|
|
|
Detroit judge sidelined for making sleepy teen wear jail clothes on court field trip
Legal Topics |
2024/08/12 22:56
|
A Detroit judge who ordered a teenager into jail clothes and handcuffs on a field trip to his courtroom will be off the bench while undergoing “necessary training,” the court’s chief judge said Thursday.
Meanwhile, the girl’s mother said Judge Kenneth King was a “big bully.”
“My daughter is hurt. She is feeling scared,” Latoreya Till told the Detroit Free Press.
She identified her daughter as Eva Goodman. The 15-year-old fell asleep in King’s court Tuesday while on a visit organized by a Detroit nonprofit.
King didn’t like it. But he said it was her attitude that led to the jail clothes, handcuffs and stern words.
“I wanted this to look and feel very real to her, even though there’s probably no real chance of me putting her in jail,” he explained to WXYZ-TV.
King has been temporarily removed from his criminal case docket and will undergo “necessary training to address the underlying issues that contributed to this incident,” said William McConico, the chief judge at 36th District Court.
The court “remains deeply committed to providing access to justice in an environment free from intimidation or disrespect. The actions of Judge King on August 13th do not reflect this commitment,” McConico said.
He said the State Court Administrative Office approved the step. King will continue to be paid. Details about the training, and how long it would last, were not disclosed.
King, who has been a judge since 2006, didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment. At the close of his Thursday hearings, accessible on YouTube, he made a heart shape with his hands. The judge’s work includes determining whether there’s enough evidence to send felony cases to trial at Wayne County Circuit Court.
Till said her daughter was sleepy during the Tuesday court visit because the family doesn’t have a permanent residence.
“And so, that particular night, we got in kind of late,” she told the Free Press, referring to Monday night. “And usually, when she goes to work, she’s up and planting trees or being active.”
The teen was seeing King’s court as part of a visit organized by The Greening of Detroit, an environmental group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What to know about the Supreme Court immunity ruling
Legal Topics |
2024/07/04 03:19
|
The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.
The Supreme Court did not dismiss — as Trump had wanted — the indictment alleging he illegally schemed to cling to power after he lost to President Joe Biden. But the ruling still amounts to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying the proceedings until after the election.
The timing of the trial matters because if Trump defeats Biden, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek the dismissal of this case and the other federal prosecutions he faces. Or Trump could potentially order a pardon for himself.
Trump posted in all capital letters on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
In remarks Monday evening, Biden said the court had done a “terrible disservice” to the American people, who he says deserved to know the outcome of the case before they head to the polls.
“The American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior,” Biden said. “The American people must decide whether Trump’s assault on our democracy on Jan. 6 makes him unfit for public office.”
The court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.
The ruling means that special counsel Jack Smith cannot proceed with significant allegations in the indictment — or must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Republicans are improperly blocking conservation work, court says
Legal Topics |
2024/07/01 17:18
|
The Wisconsin Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget committee can’t legally block conservation projects initiated by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The decision marks a victory for Evers, whose relationship with Republican lawmakers has deteriorated since he took office in 2019, as well as environmentalists across the state.
“I’ve spent years working against near-constant Republican obstruction, and this historic decision rightfully resets constitutional checks and balances and restores separation of powers,” the governor said in a statement. “This decision is a victory for the people of Wisconsin, who expect and deserve their government to work — and work for them, not against them.”
The Legislature’s attorney, Misha Tseytlin, didn’t immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment Friday morning.
The court ruled 6-1 that provisions that require the Joint Finance Committee to unilaterally block projects and land acquisitions funded with money from the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program violate the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.
The Legislature gave the executive branch the power to distribute stewardship money when it established the program, Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in the majority opinion. Once that power was conferred, lawmakers lacked authority to reject decisions on how to spend the money short of rewriting spending laws, she wrote.
The Legislature created the stewardship program in 1989. The state Department of Natural Resources uses money from the program to fund grants to local governments and nongovernmental organizations for environmental projects. The gubernatorial cabinet agency also uses money from the program to acquire land for conservation and public use. The Legislature has currently authorized the agency to spend up to $33.2 million in each fiscal year through 2025-26 for land acquisition, according to court documents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel’s high court orders the army to draft ultra-Orthodox men
Legal Topics |
2024/06/26 18:23
|
Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that the military must begin drafting ultra-Orthodox men for compulsory service, a landmark decision that could lead to the collapse of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition as Israel continues to wage war in Gaza.
The historic ruling effectively puts an end to a decades-old system that granted ultra-Orthodox men broad exemptions from military service while maintaining mandatory enlistment for the country’s secular Jewish majority. The arrangement, deemed discriminatory by critics, has created a deep chasm in Israel’s Jewish majority over who should shoulder the burden of protecting the country.
The court struck down a law that codified exemptions in 2017, but repeated court extensions and government delaying tactics over a replacement dragged out a resolution for years. The court ruled that in the absence of a law, Israel’s compulsory military service applies to the ultra-Orthodox like any other citizen.
Under longstanding arrangements, ultra-Orthodox men have been exempt from the draft, which is compulsory for most Jewish men and women, who serve three and two years respectively as well as reserve duty until around age 40.
These exemptions have long been a source of anger among the secular public, a divide that has widened during the eight-month-old war, as the military has called up tens of thousands of soldiers and says it needs all the manpower it can get. Over 600 soldiers have been killed since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.
Politically powerful ultra-Orthodox parties, key partners in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, oppose any change to the current system. If the exemptions are ended, they could bolt the coalition, causing the government to collapse and likely leading to new elections at a time when its popularity has dropped.
In the current environment, Netanyahu could have a hard time delaying the matter any further or passing laws to restore the exemptions. During arguments, government lawyers told the court that forcing ultra-Orthodox men to enlist would “tear Israeli society apart.”
A statement from Netanyahu’s Likud party criticized the ruling, saying a bill in parliament backed by the Israeli leader would address the draft issue. Critics say it falls short of Israel’s wartime needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unanimous Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication
Legal Topics |
2024/06/13 19:01
|
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion decision since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.
The nine justices ruled that abortion opponents lacked the legal right to sue over the federal Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication, mifepristone, and the FDA’s subsequent actions to ease access to it. The case had threatened to restrict access to mifepristone across the country, including in states where abortion remains legal.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was part of the majority to overturn Roe, wrote for the court on Thursday that “federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions.”
The decision could lessen the intensity of the abortion issue in the November elections, with Democrats already energized and voting against restrictions on reproductive rights. But the high court is separately considering another abortion case, about whether a federal law on emergency treatment at hospitals overrides state abortion bans in rare emergency cases in which a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk.
More than 6 million people have used mifepristone since 2000. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone and primes the uterus to respond to the contraction-causing effect of a second drug, misoprostol. The two-drug regimen has been used to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks gestation.
Health care providers have said that if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain, they would switch to using only misoprostol, which is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.
President Joe Biden’s administration and drug manufacturers had warned that siding with abortion opponents in this case could undermine the FDA’s drug approval process beyond the abortion context by inviting judges to second-guess the agency’s scientific judgments. The Democratic administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, which makes mifepristone, argued that the drug is among the safest the FDA has ever approved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Thai court sentences an opposition lawmaker to 2 years in prison
Legal Topics |
2024/05/29 16:36
|
A Thai court on Monday sentenced a lawmaker from a progressive opposition party to two years in prison after finding her guilty of defaming the monarchy in a speech she made during a protest rally three years ago.
Chonthicha Jangrew of the Move Forward Party was greeted by several supporters when she arrived at the Thanyaburi Provincial Court in Pathum Thani province, north of Bangkok, with some party colleagues. Chonthicha, popularly known by her nickname “Lookkate,” represents a constituency in Pathum Thani.
Her charges stemmed from her speech in 2021 that demanded the release of all political prisoners during a rally in front of the same court that delivered Monday’s sentence.
She was found guilty for parts of the speech concerning how the government then led by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha had amended laws to give King Vajiralongkorn more power to control the palace wealth, which is managed by the Crown Property Bureau.
The judge said her speech could misinform the public by suggesting that King Vajiralongkorn can spend taxpayers’ money for his personal use and use his influence to interfere with politics, which could tarnish his reputation.
The judge originally sentenced her to three years in prison, but reduced it to two years because of her cooperation in the trial. The law for defaming the monarchy, an offense known as lese majeste, carries a penalty of three to 15 years imprisonment. It is widely referred to as Article 112 from its place in the Criminal Code.
Chonthicha was afterwards released on bail of 150,000 baht ($4,100). Had bail not been granted and she been sent directly to prison, she would have immediately been removed from her seat in Parliament.
She told reporters that she wasn’t surprised about the verdict as the majority of 112 charges led to convictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court will weigh banning homeless people from sleeping outside
Legal Topics |
2024/04/22 00:16
|
The Supreme Court will consider Monday whether banning homeless people from sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which has reached record levels in the United States.
In California and other Western states, courts have ruled that it’s unconstitutional to fine and arrest people sleeping in homeless encampments if shelter space is lacking.
A cross-section of Democratic and Republican officials contend that makes it difficult for them to manage encampments, which can have dangerous and unsanitary living conditions.
But hundreds of advocacy groups argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep will criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse as the cost of housing increases.
Dozens of demonstrators gathered outside the court Monday morning with silver thermal blankets and signs like “housing not handcuffs.”
The Justice Department has also weighed in. It argues people shouldn’t be punished just for sleeping outside, but only if there’s a determination they truly have nowhere else to go.
The case comes from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which started fining people $295 for sleeping outside to manage homeless encampments that sprung up in the city’s public parks as the cost of housing escalated.
The measure was largely struck down by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also found in 2018 that such bans violated the Eighth Amendment by punishing people for something they don’t have control over. The 9th Circuit oversees nine Western states, including California, which is home to about one-third of the nation’s homeless population.
The case comes after homelessness in the United States grew a dramatic 12%, to its highest reported level as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more Americans, according to federal data. The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
