Court: New health law doesn't infringe on religious freedom

Lawyer Blog Post 2015/07/15 23:10   Bookmark and Share
The federal health care law doesn't infringe on the religious freedom of faith-based nonprofit organizations that object to covering birth control in employee health plans, a federal appeals court in Denver ruled Tuesday.

The case involves a group of Colorado nuns and four Christian colleges in Oklahoma.

Religious groups are already exempt from covering contraceptives. But the plaintiffs argued that the exemption doesn't go far enough because they must sign away the coverage to another party, making them feel complicit in providing the contraceptives.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The judges wrote that the law with the exemption does not burden the exercise of religion.

"Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of plaintiffs' beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme ... does not substantially burden their religious exercise," the three-judge panel wrote.

The same court ruled in 2013 that for-profit companies can join the exempted religious organizations and not provide the contraceptives. The U.S. Supreme Court later agreed with the 10th Circuit in the case brought by the Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts chain.
top

Indian court rejects ban on 'offensive' Internet messages

Lawyer Blog Post 2015/03/27 16:49   Bookmark and Share

India's top court affirmed people's right to free speech in cyberspace Tuesday by striking down a provision that had called for imprisoning people who send "offensive" messages by computer or cellphone.

The provision, known as Section 66A of the 2008 Information Technology Act, had made sending such messages a crime punishable by up to three years in prison.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said the provision was "clearly vague" in not clarifying what should be construed as offensive. It also said the provision violates people's freedom of speech and their right to share information.

"The public's right to know is directly affected," the judges said in deeming the provision unconstitutional.

A law student who filed the challenge in 2012, Shreya Singhal, applauded the court's rejection of a provision she said was "grossly offensive to our rights, our freedom of speech and expression."

"Today the Supreme Court has upheld that, they have supported our rights," Singhal said. "I am ecstatic."

The law has been invoked in at least 10 recent cases, most often involving criticism of political leaders.

In 2012, a chemistry professor and his neighbor in Kolkata were arrested for forwarding a cartoon that made fun of West Bengal's top elected official, Mamata Banerjee.
top

High Court battle over Richard III's remains

Lawyer Blog Post 2014/03/14 14:47   Bookmark and Share
Distant relatives of England's King Richard III are launching their High Court battle over where to rebury the 15th-century monarch's remains.

The remains of Richard — who was killed in battle in 1485 — were found in a Leicester parking lot.

The government has given Leicester Cathedral in central England permission to rebury the king, but his relatives want him buried in the northern England city of York.

The relatives — under the name the Plantagenet Alliance — are bringing legal action that begins Thursday at the High Court against the government and the University of Leicester.

They claim that the government did not consult widely enough — or consider the wishes of Richard or his descendant — on where the monarch should be reburied.
top

Court revives transgender widow's legal fight

Lawyer Blog Post 2014/02/17 16:25   Bookmark and Share
A Texas appeals court on Thursday overturned a judge's ruling that had voided the marriage of a transgender widow whose firefighter husband died battling a blaze.

The 13th Texas Court of Appeals sent the case of Nikki Araguz back to the lower court, saying "there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding sex and whether the marriage was a same sex marriage."

In 2011, state District Judge Randy Clapp in Wharton County ruled that the marriage between Nikki Araguz and her husband Thomas Araguz was "void as a matter of law."

Thomas Araguz's mother and his first wife had challenged the marriage's validity, arguing the fallen firefighter's estate should go to his two sons because Nikki Araguz was born a man and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage.

Nikki Araguz, 38, had argued in court she had done everything medically and legally possible to show she is female and was legally married under Texas law and that she's entitled to widow's benefits.

Kent Rutter, Nikki Araguz's attorney, said his client was very pleased by Thursday's ruling.

"This decision recognizes that transgender Texans have the right to marry the person that they love," he said.

Attorneys for Simona Longoria, Thomas Araguz's mother, and Heather Delgado, his ex-wife, did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
top

Judge finds Citgo guilty of Clean Air Act felonies

Lawyer Blog Post 2014/02/06 15:47   Bookmark and Share
A South Texas judge has fined Citgo Petroleum more than $2 million after finding it guilty of felony violations of the U.S. Clean Air Act by its Corpus Christi refinery.

U.S. District Judge John Rainey handed down his verdict and punishment Wednesday in Corpus Christi.

Dozens of residents near Citgo's Corpus Christi refinery testified that they were sickened by pollution from the refinery. The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports prosecutors accused the Venezuelan-owned company of not installing roofs on two oil-water separator tanks the company operated between 1994 and 2003.

Dick DeGuerin of Houston, who represented Citgo, said the company will appeal the conviction.

Melissa Jarrell, a Texas A&M-Corpus Christi associate criminal justice professor, predicted the verdict could prompt other air pollution victims to seek similar prosecutions elsewhere.
top

Immigration

Lawyer Blog Post 2014/01/24 13:24   Bookmark and Share
Federal authorities would limit the use of shackles on immigrants who appear before immigration judges under a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to avoid shackling immigrants at the San Francisco immigration court in many hearings. Immigrants will still be shackled at a type of brief, procedural hearing in which several detainees are addressed at the same time.

A federal judge in San Francisco was scheduled to consider Thursday whether to approve the settlement in the lawsuit filed in 2011 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and others.

ACLU attorney Julia Harumi Mass said the agreement applies only to the San Francisco court, which serves more than 2,000 immigrants a year who are in ICE custody at three county jails in Northern California.

The lawsuit says detainees at the San Francisco court wear metal restraints on their wrists, ankles and waists and that most are bused from jails several hours away, spending hours in shackles before, during and after their hearings.

Under the proposed settlement, detainees will not be restrained at bond or merits hearings unless they pose a safety threat or risk of escape. Except in limited circumstances, they will remain shackled at master calendar hearings, which are held for larger numbers of immigrants for brief, procedural issues like scheduling.

Immigration courts are staffed by judges working for the U.S. Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, not the judiciary. The judges decide whether immigrants can remain in the country.
top

◀ PREV : [1] : .. [24] : [25] : [26] : [27] : [28] : [29] : [30] : [31] : [32] : .. [33] : NEXT ▶








Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design