Regulatory Action Center Review - October 7, 2019   

Cache   

Welcome to FreedomWorks Foundation’s nineteenth regulatory review of 2019! Our Regulatory Action Center proudly updates you with our favorite tidbits from the swamp. We want to smash barriers between bureaucracy and the American people by delivering regulatory news straight to FreedomWorks activists. Check back in two weeks for the next edition.

1) Video of the Week: Unsurprisingly, the United States is not the first country to experience ballooning budgets and astronomical deficits. In the mid-1990’s, Canada’s debt grew to as high as 70% of GDP, similar to our current debt situation. In this weeks video, John Stossell sits down with Canadian economist David Henderson to discuss how Canada managed to tackle their debt problem by cutting government spending and reducing waste.

2) Why Is the CDC Still Fostering Potentially Deadly Confusion About Vaping and Lung Disease?: “Media outlets, following the lead of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), continue to blame recent cases of severe respiratory illnesses among vapers on "vaping" and "e-cigarettes" in general, falsely implying a link to legal nicotine products. This misinformation is fostering public confusion that may lead to more disease and death, both from smoking and from the black-market products that have been implicated in the lung disease cases.” https://reason.com/2019/09/24/why-is-the-cdc-still-fostering-potentially-deadly-confusion-about-vaping-and-lung-disease/

3) FBI using Facebook ads to gather Russian intelligence: report: “The FBI is reportedly using Facebook ads to gather intelligence on Russia, specifically targeting those who may be or know Russian spies. The FBI is running ads in the Washington, D.C., area, CNN reported on Wednesday, that direct to the FBI field office's website that describes its counterintelligence team and encourages visitors to meet "in person." https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/464069-fbi-using-facebook-ads-to-gather-russian-intelligence-report

4) Federal Court Upholds FCC Decision to Roll Back Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules: “Today, by a 2-1 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided largely with the FCC, upholding the primary regulatory rollback as a valid exercise of its authority. In the nearly 200 page opinion, which is heavy on technical detail, the court wrote that while the challengers raised "numerous objections" aiming to show that the FCC's reclassification is "unreasonable," the judges found them "unconvincing." https://reason.com/2019/10/01/federal-court-upholds-fcc-decision-to-roll-back-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/

5) Trump to issue executive order ‘protecting’ Americans from ‘Medicare for All’ campaign proposals pushed by Democrats: “The executive order, which he is scheduled to discuss at a speech in Florida later Thursday, is intended to bolster Medicare Advantage, private Medicare insurance for seniors that currently covers 22 million people, senior administration officials said on a call with reporters. The plan would also offer more affordable plan options, increase use of telehealth services and bring payments in Medicare fee-for-service program in line with payments for Medicare Advantage, officials said.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-to-issue-executive-order-protecting-americans-from-medicare-for-all.html

6) Treasury to create tool to help people redeem billions in unclaimed savings bonds: “Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) on Wednesday said that the Treasury Department will create an online tool to help people redeem billions of dollars in savings bonds. About $26 billion in matured savings bonds are in the U.S. Treasury and have yet to be redeemed. Using the department's forthcoming tool, people will be able to verify against Treasury Department records if they have any savings bonds dated after 1974 that can be redeemed, Kennedy's office said in a news release.” https://thehill.com/policy/finance/464057-senator-treasury-will-create-tool-to-help-people-redeem-billions-of-dollars-in

7) Trump takes heat from right over vaping crackdown: “The Trump administration is under fire from conservative groups and some GOP lawmakers, who are pushing back over its planned crackdown on e-cigarette flavors. They say the administration is overreaching, and the flavor ban will harm small businesses, a violation of core Republican free market principles.” https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/464470-trump-takes-heat-from-right-over-vaping-crackdown


          

Significant regulatory uncertainty for wind, solar power plants in AP: ICRA   

Cache   
In the interim, the court directed the discoms to make payments for the pending bills and future bills at the rate of Rs 2.43 per unit for wind power plants and Rs 2.44 per unit for solar power plants.
          

Judge Clears Record for Man He Gave 10 Days in Jail for Oversleeping, Missing Jury Duty   

Cache   
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – Deandre Somerville spent 10 days in a Florida jail after he overslept and didn’t show up for jury duty, but the judge now says he won’t have a criminal record. Judge John Kastrenakes found the 21-year-old from West Palm Beach in contempt of court last month after he missed the civil trial and didn’t call the court to explain what happened. Kastrenakes vacated the contempt finding and rescinded the sentence of probation in an order […]
          

Boost for Johnson as Court Rules in His Favor: Brexit Update   

Cache   

Boost for Johnson as Court Rules in His Favor: Brexit Update(Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit, sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, and tell us your Brexit story. As Brexit negotiations resumed in Brussels, Boris Johnson got a boost from the courts. A Scottish judge ruled in the prime minister’s favor in a case that could have forced him to obey a law requiring him to delay Brexit if he can’t reach a deal.But the lift may only be short-lived. The judge ignored the prime minister’s frequent assertions he won’t seek an extension and instead relied on assurances from government lawyers that he would obey the law. That may make it harder for Johnson to leave without a deal on Oct. 31.Key Developments:Johnson’s lead negotiator, David Frost, is in Brussels for talks with European CommissionScottish judge rules in Johnson’s favor after pledges over Brexit delayWhen This $2 Trillion Market Turns, Start Worrying About BrexitBrexit Deal Prospects Fade as Talks Stall, EU Signals PessimismJohnson Calls EU Counterparts to Urge Shift (4 p.m.)Boris Johnson spoke to his counterparts in Denmark, Sweden and Poland this afternoon, his office said. Brexit minister James Duddridge told Parliament the prime minister was trying to “whip up enthusiasm for the deal and avoid no-deal."Questioned over how the government would meet its apparently contradictory commitments to leave the EU by Oct. 31 and to abide by a law requiring it to seek a delay to Brexit if there isn’t a deal, Johnson’s spokesman James Slack told reporters: "The manner in which this is achieved is a matter for the government." he gave no further details.Government Won’t Publish Brexit Legal Text (3:45 p.m.)Brexit Minister James Duddridge said the government won’t make public the full legal 44-page text of its latest proposals to the EU.The full text “will only be published when doing so will assist with the negotiations,” Duddridge told MPs after being questioned about the issue in the House of Commons. “We’re not going to provide that legal text if it’s going to get in the way of negotiations and get in the way of a deal.”Keir Starmer, Brexit spokesman for the opposition Labour Party, said both Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker had asked for the document to be published. “The only party insisting on secrecy is the U.K. Government,” he told lawmakers. “The question is obvious: What is the Government hiding?”No Deal Trade Burden at 8 Billion Pounds (1:30 p.m.)Businesses trading between the U.K. and European Union will face almost 8 billion pounds ($9.9 billion) of additional costs in a no-deal Brexit, according to new estimates by the U.K’s tax and customs authority HMRC.Importers will pay a total of 3.8 billion pounds submitting the necessary customs declarations forms if the U.K. leaves the EU without a deal at the end of this month. Exporters’ costs will rise to 3.9 billion pounds, HMRC said.The calculation shows the cost for one year and is based on 2017 trade flows. HMRC said it calculated that year’s EU-U.K. trade flows as if they were carried out with the U.K. outside the bloc.Johnson Wins Scottish Challenge on Extension (12:55 p.m.)A Scottish judge refused to put further obligations on Boris Johnson, saying his “unequivocal assurances’’ to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline were sufficient.At a hearing in Edinburgh on Friday, Johnson’s lawyers promised he will obey a law that forces him to postpone Brexit. The claimants had argued that Johnson couldn’t be trusted and should be forced to comply with the legislation under threat of a fine or imprisonment.“I am not persuaded that it is necessary for the court to grant the orders sought or any variant of them,” Judge Peter Cullen said while giving his ruling.Jo Maugham, one of the challengers, said he will appeal the decision.Johnson May Meet Varadkar As EU Seeks Progress (12:15 p.m.)Boris Johnson may try to meet with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar in the coming days as he seeks to show progress in Brexit talks, according to a U.K. official speaking on condition of anonymity.The U.K. accepts both sides need to know where the proposals put forward by Johnson are heading by Friday, the person said. Both Varadkar and French President Emmanuel Macron signaled they want progress by the end of the week.If insufficient progress is made, then Johnson’s plan may not even appear on the agenda for the Oct. 17-18 EU Council meeting, the person said.Brexit TimelineTime for EU to Compromise, U.K. Says (11:45 a.m.)Boris Johnson wants the EU to engage fully with his proposals for the Irish border and it’s the bloc’s turn to compromise, the prime minister’s spokesman James Slack told reporters in London.Reiterating that he won’t accept Northern Ireland being in a separate customs territory from the rest of the U.K., Slack said London has made compromises and expects Brussels to follow suit. He doubled-down on the premier’s pledge to leave with or without a deal on Oct. 31.“We are ready to talk with the EU at a pace to secure a deal so that we can move on and build a new partnership between the U.K. and the EU, but if this is to be possible, the EU must match the compromises that the U.K. has made,” Slack told reporters. “The prime minister believes that we have set out a fair and sensible compromise.”Johnson will call the leaders of Poland, Sweden and Denmark on Monday, Slack said.EU Demands ‘Workable Solution’ (11:35 a.m.)David Frost, the U.K.’s chief negotiator, is at the European Commission for Brexit talks today, commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said.The negotiations this week are “to give the U.K. the opportunity to present their proposals in more detail and then we’ll take stock,” she said.She added that the U.K. has to come up with “a workable solution now and not something based on untried and revocable arrangements.”Scottish Ruling Expected at Noon (Earlier)The latest Scottish court ruling related to Brexit is expected at noon Monday. Politicians are seeking a ruling that forces Prime Minister Boris Johnson to obey a law that requires him to seek an extension if he can’t reach a deal with the European Union.Jolyon Maugham, a lawyer backing the case, said there are two elements to the ruling. First, will the court order Johnson to act as the law dictates, which would create the possibility of fines or even a jail term if he fails?Second, is sending a letter requesting the extension -- which Johnson’s lawyers have promised to do -- enough to comply with the law. Or could the court look at other actions by Johnson that might be seen as undermining the law?Earlier:Brexit Deal Prospects Fade as Talks Stall, EU Signals PessimismWhen This $2 Trillion Market Turns, Start Worrying About Brexit\--With assistance from Edward Evans, Anthony Aarons, Ian Wishart, Alex Morales and Jessica Shankleman.To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Browning in London at jbrowning9@bloomberg.net;Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Edward Evans, Thomas PennyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.



          

Judge says New York prosecutors can see Trump's tax returns   

Cache   
NEW YORK – With President Donald Trump under siege on Capitol Hill, a federal judge dealt him a setback on another front Monday and ruled that New York City prosecutors can see his tax returns for an investigation into matters including the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels and a Playboy centerfold.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero emphatically rejected Trump's attempt to keep his financial records under wraps, calling the president's broad claim of immunity from all criminal proceedings "extraordinary" and "an overreach of executive power" at odds with the Constitution.

For now, at least, the tax returns remain beyond the reach of prosecutors. The president's lawyers appealed the judge's ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which put the matter on hold while it considers the case on an expedited basis.

At issue is a request from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. that Trump's accounting firm turn over eight years' worth of his business and personal tax returns dating back to 2011.

Vance, a Democrat, is investigating payments made to buy the silence of Daniels and model Karen McDougal, both of whom claimed to have had affairs with the president.

"The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts," Trump fumed on Twitter after the judge's ruling, "so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!"

The district attorney's office declined to comment.

The investigation is unfolding with Trump already facing a fast-moving impeachment drive by House Democrats that was set off by his attempts to get Ukraine's leader to investigate his political rival Joe Biden.

Trump's lawyers have said that Vance's investigation is politically motivated and that the request for tax records should be stopped because Trump is immune from any criminal probe as long as he is president.

The judge swept that claim aside as overly broad.

"As the court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration," Marrero wrote. "That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the President acted alone or in concert with other individuals."

The judge said he couldn't accept that legal view, "especially in the light of the fundamental concerns over excessive arrogation of power" that led the founding fathers to create a balance of power among the three branches of government.

Trump has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public, breaking a tradition set by presidents and White House candidates decades ago. He has also gone to court to fight congressional subpoenas issued to his bank for various personal financial records, including his tax returns. That dispute is also before the federal appeals court.

In yet another effort to pry loose Trump's tax records, California recently passed a law requiring candidates for president or governor to turn over five years' worth of returns, or else they cannot appear on the state's primary ballot. A federal judge blocked the law this month, saying it is probably unconstitutional.

Vance began his probe after federal prosecutors in New York completed their investigation into payments that Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, arranged to be made to the two women to keep them silent during the presidential race.

Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence for crimes that included campaign finance violations in connection with the hush money.

Trump was never charged, though prosecutors said publicly that he was aware of and directed the illegal payments. Justice Department policy has long been that sitting presidents cannot be charged criminally.

Grand jury proceedings and records in New York are secret. If Vance gains access to Trump's returns through a grand jury investigation, that doesn't necessarily mean their contents will be disclosed publicly.

It is unclear what Trump's returns might have to do with the criminal investigation or why prosecutors are reaching back as far as 2011.

But the long reach of the subpoena might stem in part from testimony Cohen gave to Congress early this year when he asserted that Trump overstated his wealth to financial institutions before he became president.

Cohen turned over copies of financial statements he said the president provided to Deutsche Bank during a 2014 effort to buy the Buffalo Bills. The statements showed Trump's net worth soaring from $4.55 billion in 2012 to $8.66 billion in 2013.

___

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this story.


          

The Supreme Court’s case on LGBT discrimination shouldn’t be a close call   

Cache   
The court must confirm that LGBT people are protected in the workplace.
          

EU can order Facebook to take down worldwide comments   

Cache   
EU can order Facebook to take down worldwide comments


Posting overseas will not save you

Courts in the European Union can order Facebook to remove worldwide comments by users of its service that have been declared illegal, the European Union’s highest court ruled on Thursday.

The ruling is connected to a case brought to an Austrian court by Eva Glawisching-Piesczek who demanded the removal of a Facebook post concerning her that the court found insulted and defamed her and which could be seen by any Facebook user.

“EU law dos not preclude a host provider like Facebook from being ordered to remove identical and, in certain circumstances, equivalent comments previously declared to be illegal”, the European Court of Justice said in a statement.

“In addition, EU law does not preclude such an injunction from producing effects worldwide, within the framework of the relevant international law.”


          

A Grip on Sports: Young Zags and an old story highlight a Cougar-less Saturday   

Cache   

A GRIP ON SPORTS • It’s a rare fall Saturday the past couple decades in which we haven’t had to work. Which opened an almost unlimited vista of opportunities on a clear, crisp day. We stayed (or went) inside. But that doesn’t mean we didn’t watch sports. And learn some things.

•••••••

• Thanks to a family friend, Kim and I were able to attend the Kraziness in the Kennel with some VIP perks. What does that mean? Our line was shorter, we got to mingle and watch TV, enjoy a cold beverage – don’t worry, I had diet soda – and sit in decent seats.

Oh, and catch up with some old friends, which is always nice. Then find out the oldest of Gonzaga’s friendly men’s basketball players is out again, though Mark Few wouldn’t term Killian Tillie’s absence Saturday injury-based. Sure, Tillie had surgery again, but it was preventative, sort of like why we take a cholesterol pill every night.

We do it to make sure there are no problems down the road.

As John Blanchette points out in his column this morning, that would go down easier with the Zag faithful if it applied to anyone other than Tillie, the most snakebit player Gonzaga has had since at least Josh Heytvelt.

The guy sitting in front of me sure had a lot to say about that, none of it positive. His response to the news of Tillie's surgery seemed a little out of proportion, venom-wise. And we thought GU fans were more of the nurturing, loving type.

Few is going to have to be a bit more nurturing and loving this season, that’s for sure. All but three players on the court yesterday afternoon were new to the roster (four when you count Tillie). Two are senior transfers (Admon Gilder and Ryan Gilder, both guards and both players who will contribute). The rest are freshmen.

Six of them.

Do they have talent? Of course they do. They wouldn’t be at GU if they didn’t. But nothing can make them older except time, practice and a tough non-conference schedule.

The Zags will scrimmage with Michigan State, a lot of folks’ pick to win the NCAA title. They will play at Texas A&M, Gilder’s old school. They will face quality in the Bahamas at a Thanksgiving tournament. They play at Washington and Arizona, two of the Pac-12’s better teams, in December. And they host North Carolina, the bluest of blue bloods.

No wonder Few told the crowd it would play a bigger-than-usual role in helping his team this season.

Their voices and support won’t help, though, as much as the passage of time.

• There is one nice perk when the Pac-12 team you follow (in my case, for work) has a bye. You get to focus on the conference’s other games. Sometimes that isn’t good.

If you happened to watch Stanford’s upset of Washington (and I did) last night, you were able to experience a little of why the conference has such a poor reputation concerning its officiating.

Sorry to go there, but there were so many little things done poorly, it undermines the fans’ confidence the conference’s representatives will get the big things right.

Case in point, a first-half punt. What happened seems minor, but it isn’t. Mainly because it was so embarrassing.

With time running down in the half and Stanford hoping to extend a 13-10 lead, the Huskies’ Joel Whitford uncorked a line-drive punt. It was so short it hit a Washington player in the leg at the Stanford 27-yard line, then kicked forward and rolled dead at the 10.

Everyone in the stadium knew it happened, including the officials and the ESPN announcers. What the former group didn’t know, however, was exactly where. Those of us at home did – as should of the folks in the replay booth. All we (and they) had to do was hit one button on the remote to see. It was the 27. That’s where the ball should have been marked. It wasn’t. When referee Kevin Mar came on our screen to explain, he told us about the touching and where it occurred. He said the 20-yard line, a point at which the ball had been rolling free. He and his crew were wrong.

This is what replay is meant for. The clock is stopped, the mistake is obvious. Buzz down and fix it. Nope. The ball stayed at the 20. Thousand of people watching at home, including the folks in charge of the conference’s officiating and those in charge of its image, knew it was wrong. Fix it. Nope. The ball stayed at the 20.

By the way, those seven yards may have ultimately cost Stanford a shot at a long Jet Toner field goal attempt. We will never know. But we do know the Cardinal didn’t start their possession in the right spot.

•••

WSU: Even though Theo Lawson was enjoying the bye week by celebrating friends’ nuptials (hey, he put his plans on Twitter, so I don’t feel bad sharing), he still talked with Mike Leach and let the Cougar coach enlighten us on defensive coordinator Tracy Claeys’ departure. Though Leach’s comments didn’t shed a whole lot of light on the change. …The letters to the editor on Leach's comments following the Utah loss were mixed in nature. … Elsewhere in the Pac-12, the standings seem a bit upside down right now. … Stanford controlled the line of scrimmage, made plays when it had to and ultimately held off Washington in the upset of the day. The Huskies never found their rhythm in the loss. … California shut outOregon for a half, then the Ducks asserted themselves to gain a tight home win. The Bears' lack of offense cost them in the end. … The Arizona offense came alive behind a healthyKhalil Tate and the Wildcats won in Colorado. The Buffs might be better than their record, however. They certainly are beat up. … UCLAcertainly isn't all that good. The Bruins looked poor again as Oregon State went into the Rose Bowl and outscoredthe host team, adding to Chip Kelly's woes. … The college athletic model will change.

Gonzaga: The Kraziness in the Kennel was just that, especially in the way the Gonzaga students went out of their way to make a quartet of recruits feel wanted (Justin Reed has a story). Besides the Killie injury (as we said, covered in John’s column), the news was a nearly new roster for the Zags. In Mark Few’s years on campus there has probably a season with more turnover – after more than three decades as an assistant and a head coach, it’s hard to imagine anything new – but we can’t think of one. Jim covers that aspect of the day. … Jim has another story as he passed along the news freshman Oumar Ballo, the most physically impressive player on the court, is still waiting for the NCAA to rule on his eligibility. … Jesse Tinsley braved the crowds of cameras for the best shots in this photo gallery.

EWU: Our Ryan Collingwood was in Sacramento, probably to catch up with his yearly quota of In-N-Out, but also to cover the game. He has this story. … Around the Big Sky,

Idaho: A week after dropping a road game to woeful Northern Colorado – the Bears are 1-5 after losing at Northern Arizona yesterday – the Vandals looked like a Big Sky contender again Saturday. But fourth-ranked Weber State was able to hold on for 41-35 win in the Kibbie Dome. Peter Harriman has the coverage.

Whitworth: The Pirates finally played at home Saturday and my, how did they play. How does winning 82-7 sound? Dan Thompson was at the Pine Bowl and has this game story.

Preps: There was one football game left over from Friday night, pushed back to Saturday after some lightning around Albi Stadium. The was some lightning yesterday, but it was all confined to the playing surface and most of it supplied by Lewis and Clark’s Keani Guthmueller. Dave Nichols was there and he has this story on LC’s 43-36 win over Post Falls. … Gonzaga Prep wing Liam Lloyd announced his college commitment yesterday, going on social media to tell everyone he will be playing at Grand Canyon College. Dave has a story on that as well. … Mead golfer Matt Jones was under par last weekend in an event at Pebble Beach. That news is part of our local briefs.

Chiefs: Spokane’s offense stayed hot, rolling Tri-City 7-1 last night in Kennewick.

Seahawks: No game today. Isn't that odd? Let's look ahead instead.

•••       

• Because Kim and I were out and about yesterday, I didn’t get anything I wanted done. Which means my Sunday will be busy. At least the sun will be out and  temperature is going to be in the high 50s today, making the mowing and raking and fertilizing a little more enjoyable. Until later …


          

Injured Protesters File Joint Lawsuit Against Portland Police for August 2018 Tactics   

Cache   
by Alex Zielinski
The helmet plaintiff Aaron Cantu was wearing when he was hit by an officer's flash-bang grenade.
The helmet plaintiff Aaron Cantu was wearing when he was hit by an officer's flash-bang grenade. Aaron Cantu

Three Portlanders who sustained injuries during a 2018 protest have joined together to sue the City of Portland and Portland Police Bureau (PPB) officers, accusing the city of allowing its officers to use violent, unnecessary tactics to muzzle the demonstrators' free speech.

"The City of Portland has a custom and practice of using militarized force against protestors," reads the complaint, filed Monday. "When force is used, PPB makes no effort to limit its force to individuals who actually pose a threat of violence, instead using force indiscriminately at anyone who happens to be in the crowd."

The joint lawsuit names James Mattox, Aaron Cantu, and Tracy Molina as plaintiffs. All three were participating in a counter-protest to the August 4, 2018 "Gibson for Senate Freedom March," a Portland demonstration organized by the far-right agitator Joey Gibson. Gibson, who was making an unsuccessful run for US Senate at the time, is the founder of Patriot Prayer, the small group of alt-right enthusiasts based in Vancouver, WA.

On the day of the August protest, hundreds gathered at the Portland waterfront to oppose Patriot Prayer's far-right rhetoric and threats of violence. However, according to the suit's plaintiffs, the main violence that took place on August 4 came from Portland's own police force.

The complaint focuses on a specific moment during the chaotic demonstration: When officers decided to fire so-called "less lethal" munitions into a crowd of 50 or so counter-protesters near SW Columbia and SW Naito.

"PPB initiated their attack on the counter-fascist protestors following no provocation," the suit reads.

In reports penned after the protest, officers say they were responding to protesters who were throwing rocks and "smashing the windows of police cars." PPB has yet to produce evidence supporting this claim.

Mattox was walking with protesters on SW Columbia when officers began shooting rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades into the crowd. The complaint describes the scene best: "At the time plaintiff was shot he was... waving his arms and his anarchist shield, flipping off the officers, and shouting profanities."

After being shot in the leg by a rubber bullet, Mattox picked up the bullet and shouted at the officers, "Look, you missed!" The same officer fired again, hitting Mattox in the right arm.

James Mattox, shortly after being hit by an officers rubber bullet.
James Mattox, shortly after being hit by an officer's rubber bullet. James Mattox

He left the crowd with a bleeding gash, seeking medical care. The complaint claims the PPB officer shot Mattox in retaliation for "engaging in speech that [the officer] did not condone."

"By shooting Mr. Mattox [the officer] in fact chilled the Mr. Mattox's political speech," the document reads.

Cantu was in the same crowd of counter-protesters when PPB began firing its munitions. He was running away from the police when an officer's flash-bang grenade lodged itself into his skull. Cantu was wearing a bike helmet at the time, but the munition was powerful enough to blaze through his helmet and cut into his head. If he hadn't been wearing the helmet, the complaint reads, Cantu could easily have died from the impact.

Cantu suffered a traumatic brain injury and still suffers from dizziness and tinnitus.

Mr. Cantu has sustained emotional distress," the suit adds, "including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, discomfort, fear, frustration, a fear of trusting those in positions of power, and anxiety."

Molina is the only plaintiff who was arrested on August 4. Molina came to the protest with a sign reading, "Hey Racists Stop Making Your Ignorance Our Problem Grow Up or Go Home.” During PPB's confrontation with counter-protesters, Molina allegedly followed officers orders to stay on the sidewalk. But, the complaint reads, this didn't stop an officer from grabbing her protest sign from behind.

Molina did not let go of her sign, which allegedly prompted an officer to knock her to the ground "with such force that she fell and rolled into the middle of the street," where she was then crushed by several dog-piling officers.

Molina was charged with disorderly conduct, attempt to commit a felony, and interfering with a police officer. The criminal case was eventually dismissed in her favor.

The plaintiffs have accused the City of Portland and its officers of violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive force with little provocation and violating the First Amendment by using violence to silence protected speech. They also accuse the city of negligence, battery, false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Without adequate training, supervision, or review of PPB’s officers, defendant City of Portland has created an environment of militarized responses to mild forms of dissent," the suit reads. "Additionally, by firing their lethal weapons directly into a passive crowd... agents of City of Portland created an unnecessary and unreasonable risk of harm against all present."

The complaint specifically notes how PPB officers do not appear to use the same amout of force against right-wing protestors, "despite their disobedience of officers’ orders."

"[Officers] chose to attack plaintiffs’ group in part because they disagreed with the political message of the anti-fascist demonstrators and sympathized with the fascists," the document reads.

The plaintiffs, represented by three separate attorneys, have requested a jury trial.

They're not the only ones who've turned to the court system to address officer-inflicted injuries stemming from the 2018 protest. In August, Michelle Fawcett sued the City Portland for physical and psychological damages sustained after being hit by a flash-bang grenade, shot by a PPB officer on August 4, 2018. She's asked the city pay $250,000 for her injuries.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]


          

Supreme Court Case Could Overturn Oregon’s Problematic Spilt-Jury Rule   

Cache   
by Blair Stenvick
GETTY_IMAGES.jpg
GETTY IMAGES

A case going before the United States Supreme Court on Monday morning could fundamentally change Oregon’s criminal court system—and while most legal experts in Oregon support the potential change, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is urging the Supreme Court to maintain the status quo.

The case, Ramos v. Louisiana, asks the court to consider whether state-level split-jury convictions—that is, criminal convictions that do not require a fully unanimous jury—are constitutional or not. The case concerns Evangelisto Ramos, a man who was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury decision in 2016.

A 10-2 jury split was the minimum standard for most criminal convictions in Louisiana, but voters overturned the policy in a statewide ballot measure last year. That left Oregon as the last remaining state in the nation to allow split-jury decisions—which would change if the Supreme Court rules that all split-jury convictions are unconstitutional.

Both Louisiana and Oregon’s split-jury rules had roots in racism and xenophobia; in Louisiana, the policy stemmed from Jim Crow-era law, while Oregon’s law can be traced back to 1930s anti-immigrant sentiment. A recent Pulitzer Prize-winning analysis by Louisiana newspaper The Advocate found that split-jury convictions affect Black defendants much more often than white ones.

Both criminal justice reform advocates like the Oregon Justice Resource Center and mainstream legal groups like the Oregon District Attorneys Association (ODAA)—two groups that often find themselves on opposite ends of an issue—support overturning Oregon’s split-jury rule.

“[It]t is a hallmark of our justice system that it should be difficult to take someone’s liberty,” wrote an ODAA member in an Oregonian op-ed last year. “That’s exactly why defendants in criminal cases enjoy the presumption of innocence and the prosecutor must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Adding the requirement of unanimity is another important safeguard against both wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals.”

Rosenblum is also on the record as opposing split-jury convictions, saying she would support a statewide ballot measure banning them. But when it comes to Ramos in particular, Rosenblum falls on the side of stalling change, going so far as to submit a legal brief to the Supreme Court asking them to rule in favor of Louisiana.

In a statement shared with media in August, Rosenblum said she was concerned that a ruling in favor of Ramos could “require new trials in hundreds, if not thousands, of cases” in Oregon, which could in turn clog Oregon’s court system. She said her brief “in no way undercuts my view that Oregon should require juror unanimity in criminal cases going forward"—rather, she is worried about the potentially retroactive nature of a Ramos decision.

Aliza Kaplan, a law professor at Lewis & Clark and the co-founder of the Oregon Innocence Project, told the Mercury that in her opinion, Rosenblum is “acting like the sky is falling,” and that her estimate of cases that could be re-opened is likely overblown. Rosenblum’s office recently furnished Kaplan with a list of 292 cases that could be re-tried should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Ramos, but when Kaplan analyzed 110 of them, she found just 14 that she said would fit the legal requirements for relitigating.

And even if the ruling would overwhelm state courts, Kaplan said, that isn’t reason enough to oppose it.

“The Constitution should always trump any administrative inconvenience or burden,” she said. “This is about preserving individual rights and liberties.”

There are many moral and racial arguments for doing away with non-unanimous jury convictions. There are also commonsense arguments for keeping split-jury decisions: namely, that they make for a more efficient legal system, because they reduce the risk of having a hung jury. But Monday’s Ramos hearing will likely center around a more technical legal issue.

It is already established law that people are entitled to a unanimous jury at the federal level, thanks to the Sixth Amendment, which is part of the original Bill of Rights. But it is yet to be determined whether that right is extended to the state level through the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “due process,” or fair legal proceedings, to states. This practice—extending federal Bill of Rights protections to states through the 14th Amendment—is known as the “incorporation doctrine.”

The Supreme Court has already made many rulings based on incorporation doctrine—earlier this year, for example, it ruled that a right to not face excessive fines should apply to states, as opposed to only applying at the federal level. If the Supreme Court decides that split-jury verdicts are unconstitutional, it will likely be for that same reason.

Although the Supreme Court will hear arguments for Ramos on Monday morning, it is not required to release its decision until June 2020.

It remains to be seen what the exact effect of a pro-Ramos ruling could have on Oregon’s legal system. But for Kaplan, no cost could outweigh the benefit of abolishing split-jury decisions.

“Too much justice,” she said, “is not really a problem.”

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]


          

Supreme Court’s election-year term opens with insanity case   

Cache   

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court began its election-year term Monday by wrestling over whether states must allow criminal defendants to plead insanity.

The one minor surprise when the justices took the bench just after 10 o’clock was the absence of Justice Clarence Thomas. The 71-year-old Thomas was at home, likely with the flu, the court said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in her customary seat to the left of Chief Justice John Roberts. The 86-year-old Ginsburg asked the first question in the insanity arguments.

Ginsburg was treated this summer for a tumor on her pancreas.

Meeting for the first time in public since late June, the court opened a term that could reveal how far to the right and how fast the court’s conservative majority will move, even as Roberts has made clear he wants to keep the court clear of Washington partisan politics. The court is beginning its second term with both of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, on board.

The justices could be asked to intervene in disputes between congressional Democrats and the White House that might also involve the possible impeachment of the Republican president.

Roberts would preside over a Senate trial of Trump if the House were to impeach him.

Its biggest decisions, in cases involving abortion, protections for young immigrants and LGBT rights, are likely to be handed down in late June, four months before the election.

The case about an insanity defense comes from Kansas, where James Kraig Kahler was sentenced to death for killing his estranged wife, two teenage daughters and his wife’s grandmother.

Kahler wanted to mount an insanity defense, but Kansas is one of four states that eliminated a defendant’s ability to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Idaho, Montana and Utah are the others. Alaska also limits the insanity defense.

It was unclear how the case would come out. Justice Elena Kagan suggested that even if Kahler were to win at the Supreme Court and could plead insanity, he ultimately would not get a reprieve from his conviction. In no state, she said, “would your client be found insane.”

The justices also were hearing arguments Monday in a challenge to a murder conviction by a non-unanimous jury in Louisiana.


          

Judge rejects Trump challenge to release of his tax returns   

Cache   

NEW YORK – A federal judge Monday emphatically rejected President Donald Trump’s challenge to the release of his tax returns to New York prosecutors, saying the president’s broad claim of immunity from all criminal investigations is at odds with the Constitution. But an appeals court blocked any handover of the records for now.

At issue is a request from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. that Trump’s accounting firm turn over eight years’ worth of his business and personal tax returns for an investigation into the payment of hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the president.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero turned down Trump’s attempt to keep the tax returns under wraps, saying the president was making a “categorical and limitless assertion of presidential immunity.”

The president’s lawyers immediately appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it granted a temporary stay of the judge’s ruling “pending expedited review” by the court.

“The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts,” Trump fumed on Twitter, “so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!”

The criminal investigation in New York is unfolding with Trump already under siege on Capitol Hill from a fast-moving impeachment drive set off by his attempts to get Ukraine’s leader to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. The judge’s ruling marked the latest in a string of setbacks for the president in the past couple of weeks.

Trump’s lawyers have said that the investigation led by Vance, a Democrat, is politically motivated and that the request for his tax records should be stopped because he is immune from any criminal probe as long as he is president.

Marrero called Trump’s claim of broad immunity “extraordinary” and “an overreach of executive power.”

“As the court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration,” the judge wrote. “That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the President acted alone or in concert with other individuals.”

The judge said couldn’t accept that legal view, “especially in the light of the fundamental concerns over excessive arrogation of power” that led the founding fathers to create a balance of power among the three branches of government.

Trump’s lawyers and the district attorney’s office did not immediately comment in response to the ruling. Justice Department attorneys in Washington, who had urged Marrero to delay deciding the issue, declined to comment.

Vance began his probe after federal prosecutors in New York completed their investigation into payments that Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, arranged to be paid to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep them silent during the presidential race. The Trump Organization later reimbursed Cohen.

Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence for crimes that included campaign finance violations in connection with the hush money.

Trump was never charged, though prosecutors said publicly that he was aware of and directed the illegal payments. Justice Department policy has long been that sitting presidents cannot be charged criminally.

Trump has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public, breaking from a tradition set by presidents and presidential candidates decades ago.

Grand jury proceedings and records in New York are secret. If Vance gains access to Trump’s returns through a grand jury investigation, that doesn’t mean that their contents will be disclosed publicly.

It is unclear what Trump’s returns might have to do with the criminal investigation.


          

Supreme Court begins election-year term full of big cases   

Cache   

WASHINGTON – The justices are returning to the Supreme Court bench for the start of an election-year term that includes high-profile cases on about abortions, protections for young immigrants and LGBT rights.

The court meets Monday morning for its first public session since late June. First up is a death-penalty case from Kansas about whether states can abolish an insanity defense for criminal defendants.

The justices also will hear arguments Monday in a challenge to a murder conviction by a non-unanimous jury in Louisiana.

The term could reveal how far to the right and how fast the court’s conservative majority will move, even as Chief Justice John Roberts has made clear he wants to keep the court clear of Washington partisan politics. The court is beginning its second term with both of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, on board.

The justices could be asked to intervene in disputes between congressional Democrats and the White House that might also involve the possible impeachment of the president.

Roberts would preside over a Senate trial of Trump if the House were to impeach him.

Its biggest decisions are likely to be handed down in late June, four months before the election.

The court also could be front and center in the presidential election campaign itself, especially with health concerns surrounding 86-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

For now, though, the court has plenty of significant cases to deal with, including whether federal civil rights law that bars workplace discrimination on the basis of sex covers LGBT people. The justices will hear arguments Tuesday in two cases on that topic, their first foray into LGBT rights since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote all the court’s major gay-rights rulings.

Next month, the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is in front of the justices. Lower courts have so far blocked Trump from ending the Obama-era program that has shielded roughly 700,000 people from deportation and provided them with permits to work.

During the winter, the justices will take up a challenge to a Louisiana law that would force abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. It’s another test of whether the change in the court’s composition will result in a different outcome. With Kennedy in the majority, the court in 2016 struck down a virtually identical Texas law.


          

House of Representatives seeks leave from SCOTUS to file amicus brief in Seila Law; Seila Law files reply brief with SCOTUS   

Cache   
House amicus brief.  The House of Representatives has filed a motion seeking leave to file an amicus brief in support of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Seila Law.  While acknowledging that the deadline for filing amicus briefs has passed, the House notes that a timely amicus brief would have been due the day after the House received the CFPB’s letter announcing that it would no longer defend its constitutionality in the appellate courts or before the Supreme Court. In the amicus brief it seeks to file, the House argues that Seila Law’s cert petition should be denied because there is no circuit split and the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the CFPB’s constitutionality is correct.  It further states that if the court were to grant the petition and rule that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional, the proper remedy would be to sever the CFPA’s for-cause removal provision.  Since the DOJ and CFPB are not defending…
          

First Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court   

Cache   
It’s the first Monday in October, which means the U.S. Supreme Court is back in session.  The Court has started its session on the first Monday in October every year since 1917 when a new law went into effect changing the start to a week earlier from the previous second week of October.  As almost every year, there are a number of important cases sure to be studied in Constitutional Law classes for years to come.  Starting this fall, the Supreme Court will allow attorneys to make an uninterrupted statement for two minutes to begin each case.  Here is a preview of a few of the important cases (all links for cases come from SCOTUSBlog): In Ohio and a number of other states it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone for being gay. This issue will be considered by the court in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda).  While an earlier Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage is seen as a…
          

News Scan   

Cache   
Malvo Case Focuses on Juvenile LWOP:  The U.S. Supreme Court's hearing in Mathena v. Malvo, scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, has intensified the debate between those who want to end life without parole (LWOP) sentencing of murderers under 18, and prosecutors and victims groups who maintain that LWOP is appropriate in some cases.  R.J. Vogt of Law 360 reports that  the court will be deciding if its earlier rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, which placed limits on LWOP sentences for under 18 murderers, should be expanded to partially or completely eliminate the sentence, or should be narrowly construed.  Malvo was 17 in 2002 when he and John Allan Mohammad carried out a 20-day spree of random sniper attacks in the DC area,  murdering 10 people and injuring 3 others.  Since Miller and Montgomery were handed down, 23 states have abolished LWOP for juvenile murderers while 22 others have kept it.  Proponents of…
          

Reimbursement of Employment-Related Expenses Is Not a “Wage and Hour” Claim Within the Meaning of EPLI Exclusion   

Cache   
A recent California appellate court decision found that a wage and hour exclusion in an Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) policy did not bar coverage for claims under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 alleging failure to reimburse expenses. S. Cal. Pizza Co., LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. 11EPL-20208, Case No. G056243, 2019 WL 4572859 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2019), as modified on denial of reh’g (Sept. 20, 2019). This is a significant decision. It gives policyholders an argument that insurers must defend wage and hour suits that include covered allegations of failure to reimburse expenses, as the court in Southern California Pizza found.  The Lloyd’s of London policy granted coverage for “any failure to adopt, implement or enforce employment related policies or procedures…or…any other employment related workplace tort.” However, the…
          

Reversible Error to Impose Time Limits on Voir Dire   

Cache   
Last week the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an aggravated battery conviction based on a trial court improperly limiting the amount of time an attorney could ask questions to a prospective jury panel.  Strachan v. State, ___ So. 3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). In Strachan, the trial court entered a scheduling order before trial limiting voir dire to forty-five minutes per side, noting if either side needed additional time they could approach the bench and address their concern with the court.  At the conclusion of the State’s allocated forty-five minutes, the court sua sponte asked the State if they needed more time, and if so, how much time. The State requested, and was granted, an additional ten minutes.  Defense then questioned the jury for fifty-five minutes and when the clerk called “time,” the Defense requested additional time which was denied. The Defendant specifically identified questions and areas of concern he needed to…
          

What Are My Custody Rights If I Was In Prison?   

Cache   
Child custody cases can be complicated affairs. The courts consider many factors when deciding who gets the kids. But what are your custody rights if you have been in prison? At a basic level, the best interests of the children trump other concerns when it comes to custody. Where will they be best cared for? Where will they be safest and have the most support? Which parent has the deepest bond with the child? All of these elements and more influence the decision. A criminal history can come into play if the court believes it negatively impacts your parenting ability. And there may be hoops to jump through to prove yourself. Rick Jones, one of our founding partners, makes regular appearances on the Danny Bonaduce and Sarah Morning Show, where he answers family law questions from listeners. On a recent show, he addressed this very question. Related Reading: What is Joint Custody? Listen to the Conversation Below: Caller: “I had my son and then ended up going to prison for…
          

Man sentenced to 30 years to life for murder of Columbus couple   

Cache   

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A Columbus man has been sentenced to 30 years to life for the murders of a couple last November.

According to the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office, John Jordan pleaded guilty to two counts of murder in court Monday.

Ryan Fuller and Mikayla Sotherland were last seen on October 27. Fuller’s mother said the last person she saw Fuller speaking with was Jordan, who was her neighbor.

According to the court documents, Jordan and Fuller had an argument that got out of hand and Jordan hit fuller with an object. When Sotherland tried to intervene she was struck and killed, too.

The documents say Jordan moved the bodies and left them inside his van away from the scene. Their bodies were found on November 4.

After pleading guilty, Jordan was sentenced to 15 years to life on each count for a total of 30 years.


          

Judge tosses out Trump challenge to tax return turnover   

Cache   

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge rejected President Donald Trump's claim to be immune from all criminal investigations Monday and dismissed his lawsuit challenging a state grand jury subpoena for eight years of his tax returns sought by Manhattan's district attorney.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said in his ruling that he could not grant such a "categorical and limitless assertion of presidential immunity."

Trump's lawyers immediately appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also based in Manhattan, meaning the returns are unlikely to be turned over immediately.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat, asked Trump's accounting firm to turn over his business and personal tax returns as part of an investigation of the Trump Organization's involvement in buying the silence of two women who claimed to have had affairs with the president.

Trump's lawyers have said the investigation is politically motivated and the request for his tax records should be stopped because he is immune from any criminal probe as long as he is president.

In striking down Trump's attempt to block the subpoena, Marrero called Trump's claim of a broad immunity "extraordinary" and "an overreach of executive power."

"As the court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration," Marrero wrote. "That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the President acted alone or in concert with other individuals."

The judge said couldn't accept that legal view, "especially in the light of the fundamental concerns over excessive arrogation of power that animated the Constitution's delicate structure and its calibrated balance of authority among the three branches of the national government, as well as between the federal and state authorities."

Trump's lawyers and the district attorney's office did not immediately comment in response to the ruling.

Justice Department lawyers in Washington, who had urged Marrero to delay deciding the issue, declined to comment.

Vance began his probe after federal prosecutors in Manhattan completed their investigation into payments that Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, arranged to be paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal to keep them silent during the presidential race. The Trump Organization later reimbursed Cohen.

Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence for crimes that included campaign finance violations.

Trump was never charged, though prosecutors said publicly that he was aware of and directed the illegal payments. Justice Department policy has long been that sitting presidents cannot be charged criminally.

Grand jury proceedings and records in New York are secret. If Vance gains access to Trump's returns through a grand jury investigation, that doesn't mean that their contents would be disclosed publicly.

It is unclear what Trump's returns might have to do with the criminal investigation.


          

National Courts Can Order Worldwide Takedown, Says CJEU in Case Against Facebook   

Cache   
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that host providers, such as Facebook, can be required to take down illegal content, including identical or equivalent variations, worldwide once they are made aware of it. The Court was ruling on the interpretation of the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) in a defamation case brought by an Austrian politician. (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Case C-18/18 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:821].) The politician, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek of the Green party, asked Facebook Ireland (which operates Facebook outside of the U.S. and Canada) to delete a news clipping and associated comment, which she claimed insulted and defamed her. Following court proceedings in Austria, Facebook Ireland disabled access in Austria to the specific content published. However, the case raised the following questions: could Facebook Ireland additionally be ordered to remove posts with identical or equivalent content to that…
          

Trailblazer Honored with Posthumous Bar Admission   

Cache   
An announcement from the New York Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department Hon. Gerald J. Whalen, Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has announced that the Court has scheduled a special and historic posthumous admission ceremony for...
          

Reviewing the Sixth Circuit’s Performance at the Supreme Court, OT2018 — Part One   

Cache   
During October Term 2018 (“OT2018”), the Supreme Court reversed less than two out of every three cases – its lowest reversal rate in three years. The Sixth Circuit fared particularly well (4 affirmances, 3 reversals), joining the Eleventh and D.C. Circuits as the only circuits to post a winning record.  Notably, the Court did not affirm or reverse the Sixth Circuit along partisan lines. The two most frequent votes for reversal, for example, were Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch. OT2018 was the Learned Sixth’s first term with more affirmances than reversals since SCOTUSBlog first published a “Circuit Scorecard” after OT2004. Over the previous fourteen terms, the Sixth Circuit had gone 16-68. Of course, reversal rates do not necessarily mean much. As Justice Jackson once said, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” The seven cases from the Sixth…
          

LXer: Breaking down this week's net neutrality court decision   

Cache   
Published at LXer: This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in Mozilla v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the court case to defend net neutrality...
Next Page: 25

© Googlier LLC, 2019