|
|
|
Appeals court upholds injunction halting health mandate
Legal Network |
2015/09/18 23:21
|
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Barack Obama's health care law unjustly burdens religiously affiliated employers by forcing them to help provide insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, even though they can opt out of directly paying for it.
The ruling by a three-judge 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in St. Louis upheld lower court decisions that sided with plaintiffs who included three Christian colleges in Missouri, Michigan and Iowa.
The 25-page opinion conflicts with all other federal appellate courts, which have found in the U.S. government's favor.
As religiously affiliated entities, those colleges victorious with Thursday's ruling don't have to pay directly for their workers' birth control. Instead, they can seek an accommodation that requires their insurance providers to pay for it. But the groups still say the scheme makes them complicit in the providing of contraception and subjected them to possible fines for noncompliance.
Circuit Judge Roger Wollman, writing the ruling on the panel's behalf, wrote that the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process of the Affordable Care Act substantially burdens the plaintiffs' exercise of religion.
Those plaintiffs included Heartland Christian College in Newark, Missouri, Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, and Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as well as Bethel, Missouri-based CNS International Ministries Inc., a nonprofit provider of addiction services.
The Justice Department, which has called the lawsuits meritless and an attempt to prevent female employees from obtaining coverage, defended the federal government in the cases but directed The Associated Press' questions Thursday to the White House, where a statement called the rulings disappointing.
"As all of the other seven U.S. courts of appeals to address this issue have held, the contraceptive accommodation process strikes the proper balance between ensuring women have equal access to health care and protecting religious beliefs," that statement read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ Simpson appeal rejected by Nevada Supreme Court
Legal Network |
2015/09/13 06:13
|
Imprisoned former football star O.J. Simpson lost his latest appeal of his 2008 kidnapping and armed robbery conviction in Las Vegas.
A three-member Nevada Supreme Court panel rejected Simpson's request for a new trial, ruling in a 16-page order Thursday that there was no reason to overturn a lower court judge's decisions in the case.
"We ... conclude the district court did not err in denying these claims," justices Ron Parraguire, Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry said.
Simpson lawyers filed the appeal last October, arguing that Clark County District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell was wrong to deny Simpson a new trial on charges that got Simpson sentenced to 9 to 33 years in a botched hotel room heist.
Simpson lawyers Patricia Palm, Ozzie Fumo and Tom Pitaro argued that his trial attorney mishandled his case and had conflicts of interests. The three attorneys didn't immediately respond to messages late Thursday, and it wasn't immediately known if Simpson was aware of the ruling.
Simpson, 68, is serving his sentence in a northern Nevada prison after a jury found him guilty of multiple felonies for leading five other men in a September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas hotel. Two of the men with Simpson testified they brought guns, at Simpson's request.
The Heisman Trophy winner, NFL Hall of Fame member and former television and movie star didn't testify at his robbery trial in Las Vegas. His attorneys, Yale Galanter and Gabriel Grasso, claimed Simpson was just trying to retrieve items stolen from him after his 1995 acquittal in Los Angeles in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
The Supreme Court in September 2010 rejected a previous Simpson appeal, filed by Galanter.
Simpson's appeal argued that his multiple convictions and sentences for assault with a deadly weapon and robbery with use of a deadly weapon constitute double-jeopardy; that Galanter should have challenged his multiple convictions and punishments; and that the jury should have been given a chance to consider lesser kidnapping and theft offenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court fines Washington state over education funding
Legal Network |
2015/08/14 15:52
|
Washington officials are considering a special legislative session after the state Supreme Court issued daily fines a of $100,000 until lawmakers comply with a court order to improve the way the state pays for its basic education system.
Thursday's order, signed by all nine justices of the high court, ordered that the fine start immediately, and be put into a dedicated education account.
The court encouraged Gov. Jay Inslee to call a special session, saying that if the Legislature complies with the court's previous rulings for the state to deliver a plan to fully fund education, the penalties accrued during a special session would be refunded.
Inslee and legislative leaders are set to meet Monday in Seattle discuss what next steps the state should take.
"There is much that needs to be done before a special session can be called," Inslee said in a statement. "I will ask lawmakers to do that work as quickly as humanly possible so that they can step up to our constitutional and moral obligations to our children and lift the court sanctions."
The ruling was the latest development in a long-running impasse between lawmakers and justices, who in 2012 ruled that the state is failing to meet its constitutional duty to pay for the cost of basic education for its 1 million schoolchildren.
Thomas Ahearne, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the court's action "is long overdue."
"The state has known for many, many years that it's violating the constitutional rights of our public school kids," Ahearne said. "And the state has been told by the court in rulings in this case to fix it, and the state has just been dillydallying along."
The lawsuit against the state was brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and education groups — known as the McCleary case for the family named in the suit.
In its original ruling, and repeated in later follow-up rulings, the justices have told the Legislature to find a way to pay for the reforms and programs they had already adopted, including all-day kindergarten, smaller class sizes, student transportation and classroom supplies, and to fix the state's overreliance on local tax levies to pay for education. Relying heavily on local tax levies leads to big disparities in funding between school districts, experts say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ill. high court rejects intervention on state paychecks
Legal Network |
2015/07/20 16:20
|
The Illinois Supreme Court has denied a request by state officials to decide the issue of paying government workers during the budget crisis.
The high court made no comment Friday in rejecting the plea by Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
Madigan sought intervention because two separate courts ruled opposite ways last week on pay for 64,500 employees.
A Cook County judge ruled it would be illegal to pay most of them. But an appellate court reversed that decision Friday and sent it back for additional arguments.
A St. Clair County judge decreed it would violate the Constitution not to pay them.
State Comptroller Leslie Munger began paying workers this week.
A new fiscal year began July 1 but Gov. Bruce Rauner and legislative Democrats can't agree on a spending plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
