|
|
|
Supreme Court upholds key tool for fighting housing bias
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/25 16:00
|
The Supreme Court handed a surprising victory to the Obama administration and civil rights groups on Thursday when it upheld a key tool used for more than four decades to fight housing discrimination.
The justices ruled 5-4 that federal housing laws prohibit seemingly neutral practices that harm minorities, even without proof of intentional discrimination.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, joined the court's four liberal members in upholding the use of so-called "disparate impact" cases.
The ruling is a win for housing advocates who argued that the housing law allows challenges to race-neutral policies that have a negative impact on minority groups. The Justice Department has used disparate impact lawsuits to win more than $500 million in legal settlements from companies accused of bias against black and Hispanic customers.
In upholding the tactic, the Supreme Court preserved a legal strategy that has been used for more than 40 years to attack discrimination in zoning laws, occupancy rules, mortgage lending practices and insurance underwriting. Every federal appeals court to consider it has upheld the practice, though the Supreme Court had never previously taken it up.
Writing for the majority, Kennedy said that language in the housing law banning discrimination "because of race" includes disparate impact cases. He said such lawsuits allow plaintiffs "to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification" under traditional legal theories.
"In this way disparate-impact liability may prevent segregated housing patterns that might otherwise result from covert and illicit stereotyping," Kennedy said.
Kennedy was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US court upholds tough rules on for-profit college loans
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/24 15:59
|
A federal court has ruled in favor of tough new regulations aimed at career training programs, dealing a major blow to the for-profit college industry.
In an opinion released Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the Education Department has the right to demand that schools show their graduates make enough money to repay their student loans. The Education Department announced its plan last fall as a way of weeding out fraudulent colleges that were targeting low-income students because of their ability to receive federal student loans, grants and military benefits.
Under the new rules, which go into effect July 1, a program has to show that the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate does not exceed 20 percent of his or her discretionary income or 8 percent of total earnings. The administration said about 99 percent of the training programs that will be affected come from the for-profit sector, although affected career training programs can come from certificate programs elsewhere in higher education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Voids Routine Police Check Of Hotel Registries
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/23 15:59
|
The Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles ordinance Monday that allowed police to inspect hotel guest records on demand.
The justices voted 5-4 to reject the city's argument that the measure was needed to help fight prostitution, drug trafficking and illegal gambling at budget hotels and motels.
Los Angeles said that people engaging in those activities are less likely to use hotels if they know the facilities must collect guest information and turn it over at a moment's notice.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said for the court that the law is unconstitutional because it penalizes the hotel owners if they don't comply. "A hotel owner who refuses to give an officer access to his or her registry can be arrested on the spot," Sotomayor wrote. Business owners must at least be given a chance to object to a judge, she said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy and Sotomayor's three liberal colleagues joined her in the majority.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law "is eminently reasonable" given the use of cheap motels as places to stash migrants who have been smuggled across the border and as rendezvous points for child sex workers and their clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/22 15:26
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
The ruling is a victory for California farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, who claimed they were losing money under a 1940s-era program they call outdated and ineffective. They were fined $695,000 for trying to get around the program.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers benefited from higher market prices and didn't lose the entire value of their crop.
The government argued that the Hornes benefited from increased raisin prices, but their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to government action that infringes on private property rights.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay "just compensation" when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away. He rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don't like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huguely files appeal request with U.S. Supreme Court
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/17 18:31
|
A former University of Virginia lacrosse player is taking his last shot at overturning his conviction for the 2010 murder of his former girlfriend.
Counsel for George Huguely V has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a judicial review of the case against their client. Huguely was convicted in 2012 of the second-degree murder of Yeardley Love, also a UVa student and member of the women’s lacrosse team, for which he was sentenced to 23 years in prison.
Huguely, now 27, has since appealed the conviction on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when one of his two attorneys fell ill and could not be present in the courtroom nine days into his trial. Though his other attorney said he would be able to continue, Huguely asked the judge to delay the case until both of his attorneys could be present, but that request was denied.
Counsel for Huguely has argued that their client’s right to competent assistance was violated when he could not have both lawyers present in the courtroom. The petition filed Friday asks the court to “reaffirm the core of the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to have his choice of counsel by his side throughout the trial proceedings.”
“[Huguely’s] distinct interest in receiving not just competent assistance, but assistance from both his counsels of choice was given no weight,” the petition states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court sets aside conviction of bin Laden assistant
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/12 17:13
|
A federal appeals court has set aside the military commission conviction of a Guantanamo Bay detainee who allegedly produced an al-Qaida recruiting video and served as Osama bin Laden's personal assistant and public relations secretary.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the conspiracy case against the detainee was legally flawed because conspiracy is not a war crime. The detainee is Ali Hamza al-Bahlul.
The system of military commissions was created by the administration of President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The Obama administration argued that Congress acted within its authority in making conspiracy a crime that could be tried by military commission.
Al-Bahlul's lawyers argued that military commissions can only try offenses under the law of war. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll: Most Americans expect Supreme Court to OK gay marriage
Headline Legal News |
2015/06/11 17:13
|
Nearly two-thirds of Americans expect the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide when it rules on the issue within the next few weeks, according to a new poll.
Only 25 percent expect the high court to leave existing state bans on gay marriage intact, while 65 percent expect the bans to be overturned, according to the poll conducted by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute. Its nationwide survey of 1,009 adults was conducted from June 3 to June 7.
Mirroring the findings of several other recent national polls, the new survey found 55 percent of Americans in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, and 37 percent opposed.
Among those who oppose same-sex marriage, 72 percent say the decision about its legality should be made at the state level. Among those who favor same-sex marriage, 59 percent say the issue should be decided at the national level. At the moment, same-sex marriages are allowed in 36 states.
The survey found sharp divisions over same-sex marriage along religious lines. Majorities of religiously unaffiliated Americans (79 percent), white mainline Protestants (60 percent) and Catholics (58 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. But gay marriage was supported by only 29 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 35 percent of nonwhite Protestants.
The survey also asked about perceptions of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Three-quarters of Democrats, 61 percent of independents and 50 percent of Republicans said there is a lot of discrimination against transgender people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
