 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, April 18, 2007 |
 |
|


Supreme Court hears oral arguments in high school athletic recruiting case
Joshua Pantesco on April 18, 2007 2:22 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Wednesday in Tennessee Secondary Schools Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 06-427, in which the Court considered whether the TSSAA violated the First Amendment and due process rights of Brentwood Academy in imposing "contractual penalties for violations of the recruiting rule that Brentwood agreed to follow." The TSSAA fined the school and suspended it for four years after a Brentwood football coach sent a letter inviting 12 eighth-graders to spring training. The students had already signed agreements to attend the school in the fall. In 2001, the Supreme Court decided the TSSAA was a state actor [decision text] and could be be sued for alleged First Amendment violations. On remand, the Sixth Circuit ruled on the merits in favor of the school [decision text, PDF]. An attorney for the TSSAA argued that the rule placed only a minimal burden on the school's free speech rights, and that the burden was outweighed by the TSSAA's concern that such communications between high school coaches and future athletes would harm or place unnecessary pressure the students. AP has more.
The Court also heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] in Panetti v. Quarterman [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 06-6407, where the Court is considering whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a convicted felon who is aware of the factual connection between his execution and his crime, but believes that the state is actually executing him as punishment for preaching the gospel. After Panetti petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court concluded after a competency hearing that Panetti understood that he committed murder, that he will be executed, and that the state has said he is being executed for the murders. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed [decision text], finding that a "rational understanding" of the punishment is not required for the state to establish that a convict is competent to be executed.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court upholds 'partial-birth' abortion ban
Jeannie Shawl on April 18, 2007 10:07 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [PDF text]. In Gonzales v. Carhart [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court held that groups challenging the ban on "partial-birth" abortions [JURIST news archive] "have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception." Carhart was consolidated with Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood [Duke Law case backgrounder], and the Supreme Court reversed the federal appeals court decisions in both cases. Wednesday's 5-4 decision marks the first time the Court has upheld a complete ban on an abortion procedure. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Kennedy, along with a concurrence [text] from Justice Thomas, and a dissent [text] from Justice Ginsburg. SCOTUSblog has more. AP has additional coverage.
In a second 5-4 decision handed down Wednesday, the Court held in James v. United States [Duke Law case backgrounder] that attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, qualifies as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) [44 USC 924 text]. Under the ACCA, defendants may subjected to longer sentences if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. James unsuccessfully argued that his Florida conviction for attempted burglary did not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision [PDF text] in the case. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Alito, along with a dissent [text] from Justice Scalia and a second dissent [text] from Justice Thomas. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Former Bangladesh PM banned from entering country
James M Yoch Jr on April 18, 2007 7:59 AM ET

[JURIST] Opposition leader and former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed [Wikipedia profile] has been exiled from Bangladesh [JURIST news archive] by President Iajuddin Ahmed's emergency government, according to a Bangladeshi Ministry of Home Affairs [official website] statement confirmed to the AFP by military officials on Wednesday. Bangladeshi authorities have alerted airlines operating flights to Bangladesh and immigration departments in ports of entry that Wajed, who is currently in the US, is not permitted to enter the country. Last week, Wajed was charged [JURIST report] in absentia with four counts of murder arising from the deaths of four protesters during political turmoil in October. Wajed suggested she would return despite the charges and her government-imposed exile.
Earlier this week, Ahmed's government and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia [Virtual Bangladesh profile] reportedly reached an agreement to exile Zia [AFP report] from Bangladesh in exchange for the release [JURIST report] of her son Arafat Rahman, who was arrested [JURIST report] the day before on corruption allegations. Ahmed declared a state of emergency January 11 [JURIST report] and later indefinitely postponed elections scheduled for January 22 after the collapse of a caretaker government in the face of violent protests over election procedures. In the wake of the emergency declaration, Bangladeshi authorities detained over 2,500 people [JURIST report] and have raided the homes of several political leaders, making multiple arrests [JURIST report]. AFP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Oregon House passes same-sex civil unions bill
Brett Murphy on April 18, 2007 6:59 AM ET

[JURIST] A gay rights bill [HB 2007 text] that would allow same-sex couples in Oregon to enter into contractual relationships affording them the benefits available to married couples passed in the Oregon House of Representatives [official website] Tuesday. A second piece of legislation [SB 2] protecting individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation also passed in the state House. That bill would ban discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and create a civil cause of action for violations of the act. Both gay rights [JURIST news archive] bills are expected to pass in the Oregon State Senate [official website], and Gov. Ted Kulongoski [official website] has already announced his support [press release] for the legislation.
Last week, the Washington State House of Representatives approved a domestic partnership bill (SB 5336) [PDF text; bill summary; JURIST report] that grants same-sex couples hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights when there is no will, and the power to authorize medical procedures, such as organ donation and autopsies. Earlier this month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill [HB 437 text; JURIST report] to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|