|
|
|
15 states urge Supreme Court to uphold gay marriage bans
Court Issues |
2015/04/07 19:40
|
Eight states where same-sex couples can marry are among 15 states urging the Supreme Court to uphold gay marriage bans and leave the matter to voters and lawmakers.
Louisiana and 14 other states are telling the justices in a brief filed Thursday that the court would do "incalculable damage to our civic life" if it decides that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry everywhere in the United States.
The states say they should be free to decide the issue for themselves.
Those seeking a nationwide decree in favor of same-sex marriage "urge the court to declare that the Constitution compels all 50 states to adopt this new form of marriage that did not exist in a single state 12 years ago. The court should decline that invitation," the states wrote.
Plaintiffs from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are asking the court to declare that the Constitution forbids states from denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on April 28.
Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states as a result of court decree, voter approval or legislative action.
The eight states on Thursday's legal filing where gay and lesbian couples can marry after courts struck down bans on gay marriage are: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia.
Seven other states where same-sex marriage remains illegal also joined the brief. They are: Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Q. Kelly - Personal Injury Attorney in New York
Court Issues |
2015/03/11 22:07
|
JOHN Q. KELLY, referred to “…as the most sought after wrongful death lawyer in the land”, has an unsurpassed track record in high stakes, high profile wrongful death and personal injury litigation.
Subsequent to his landmark verdict as lead attorney for the Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson in its wrongful death action against O.J. Simpson, Mr. Kelly continues to successfully handle matters that receive national and international coverage, and has a reputation as a meticulous, no-nonsense litigator, schooled in the nuances of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence, battle-tested in the courtroom on countless occasions, and seasoned by 30 years of deftly interacting with the media.
Mr. Kelly has appeared as both a featured guest and/or legal commentator frequently on all major network and cable news shows (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News) and been profiled/referenced in a multitude of publications, including Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, People Magazine, Worth Magazine, Greenwich Magazine, New York Magazine, New York Times, New York Post and New York Daily News.
Mr. Kelly is admitted to the New York State Bar and the Southern and Eastern Districts of the United States District Court and has argued appeals in the Second and Third Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals and New York State Appellate Division, 1st and 2nd Departments. He has handled matters in Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Arizona, California, Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Florida, Puerto Rico, Aruba and Australia. Mr. Kelly divides his time between his office in New York City and in Greenwich, CT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court won't reinstate case of man who went missing
Court Issues |
2015/02/25 18:00
|
Bobby Chen's legal luck has finally run out. The Supreme Court on Monday refused to reinstate Chen's appeal in a legal dispute with the city of Baltimore.
Chen beat long odds last year when he convinced the court — without the help of an attorney — to hear his case. But then he disappeared for two months and court officials couldn't reach him. The court dismissed the case last month after he missed a filing deadline.
Chen later re-emerged with a high-powered lawyer who said his client was traveling, experienced a slip-and-fall injury, and was unaware his case had been granted.
But the court declined to give him a second chance.
Chen had been fighting Baltimore officials for years, claiming the city illegally demolished his row house. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court nixes faith-based birth control mandate challenge
Court Issues |
2015/02/16 20:02
|
An appeals court has ruled that the birth control coverage required by federal health care reforms does not violate the rights of several religious groups because they can seek reasonable accommodations.
Two western Pennsylvania Catholic dioceses and a private Christian college had challenged the birth control coverage mandates and won lower-court decisions. However, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court ruling Wednesday said the reforms place "no substantial burden" on the religious groups and therefore don't violate their First Amendment rights.
All three groups — the college and the Pittsburgh and Erie dioceses — are mulling whether to appeal to the entire 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Such a ruling should cause deep concern for anyone who cares about any First Amendment rights, especially the right to teach and practice a religious faith," Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said in a statement. "This decision says that the church is no longer free to practice what we preach."
At issue is an "accommodation" written into the Affordable Care Act that says religious organizations can opt out of directly providing and paying to cover medical services such groups would consider morally objectionable. In this case, that refers to all contraceptive and abortion services for the Catholic plaintiffs, and contraceptive services like the "week-after" pill and other medical coverage that Geneva College contends violate its anti-abortion teachings. The school in Beaver Falls is affiliated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Justice Department lawyers have argued the accommodation solves the problem because it allows religious groups to opt out of directly providing such coverage. But the plaintiffs contend that merely filing the one-page form, which puts a religious group's objections on record with the government, violates their rights because it still "facilitates" or "triggers" a process that then enables third-party insurers to provide the kind of coverage to which they object. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
