An Ohio appeals court has stopped authorities in a predominantly black suburb from prosecuting five white Cleveland police supervisors for failing to stop a chase that ended with two black suspects being killed in a 137-shot barrage of police gunfire in November 2012.
 
The appellate court's ruling puts a case in East Cleveland against the supervisors on hold. The East Cleveland prosecutor last week filed misdemeanor dereliction-of-duty charges against the supervisors that were identical to charges filed in county court in May 2014. Attorneys for the supervisors filed a complaint Wednesday to get the new charges dropped.

A hearing scheduled for Friday in East Cleveland Municipal Court has been canceled. The supervisors' trial in county court is scheduled to begin July 27. East Cleveland is 93 percent black.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to stop a grand jury investigation into an embattled sheriff whose longtime friend and volunteer deputy fatally shot an unarmed man.

Attorneys for Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz want justices to toss out a lower court's decision to empanel a grand jury on July 20. The state Supreme Court late Thursday appointed a referee to hear evidence and arguments in the case on July 14.

More than 6,600 Tulsa residents petitioned for the investigation into whether Glanz neglected his duties and whether reservists who gave gifts to the sheriff were shown special treatment. Glanz's lawyers say some signatures were gathered improperly and the petition should be tossed.

District Judge Rebecca Nightingale on Tuesday rejected Glanz's claims. Terry Simonson, a spokesman for the sheriff, said Glanz is appealing to the high court because the law has been applied incorrectly.

"He has the same rights as every citizen in Oklahoma to defend the position he believes in and the right to appeal based upon that conviction," Simonson said. "That's what he did today."

The petition drive began after reserve deputy Robert Bates, 73, shot and killed Eric Harris on April 2. Harris ran from authorities during a gun-sales sting operation and Bates maintains he confused his stun gun and handgun. Bates has pleaded not guilty to second-degree manslaughter in the slaying.

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.

Powerful public-sector unions are facing another high-profile legal challenge that they say could wipe away millions from their bank accounts and make it tougher to survive.
 
A group of California schoolteachers, backed by a conservative group, wants the Supreme Court to rule that unions representing government workers can't collect fees from those who choose not to join.

Half the states currently require state workers represented by a union to pay "fair share" fees covering bargaining costs, even if they are not members. The justices could decide as soon as next week whether to take the case.

Union opponents say it violates the First Amendment to require fees from nonmembers that may go to causes they don't support. They want the high court to overturn a 38-year-old precedent allowing the fees.

Hundreds of Orange County court cases are being scrutinized amid suspicions that someone was paid to fix DUI and other traffic violations by falsifying court records.

The FBI and county prosecutors are investigating, and about 600 Superior Court cases, some dating to 2006, are going before a judge this month to determine whether they should be reheard, the Orange County Register reported.

The probe involves suspicions that some employees recorded fake sentence reductions and dismissals for drunken driving and misdemeanor traffic cases and in at least one case, falsely made it appear a defendant had served jail time, the Register reported.

No arrests have been made. Representatives for the FBI, the court and the county district attorney's office declined to comment.

On Friday, 110 attorneys and former criminal defendants were summoned to the courtroom of Judge Thomas Borris and told there were errors in the court records. "You are here to convince me there is not a mistake in your case," Borris said.

"There has been a clerk somewhere that was entering false information ... getting cash in exchange for making stuff disappear," said Sheny Gutierrez, one of the attorneys who appeared.

Ramon Vasquez said he was given a work program in 2012 after pleading guilty to driving on a suspended license. The judge said the case would be undone unless he produced documents, the Register said.

A federal appeals court upheld key parts of Texas's strict anti-abortion law on Tuesday, a decision that could leave as few as seven abortion clinics in the nation's second largest state.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds requirements that abortion clinics meet hospital-level operating standards, which owners of small clinics say demand millions of dollars in upgrades they can't afford and will leave many women hundreds of miles away from an abortion provider. But the court said abortion clinics failed to prove that the restrictions would unduly burden a "large fraction" of women.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and other conservatives say the standards protect women's health. But abortion-rights supports say the law is a thinly veiled attempt to block access to abortions in Texas, and they promised to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily sidelined the law last year.

"Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to devastate access to reproductive health care on such a sweeping scale," said Nancy Northrop, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Texas will be able to start enforcing the restrictions in about three weeks unless the Supreme Court steps in and temporarily halts the decision, said Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the center. Only seven abortion facilities in Texas, including four operated by Planned Parenthood, meet the more robust requirements.

The ruling, made by a three-judge panel, is the 5th Circuit's latest decision in a lawsuit challenging some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country.