 hours from the delivery of the police department’s report on the incident.  The city is still under a nighttime curfew from Monday’s riots.

“Mr. Gray suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a result of being handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained inside of the BPD wagon,” Mosby said.

President Obama responded to the news of charges by saying that the legal process should run its course.

“What I think the people of Baltimore want more than anything else is the truth,” Obama said.

The Fraternal Order of Police challenged the actions of prosecutor and said that an independent prosecutor needs to be assigned to the case because of potential bias.