The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away three appeals from military contractor KBR Inc. that seek to shut down lawsuits over a soldier's electrocution in Iraq and open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.
One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.
Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.
The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.
The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Judicial candidates' appeals for campaign cash at high court
The Supreme Court is weighing whether candidates for elected judgeships have a constitutional right to make personal appeals for campaign cash.
The justices are hearing an appeal from Lanell Williams-Yulee of Tampa, Florida, who received a public reprimand for violating a Florida Bar rule that bans candidates for elected judgeships from personally soliciting donations.
The bar and many good government groups say the ban that is in place in Florida and 29 other states is important to preserve public confidence in an impartial judiciary.
A ruling for Williams-Yulee could free judicial candidates in those states to ask personally for campaign contributions.
In all, voters in 39 states elect local and state judges. In the federal judicial system, including the Supreme Court, judges are appointed to life terms and must be confirmed by the Senate.
The arguments are taking place five years after the Supreme Court freed corporations and labor unions to spend freely in federal elections. The court has generally been skeptical of limits on political campaigns, though slightly less so when it comes to those involving judges.
In 2002, the court struck down rules that were aimed at fostering impartiality among judges and barred candidates for elected judgeships from speaking out on controversial issues. But in 2009, the court held in a case from West Virginia that elected judges could be forced to step aside from ruling on cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.
The justices are hearing an appeal from Lanell Williams-Yulee of Tampa, Florida, who received a public reprimand for violating a Florida Bar rule that bans candidates for elected judgeships from personally soliciting donations.
The bar and many good government groups say the ban that is in place in Florida and 29 other states is important to preserve public confidence in an impartial judiciary.
A ruling for Williams-Yulee could free judicial candidates in those states to ask personally for campaign contributions.
In all, voters in 39 states elect local and state judges. In the federal judicial system, including the Supreme Court, judges are appointed to life terms and must be confirmed by the Senate.
The arguments are taking place five years after the Supreme Court freed corporations and labor unions to spend freely in federal elections. The court has generally been skeptical of limits on political campaigns, though slightly less so when it comes to those involving judges.
In 2002, the court struck down rules that were aimed at fostering impartiality among judges and barred candidates for elected judgeships from speaking out on controversial issues. But in 2009, the court held in a case from West Virginia that elected judges could be forced to step aside from ruling on cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Nebraska court could hold up Keystone pipeline
The Republican-led Congress appears ready to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but no matter what actions are taken in Washington, the entire 1,179-mile project could be delayed until Nebraska signs off on the route.
After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months or years could pass before construction begins in that state.
Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.
The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.
The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.
President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision, and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress over energy and environmental policy.
After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months or years could pass before construction begins in that state.
Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.
The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.
The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.
President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision, and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress over energy and environmental policy.
Court won't hear free speech challenge to metals dealers law
The Supreme Court won't consider the constitutionality of an Ohio law that bars precious metals dealers from advertising without a license.
The justices on Monday declined to take up an appeal from Liberty Coins, a gold and silver dealer that claims the law violates the free speech rights of businesses.
Ohio officials say the 1996 law was enacted to protect consumers from theft and help police track down stolen wedding rings, gold bracelets and other items resold at stores that buy gold and silver merchandise.
A federal judge in 2012 ruled the law unconstitutional because the state failed to prove the license requirement was effective in curbing theft, fraud and terrorism. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling last year.
The justices on Monday declined to take up an appeal from Liberty Coins, a gold and silver dealer that claims the law violates the free speech rights of businesses.
Ohio officials say the 1996 law was enacted to protect consumers from theft and help police track down stolen wedding rings, gold bracelets and other items resold at stores that buy gold and silver merchandise.
A federal judge in 2012 ruled the law unconstitutional because the state failed to prove the license requirement was effective in curbing theft, fraud and terrorism. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling last year.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Argentine court says US fugitive can be extradited
Argentina's Supreme Court has ruled that an American who took refuge and started a new life in the South American country can be extradited to face charges that he killed his wife over a decade ago, a court spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.
Kurt Sonnenfeld moved to Argentina in 2003 and sought asylum after prosecutors in Denver charged him with first-degree murder. The decision to extradite him brings to an end a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Argentine courts that centered in part on differences over the death penalty.
In the ruling, which was made Dec. 11, the justices said U.S. prosecutors had assured Argentina that "the death penalty will not be imposed, or if it were ruled, it will not be exercised in this case." The ruling said the executive branch will have final say on an extradition and doesn't specify when it may take place.
Maria Bourdin, a spokeswoman for Argentina's Supreme Court, confirmed the ruling but declined to comment beyond what was in it. Calls to the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires on Saturday seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Kurt Sonnenfeld moved to Argentina in 2003 and sought asylum after prosecutors in Denver charged him with first-degree murder. The decision to extradite him brings to an end a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Argentine courts that centered in part on differences over the death penalty.
In the ruling, which was made Dec. 11, the justices said U.S. prosecutors had assured Argentina that "the death penalty will not be imposed, or if it were ruled, it will not be exercised in this case." The ruling said the executive branch will have final say on an extradition and doesn't specify when it may take place.
Maria Bourdin, a spokeswoman for Argentina's Supreme Court, confirmed the ruling but declined to comment beyond what was in it. Calls to the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires on Saturday seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Danish court hits hash haven dealers with prison terms
A Danish court has sentenced seven men to prison for dealing hashish at Copenhagen's famed hippie enclave of Christiania, where the drug is openly smoked.
The Copenhagen City Court ruled the men, aged 37-50, were guilty of organizing, providing and stockpiling 1.7 tons of hashish, in the first ruling of several cases following numerous drugs busts by police. The sentences ranged from 2½ to seven years.
Tuesday's ruling followed the arrest of 85 people in March, including several Hells Angels members, when police also seized hundreds of kilograms of hashish, several million kroner (dollars) in cash and weapons.
The action was one of the biggest against illegal hashish sales in Christiania, created in 1971 when hippies squatted at a former navy barracks.
The Copenhagen City Court ruled the men, aged 37-50, were guilty of organizing, providing and stockpiling 1.7 tons of hashish, in the first ruling of several cases following numerous drugs busts by police. The sentences ranged from 2½ to seven years.
Tuesday's ruling followed the arrest of 85 people in March, including several Hells Angels members, when police also seized hundreds of kilograms of hashish, several million kroner (dollars) in cash and weapons.
The action was one of the biggest against illegal hashish sales in Christiania, created in 1971 when hippies squatted at a former navy barracks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)