Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court weighs scope of police power to enter homes without a warrant

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared reluctant to give police unlimited power to enter a home without a warrant when pursuing a suspect for a minor crime in a case involving a California driver tailed by an officer after honking his horn while listening to music.

The driver, Arthur Lange, was later convicted of driving under the influence after being confronted inside his garage by California highway patrol officer Aaron Weikert in 2016. Lange is seeking to overturn his conviction by arguing that sobriety test evidence in the case was obtained by Weikert in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The nine justices heard arguments in the case and are due to rule by the end of June. A broad decision finding that any police pursuit, whatever the nature of the suspected offense, justifies a warrantless entry appears unlikely based on comments by the justices.

“It seems ridiculous when your home isn’t your castle for terribly minor things,” liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts raised the example of teenagers fleeing back to their homes after being caught drinking beer in a park as an example of a situation in which warrantless entry would be inappropriate.

“It doesn’t seem to be something that would warrant the officer, you know, breaking into the house,” Roberts said.

After observing Lange driving and honking his horn, Weikert began following him and intended to stop him for violating local noise restrictions, a minor infraction that carries small fines, but did not immediately turn on the police vehicle’s emergency lights, according to filings in the case.

Lange was already in his driveway when the officer caught up with him and activated his emergency lights. Weikert pulled into the driveway as Lange was driving his car into his garage. Lange later said he did not know the officer had been following him.

The garage door was just about to close when Weikert stuck his foot under the door, preventing it from shutting.

Weikert said he smelled alcohol and ordered Lange to take a sobriety test. Lange was found to be more than three times over the legal limit and was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) and a noise infraction.

Lower courts ruled against Lange, deeming the incident a “hot pursuit” that allowed a warrantless entry. The justices potentially could rule that the incident was not a “hot pursuit,” meaning a warrant would have been needed.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas referred to it as a “kind of meandering pursuit.”

Such a ruling still could allow police to enter houses without warrants in certain circumstances even if the underlying crime was a misdemeanor.

Lange pleaded no contest to the DUI offense and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and three years of probation.

The California Court of Appeals in 2019 upheld Lange’s conviction. Lange then asked the Supreme Court to rule that police officers cannot evade the warrant requirement when chasing someone to their home when the underlying conduct constitutes a misdemeanor offense.

Under Supreme Court precedent, officers can enter a home without a warrant when they are in pursuit of a suspected felon.

The issue of police powers has been in the spotlight particularly during protests in many cities last year against police brutality and racism. A broad ruling in favor of police could further expand their powers by widening their ability to enter homes without a warrant after pursuing people suspected of misdemeanor offenses, not just felonies.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court set to weigh Republican-backed voting restrictions

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) – Fresh off an election in which former President Donald Trump made claims of fraud, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to ponder the legality of a restriction on early voting in Arizona that his fellow Republicans argued was needed to combat fraud.

The Republican-backed law, spurred in part by a video purportedly showing voter fraud that courts later deemed misleading, made it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers.

Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. Ballot collection is legal in most states, with varying limitations. Republican critics call the practice “ballot harvesting.”

Supreme Court arguments over the 2016 ban and another Arizona voting restriction – both ruled unlawful by a lower court – are scheduled for next Tuesday, with a decision due by the end of June. A broad ruling by high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, endorsing the restrictions could further weaken the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that barred racial discrimination in voting, by making it harder to prove violations.

The video, taken from security camera footage, shows a man carrying a box of ballots into a Maricopa County Elections Department office. It was posted on a blog in 2014 by A.J. LaFaro, the Republican Party chairman at the time in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

LaFaro’s post questioned whether the man was a U.S. citizen and called him a “violent thug” who was “stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement.” A judge later called the blog post “racially charged” and concluded that the footage showed no illegal activity. The man seen in the video filed an unsuccessful defamation suit against LaFaro.

Republican-governed states including Arizona have imposed a variety of voting restrictions in recent years. In the aftermath of Trump’s claims of fraud, further curbs on voting are being pursued in 33 states, according to New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice.

‘THE MAIN TOOL’

At issue in the Supreme Court case is the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which bans any rule that results in voting discrimination “on account of race or color.” The court in 2013 gutted another section of the statute that determined which states with a history of racial discrimination needed federal approval to change voting laws.

Weakening Section 2 would eliminate “the main tool we have left now to protect voters against racial discrimination,” said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program.

“If there’s one thing that the election and the insurrection showed it’s that not everyone buys into the idea of free, fair and accessible elections,” Pérez added, referring to a pro-Trump mob’s Jan. 6 rampage at the U.S. Capitol.

The Supreme Court case also involves a longstanding Arizona policy that discards ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the one to which a voter has been assigned. In some places, voters’ precincts are not the closest one to their home.

The case pits Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Arizona Republican Party against the Democratic National Committee and the Arizona Democratic Party, which sued over the restrictions. Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has backed the challenge.

The two sides differ sharply over whether genuine voter fraud must be documented to justify ballot restrictions.

“The notion that voter fraud must be proved in order to enact regulations of elections is not established in the law,” said Republican election lawyer Jason Torchinsky, who filed a brief backing Brnovich. “There are tons of areas where legislatures legislate without proving that some kind of fraud or crime has occurred.”

Jessica Ring Amunson, an attorney who represents Hobbs, said courts should take false fraud claims into account when evaluating the legality of voting restrictions.

Legislatures often justify such restrictions as necessary to tackle fraud and increase voter confidence, but “simultaneously they’re spreading baseless claims of voter fraud when none exists, and that is the very thing that is leading to people losing confidence in elections,” she added.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found Arizona’s restrictions unlawful, though they remained in effect for the Nov. 3 election. It ruled that the restrictions disproportionately burdened Black, Hispanic and Native American voters and violated the Voting Rights Act.

The 9th Circuit also found that “false, race-based claims of ballot collection fraud” were used to convince Arizona legislators to enact that restriction with discriminatory intent, violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on denying voting rights based on race.

U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes in 2018 faulted Arizona’s legislature for its “misinformed belief that ballot collection fraud was occurring,” but upheld the voting restrictions. The 9th Circuit last year overturned that ruling.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with dispute over Baltimore climate suit

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to lean toward energy companies in a dispute over a lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore seeking monetary damages for the impact of global climate change.

The justices heard arguments on a legal issue that will help determine whether the lawsuit and others like it will be heard in a state court, as the city would prefer, or in a federal court, which corporate defendants generally view as a more favorable venue. The arguments did not address the underlying merits of Baltimore claims.

The Maryland city’s suit targets 21 U.S. and foreign energy companies that extract, produce, distribute or sell fossil fuels including BP PLC, Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

Some of the eight justices taking part in the case appeared skeptical about the position taken by Baltimore’s lawyers during the argument held by teleconference.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority but conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate, likely because he owns stock in two oil companies involved in the litigation. If the court is divided 4-4 in its eventual ruling – due by the end of June – an earlier ruling in Baltimore’s favor by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would stand.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the case as a “close call” but pointed out among other things that Baltimore’s arguments conflicted with a ruling written by the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1996.

“It’s never good to be on the wrong side of Justice Ginsburg opinions,” Kavanaugh said of his former colleague who died in September.

The outcome is likely to affect around a dozen similar lawsuits by U.S. states, cities and counties seeking to hold such companies liable for the impact of climate change.

Baltimore and the other jurisdictions are seeking damages under state law for the harms they said they have sustained due to climate change, which they attribute in part to the companies’ role in producing fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The claims involve oil production and marketing, not the harmful emissions themselves.

The plaintiffs have said they have had to spend more on infrastructure such as flood-control measures to combat sea-level rise caused by a warming climate.

The legal question concerns a provision of federal law that puts limits on appeals courts reviewing decisions by a federal district court judge to remand a case to state court. The companies have said that in this instance the 4th Circuit had broad scope to review a district court’s decision because of a provision that allows for appeals of such rulings when a case directly concerns federal officials or government entities.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the applicable law was enacted to prevent delays in resolving cases, and that giving the energy companies a broad right to appeal could have the opposite effect.

“That means added time, added delay,” Breyer said.

The energy companies have argued that oil production is an inherently federal issue in which the government plays a key role, meaning the case should be heard in federal court. Greenhouse gas emissions that cross state and international lines are likewise an issue that cannot be addressed under state laws, the companies asserted.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not heed calls from some activists that she not participate because her father formerly worked as a lawyer for a Shell subsidiary.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Trump campaign will again ask U.S. high court to upend election results

By Jan Wolfe

(Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s campaign said on Sunday it would again ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn results from the Nov. 3 election.

In a statement issued by the campaign, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said the campaign had filed a petition asking the high court to reverse three rulings by a Pennsylvania state court interpreting the state’s rules for mail-in ballots.

“The Campaign’s petition seeks to reverse three decisions which eviscerated the Pennsylvania Legislature’s protections against mail ballot fraud,” Giuliani said in a statement.

Giuliani said the filing sought all “appropriate remedies,” including an order allowing Pennsylvania’s legislature to award the state’s 20 electoral votes to Trump.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 11 rejected a lawsuit filed by Texas and backed by Trump seeking to throw out voting results in four states, including Pennsylvania.

Several senior Republican U.S. senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have rejected the idea of overturning the 2020 presidential election in Congress.

A candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win the White House. Congress will count the electoral votes on Jan. 6.

U.S. Supreme Court throws out challenge to Trump census immigrant plan

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump’s plan to exclude immigrants living illegally in the United States from the population count used to allocate congressional districts to states.

The 6-3 ruling on ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives in the majority and three liberals dissenting, gives Trump a short-term victory as he pursues his hardline policies toward immigration.

“At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the ruling said. The decision noted that the court was not weighing the merits of Trump’s plan.

Challengers led by New York state and the American Civil Liberties Union said Trump’s proposal would dilute the political clout of states with larger numbers of such immigrants, including heavily Democratic California, by undercounting state populations and depriving them of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“If the administration actually tries to implement this policy, we’ll sue. Again. And we’ll win,” said Dale Ho, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the challengers.

The administration has not disclosed what method it would use to calculate the number of people it proposed to exclude or which subsets of immigrants would be targeted. Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the justices during the Nov. 30 oral argument in the case that the administration could miss a Dec. 31 statutory deadline to finalize a Census Bureau report to Trump containing the final population data, including the number of immigrants excluded.

During the oral argument, Wall told the justices that it is “very unlikely” the administration would amass data to exclude all immigrants in the country illegally. Instead, Wall said, it may propose excluding certain groups, such as the fewer than 100,000 in federal detention, and the total number may not be high enough to affect apportionment.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a dissenting opinion that the government can currently try to exclude millions of individuals, including those who are in immigration detention or deportation proceedings, and the some 700,000 young people known as “Dreamers” who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

“Where, as here, the government acknowledges it is working to achieve an allegedly illegal goal, this court should not decline to resolve the case simply because the government speculates that it might not fully succeed,” Breyer added.

There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. The challengers have argued that Trump’s policy violates both the Constitution and the Census Act, a federal law that outlines how the census is conducted.

The Constitution requires apportionment of House seats to be based upon the “whole number of persons in each state.” Until now, the U.S. government’s practice was to count all people regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.

By statute, the president is required to send Congress a report in early January with the population of each of the states and their entitled number of House districts.

The challengers have argued that Trump’s plan could leave several million people uncounted and cause California, Texas and New Jersey to lose House seats.

A three-judge panel in New York ruled against the administration in September.

The Supreme Court in June 2019 ruled against Trump’s effort to add a citizenship question to the census. Critics said the question was intended to frighten immigrants from taking part in the population count and artificially reduce population numbers in heavily Democratic areas.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; additional reporting by Andrew Chung; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend election

By Makini Brice

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The state of Texas, aiming to help President Donald Trump upend the results of the U.S. election, said on Tuesday it has filed suit against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at the Supreme Court, calling changes they made to election procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic unlawful.

The lawsuit, announced by the Republican attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, was filed directly with the Supreme Court, as is permitted for certain litigation between states.

Republican-governed Texas in the lawsuit accused election officials in the four states of failing to protect mail-in voting from fraud, thus diminishing “the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

State election officials have said they have found no evidence of such fraud that would change the results. There was a surge in voting by mail in the election due to the pandemic, as many Americans stayed away from polling places to avoid the spread of COVID-19.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to block the Electoral College votes in the four states – a total of 62 votes – from being counted. Texas also is asking the Supreme Court to delay the Dec. 14 deadline for Electoral College votes to be cast.

Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis to bring the suit. “There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said.

The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case and has said in previous decisions that its “original jurisdiction” that allows litigation between states to be filed directly with the nine justices, should be invoked sparingly.

(Reporting by Makini Brice, Jan Wolfe and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Additional reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by Will Dunham and Noeleen Walder)

U.S. Supreme Court hears World War Two-era Jewish property claims

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The lingering legacy of World War Two reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday as the justices weighed two cases involving claims by Jews in Germany and Hungary and their descendants whose property was taken amid persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

The justices heard arguments in the two cases that hinge upon a federal law called the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that limits the jurisdiction of American courts over lawsuits against foreign governments.

In one case, the justices considered Germany’s bid to avoid facing a lawsuit in a U.S. court over medieval artwork that its former Nazi government pressured Jewish art dealers to sell in the 1930’s. The other concerns Hungary’s similar attempt to avoid litigation originally brought by 14 U.S. citizens who survived that nation’s World War Two-era campaign of genocide against its Jewish population.

The justices appeared more sympathetic to the arguments made by Germany than Hungary, while also recognizing foreign policy concerns of allowing such claims to be heard in U.S. courts.

The Germany case focuses upon a 17th century collection of medieval art known as the Welfenschatz that includes gem-studded busts of Christian saints, golden crucifixes and other precious objects. The plaintiffs – heirs of the art dealers – have said they are the rightful owners of the collection.

They sued in U.S. federal court in Washington in 2015, saying Germany owes them either the return of the artwork or more than $250 million in damages.

In 1935, a group of Jewish art dealers in Germany sold the collection to the state of Prussia, then being administered by prominent Nazi official Hermann Goering. The plaintiffs said that the sale was a “sham transaction” made under duress.

The art collection is currently in the possession of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, a German governmental entity.

Germany has said that U.S. courts have no role because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not allow claims over the alleged seizure of a citizen’s property by its own government. Some justices questioned that assumption, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas among others wondering if “stateless people” who are stripped of citizenship would be left without recourse.

Some justices said the language of the U.S. law seems to be clear that domestic property claims can be permitted if they fall within a broader genocide claim.

“It seems to cover the kind of property-taking that is at issue in this case,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

But Kagan and others also appeared to be worried about a ruling along those lines in part because it might require judges to undertake the contentious task of determining what constitutes a genocide.

A federal judge in Washington ruled against Germany in 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit narrowed the case the following year, saying claims could proceed against the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation but not against Germany’s government itself.

The Hungarian Holocaust survivors filed suit in Washington in 2010 seeking restitution for possessions taken from them and their families when they were forced to board trains destined for concentration camps. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit in 2017 but the D.C. Circuit revived it a year later, prompting Hungary to appeal to the high court.

Hungary has said that the possibility of “international friction” raised by the lawsuit means it should be dismissed and that the plaintiffs should sue in Hungary first.

The justices appeared reluctant to rule that foreign policy concerns could always be cited as a reason to toss out a lawsuit, but some also seemed reluctant to conclude that such issues should not be taken into account.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court takes up Trump bid to revive Medicaid work requirements

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to revive pilot programs adopted by the states of Arkansas and New Hampshire that allow work requirements to be imposed on people who receive healthcare under the Medicaid program for the poor.

The justices took up the administration’s appeals of rulings by a lower court that found the programs unlawful.  Seventeen other states are pursuing similar policies.

The administration said in court papers that the appeals court rulings cast a legal shadow on the efforts in those other states to adopt work requirements for Medicaid, a state-federal program that provides medical insurance for the poor. New Hampshire and Arkansas filed court papers in support of the administration.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2018 approved those projects as part of a push to put a conservative stamp on Medicaid, which was expanded in 37 states and the District of Columbia following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to help provide coverage to millions more Americans.

The department gave the go-ahead for states to carry out test projects requiring able-bodied people on Medicaid to work or do volunteer work.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court sides with challenge to California’s COVID-19 religious service curbs

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a blow to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s pandemic-related ban on indoor religious services, siding with a church that defied the policy and challenged it as unconstitutional religious discrimination.

The decision followed a similar action by the justices on Nov. 25 that backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship that challenged New York state restrictions in coronavirus hot spots.

The justices, with no noted dissents, set aside a lower court ruling that rejected a challenge to Newsom’s policy by Harvest Rock Church Inc, which has several campuses in the state, and Harvest International Ministries Inc, an association of churches. Both are based in Pasadena, a city in Los Angeles County.

The justices directed the lower court to reconsider the case in light of their ruling in the New York case.

California’s pandemic-related restrictions have evolved throughout the year. Newsom, a Democrat, initially ordered houses of worship to be closed completely in March as part of a broad stay-at-home directive. Some restrictions were lifted in the spring, but new curbs were introduced in July after a surge in cases, which was when Harvest Rock Church first sued.

The state’s current plan imposed county-specific limits based on the number of COVID-19 cases. Under the policy, houses of worship in the worst-hit areas could not hold indoor gatherings but could do so outdoors. In other counties, houses of worship could have indoor events with capacity restrictions.

The state imposed similar restrictions on what it called comparable businesses and activities such as museums, movie theaters and restaurants that also draw crowds of people.

In the New York case, the justices said the New York restrictions “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment” in part by allowing various businesses to operate indoors without the same occupancy restrictions.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

U.S. court upholds Harvard race-based admissions; Supreme Court appeal expected

By Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel

BOSTON (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld Harvard University’s use of race in undergraduate admissions, rejecting a challenge by affirmative action opponents who said the Ivy League school’s policy discriminates against Asian-Americans.

Opponents of the decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston promised to appeal to the Supreme Court, where legal experts believe the 6-3 conservative majority could use the case to end more than 40 years of allowing race as a factor in higher education admissions.

The appeals court rejected claims by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, which drew support from Republican President Donald Trump’s administration.

SFFA said Harvard engaged in impermissible “racial balancing” to make it easier for Blacks and Hispanics to win admission, and did not narrowly tailor its use of race.

It said this violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the school must comply with in order to receive federal funding.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch, however, said Harvard’s use of race was not “impermissibly extensive” and was instead “meaningful,” because it prevented diversity from plummeting.

“Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program ensures that Harvard can retain the benefits of diversity it has already achieved,” she said.

Blum in a statement pledged to ask the Supreme Court “to end these unfair and unconstitutional race-based admissions policies at Harvard and all colleges and universities.”

The Supreme Court has allowed race to be used in college admissions to promote diversity in the classroom.

Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane said Thursday’s decision reflected efforts to “create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding. … Now is not the time to turn back the clock on diversity and opportunity.”

The 2-0 decision upheld an October 2019 ruling by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston. A third judge on the appeals court panel, Juan Torruella, died last month.

Burroughs had concluded that Harvard’s admissions program was “not perfect” but that it the school had no “workable and available race-neutral alternatives.”

Lynch said the nature of Harvard’s admissions process, including that applicants win approval from a 40-person committee before being offered admission, “offset any risk of bias.”

The U.S. Justice Department had under Trump backed SFFA, arguing in a “friend-of-the-court” brief that Harvard “actively engages in racial balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids.”

The Trump administration filed a similar lawsuit on Oct. 8 against Yale University, accusing that Ivy League school of discriminating against Asian and white applicants.

Yale said it “does not discriminate against applicants of any race or ethnicity,” and would not change its admissions policies because of what it called the government’s “baseless” lawsuit.

SFFA is also pursuing a similar case against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill challenging its consideration of race as a factor in its admissions process. A non-jury trail in that case began on Monday.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Catherine Evans and Jonathan Oatis)