|
|
|
Expensive, partisan Wisconsin high court race nears end
Court Watch |
2018/04/02 20:58
|
An expensive and openly partisan race for Wisconsin's Supreme Court neared an end Tuesday, with voters choosing between a conservative appointed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker and a liberal who drew support from former Obama administration officials.
The race between Sauk County Circuit Judge Michael Screnock and Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet was nonpartisan in name only, with both sides eager to win the 10-year seat on a high court whose ideological split has been on public display in recent years.
Conservatives held a 5-2 majority going into the election, so control wasn't at stake. But Democrats hoped to build on a surprising victory in January in a special state Senate election, especially with two more special legislative elections coming this summer.
The race was closely watched as a potential bellwether of voter attitudes in Wisconsin ahead of the fall midterms, although results of past Supreme Court elections have not consistently proven to be predictive of what will happen in November. President Donald Trump won the state by less than 1 percentage point in 2016.
Screnock, 48, was appointed circuit judge by Walker in 2015 and counted the conservative state chamber of commerce, a variety of anti-abortion groups and the National Rifle Association among his supporters.
Dallet, 48, was elected judge in 2008 after working 11 years as a prosecutor. She benefited from spending by a group started by former Democratic U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and was endorsed by trade and teacher unions, Planned Parenthood and more than 200 Wisconsin judges.
Both candidates argued the other couldn't be trusted to serve as an independent voice on the state's highest court because of partisan campaign support.
Spending on TV ads in the race was expected to approach $4.5 million, about what was spent on the 2016 race, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending on court races nationwide.
Dallet ran with a tough-on-crime message, focusing on her prosecutorial experience followed by 10 years working as a judge in Milwaukee. She argued that the conservative-controlled Supreme Court is "broken," and criticized the justices for not adopting a recusal rule forcing them to step down from cases involving large campaign donors.
Screnock said he was devoted to the rule of law and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguments that winning conservative candidates have used in recent state Supreme Court elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arkansas high court: Some execution drug info can be secret
Court Watch |
2018/03/27 21:00
|
The Arkansas Supreme Court says the state prison system must continue to identify the manufacturers of its execution drugs but that it can conceal information that could identify those who obtain the drugs for the state.
Pharmaceutical companies won't sell their drugs for use in executions, which has led some states to obtain execution drugs through middle men or from made-to-order compounding pharmacies.
Arkansas prison officials insist secrecy is needed to ensure a steady supply of the drugs. They argued that secrecy for the middle men who obtain the drugs should also extend to manufacturers, but a Pulaski County judge said it should not and justices on Thursday agreed with that ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona court to hear arguments on immigrant tuition case
Court Watch |
2018/03/26 21:00
|
The Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether young immigrants granted deferred deportation status under a program started by former President Barack Obama are eligible for lower in-state college tuition.
The hearing is set for Monday after the justices agreed in February to consider an appeal by the Maricopa County Community Colleges District, which won an initial ruling in 2015 that was overturned in June by the state Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals ruling said the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA did not confer legal status and each state can decide on optional benefits for DACA recipients.
Arizona law bars public benefits such as in-state tuition for students without legal status. Pima Community College and a teachers union support the Maricopa County district's appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bolivia takes sea access dispute with Chile to world court
Court Watch |
2018/03/12 21:02
|
talks over granting the landlocked South American nation access to the Pacific Ocean, saying the dispute will remain a source of conflict if it's not resolved.
Bolivia lost its only seacoast to Chile in a war between from 1879 to 1883, and has been demanding access to the Pacific for generations. Bolivia also accuses Chile of reneging on pledges to negotiate.
"For 139 years, Bolivia has suffered the historical injustice of becoming landlocked," former Bolivian President Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze told judges sitting in the ornate Great Hall of Justice at the world court's headquarters, the Peace Palace. "Restoring Bolivia's sovereign access to the sea would make a small difference to Chile, but it would transform the destiny of Bolivia."
Chile argues that its border with Bolivia was settled in a 1904 treaty and that it's not under any legal obligation to negotiate. Chile's lawyers will present their case later this week.
Prof. Payam Akhavan, a lawyer representing Bolivia, said that despite the treaty, Chile had made repeated pledges to find a solution to the dispute.
"If the 1904 treaty settled all issues for all times, if there was no remaining dispute, why did the parties continue to negotiate sovereign access for more than a century?" he said.
"This case is not an academic exercise. It is not mere political posturing," Akhavan told judges. "The people have suffered real and continuing injury. Chile cannot sweep this dispute under the carpet. It will remain a constant source of conflict until it is resolved."
Rodriguez said that Bolivia's lack of direct access to the sea is holding back its economy.
"It is estimated that if Bolivia had not been stripped of the sea, the annual GDP (gross domestic product) growth could be at least 20 percent higher," he told judges.
Rulings by the court, the United Nations' highest judicial organ, are final and binding. Judges will likely take months to issue a decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TransCanada doesn't have to pay landowner attorneys
Court Watch |
2018/03/10 22:45
|
The developer of the Keystone XL pipeline doesn't have to reimburse attorneys who defended Nebraska landowners against the company's efforts to gain access to their land, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The high court's ruling resolves a dispute that was triggered when TransCanada Inc. filed eminent domain lawsuits against 71 Nebraska landowners in 2015, only to drop them later amid uncertainty over whether the process it used was constitutional.
"We conclude that none of the landowners established that they were entitled to attorney fees," Chief Justice Michael Heavican wrote in the opinion.
Omaha attorney Dave Domina argued that TransCanada owes his clients about $350,000 to cover their attorney fees. Domina said the landowners clearly asked for representation in the eminent domain cases, and TransCanada should pay their attorney fees because the company effectively lost those cases.
A TransCanada attorney, James Powers, argued that the landowners failed to prove that they actually paid or were legally indebted to Domina or his law partner, Brian Jorde.
"We're pleased the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed with our legal position," Powers said Friday. Domina said he respected the decision but was disappointed for his clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil court largely upholds law that some fear hurts Amazon
Court Watch |
2018/03/04 22:46
|
Brazil's Supreme Court has batted down challenges to key parts of a law that environmentalists say has contributed to increasing deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
The 2012 law included an amnesty for illegal deforestation that occurred before July 2008, including releasing perpetrators from the obligation to replant areas in compensation. It also weakened protections for some preservation areas by expanding the sorts of activity allowed in them. It was backed by farming interests.
Wednesday's court ruling rejected most of the challenges to the law.
Brazil's non-governmental Socio-environmental Institute says researchers believe the law contributed to rising rates of Amazon deforestation starting in 2012 after years of decreases. However, the rate fell in 2017 as compared to 2016, which saw an exceptionally large swath of forest cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
