|
|
|
Court rules for environmentalists in water fight
Legal Court Feed |
2014/04/17 15:22
|
An appeals court said Wednesday that federal officials should have consulted wildlife agencies about potential harm to a tiny, threatened fish before issuing contracts for water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act when it failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service in renewing 41 contracts a decade ago. The appeals court sent the case back to a trial judge for further proceedings.
The ruling arises from one of several lawsuits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmentalists seeking to protect the Delta smelt. The ruling won't affect water flows because protections for the smelt were kept in place during the lawsuit.
"This about how we are going to manage the water in the future," said Douglas Obegi, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Water-rights holders and government lawyers argued that consultation wasn't necessary because the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was required to renew the contracts and had no discretion over terms of the agreement that would control water levels in the Delta. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before US appeals court
Legal Court Feed |
2014/04/17 15:18
|
Court arguments over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will center on whether voters singled out gay people for unfair treatment when they overwhelmingly defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Judges at a federal appeals court in Denver will hear arguments Thursday from lawyers representing a couple challenging Oklahoma's ban and the Tulsa County clerk who refused to grant them a license. The judges heard a similar case from Utah last week.
Oklahoma voters approved the ban in 2004 by a 3-1 margin. The Tulsa couple tried to obtain a marriage license shortly afterward.
A federal judge overturned the ban in January, saying it violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for the state say voters have a right to set their own laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court voids overall contribution limits
Legal Court Feed |
2014/04/04 09:44
|
The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.
The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.
But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.
The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colo. court says lawyers can advise pot clients
Legal Court Feed |
2014/03/28 13:56
|
Colorado's Supreme Court says attorneys in the state can advise marijuana businesses on how to navigate the industry's legal complexities without fear of violating state ethics rules.
The court issued its rule change Monday. It offers attorneys assurance that they won't be punished solely for giving clients pot-related legal advice, as long as they believe those clients are operating legally. Attorneys are also required to advise clients about federal law and policy.
Colorado legalized recreational sales of the drug in January, but they remain illegal under federal law.
The court's attorney regulation counsel, James Coyle, says no lawyer has ever been sanctioned solely for giving legal advice, but concern about committing ethics violations remained. He says the rule change gives attorneys new guidance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mass. casino foes ask court to allow repeal effort
Legal Court Feed |
2014/03/24 15:47
|
Attorney General Martha Coakley erred in excluding from the November state ballot a question that calls for the repeal of the 2011 gambling law, and voters should have the right to decide the issue, casino opponents contended in a court filing Friday.
The group Repeal the Casino Deal submitted a 53-page brief with the Supreme Judicial Court, which is expected to hear arguments in early May.
Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, a leader of the anti-casino movement, said that while he greatly respected Coakley, she was "simply wrong" in her analysis of the repeal petition. He said it was inevitable the question would ultimately appear on the ballot.
The casino law allows for up to three resort casinos and one slots parlor and created the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to award licenses and regulate future gambling.
All proposed ballot questions must first go through the attorney general's office to determine whether they pass constitutional muster. In last fall's ruling, Coakley said the repeal question would violate the contracts clause of the state constitution by permitting voters to interfere with implied contracts between the commission and applicants for casino licenses.
"The proposed law is therefore inconsistent with the right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use and cannot be certified," the attorney general wrote.
Repeal the Casino Deal argued in its filing that in passing the law, the Legislature did not intend to create any contracts between the commission and casino applicants that would ever prevent the state from exercising its policing or regulatory powers over gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm SEO RSS Feed
