|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Legal Network |
2011/09/01 16:48
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
"The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future," Woods said. "It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again."
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of The Union" when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: "It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would."
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Legal Network |
2011/08/31 15:47
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was "self-serving." Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was "self-serving." The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 law firms in Louisiana and Mississippi to merge
Legal Network |
2011/08/31 15:47
|
A New Orleans-based law firm is expanding into Mississippi as it merges with a firm based in Jackson.
The New Orleans firm is Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre L.L.P.
It is combining with Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A., a firm that includes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter.
The firms say in a news release Tuesday that the merger should be complete by Jan. 1, and the combined firm will have 375 attorneys.
It will go by the current name of the New Orleans firm, Jones Walker.
After the merger is complete, Jones Walker will have 15 offices in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and the District of Columbia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACLU sues feds for shackling immigrant detainees
Legal Network |
2011/08/19 16:03
|
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court seeking to stop a practice in which alleged illegal immigrants are shackled at the feet, waist and wrists while appearing in immigration court.
The groups allege in the suit filed Monday that a blanket policy that allows the immigrants to remain chained for up to 12 hours the day they're due in court violates constitutional bans against cruel and unusual punishment.
According to the lawsuit, the overwhelming majority of prisoners who show up in immigration courts have no violent criminal history. The lawsuit seeks to compel the Department of Homeland Security to make individual determinations about shackling rather than have a blanket policy. DHS officials declined to comment Wednesday.
The lawsuit applies only to immigrants appearing in San Francisco immigration courts. But attorneys who filed the lawsuit said Wednesday that they hope it prompts changes to the system in other cities.
"We'd like to convince them to follow their own policy and at least add some humanity to it and recognize it's a painful and hurtful thing to shackle people like that," said Paul Chavez, senior attorney for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, one of the groups who filed the lawsuit.
The groups allege that shackling everyone at an immigration hearing amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The lawsuit seeks class action status to represent prisoners transported to and appearing in immigration court in shackles in San Francisco. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
