A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab." By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request. The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030. Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2. The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Court to weigh cocaine cases, could alter sentencing in Ohio
Prosecutors across Ohio are concerned that a ruling under review by Ohio's top court could delay and shorten sentences for suspects caught with cocaine and force costly changes upon law enforcement.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to uphold an appeals court decision calling into question how prosecutors have handled cocaine cases for years. It all comes eastdown to weight.
A state appeals court in Toledo ruled last year prosecutors should have determined how much pure cocaine a suspect arrested in a drug sting had with him or her instead of sentencing him based on the weight of the entire amount.
The appeals court ruled that Ohio's drug laws say that what matters is the weight of the cocaine only — not filler material such as baking soda that's often added by drug dealers to stretch out their supply and increase profits.
Prosecutors along with the state Attorney General's office argue that such a narrow interpretation creates a new distinction for cocaine that isn't applied to any other illegal drugs.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to uphold an appeals court decision calling into question how prosecutors have handled cocaine cases for years. It all comes eastdown to weight.
A state appeals court in Toledo ruled last year prosecutors should have determined how much pure cocaine a suspect arrested in a drug sting had with him or her instead of sentencing him based on the weight of the entire amount.
The appeals court ruled that Ohio's drug laws say that what matters is the weight of the cocaine only — not filler material such as baking soda that's often added by drug dealers to stretch out their supply and increase profits.
Prosecutors along with the state Attorney General's office argue that such a narrow interpretation creates a new distinction for cocaine that isn't applied to any other illegal drugs.
Kansas Supreme Court invalidates school funding law
The Kansas Supreme Court struck down a stopgap law for funding the state's public schools on Thursday, saying it left poor districts $54 million short.
The justices unanimously ruled that the Republican-backed law doesn't comply with the Kansas Constitution and gave lawmakers until the end of June to write a new law. The high court has yet to decide on the larger question of whether Kansas must boost its education spending by at least $548 million a year.
Lawmakers approved the 2015 law as temporary fix to replace a per-student formula for distributing more than $4 billion a year to school in favor of stable "block grants." The law was meant to give lawmakers time to devise another system for distributing more $4 billion a year in aid to its 286 public school districts.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the temporary law, which was set to expire in July 2017, violates the Kansas Constitution's requirement that the state finance a suitable education for every student.
The justices unanimously ruled that the Republican-backed law doesn't comply with the Kansas Constitution and gave lawmakers until the end of June to write a new law. The high court has yet to decide on the larger question of whether Kansas must boost its education spending by at least $548 million a year.
Lawmakers approved the 2015 law as temporary fix to replace a per-student formula for distributing more than $4 billion a year to school in favor of stable "block grants." The law was meant to give lawmakers time to devise another system for distributing more $4 billion a year in aid to its 286 public school districts.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the temporary law, which was set to expire in July 2017, violates the Kansas Constitution's requirement that the state finance a suitable education for every student.
Apeals court tosses order blocking Mississippi executions
An appeals court Wednesday upheld Mississippi's method of lethal injection, rejecting arguments from death row inmates who opposed the state's plan to use drugs not specifically approved by state law.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate ruled incorrectly in August when he issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from executing prisoners.
The opinion by Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod rejected arguments by death row prisoners that Mississippi can't execute them because the state no longer will be using the particular class of drugs required by state law. She wrote that if inmates want to pursue such claims, they should do so in state court.
Mississippi law requires a three-drug process, with an "ultra-short-acting barbiturate" followed by a paralyzing agent and a drug that stops an inmate's heart. But Mississippi and other states had increasing difficulty obtaining such drugs after 2010, as manufacturers began refusing to sell it for executions.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate ruled incorrectly in August when he issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from executing prisoners.
The opinion by Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod rejected arguments by death row prisoners that Mississippi can't execute them because the state no longer will be using the particular class of drugs required by state law. She wrote that if inmates want to pursue such claims, they should do so in state court.
Mississippi law requires a three-drug process, with an "ultra-short-acting barbiturate" followed by a paralyzing agent and a drug that stops an inmate's heart. But Mississippi and other states had increasing difficulty obtaining such drugs after 2010, as manufacturers began refusing to sell it for executions.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
EU court dismisses Barcelona football trademark case
A European Union court has rejected an attempt by Spanish soccer giant Barcelona to have part of its club crest registered as a European trademark.
Known best for its passing game, Barcelona tried last year to have the outline of its badge registered for use on things like stationery, clothing and sports activities.
The attempt failed so the club went to court.
But the Luxembourg-based EU court dismissed the case on Thursday, saying that "none of the characteristics of the sign at issue contains any striking feature which is liable to attract the attention of consumers."
The court added: "In fact, the mark sought will rather tend to be perceived by consumers merely as a shape and will not enable them to distinguish the proprietor's goods or services."
Supreme Court torn over Texas affirmative action program
Torn as ever over race, the Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed whether it's time to end the use of race in college admissions nationwide or at least at the University of Texas.
With liberal and conservative justices starkly divided, the justice who almost certainly will dictate the outcome suggested that the court may need still more information to make a decision in a Texas case already on its second trip through the Supreme Court.
"We're just arguing the same case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said, recalling arguments first held in 2012 in the case of Abigail Fisher. "It's as if nothing has happened."
Kennedy said additional hearings may be needed to produce information that "we should know but we don't know" about how minority students are admitted and what classes they take to determine whether the use of race is necessary to increase diversity at the University of Texas.
Fisher has been out of college since 2012, but the justices' renewed interest in her case appeared to be a sign that the court's conservative majority is poised to cut back, or even end, affirmative action in higher education.
With liberal and conservative justices starkly divided, the justice who almost certainly will dictate the outcome suggested that the court may need still more information to make a decision in a Texas case already on its second trip through the Supreme Court.
"We're just arguing the same case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said, recalling arguments first held in 2012 in the case of Abigail Fisher. "It's as if nothing has happened."
Kennedy said additional hearings may be needed to produce information that "we should know but we don't know" about how minority students are admitted and what classes they take to determine whether the use of race is necessary to increase diversity at the University of Texas.
Fisher has been out of college since 2012, but the justices' renewed interest in her case appeared to be a sign that the court's conservative majority is poised to cut back, or even end, affirmative action in higher education.
Kansas Court of Appeals mulls state protections for abortion
A lawsuit blocking Kansas’ first-in-the-nation ban on a common second-trimester method for terminating pregnancies forced an appeals court Wednesday to wrestle with whether the state constitution independently protects abortion rights.
Abortion opponents are watching the case before the full Kansas Court of Appeals closely. If the two doctors who’ve challenged the ban prevail, the state courts could find grounds to invalidate other state abortion laws — even if federal courts declare that the U.S. Constitution permits the restrictions.
During arguments from attorneys Wednesday, several judges expressed skepticism that broad language in the state constitution’s Bill of Rights about individual liberty can be interpreted as specifically protecting abortion rights. But several also questioned the state’s position that the language is only a statement of principles.
The state is appealing a Shawnee County judge’s ruling in July that blocked the law from being enforced while the doctors’ lawsuit is heard. The judge said the ban imposes an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions. He also said the state constitution protects abortion rights at least as much as the federal constitution — something higher courts haven’t previously declared.
“It’s important to have the Kansas courts recognize these rights under the Kansas Constitution,” said Janet Crepps, a senior attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the doctors.
Abortion opponents are watching the case before the full Kansas Court of Appeals closely. If the two doctors who’ve challenged the ban prevail, the state courts could find grounds to invalidate other state abortion laws — even if federal courts declare that the U.S. Constitution permits the restrictions.
During arguments from attorneys Wednesday, several judges expressed skepticism that broad language in the state constitution’s Bill of Rights about individual liberty can be interpreted as specifically protecting abortion rights. But several also questioned the state’s position that the language is only a statement of principles.
The state is appealing a Shawnee County judge’s ruling in July that blocked the law from being enforced while the doctors’ lawsuit is heard. The judge said the ban imposes an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions. He also said the state constitution protects abortion rights at least as much as the federal constitution — something higher courts haven’t previously declared.
“It’s important to have the Kansas courts recognize these rights under the Kansas Constitution,” said Janet Crepps, a senior attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the doctors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)