ReportWire

Tag: law courts and tribunals

  • O.J. Simpson Fast Facts | CNN

    O.J. Simpson Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of former NFL star O.J. Simpson.

    Birth date: July 9, 1947

    Birth place: San Francisco, California

    Birth name: Orenthal James Simpson

    Father: Jimmie Lee Simpson, custodian and cook

    Mother: Eunice Simpson, nurse’s aide

    Marriages: Nicole (Brown) Simpson (February 2, 1985-1992, divorced); Marguerite (Whitley) Simpson (June 24, 1967-1979, divorced)

    Children: with Nicole (Brown) Simpson: Justin (August 6, 1988) and Sydney (October 17, 1985); with Marguerite (Whitley) Simpson: Aaren (September 24, 1977-August 18, 1979); Jason (April 21, 1970) and Arnelle (December 4, 1968)

    Education: City College of San Francisco (1965-1967); University of Southern California (1967-1969)

    Heisman Trophy winner, Pro Football Hall of Fame member, former sports commentator and actor.

    1968 Receives the Heisman Trophy at the New York Downtown Athletic Club.

    1969-1977 Plays halfback for the Buffalo Bills.

    1970 Voted college football player of the decade by ABC Sports.

    1972-1976 Makes the NFL Pro Bowl team each year.

    1974 – Appears in his first big budget film, “The Towering Inferno.”

    1978-1979 Plays halfback for the San Francisco 49ers.

    1979-1986 Sports commentator for ABC Sports.

    1984-1985 Commentator for ABC Monday Night Football.

    1985 Inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

    1988 – Portrays an accident-prone detective in the cop movie spoof, “The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!” Simpson later costars in two sequels: “The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear” and “Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult.”

    June 12, 1994 – Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, 35, and Ronald Lyle Goldman, 25, are stabbed to death.

    June 13, 1994 Simpson is questioned by the LAPD for three hours and released.

    June 17, 1994 – Simpson is charged with two counts of murder with special circumstances. He does not surrender and is declared a fugitive. A suicide letter is found shortly before Simpson is spotted riding in friend Al Cowlings’ white Ford Bronco. With Cowlings driving, they lead police on a 60-mile slow speed chase and end up at Simpson’s Brentwood mansion. Simpson surrenders to police at his home.

    July 22, 1994 Simpson pleads not guilty.

    November 3, 1994 – The jury is selected. It consists of four men and eight women: eight are African American, one is Hispanic, one is White and two are multiracial.

    January 24, 1995 Simpson’s criminal trial begins.

    May 4, 1995 The Goldmans file a wrongful death suit against Simpson.

    June 15, 1995 – In court, Simpson tries on leather gloves connected to the case, and says they do not fit.

    July 6, 1995 The prosecution rests.

    September 27, 1995Defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran reminds the jury about the glove, “If it doesn’t fit; you must acquit.”

    September 29, 1995 The defense rests, and the case goes to the jury to reach a verdict.

    October 3, 1995 The jury returns a not guilty verdict after less than four hours of deliberations.

    October 23, 1996 – The civil trial begins in the wrongful death suit brought against Simpson by the victims’ families. The jury is made up of five men and seven women: nine are Whites, one is Hispanic, one is African American and one is of Asian and African descent.

    November 22, 1996 Simpson, for the first time, testifies before a jury and denies the murder of his ex-wife and Goldman.

    December 20, 1996 Simpson is awarded custody of his children.

    February 4, 1997 The jury finds Simpson liable in the civil wrongful death suit brought by the victims’ families and awards the plaintiffs $8.5 million in damages.

    February 6, 1997 Testimony in the punitive phase of the civil trial begins.

    February 10, 1997 Simpson is ordered to pay $25 million in punitive damages to the victims’ families.

    March 26, 1997 The court orders Simpson to turn over his assets, including a set of golf clubs, his 1968 Heisman Trophy and a Warhol painting.

    November 20, 2006 – News Corp announces the cancellation of Simpson’s book and two-part FOX TV interview, called “If I Did It.” The book was promoted as a hypothetical account of the murders.

    March 13, 2007 – A California judge rules that the rights to Simpson’s book will be publicly auctioned so that Goldman’s family can receive the future proceeds. The auction is canceled in early April 2007 when the holding company Lorraine Brook Associates declares bankruptcy.

    June 15, 2007 A bankruptcy judge in Miami orders a new auction of the book rights to “If I Did It,” with all proceeds going to Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman’s father.

    July 11, 2007 – The family of Nicole Brown Simpson files court papers in connection to the auction of the book rights to “If I Did It.” The family believes it is entitled to 40% of any proceeds from the book, based on the $24.7 million civil judgment it won against Simpson.

    July 30, 2007 A federal bankruptcy court awards Goldman’s family 90% of the proceeds from the sale of the publishing rights to “If I Did It.” The rest will go to Simpson’s creditors.

    September 16, 2007- Is arrested in connection with a robbery at a Las Vegas hotel room on September 13, 2007. Simpson contends that he was retrieving personal items that had been stolen from him and were being sold as memorabilia. Police announce they have booked him on six counts of robbery, assault, burglary and conspiracy.

    November 14, 2007 Clark County Judge Joe M. Bonaventure rules that Simpson will stand trial on charges including kidnapping, robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

    November 28, 2007 Simpson pleads not guilty.

    January 10, 2008 – Simpson is arrested in Florida and is to be extradited to Nevada for violating the terms of his bail by contacting individuals involved in the trial.

    September 8, 2008 Jury selection begins in Simpson’s trial.

    September 15, 2008 Trial begins.

    October 3, 2008 Simpson is found guilty on 12 counts, including kidnapping and armed robbery.

    December 5, 2008 – Simpson is sentenced to up to 33 years in jail but will be eligible for parole after nine years.

    July 20, 2017 – A Nevada parole board grants Simpson parole. On October 1, Simpson is released from prison.

    January 30, 2018 – A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge rules that Simpson doesn’t have to hand over money he gets from selling autographs or for making public appearances to pay the civil judgment, now at more than $70 million, in the deaths of his ex-wife and Goldman.

    June 14, 2019 – Simpson launches his new Twitter account with a video saying he’s “got a little getting even to do.” He adds that he plans to use his new Twitter account to “set the record straight,” as well as to talk sports, fantasy football and even some politics.

    December 6, 2021 – Simpson is granted early discharge from his parole in Nevada.

    Source link

  • Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is some background information about affirmative action as well as a few notable court cases.

    Affirmative action policies focus on improving opportunities for groups of people, like women and minorities, who have been historically excluded in United States’ society. The initial emphasis was on education and employment. President John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term in an executive order.

    Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination.

    Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

    The state of Texas replaced its affirmative action plan with a percentage plan that guarantees the top 10% of high-school graduates a spot in any state university in Texas. California and Florida have similar programs.

    1954 – The US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, rules that the “separate but equal” doctrine violates the Constitution.

    1961 – President Kennedy creates the Council on Equal Opportunity in an executive order. This ensures that federal contractors hire people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

    1964 The Civil Rights Act renders discrimination illegal in the workplace.

    1978 – In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a notable reverse discrimination case, the Supreme Court rules that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. As one factor for admission, however, race can be used.

    1995The University of Michigan rejects the college application of Jennifer Gratz, a top high school student in suburban Detroit who is white.

    October 14, 1997 – Gratz v. Bollinger, et al., is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The University of Michigan is sued by white students, including Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who claim the undergraduate and law school affirmative action policies using race and/or gender as a factor in admissions is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    December 3, 1997 – A similar case, Grutter v. Bollinger, is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. Barbara Grutter, denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School, claims that other applicants, with lower test scores and grades, were given an unfair advantage due to race.

    December 2000 – The judge in the Gratz v. Bollinger case rules that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court.

    March 2001 – The judge in the Grutter v. Bollinger case rules the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy is unconstitutional.

    December 2001 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals in both University of Michigan cases.

    May 14, 2002 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the district court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

    January 17, 2003 – The administration of President George W. Bush files a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, opposing the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program.

    April 1, 2003 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the two cases. US Solicitor General Theodore Olson offers arguments in support of the plaintiffs.

    June 23, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules on Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School may give preferential treatment to minorities during the admissions process. The Court upholds the law school policy by a vote of five to four.

    June 23, 2003 – In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate policy in which a point system gave specific “weight” to minority applicants is overturned six to three.

    December 22, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules that race can be a factor in universities’ admission programs but it cannot be an overriding factor. This decision affects the Grutter and Gratz cases.

    November 7, 2006The Michigan electorate strikes down affirmative action by approving a proposition barring affirmative action in public education, employment, or contracting.

    January 31, 2007 – After the Supreme Court sends the case back to district court; the case is dismissed. Gratz and Hamacher settle for $10,000 in administrative costs, but do not receive damages.

    2008 – Abigail Noel Fisher, a white woman, sues the University of Texas. She argues that the university should not use race as a factor in admission policies that favor African-American and Hispanic applicants over whites and Asian-Americans.

    July 1, 2011 An appeals court overturns Michigan’s 2006 ban on the use of race and/or gender as a factor in admissions or hiring practices.

    November 15, 2012 – The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals throws out Michigan’s 2006 ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public hiring, declaring it unconstitutional.

    June 24, 2013 – The Supreme Court sends the University of Texas case back to the lower court for further review without ruling.

    October 15, 2013 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case concerning Michigan’s 2006 law on affirmative action.

    April 22, 2014 – In a six to two ruling, the Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban of using racial criteria in college admissions.

    July 15, 2014 – The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the use of race by the University of Texas as a factor in undergraduate admissions to promote diversity on campus. The vote is two to one.

    November 17, 2014 – Students for Fair Admissions sues Harvard University, alleging Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-Americans. Students for Fair Admissions is run by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate, who sought Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard.

    December 9, 2015 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the University of Texas case regarding race as a factor in admissions policies.

    June 23, 2016 – The US Supreme Court upholds the Affirmative Action program by a vote of four to three with Justice Elena Kagan taking no part in the consideration. The ruling allows the limited use of affirmative action policies by schools.

    October 15, 2018 – The lawsuit against Harvard filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions goes to trial.

    February 2019 – Texas Tech University enters an agreement with the Department of Education to stop considering race and/or national origin as a factor in its admissions process, concluding a 14-year-long investigation into the school’s use of affirmative action.

    October 1, 2019 – US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs upholds Harvard’s admissions process in the Students for Fair Admissions case, ruling that while Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect,” she would not “dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better.”

    November 12, 2020 – A Boston-based US appeals court rejects an appeal brought by the Students for Fair Admissions group.

    January 24, 2022 – The US Supreme Court announces it will reconsider race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The justices will hear challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that use students’ race among many criteria to decide who should gain a coveted place in an entering class. On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court says colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission.

    Source link

  • Roe v. Wade Fast Facts | CNN

    Roe v. Wade Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the US Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

    1971 – The case is filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe, against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life.

    January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman the right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.

    The ruling affected laws in 46 states.

    Full-text opinions by the justices can be viewed here.

    1971 – The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Roe against Wade, who was enforcing the Texas abortion law that had been declared unconstitutional in an earlier federal district court case. Wade was ignoring the legal ruling and both sides appealed.

    December 13, 1971 – The case is argued before the US Supreme Court.

    October 11, 1972 – The case is reargued before the US Supreme Court.

    January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

    June 17, 2003 – McCorvey (Roe) files a motion with the federal district court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.

    September 14, 2004 – A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismisses McCorvey’s motion to have the case overturned, according to the Court’s clerk.

    May 2, 2022 – In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion. The opinion in the case is not expected to be published until late June. The court confirms the authenticity of the document on May 3, but stresses it is not the final decision.

    June 24, 2022 – The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade with a 6-3 decision, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. 

    Norma McCorvey – Texas resident who sought to obtain an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant mother’s life. McCorvey was pregnant when she became the lead plaintiff in the case. She gave up the baby for adoption.

    McCorvey has since come forward and spoken against abortion. In 1997, McCorvey started Roe No More, an anti-abortion outreach organization that was dissolved in 2008. McCorvey died on February 18, 2017. In the 2020 documentary “AKA Jane Roe,” prior to her death in 2017, McCorvey told the film’s director that she hadn’t changed her mind about abortion but became an anti-abortion activist because she was being paid.

    Henry Wade – district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. McCorvey sued him because he enforced a law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life. He died on March 1, 2001.

    Sarah Weddington – Lawyer for McCorvey.

    Linda Coffee – Lawyer for McCorvey.

    Jay Floyd – Argued the case for Texas the first time.

    Robert C. Flowers – Reargued the case for Texas.

    Majority: Harry A. Blackmun (for The Court), William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall

    Concurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter Stewart

    Dissenting: William H. Rehnquist, Byron White

    Source link

  • Jacob Zuma Fast Facts | CNN

    Jacob Zuma Fast Facts | CNN

    Here’s a look at the life of Jacob Zuma, former president of South Africa. Zuma survived at least half a dozen no-confidence votes during his presidency.

    Birth date: April 12, 1942

    Birth place: Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa

    Birth name: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

    Father: Gcinamazwi Zuma, police officer

    Mother: Nobhekisisa Bessie, domestic worker

    Marriages: Bongi Ngema (2012-present); Thobeka Stacy Mabhija (2010-present); Nompumelelo Ntuli (2008-present); Nkosazana Clarice Dlamini (1982-1998, divorced); Kate Mantsho Zuma (1976-2000, her death); Gertrude Sizakele Khumalo Zuma (1973-present)

    Children: Reportedly has more than 20 children

    ANC Work and Exile

    1958 – Joins the African National Congress (ANC).

    1962 Becomes a member of the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the military arm of the ANC.

    1963 – Arrested with other Spear of the Nation members and convicted of conspiring to overthrow the South African government. Zuma spends 10 years in prison on Robben Island.

    1975 Flees South Africa and lives in exile for 15 years in Swaziland, Mozambique, Zambia and several other African countries, while continuing his work with the ANC.

    February 1990 – President F. W. de Klerk lifts the ban on the ANC and other opposition groups. Zuma returns to South Africa.

    ANC Leadership and Corruption Charges

    1990 – At the ANC’s first Regional Congress in KwaZulu-Natal province, Zuma is elected chairperson of the Southern Natal region and takes a leading role in fighting violence in the region. This results in peace accords between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party.

    December 1994 – Is elected as the national chairperson of the ANC.

    1997-2007 – Deputy president of the ANC.

    October 1998 – Receives the Nelson Mandela Award for Outstanding Leadership.

    1999-2005 – Deputy president of South Africa.

    June 2, 2005 – A South African court finds businessman Schabir Shaik guilty of bribing Zuma between 1995 and 2002.

    June 14, 2005 – President Thabo Mbeki fires Zuma over his alleged involvement in the Shaik bribery scandal.

    December 6, 2005 – Charged with raping a young female family friend; he claims the sex was consensual. He is acquitted on May 8, 2006.

    September 5, 2006 – Brought to trial and charged with corruption for allegedly accepting bribes from French arms company Thint Holdings. On September 20, the charges are dismissed by the court after numerous extensions by prosecutors to build the state’s case.

    2007-2017 President of the ANC.

    December 28, 2007 – New corruption charges are brought against Zuma, along with counts of racketeering and money laundering. The corruption charges are tossed by the court in September 2008.

    May 1, 2008 Named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People.

    January 12, 2009 – The Supreme Court of Appeal overturns the lower court ruling that threw out corruption charges against Zuma, stating that the ruling was riddled with errors. This new ruling means that the National Prosecuting Authority can press new charges against Zuma.

    April 6, 2009Prosecutors drop all corruption charges against Zuma.

    Presidency and Resignation

    April 26, 2009 The ANC wins a majority of votes in South African elections, ensuring that Zuma will be the country’s next president.

    May 9, 2009 – Inaugurated as president.

    February 2010 – Zuma admits to fathering a child out of wedlock with the daughter of the head of South Africa’s World Cup organizing committee.

    December 2010Zuma files a $700,000 defamation lawsuit over a 2008 political cartoon which portrays him raping a female figure symbolizing justice.

    March 20, 2012 – The Supreme Court of Appeal rules that the Democratic Alliance (an opposition party) can challenge a previous court’s decision to drop corruption charges against Zuma.

    May 7, 2014 – Zuma secures a second term as president, with the ANC winning a majority of votes.

    March 31, 2016 – The South African Constitutional Court rules that Zuma defied the constitution when he used 246 million rand ($15 million) in state funds to upgrade his private home. The court says Zuma must repay money spent on renovations unrelated to security.

    April 29, 2016 – A South African court rules that prosecutors acted “irrationally” when they decided to drop more than 700 corruption and fraud charges against Zuma in 2009. The court says the decision should be set aside and reviewed. It remains up to prosecutors whether to reinstate the charges.

    November 2, 2016 – A report containing corruption allegations against Zuma is published. The 355-page “State of Capture” report contains allegations, and in some instances evidence, of cronyism, questionable business deals and ministerial appointments, and other possible large-scale corruption at the very top of government. Zuma denies any wrongdoing.

    November 10, 2016 – Zuma avoids a vote of no-confidence in parliament, with 214 votes against the motion, 126 for and 58 abstentions. It’s the third time Zuma has faced such a vote in less than a year. The Democratic Alliance brought the motion of no confidence to parliament in an attempt to remove the president amid charges of corruption.

    November 29, 2016 – Members of the ANC say that Zuma will not step down as president, despite calls from people within his own party to resign.

    August 8, 2017 – A motion of no-confidence in Zuma is defeated, 198 votes to 177.

    October 13, 2017 – South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal upholds an April 2016 ruling by the High Court to reinstate corruption charges against Zuma.

    February 13, 2018 – The ANC announces a “recall” of Zuma, demanding that he resign. He resigns the next day.

    Charges and Prison Sentence

    March 16, 2018 – South Africa’s national prosecuting authority announces that Zuma will be charged with 16 counts of corruption, money laundering and racketeering.

    February 4, 2020 – A South African judge issues Zuma an arrest warrant after he fails to appear to face charges in his long-running corruption case.

    February 2021 – A South African inquiry into corruption during Zuma’s time in power is seeking the former president’s imprisonment for two years, after he defied a summons and court order to appear and give evidence. In an application in the constitutional court seen by Reuters, the “state capture” inquiry is seeking an order that Zuma is guilty of contempt of court. Zuma has denied wrongdoing and refuses to cooperate with the inquiry.

    June 29, 2021 – South Africa’s highest court finds Zuma guilty of contempt of court and sentences him to 15 months in prison. On July 3, the court agrees to hear Zuma’s application for a review of their decision. In the application, Zuma and his lawyers claim that the 15-month prison sentence threatens his life and that the constitutional court’s decision is unfair.

    July 4, 2021 – At a press conference at his homestead in Nkandla, Zuma likens his treatment to Apartheid-era detention without trial, saying, “Things like detention without trial should never again see the light of day in South Africa. The struggle for a free South Africa was a struggle for justice that everyone was treated equally before the law.”

    July 7, 2021 – Zuma hands himself over to police to begin serving his 15-month prison sentence for contempt of court.

    August 6, 2021 – Is admitted to an outside hospital where he undergoes surgeries for an undisclosed ailment, according to prison authorities.

    September 5, 2021 – The government’s correctional services department says Zuma has been released from prison on medical parole due to ill health.

    December 15, 2021 – The Gauteng High Court in South Africa rules that the decision to place Zuma on medical parole was unlawful and that Zuma needs to be returned into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence. Zuma appeals and remains on parole.

    October 7, 2022 – South Africa’s Correctional Services department announces Zuma has been released from the correctional services system.

    November 21, 2022 – South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal rules Zuma should return to prison, saying the decision to release Zuma on medical parole was unlawful.

    August 11, 2023 – Zuma is returned to prison to comply with a ruling that his release on ill health was unlawful – but is freed after just an hour under a remission process to address overcrowding in jail.

    January 29, 2024 – The ANC announces it has suspended Zuma’s membership. In December 2023, Zuma announced his support for a rival political party.

    Source link

  • Nawaz Sharif Fast Facts | CNN

    Nawaz Sharif Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

    Birth date: December 25, 1949

    Birth place: Lahore, Pakistan

    Birth name: Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif

    Father: Muhammad Sharif

    Mother: Shamim Akhtar

    Marriage: Kulsoom Sharif (until September 11, 2018, her death)

    Children: two sons and two daughters

    Education: Government College Lahore; Punjab University Law College, Law degree, Lahore, Pakistan

    Although elected prime minister on three separate occasions, and is Pakistan’s longest-serving prime minister, he never completed a full term.

    1977 – Opens Ittefaq Industries, a family business involved in the steel, sugar and textile industries.

    1981Is appointed Pakistan’s finance minister.

    1985Becomes chief minister of Punjab province.

    October 1990Is elected as Pakistan’s prime minister.

    November 6, 1990Is sworn in as prime minister.

    April 18, 1993Sharif’s government is dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan after charges of corruption and mismanagement are raised. Sharif’s family-owned business grew tremendously during his tenure in office, causing suspicion of corruption.

    May 26, 1993Pakistan’s Supreme Court orders the reinstatement of Sharif, calling his dismissal unconstitutional and the charges false. Sharif and Khan both later resign.

    February 3, 1997 – Is reelected as prime minister.

    February 17, 1997 Is sworn in as prime minister.

    October 12, 1999 – Army General Pervez Musharraf overthrows Sharif in a bloodless coup.

    January 2000Sharif goes on trial for charges of hijacking/terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder.

    April 6, 2000 – Is convicted of plane hijacking/terrorism and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is charged with hijacking because he attempted to prevent a plane Musharraf was flying in from landing at any airport in Pakistan, when the plane was low on fuel. Sharif knew of Musharraf’s coup intentions.

    July 22, 2000 – Is convicted of corruption and sentenced to an additional 14 years in prison while already serving a life sentence. His failure to declare assets and pay taxes led to the conviction.

    December 2000 – Is released from prison by a deal brokered by the Saudi royal family.

    December 2000-August 2007- In exile in Saudi Arabia.

    October 29, 2004 – His father dies and Sharif seeks a brief return to Pakistan to attend the funeral, after serving only four of his 10-year exile in Saudi Arabia. The request is denied.

    August 23, 2007 – Pakistan’s Supreme Court lifts the exile imposed on Sharif. He served only seven of his 10-year exile.

    September 10, 2007 – Attempts to return to Pakistan but is deported just hours after his arrival.

    November 25, 2007Sharif returns to Pakistan from exile in Saudi Arabia, flying into the city of Lahore.

    February 18, 2008In parliamentary elections, Sharif’s party Pakistan Muslim League-N wins 67 seats, placing second to the party of the late Benazir Bhutto, the PPP.

    February 20, 2008 The PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League-N announce that they will form a coalition government.

    August 25, 2008 – At a press conference, Sharif announces his party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, is splitting from the coalition government it formed with the PPP, following disagreements over the reinstatement of judges Musharraf dismissed.

    May 26, 2009 – The Supreme Court of Pakistan rules that Sharif is eligible to run in elections and hold public office. In February 2009, the court had ruled that Sharif was ineligible for office because he had a criminal conviction. He is still ineligible to run for prime minister due to term limits.

    July 17, 2009 – Pakistan’s Supreme Court clears Sharif of hijacking charges, paving the way for him to legally run for office.

    April 19, 2010 – Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari voluntarily signs the 18th Amendment to the constitution, significantly diminishing his powers. Among the sweeping changes is a measure removing the two-term limit for prime ministers, allowing Sharif to vie for a third term.

    June 5, 2013 – Is elected prime minister of Pakistan.

    August 30, 2014 – Sharif announces in a statement that he will not resign. He has vowed to remain on the job despite violent demonstrations. The protesters have accused him of rigging last year’s elections that allowed his party to take power.

    December 16, 2014 – Sharif lifts the 2008 moratorium on the death penalty after the Taliban attack a school, killing 145 people, most of them children. He also announces “that the distinction between good and bad Taliban will not be continued at any level.”

    November 1, 2016 – The Supreme Court announces that a commission will investigate Sharif’s finances after leaked documents showed that his children owned shell companies in the British Virgin Islands. The documents were released as part of the Panama Papers, a trove of secret financial forms associated with a Panamanian law firm.

    November 30, 2016 – In violation of diplomatic protocol, Sharif’s office releases a statement quoting his recent conversation with US President-elect Donald Trump.

    April 20, 2017 – A panel of judges orders a new probe of Sharif’s finances, calling on the prime minister and his family to testify.

    July 28, 2017 – Sharif resigns shortly after Pakistan’s Supreme Court rules that he has been dishonest to Parliament and to the judicial system and is no longer fit for office.

    July 6, 2018 – Sharif is sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined £8 million ($10.5 million) relating to corruption charges over his family’s purchase of properties in London. His daughter Maryam, seen as his heir apparent, receives a seven-year sentence and a £2 million ($2.6 million) fine. Captain Muhammad Safdar Awan, her husband, receives a one-year sentence. They are barred from engaging in politics for 10 years.

    July 13, 2018 – Sharif and his daughter Maryam are arrested and held in Islamabad after they fly back from the United Kingdom to face prison sentences. Before the landing, Sharif tells supporters his return is a “sacrifice for the future generations of the country and for its political stability.”

    September 19, 2018 – The Islamabad High Court suspends a corruption sentence against Sharif and his daughter Maryam. The two are ordered to pay bail of $5,000 each. Sharif is released after serving less than three months of a 10-year sentence.

    December 24, 2018 – Sharif is found guilty of fresh corruption charges relating to the purchase of Al-Azizia Steel Mills where prosecutors alleged that the Sharif family misappropriated government funds to buy the mills. An accountability court in Islamabad sentences him to seven years in prison and fines him $25 million. Sharif is immediately arrested and taken into custody by courtroom officials.

    October 2019 – Sharif is released on bail due to health issues.

    November 19, 2019 – Sharif flies to London for medical treatment.

    December 2020 – The Islamabad High Court declares Sharif a proclaimed offender for his continued absence from the court.

    April 11, 2022 – Sharif’s younger brother, Shehbaz Sharif, is was sworn in as Prime Minister.

    October 21, 2023Sharif returns to Pakistan after nearly four years in self-exile after an Islamabad court granted him protective bail, meaning he cannot be arrested before appearing in court.

    December 12, 2023 – A Pakistan court overturns Sharif’s 2018 conviction for graft. As a result he may be able to run in national elections in February 2024.

    Source link

  • Sandy Hook School Shootings Fast Facts | CNN

    Sandy Hook School Shootings Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. On December 14, 2012, six adults and 20 children were killed by Adam Lanza, who had earlier killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, in their home.

    Birth date: April 22, 1992

    Death date: December 14, 2012

    Birth place: Kingston, New Hampshire

    Birth name: Adam Lanza

    Father: Peter Lanza, an accountant

    Mother: Nancy (Champion) Lanza

    Lanza’s parents were divorced in September 2009.

    A 2014 report by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate described Lanza as a young man with deteriorating mental health who had a fascination with mass shootings.

    Weapons found at the scene were legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.

    Lanza used a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle during the shooting spree. Three weapons were found next to his body; the semiautomatic .223-caliber rifle made by Bushmaster, and two handguns. An Izhmash Saiga-12, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun was found in his car.

    December 14, 2012 – At an unknown time, 20-year-old Adam Lanza kills his mother Nancy, 52, with a .22 caliber Savage Mark II rifle. Lanza then drives his mother’s car to Sandy Hook Elementary, about five miles away.

    At approximately 9:30 a.m., Lanza arrives at Sandy Hook Elementary, a school with about 700 students. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, had installed a new security system that required every visitor to ring the front entrance’s doorbell for admittance. Lanza shoots his way through the entrance.

    Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach step out to the hall to see what is going on, and are followed by Vice Principal Natalie Hammond. Hochsprung and Sherlach are killed, and Hammond is injured.

    The first 911 calls to police are made at approximately 9:30 a.m. Police and first responders arrive approximately five minutes later.

    Lanza enters the classroom of substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau. Lanza kills 14 children as well as Rousseau and a teacher’s aide.

    He then enters the classroom of teacher Victoria Soto. Six children in the room, as well as Soto and a teacher’s aide, are killed. Lanza dies by suicide in the same classroom, ending the rampage in less than 11 minutes.

    At about 3:15 p.m., an emotional President Barack Obama gives a televised address, “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” He orders flags to be flown at half-staff at the White House and other federal buildings.

    December 15, 2012 – Connecticut State Police release the names of the victims: six adult women and 12 girls and eight boys, all ages six and seven.

    December 16, 2012 – Obama visits with the relatives of those who were killed. He also attends an interfaith vigil. “We can’t tolerate this anymore,” he says. “These tragedies must end, and to end them we must change.”

    December 17, 2012 – Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announces a statewide moment of silence on December 21. He also requests that bells be tolled 26 times in memory of the victims.

    December 18, 2012 – Newtown Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson announces Sandy Hook students will remain out of school until January. At that time, they will be taught in a converted middle school.

    January 8, 2013 – Malloy announces the names of the people who will serve on the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, to review current policy and make recommendations on public safety, mental health and violence prevention policies.

    March 2013 – A new police report reveals Lanza possessed a list of 500 of the world’s most notorious mass murderers, and was trying to rack up the greatest number of kills in history.

    November 25, 2013 – Connecticut state officials release a report closing the investigation into the shooting and confirm that Lanza had no assistance and was the only shooter.

    December 4, 2013 – Audio recordings of the 911 calls from Sandy Hook Elementary are released.

    December 27, 2013 – The final report on the investigation into the shooting is released.

    November 21, 2014 – The Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate, as directed by the State Child Fatality Review Panel, releases a report profiling Lanza’s developmental and educational history. The report notes “missed opportunities” by Lanza’s mother, the school district and multiple health care providers. It identifies “warning signs, red flags, or other lessons” that could be learned.

    December 15, 2014 – The families of nine children killed, along with one teacher who survived the attack, file a wrongful death suit against the manufacturers and distributors of the Bushmaster rifle, as well as the retail store and dealer who sold the firearm used in the shooting.

    March 6, 2015 – The final report of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission is released.

    December 17, 2015 – In a final agreement, 16 plaintiffs will share in a $1.5 million settlement against the estate of Nancy Lanza. The plaintiffs are from eight separate lawsuits filed in early 2015.

    April 14, 2016 – A superior court judge rules that the wrongful death suit against gun manufacturers can proceed. The judge denies a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that firearms companies have limited liability when their products are used by criminals, according to a federal law passed in 2005.

    October 14, 2016 – Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis dismisses a lawsuit that families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims had filed against a gun manufacturer, invoking a federal statute known as PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors if their firearms were used in the commission of a criminal act.

    November 15, 2016 – The Sandy Hook families file an appeal, asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to consider their case against the gun manufacturer.

    March 14, 2019 – The Connecticut Supreme Court rules that the families of the Sandy Hook victims can go forward with their lawsuit against Remington, which makes the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the shooting.

    April 5, 2019 – Remington files an appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking the high court to decide on the state’s interpretation of a federal statute that grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product.

    November 12, 2019 – The US Supreme Court declines to take up the Remington appeal.

    July 27, 2021 – Remington offers nearly $33 million to nine families of victims killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in a proposed lawsuit settlement.

    November 15, 2021 – The families suing InfoWars founder Alex Jones win a case against him after a judge rules that Jones, and the entities owned by him, are liable by default in the defamation case against them. Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cites the defendants’ “willful noncompliance” with the discovery process as her core reasoning behind the ruling. The case stems from past claims that the 2012 mass shooting was staged. Jones has since acknowledged that the shooting was real.

    February 15, 2022 – A settlement is reached between the nine families of victims killed and the now-bankrupt Remington and its four insurers, according to court records. The plaintiffs’ attorneys say the $73 million settlement also includes “thousands of pages of internal company documents that prove Remington’s wrongdoing and carry important lessons for helping to prevent future mass shootings.”

    August 4, 2022 – A jury decides that Jones will have to pay Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, the parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim, a little more than $4 million in compensatory damages.

    October 12, 2022 – A Connecticut jury decides Jones should pay eight family members of Sandy Hook shooting victims and one first responder $965 million in compensatory damages caused by his lies regarding the shooting. On November 10, a Connecticut judge orders Jones to pay an additional $473 million in punitive damages.

    November 13, 2022 – The Sandy Hook Permanent Memorial, designed by Dan Affleck and Ben Waldo, is unveiled publicly in Newtown, Connecticut.

    October 19, 2023 – A federal bankruptcy judge rules that bankruptcy proceedings will not shield Jones from more than $1.1 billion in damages he owes the families of Sandy Hook shooting victims.

    November 22, 2023 – In a court document, the families of Sandy Hook shooting victims offer Jones a “path out of bankruptcy” if he pays them a “small fraction” of the more than $1 billion he owes in damages, which could help resolve the bankruptcy cases of both Jones and Free Speech Systems. The families suggest Jones pay at least $85 million over 10 years — $8.5 million per year for a decade, in addition to half of any annual income over $9 million, “with a proportionate reduction of liabilities for each year of full payment.”

    The Victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School

    Allison Wyatt, 6
    Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
    Anne Marie Murphy, 52 (Teacher)
    Avielle Richman, 6
    Benjamin Wheeler, 6
    Caroline Previdi, 6
    Catherine Hubbard, 6
    Charlotte Bacon, 6
    Chase Kowalski, 7
    Daniel Barden, 7
    Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, 47 (Principal)
    Dylan Hockley, 6
    Emilie Parker, 6
    Grace McDonnell, 7
    Jack Pinto, 6
    James Mattioli, 6
    Jesse Lewis, 6
    Jessica Rekos, 6
    Josephine Gay, 7
    Lauren Rousseau, 30 (Teacher)
    Madeleine Hsu, 6
    Mary Sherlach, 56 (Psychologist)
    Noah Pozner, 6
    Olivia Engel, 6
    Rachel D’Avino, 29, (Therapist)
    Victoria Soto, 27 (Teacher)

    Source link

  • Judges Targeted Fast Facts | CNN

    Judges Targeted Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at notable cases in which US judges have been targets of lethal violence. Three federal judges were targeted and murdered from 1979 to present, Judge John Wood, Judge Richard Daronco and Judge Robert Vance, as well as several judges from lower courts.

    The US Marshals Service is in charge of protecting federal judges.

    The Marshals Service protects approximately 2,700 federal judges and about 30,300 other court officials at 888 court facilities throughout the nation.

    2022 1,362 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2021 – 4,511 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2020 – 4,261 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2019 – 4,449 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2018 – 4,542 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2017 – 2,847 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2016 – 2,357 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed by the Marshals.

    2015 – 926 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed, mitigated and deterred by the Marshals.

    2014 – 768 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary assessed, mitigated and deterred by the Marshals.

    June 3, 1974 – Washington state Superior Court Judge James Lawless is killed by a mail bomb in his chambers. Ricky Anthony Young is convicted of the crime.

    May 29, 1979 – US District Judge John Wood is killed by a contract killer allegedly tied to a drug-smuggling case the judge is handling. Three members of the Chagra family are later convicted of conspiring to kill Wood. One of the Chagras had been scheduled to appear before Judge Wood in the drug smuggling case.

    1983 – Illinois Judge Henry Gentile is shot and killed in his courtroom by a man whose divorce case is being handled by Judge Gentile. The man had hidden the gun used in a blanket in his wheelchair.

    March 20, 1987 – Joel Cacace, of the Columbo crime family, hires hitmen to kill federal prosecutor William Aronwald. By mistake they tail Aronwald’s father, George, a 78-year-old city administrative law judge who shares an office with his son. They kill Aronwald when he stops to pick up his laundry.

    September 14, 1987 – Mississippi Circuit Judge Vincent Sherry and his wife Margaret are killed in their home. The murders are tied to a prison scam run by former Biloxi Mayor Pete Halat who shared a law office with Sherry. Prosecutors say Halat believed the Sherrys may have taken some of the scam profits for themselves.

    May 21, 1988 – US District Judge Richard Daronco is shot and killed at his home in Pelham, New York, by a man upset over Daronco’s dismissal of the man’s daughter’s sexual discrimination suit.

    1989 – Federal Appeals Court Judge Robert Vance is killed in his home in Birmingham, Alabama, when he opens a mail bomb. Walter Leroy Moody Jr. is convicted of the death of Vance and attorney Robert Robinson. Prosecutors allege Moody sent the mail bombs out of anger over his conviction in 1972 for possessing a mail bomb.

    March 18, 1999 – Los Angeles County Court Commissioner H. George Taylor and his wife Lynda Taylor are shot and killed at their home in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Investigators believe the shootings are “court-related” but the case remains unsolved.

    February 28, 2005 – The husband and mother of US District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow are shot to death inside the Lefkows’ Chicago home. A former plaintiff whose case had been dismissed by Judge Lefkow claims credit for the murder in a suicide note.

    March 11, 2005 – Atlanta Judge Rowland Barnes and three others are fatally shot when Brian Nichols escapes custody while being escorted to Barnes’ courtroom to face a second trial on rape charges. Nichols went to Judge Barnes’ private chambers in the Fulton County courthouse and asked for him before entering Barnes’ courtroom and fatally shooting the judge and court reporter.

    August 21, 2017 – Common Pleas Judge Joseph J. Bruzzese Jr. is ambushed and shot outside the Jefferson County Courthouse in Steubenville, Ohio. Bruzzese and an accompanying probation officer returned fire, killing the assailant. According to public court records, the suspect, Nate Richmond, is a plaintiff in a wrongful death case overseen by Bruzzese.

    July 19, 2020 – A man wearing a FedEx uniform opens fire at the home of US District Court Judge Esther Salas. The suspected gunman, a hate-filled men’s rights attorney who had argued a case before Judge Salas, kills her son and seriously wounds her husband, Mark Anderl, when they open the door. The next day, law enforcement officials report the gunman died from self-inflicted wounds. Two weeks after the shooting, Judge Salas calls for greater privacy protections for judges.

    June 3, 2022 – Former Juneau County Circuit Court Judge John Roemer, 68, is killed in a New Lisbon, Wisconsin, home, in a targeted attack. The suspect, identified as Douglas K. Uhde, was found in the basement of the home with an “apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound,” and died four days later in the hospital. It was later revealed that Uhde had been sentenced to prison by Roemer more than 15 years ago, court documents show.

    October 19, 2023 – Washington County Circuit Judge Andrew Wilkinson is fatally shot in his driveway by a suspect Wilkinson ruled against in a child custody case.

    Source link

  • Britney Spears Fast Facts | CNN

    Britney Spears Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of Britney Spears, pop singer and Grammy Award winner.

    Birth date: December 2, 1981

    Birth place: McComb, Mississippi

    Birth name: Britney Jean Spears

    Father: Jamie Spears, former building contractor and chef

    Mother: Lynne (Bridges) Spears

    Marriages: Sam Asghari (June 9, 2022 – present); Kevin Federline (September 18, 2004-July 30, 2007, divorced); Jason Alexander (January 3, 2004-January 5, 2004, annulled after 55 hours)

    Children: with Kevin Federline: Jayden James, September 2006 and Sean Preston, September 2005

    Number one hits on the Billboard Hot 100 chart include: “Baby, One More Time” in 1999, “Womanizer” in 2008, “3” in 2009 (debut), and “Hold It Against Me” in 2011 (debut).

    Six albums have reached #1 on the Billboard 200 chart: “Baby One More Time” (1999), “Oops!…. I Did It Again” (2000), “Britney” (2001), “In the Zone” (2003), “Circus” (2008), and “Femme Fatale” (2011).

    Has won one Grammy and has been nominated for eight.

    1993-1994 – Cast member on “The Mickey Mouse Club.”

    1997 – Signs a contract with Jive Records at age 15.

    January 12, 1999 – Releases her debut album “…Baby One More Time.”

    May 16, 2000 – Releases her second album “Oops!…I Did It Again.”

    2002 – Is named Hollywood’s Most Powerful Celebrity by Forbes magazine.

    November 17, 2003 – Receives a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

    February 13, 2005 – Wins a Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording for “Toxic.”

    February 16, 2007 – Shaves her head at a beauty parlor in Tarzana, California.

    October 1, 2007 – Temporarily loses physical custody of her children after failing to attend court hearings.

    January 3, 2008 – Spears is hospitalized over issues involving the custody of her children. Kevin Federline, her ex-husband, is awarded sole custody on January 4, 2008.

    February 1, 2008 – A Los Angeles court grants temporary conservatorship to Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, after Spears is taken to a hospital and deemed unable to take care of herself.

    July 18, 2008 – In a custody agreement, Spears gives Federline sole custody of the children, but retains visitation rights.

    August 2008 – Becoming Britney, a musical based on her life, debuts at the New York International Fringe Festival.

    October 28, 2008 – Jamie Spears is granted permanent conservatorship of his daughter’s affairs.

    February 3, 2009 – Sam Lutfi, Spears’ former manager, sues Spears and her parents for defamation and breach of contract in Los Angeles Superior Court. A judge dismisses the lawsuit on November 1, 2012.

    September 8, 2010 – Is accused of sexual harassment and sued by her former bodyguard, Fernando Flores. The lawsuit is settled in March 2012.

    January 11, 2011 – Her single, “Hold It Against Me,” is released and debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.

    March 30, 2011 – A $10 million lawsuit is filed by Brand Sense Partners against Spears and her father for breach of contract relating to a perfume deal between Spears and the Elizabeth Arden company. The lawsuit is settled in February 2012.

    May 15, 2012 – “The X Factor USA” announces that Spears, along with Demi Lovato, will join Simon Cowell and L.A. Reid on “The X Factor” judging panel. On January 11, 2013, Spears announces that she will not be returning as a judge.

    September 17, 2013 – Spears announces that she will do a two-year residency at Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino in Las Vegas with a show titled “Britney: Piece of Me.” The show begins its run December 27.

    September 2014 – Releases her own lingerie line, “Intimate Britney Spears.”

    November 5, 2014 – Clark County, Nevada, proclaims November 5th as “Britney Day” on the Las Vegas Strip.

    September 9, 2015 – Spears announces that she has extended her residency at Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas for two more years.

    August 26, 2016 – Spears’ ninth studio album, Glory, is released.

    April 12, 2018 – Spears is honored at the GLAAD Media Awards as the recipient of the Vanguard Award, an award that goes to a performer for making a difference in promoting and supporting equality.

    January 4, 2019 – Announces that she is going on an indefinite work hiatus in order to focus on her family due to her father’s health issues.

    April 3, 2019 – Spears announces that she is taking “me time” after it is reported that she has checked into a mental health facility to cope with her father’s health issues. On April 25, Spears checks out of the mental health treatment facility after undertaking an “all-encompassing wellness treatment.”

    June 13, 2019 – Spears and her family are granted a five-year restraining order against Lutfi.

    April 29, 2020 – Spears announces that she accidentally burned down her home gym with candles.

    November 10, 2020 – Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny declines Spears’ application to remove her father as her conservator, but says she would consider petitions “down the road” to remove her father as the head of her estate. The move comes amid the #FreeBritney social media movement, driven by some fans who believe she is a prisoner in her own home because of the court-ordered conservatorship.

    June 23, 2021 – Spears appears remotely in court to request her court-ordered conservatorship be lifted, calling it “abusive.” During the hearing, she speaks for more than 20 minutes, saying she felt she had been forced to perform, was given no privacy and was made to use birth control, take medication and attend therapy sessions against her will.

    July 6, 2021 Spears’ longtime manager Larry Rudolph resigns, citing the singer’s desire to retire. On the same day, Samuel D. Ingham, a court-appointed attorney who has represented Spears for the entirety of her almost 13-year conservatorship, submits a petition to resign from his position, according to a court filing obtained by CNN.

    July 14, 2021 – Judge Penny accepts Ingham’s resignation, along with the resignation of Bessemer Trust, a wealth management firm that had been appointed co-conservator of the singer’s estate. Spears is granted permission to hire her own attorney. During a hearing, Spears calls for her father to be charged with conservatorship abuse.

    August 12, 2021 – Jamie Spears signals in a legal response that he intends to step down as conservator of the singer’s estate, according to a prepared copy of the response obtained by CNN.

    September 1, 2021 – The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office says in a press release they decline to file charges against Spears. Last month Spears’ housekeeper alleged that the singer struck a cell phone out of her hand during an argument over the veterinary care of her dog.

    September 7, 2021 – Spears’ father files a petition to terminate the 13-year court-ordered conservatorship. On September 29, a Los Angeles judge suspends Jamie Spears as conservator of his daughter’s estate, and designates a temporary replacement selected by the singer and her attorney to oversee her finances. On November 12, a Los Angeles judge terminates Spears’ 13-year conservatorship.

    September 12, 2021 – Spears announces her engagement to boyfriend Sam Asghari in an Instagram post.

    January 18, 2022 – Spears’ lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, sends a legal cease-and-desist letter to the singer’s younger sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, regarding her new memoir, “Things I Should Have Said.” In Rosengart’s letter, he calls the book “ill-timed” and that it makes “misleading or outrageous claims about her.”

    January 19, 2022 – Judge Penny rules against a request from Spears’ father to set aside money from her $60 million estate in a reserve to potentially cover legal fees, which would include her father’s.

    February 21, 2022 – It is revealed that Spears has signed a contract with Simon & Schuster to write a book about her life. The deal is valued at more than $15 million.

    April 11, 2022 – Spears announces that she and Asghari are expecting a baby. The following month, the pair announce the loss of the pregnancy.

    August 26, 2022 – Spears and Elton John release “Hold Me Closer,” an EDM reimagining of John’s 1971 hit “Tiny Dancer.” The song marks Spears’ first new release since her 13-year conservatorship ended.

    August 16, 2023 – Asghari files for divorce.

    October 24, 2023 – Spears’ memoir, “The Woman In Me,” is released.

    Source link

  • Maryland authorities are investigating the fatal shooting of Circuit Court Judge Andrew Wilkinson | CNN

    Maryland authorities are investigating the fatal shooting of Circuit Court Judge Andrew Wilkinson | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Maryland State Police troopers have been “dispatched to protect other judges” after a circuit court judge was killed Thursday night, CNN affiliate WJLA reported.

    Judge Andrew Wilkinson was killed in an apparent shooting in the northern Maryland city of Hagerstown, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office said.

    Deputies responded to a report of a shooting around 8 p.m. and found Wilkinson in a residential driveway suffering from what appeared to be gunshot wounds, the sheriff’s office said.

    The judge was taken to a medical facility where he later died, according to the sheriff’s office.

    As the investigation unfolds, “Maryland State Troopers are being dispatched to protect other judges,” WJLA reported.

    CNN has reached out to Maryland State Police for more information.

    The sheriff’s office said it plans to hold a news conference to share more details about the ongoing investigation, but it is unclear when the event will be held.

    Born in Agana, Guam, Wilkinson had been an associate judge for the Washington County Circuit Court since January 2020, according to his court biography.

    Neil C. Parrott, a former delegate in the Maryland House of Delegates, mourned Wilkinson as a well-liked and respected member of the community with “a contagious smile.”

    “Judge Wilkinson was an exceptional judge and was a pillar in our community,” Parrott said in a statement. “The events tonight are catastrophic for Washington County, for Maryland, and for our justice system. Judge Wilkinson served faithfully and will be severely missed.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court returns to Washington to face a new term and the fresh reality that critics increasingly view the court as a political body.

    In the wake of a series of controversial decisions made possible by former President Donald Trump’s three nominees, including the seismic reversal of Roe v. Wade, the justices find themselves catapulted into the very center of the political discourse.

    Their opinions feature prominently on the campaign trail, approval ratings have plummeted to new lows and Democrats in Congress are vowing to regulate the third branch in the midst of allegations justices are skirting ethics rules and attacks on the very legitimacy of the court.

    So far, they have struggled to respond. At public appearances they grasp at the promise of judicial independence while sending mixed signals about changes that might be afoot.

    Tuesday, the justices will meet in person for their first closed-door conference of the term.

    Chief Justice John Roberts is at the center of it all.

    How he navigates this term will shape the trajectory of his tenure going forward. Some say he’ll remain on the sidelines, out of the fray. Others say he cannot afford to do so.

    Earlier this year, Roberts declined an invitation to appear before the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Supreme Court ethics, citing separation of powers concerns. In May, speaking before an audience in Washington, Roberts said he wanted to assure the public that the court is committed to adhering to the “highest standards of conduct.”

    It was one line in one speech.

    But at the end of June, as controversy continued amid a raft of high-profile decisions that largely broke along ideological lines, Roberts made an unusual choice. In a 6-3 opinion striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, the chief strayed from the case at hand.

    He said that it had become a “disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of government.”

    He appeared to be responding to the dissent penned by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper limited role in our Nation’s governance,” Kagan began.

    Noting her disagreement, Roberts took the occasion to write, “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement.” He added: “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote.

    It was unclear if the line was directed at his dissenting colleagues or critics outside of court or both, but it was an unusual digression from a justice who, by definition, lacks an obvious pulpit to defend his branch of government.

    The way forward for Roberts is not obvious.

    Even if he did believe a formal ethics code is necessary, it’s unclear whether he would need a unanimous vote to move forward. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might, for instance, balk at such a move arguing that it would never satisfy critics whose true goal is to damage the institution.

    Some believe Roberts ultimately will steer clear of the controversy.

    “I don’t see him moving in any direction to encourage further disclosure reforms, and I don’t see Congress as being able to get sufficient traction,” Cate Stetson, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells, said at the Cato Institute earlier this month.

    But if the court does nothing, pressure will continue.

    Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat, traveled to the Supreme Court on September 12 as an invited guest to the annual meeting of the Judicial Conference – the policymaking body for the federal courts.

    Sitting next to the chief justice on Roberts’ home turf, Durbin lobbied him to adopt an enforceable code of conduct directed specifically at the justices, according to a source.

    Roberts and others have continuously stressed how difficult it would be to adopt such a code, particularly when it comes to recusal issues.

    In April, all nine justices released a new statement hoping to provide “clarity” to the public about their ethics procedures, noting that they consult a “wide variety of authorities” when addressing specific ethics issues. They noted that while the Judicial Conference has a code of conduct followed by lower court judges, the conference “does not supervise the Supreme Court.”

    The statement outlined complications that distinguish the Supreme Court from the lower courts.

    At the lower court level, for instance, federal judges can substitute for each other if one judge recuses from a case. That’s not true at the high court where only members can hear a dispute.

    The statement did little to appease critics who say the justices can no longer continue to voluntarily follow rules that govern lower court judges. They must, critics say, have a code of conduct that binds them directly.

    Response from the bench

    Some conservatives believe there is no impending judicial crisis. Instead, they say, critics of the court are manufacturing a controversy to delegitimize the institution and staunch the flow of conservative opinions.

    Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, who is also a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted recently that the problem is not corruption.

    “The problem is the coordinated campaign by dark money activists, radical politicians, and a willing media to imply there is corruption, undermining the Court’s integrity and selectively smearing the justices they disagree with,” she wrote.

    Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, has taken a radically different approach than the chief justice.

    In an interview in July that appeared on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, Alito said forthrightly that Congress should stay out of the Supreme Court’s business.

    “I know this is controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” he said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

    Alito said that he marveled “at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year” and noted that in the face of a political onslaught he was rejecting the notion that judges and justices “should be mute” and leave it to others to defend them.

    “I’ve said to myself, nobody else is going to do this, so I have to defend myself,” he wrote.

    A month earlier he sought to preempt a ProPublica report that had not yet been published concerning allegations that he should have disclosed luxury travel from 2008.

    Over the summer, other justices were asked about ethics and the court’s legitimacy by friendly questioners at universities and judicial conferences – although they never addressed specifics.

    Unlike Alito, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in August that here was some daylight on the question of whether Congress has a role to regulate the Supreme Court. Last week, she told an audience in Indiana that she thought it would be a “good” idea if the court were to adapt the ethics code used by lower court justices to fit the Supreme Court.

    For her part, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that criticism of the court is nothing new. At an appearance before a judicial conference in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, she said that “critiques of the court” are part of its history. Public criticism “comes with the job” she said.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a different message in Ohio saying he was “hopeful” that there would be some “concrete steps” taken soon to address the ethics issue.

    But his sentiment may have been aspirational.

    As the justices grapple with how to respond, they are hampered by an additional factor.

    Change at the high court comes slowly. The court’s unofficial mascot – the tortoise – can be found at the bottom of bronze lampposts on the building grounds. The tortoises are meant to symbolize the slow and steady pace of justice.

    Almost nothing at the high court comes quickly, and the institution is not new to controversy. The justices may decide to ride out the storm.

    Source link

  • Trump claims he can’t get a fair trial in DC as latest indictment dominates GOP primary | CNN Politics

    Trump claims he can’t get a fair trial in DC as latest indictment dominates GOP primary | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump, who is facing charges in Washington, DC for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election, claimed on Sunday that he wouldn’t receive a fair trial in the nation’s capital as he continues to rail against his latest indictment.

    “No way I can get a fair trial, or even close to a fair trial, in Washington, D.C. There are many reasons for this, but just one is that I am calling for a federal takeover of this filthy and crime ridden embarrassment to our nation,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

    If he were to ask in court to move his federal criminal case out of Washington, DC, the former president would join three dozen January 6, 2021, riot defendants who have asked to move their cases out of DC.

    No judges – even those appointed by Trump – have ever agreed. And appeals courts and other judges have overwhelmingly kept high-profile cases in the districts where charges are filed.

    Several January 6 defendants have argued that there’s been too much pretrial publicity in DC for a fair trial and that the jury pool in the city would be too biased.

    But the Supreme Court has previously held that trials can still be fair even if they have received widespread publicity, and the DC District Court has used specific questioning of potential jurors and instructions to try to ensure fair trials for January 6 defendants.

    Just last week, prosecutors argued against a Capitol riot defendant’s change of venue request in the DC federal court, arguing that many politically known defendants, including Trump’s adviser Roger Stone, have been fairly tried in the downtown Washington courthouse.

    The court also refused to move the trial of the co-conspirators of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, at a time when the city was also voting heavily Democratic.

    “The fact that most District residents voted against Donald Trump does not mean those residents could not impartially consider the evidence against those charged in connection with the events on January 6,” Justice Department prosecutors wrote in a court filing at the end of July – an assertion that the judges of the DC District Court have widely agreed.

    Still, Trump attorney John Lauro on Sunday cast doubt on the idea that Trump could receive a fair trial in the nation’s capital. In an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation,” Lauro suggested West Virginia as a more diverse alternative.

    “We would like a diverse venue. A diverse jury … that reflects the characteristics of the American people,” Lauro said. Speaking to CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday, Lauro also advocated for cameras in the courtroom in order to show the public “what kind of prosecution is going on.”

    When Lauro expressed similar concerns about a fair trial at Trump’s arraignment last week, the magistrate judge responded: “I can guarantee everybody that there will be a fair process and fair trial in this court. So let me just respond to that comment, Mr. Lauro, I’m certain of that.”

    The DC appeals court has found that voting patterns shouldn’t play into where a trial is held and that national news coverage can work against the need to move a trial.

    “Scandal at the highest levels of the federal government is simply not a local crime of peculiar interest to the residents of the District of Columbia,” the DC Circuit Court of Appeals found about the Watergate conspirators’ trial in 1976.

    DC jurors on major January 6 cases, including an Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy case, sometimes spend days deliberating and have delivered nuanced verdicts, including some acquittals.

    Trump’s latest indictment comes against the backdrop of the 2024 GOP primary contest. Republican candidates have largely sought to walk a fine line between knocking the former president’s growing legal troubles and not alienating his base of supporters.

    GOP presidential hopeful Chris Christie on Sunday touted his experience as a prosecutor in the heavily Democratic state of New Jersey on Sunday as he told Bash he always got convictions on political corruption cases.

    “So my view is, yeah, I believe jurors can be fair. I believe in the American people. And I believe in the fact that jurors will listen fairly and impartially,” Christie said.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence, who recently made his sharpest condemnation of Trump, told CBS on Sunday he “would hope” Trump can receive a fair trial in Washington.

    Notably, according to the law in DC determined during the Watergate conspirators’ case and other appeals court decisions, defendants can ask for a change of venue, but if they are denied, they can’t appeal it until after the trial takes place.

    That’s one reason why the January 6 defendants’ trials have gone forward without delay even though so many attempted to move their cases out of Washington, DC.

    Other high-profile cases where defendants have tried and failed to move their cases then also failed to overturn their convictions later with appeals include the Enron-related trial of Jeffrey Skilling in Houston and Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev, who was tried in Boston.

    Source link

  • Biden administration defends communications with social media companies in high-stakes court fight | CNN Business

    Biden administration defends communications with social media companies in high-stakes court fight | CNN Business


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration on Thursday defended its communications with social media giants in court, arguing those channels must stay open so that the federal government can help protect the public from threats to election security, Covid-19 misinformation and other dangers.

    The closely watched court fight reflects how social media has become an informational battleground for major social issues. It has revealed the messy challenges for social media companies as they try to manage the massive amounts of information on their platforms.

    And it has highlighted warnings by independent researchers, watchdog groups and government officials that malicious actors will continue to try to disrupt the country’s democracy by flooding the internet with bogus and divisive material ahead of the 2024 elections.

    In oral arguments before a New Orleans-based federal appeals court, the US government challenged a July injunction that blocked several federal agencies from discussing certain social media posts and sharing other information with online platforms, amid allegations by state governments that those communications amounted to a form of unconstitutional censorship.

    The appeals court last month temporarily blocked the injunction from taking effect. But the outcome of Thursday’s arguments will determine the ultimate fate of the order, which placed new limits on the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and other federal agencies’ ability to coordinate with tech companies and civil society groups.

    If upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the injunction would suppress a broad range of public-private partnerships and undermine the US government’s mission to protect the public, the Biden administration argued.

    “For example, if there were a natural disaster, and there were untrue statements circulating on social media that were damaging to the public interest, the government would be powerless under the injunction to discourage social media companies from further disseminating those incorrect statements,” said Daniel Tenny, a Justice Department lawyer.

    Now, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit is set to decide how executive agencies may respond to those threats.

    At issue is whether the US government unconstitutionally pressured social media platforms into censoring users’ speech, particularly when the government flagged posts to the platforms that it believed violated the companies’ own terms of service.

    During more than an hour of oral arguments Thursday, the three judges handling the appeal gave little indication of how they would rule in the case, with one judge asking just a couple of questions during the hearing. The other two spent much of the time pressing attorneys for the Biden administration and the plaintiffs in the case on issues concerning the scope of the injunction and whether the states even had the legal right – or standing – to bring the lawsuit.

    Before them is not only the request to reverse the lower court injunction, but also one from the administration to issue a more lasting pause on that injunction while the judges weigh the challenge to it.

    In briefs submitted to the court ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the Biden administration argued that a lower court judge was wrong to have identified the government communications with social media companies as potentially, in his words, “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ [sic] history.”

    “There is a categorical, well-settled distinction between persuasion and coercion,” the administration’s lawyers wrote, adding that the lower court “equated legitimate efforts at persuasion with illicit efforts to coerce.”

    The administration’s opponents in the case, which include the states of Missouri and Louisiana, have argued that the federal government’s communications with social media companies are a violation of the First Amendment because even “‘encouragement short of compulsion’ can transform private conduct [by social media companies] into government action” that infringes on users’ speech rights.

    “Every one of these federal agencies has insinuated themselves into the content moderation decisions of major social media platforms,” D. John Sauer, an attorney representing the state of Louisiana, told the judges on Thursday. Hypothetically speaking, he added: “The Surgeon General can say, ‘All this speech is terrible, it’s awful.’ …. But what he can’t do is pick up the phone and say, ‘Take it down.’”

    In addition to the states, five individuals are also plaintiffs in the suit. They include three doctors who have been critical of state and federal pandemic-era restrictions, a Louisiana woman who claims she was censored by social media companies for her online criticisms of Covid health measures and a man who runs a far-right website known for pushing conspiracy theories.

    Much of Thursday’s oral arguments hinged on the definition of coercive communication and how courts have analyzed government pressure against private parties in past cases.

    But the states also claimed that there could be a pathway to finding a constitutional violation if the court agreed that social media companies, in heeding the administration’s calls to action, had been effectively turned into agents of the US government.

    In the past month, after District Judge Terry Doughty issued his injunction, current and former US officials, along with outside researchers and academics, have worried that the order could lead to a chilling effect for efforts to protect US elections.

    “There is no serious dispute that foreign adversaries have and continue to attempt to interfere in our elections and that they use social media to do it,” FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to the House Judiciary Committee in July. “President Trump himself in 2018 declared a national emergency to that very effect, and the Senate Intelligence Committee — in a bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan way — not only found the same thing but called for more information-sharing between us and the social media.”

    Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, the panel’s chair, remains unconvinced. Earlier this week, he and other Republican lawmakers filed their own brief to the appeals court, accusing the Biden administration of a campaign to stifle speech.

    “On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes—including memes and jokes,” Jordan and the other lawmakers wrote. “Of course, Big Tech companies often required little coercion to do the Administration’s bidding on some issues. Generally eager to please their ideological allies and overseers in the federal government, these companies and other private entities have repeatedly censored accurate speech on important public issues.”

    Source link

  • Federal court strikes down Alabama congressional map after legislature snubbed Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    Federal court strikes down Alabama congressional map after legislature snubbed Supreme Court | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A federal court blocked a newly drawn Alabama congressional map on Tuesday because it didn’t create a second majority-Black district as the Supreme Court had ordered earlier this year.

    In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel, which had overseen the case before it reached the Supreme Court, the judges wrote that they were “disturbed” by Alabama’s actions in the case.

    The state had snubbed the Supreme Court’s order – a surprise 5-4 decision in June – that the maps should be redrawn. White voters currently make up the majority in six of the state’s seven congressional districts, although 27% of the state’s population is Black.

    “We are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” wrote the judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

    Alabama officials on Tuesday filed notice that they are appealing the ruling.

    “While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we strongly believe that the Legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” the office of Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall said in a statement. “We intend to promptly seek review from the Supreme Court to ensure that the State can use its lawful congressional districts in 2024 and beyond.”

    Alabama officials also asked the three-judge court to freeze its opinion invalidating the congressional map but said they will formally ask the Supreme Court for a stay on Thursday.

    This redistricting battle – and separate, pending litigation over congressional maps in states such as Georgia and Florida – could determine which party controls the US House of Representatives after next year’s elections. Republicans currently hold a razor-thin majority in the chamber.

    The three federal judges overseeing the Alabama case on Tuesday ordered a special master to submit three proposed maps that would create a second Black-majority district by September 25.

    The panel wrote that it was “not aware of any other case” in which a state legislature had responded to being ordered to a draw map with a second majority-minority district by creating one that the state itself admitted didn’t create the required district.

    “The law requires the creation of an additional district that affords Black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” and Alabama’s new map, they wrote, “plainly fails to do so.”

    JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, which has been fighting the case, praised the ruling: “Elected officials ignored their responsibilities and chose to violate our democracy. We hope the court’s special master helps steward a process that ensures a fair map that Black Alabamians and our state deserve.”

    This summer, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, had affirmed an earlier decision by the three-judge panel and ordered the state to redraw congressional maps to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

    The Supreme Court’s surprise decision in Alabama – coming after the right-leaning high court has chipped away at other parts of the Voting Rights Act in recent years – has given fresh hope to voting rights activists and Democrats that they could prevail in challenges to other maps they view as discriminating against minorities.

    But the new map approved by Alabama’s Republican-dominated legislature – and signed into law by GOP Gov. Kay Ivey – in July created only one majority-Black district and boosted the share of Black voters in a second district from roughly 30% to nearly 40%.

    The pending cases center on whether GOP state legislators drew congressional maps after the 2020 census that weakened the power of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    Republicans control all statewide offices in Alabama and all but one congressional seat. The single Black-majority congressional district is represented by Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell, the state’s first Black woman elected to Congress.

    Alabama officials have argued that the map as redrawn by state lawmakers was aimed at maintaining traditional guidelines for congressional redistricting, such as keeping together communities of interest. And they have signaled that they hope to sway one of the Supreme Court justices who sided with the majority in June.

    The state’s briefs before the three-judge panel referenced a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh – one of the two conservatives who sided with the liberal justices on the high court to vote against the original Alabama map – that questioned whether “race-based redistricting” can “extend indefinitely into the future.”

    The lower-court judges weren’t convinced by the state’s arguments.

    They wrote that after reviewing the concurrence, as well as a part of the Supreme Court’s ruling which Kavanaugh didn’t join, “We do not understand either of those writings as undermining any aspect of the Supreme Court’s affirmance; if they did, the Court would not have affirmed the injunction.”

    The judges also rejected Alabama’s argument that drawing a second Black-majority district would unconstitutionally constitute “affirmative action in redistricting.”

    “Unlike affirmative action in the admissions programs the Supreme Court analyzed in [this year’s affirmative action case], which was expressly aimed at achieving balanced racial outcomes in the makeup of the universities’ student bodies, the Voting Rights Act guarantees only ‘equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minority-preferred candidates of whatever race,’” the panel wrote.

    “The Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for Black voters – it merely prevents them from being kept down with regard to what is arguably the most ‘fundamental political right,’ in that it is ‘preservative of all rights’ – the right to vote.”

    Earlier, in a letter to state lawmakers, Marshall had argued that a separate Supreme Court ruling in June – after the high court’s Alabama redistricting decision came down – that ended affirmative action in college admissions meant that using a map in which “race predominates” would open up the state to claims that it was violating the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    Source link

  • US regulator seeks court order to compel Elon Musk to testify about his Twitter acquisition | CNN Business

    US regulator seeks court order to compel Elon Musk to testify about his Twitter acquisition | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday applied for a court order to force Elon Musk to testify in an ongoing probe related to his acquisition of Twitter and public disclosures he made in connection with the deal, according to court filings.

    The filing Thursday in San Francisco federal court seeks a judge’s order requiring Musk to testify, alleging “blatant refusal to comply” with an earlier SEC subpoena.

    X, the company formerly known as Twitter, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The SEC action is the latest turn in a long-running inquiry into whether Musk fully complied with his disclosure obligations when he began acquiring large amounts of Twitter stock, prior to his deal to buy the company. And it underscores years of friction between Musk and the agency over his public comments on numerous matters involving his companies.

    Musk began buying up large amounts of Twitter stock in early 2022, and he revealed on April 4 of that year that he had become the company’s largest shareholder. Later that month, Musk inked a deal to buy the platform for $44 billion and — after a monthslong legal battle attempting to exit the deal — officially closed the acquisition in October of last year. Musk has faced a number of legal challenges related to his Twitter acquisition in the months since his takeover.

    Musk testified twice as part of the SEC’s investigation in July 2022, according to the agency.

    Starting that same month, Musk produced “hundreds of documents” to federal investigators working on the probe, “including documents Musk authored,” according to a declaration by an SEC attorney filed alongside the agency’s court request.

    The SEC served Musk with a subpoena to testify again in the matter in May 2023, according to the court filing. The current subpoena at issue seeks evidence and testimony from Musk that the SEC does not yet possess, the agency said.

    Despite previously agreeing to testify on September 15 and rescheduling the testimony once, Musk “abruptly notified the SEC” two days before his scheduled appearance to say he would not be showing up, the filing states.

    The SEC attempted to negotiate with Musk to find alternative dates later this fall, according to court documents.

    “These good faith efforts were met with Musk’s blanket refusal to appear for testimony,” it adds.

    “The subpoena with which Musk failed to comply relates to an ongoing nonpublic investigation by the SEC,” the filing continued, “regarding whether, among other things, Musk violated various provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with (1) his 2022 purchases of Twitter, Inc (“Twitter”) stock, and (2) his 2022 statements and SEC filings relating to Twitter.”

    When Musk informed the SEC he would not be appearing to testify, his lawyer, Alex Spiro, wrote to the agency on September 13, saying Musk had “already sat for testimony twice in this matter” and that “enough is enough.”

    Spiro’s letter, which was included as an exhibit in the SEC’s court filings, accused regulators of seeking Musk’s testimony in bad faith and attempting to waste Musk’s time.

    In addition, Spiro claimed that the recent release of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk would interfere because it contained “new information potentially relevant to this matter” that would take time for both sides to digest.

    Source link

  • Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics

    Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives expressed doubt at oral arguments Wednesday that South Carolina GOP lawmakers engaged in impermissible racial gerrymandering when they redrew congressional lines for a House seat to benefit Republicans.

    The case is one of several racial and political gerrymandering-related lawsuits that could impact which party controls the House after next year’s congressional elections.

    The district at issue was reworked in 2020 to benefit the GOP and current incumbent, Rep. Nancy Mace – one of the eight Republicans who voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as House speaker last week.

    The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott say the use of race dominated the decision-making process and that the state worked to intentionally dilute the power of Black voters. A federal court agreed, referring to the revised map as “bleaching.”

    Several of the conservative justices on Wednesday suggested that map drawers had taken politics into consideration, not race.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said those challenging the map had “no direct” evidence that race had predominated in the decisionmaking process. He said that there were no “odd-shaped” districts drawn and that there existed a “wealth of political data” that would justify the chosen boundaries. He said the challengers had only presented “circumstantial evidence” and suggested the court would be “breaking new ground” in its voting jurisprudence if it were to side with them.

    Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly suggested that a lower court had made serious legal error in invalidating the map by relying upon erroneous expert testimony. He said the Supreme Court could not “rubber-stamp” the district court’s finding and he noted that the individual charged with drawing the maps had years of experience and had worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

    Alito contended that there was “nothing suspicious” if a map drawer is aware of race as long as it is not a predominant factor when drawing lines.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch said there was “no evidence ” that the legislature could have achieved its “partisan tile in any other way.”

    For their part, the liberals on the court suggested that the Republican-controlled South Carolina Legislature adopted the maps by considering race as a predominant factor, in violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Republicans were launching “pot shots” at the experts who claimed the maps could only be explained by race. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the challengers are not required to produce a “smoking gun” to prove their point.

    The dispute comes as the justices this year ordered Alabama to redraw its congressional map to account for the states’ 27% Black voting population. That decision, penned by Roberts, came as a welcome relief to liberals who feared that the court was poised to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act. A federal court approved a new map last week that significantly boosts the Black population in a second district, which could lead to the pickup of a Democratic seat next year.

    The South Carolina case raises different questions rooted in the Constitution concerning when a state crosses the line between permissible partisan goals and illegal racial discrimination.

    The state chapter of the NAACP and Scott are challenging the state’s 1st Congressional District, located along the southeastern coast and anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset.

    Two years later a Republican candidate, Mace, regained the seat in a close race. When the state House and Senate began considering congressional reapportionment in 2021, the Republican majorities sought to create a stronger GOP tilt in the district, one of seven in the state. A new map could make the seat more competitive.

    After an eight-day trial featuring 42 witnesses and 652 exhibits, a three-judge district court panel in January held that District 1 amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because race was the predominant factor in the district’s reapportionment plan.

    “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.” The court referred at one point to the “bleaching” of Black voters out of the Charleston County portion of the district.

    “State legislators are free to consider a broad array of factors in the design of a legislative district, including partisanship, but they may not use race as a predominant factor and may not use partisanship as a proxy for race,” the court concluded.

    South Carolina Republicans, led by state Senate President Thomas Alexander, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the maps had not been drawn impermissibly based on race, but instead with politics in mind.

    The person who devised the map testified in federal court that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race while drawing the lines. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting-age population of the district was viewed during the drafting process.

    “If left uncorrected, the panel’s holding would place States in an impossible bind by exposing them to potential racial gerrymandering liability whenever they decline to make majority-white, modestly-majority Republican districts majority-Democratic,” argued John Gore, a lawyer for the Republicans.

    Mace filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the high court in support of the Republicans, charging that the lower court “ignored one of the most important traditional districting principles – the preservation of the core of existing districts.”

    Joined by other GOP members of Congress from South Carolina, Mace argued that constituent services, voter education and the seniority of long-serving members of the House are “vital interests” and that the lower court was “bent on destroying the legislatures’ duly enacted and carefully negotiated map.”

    Lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund told the justices in court papers that the state impermissibly used race as a predominant factor when drawing the district.

    “Using race as the predominant means to sort voters is unconstitutional even if done for partisan goals,” they argued.

    They said the lower court made clear that the state “intentionally exiled more than 30,000 Black Charlestonians from CD1 predominately because of their race.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court allows Biden administration to continue fully enforcing ghost gun regulations | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court allows Biden administration to continue fully enforcing ghost gun regulations | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Biden administration to continue regulating so-called ghost guns – untraceable homemade weapons – as firearms under federal law.

    The court’s brief order grants the Justice Department’s request to wipe away a lower court order and allow the regulations to remain in effect while a legal challenge brought by firearm manufacturers continues to play out in the lower courts.

    There were no noted dissents to the order.

    Ghost guns are kits that a user can buy online to assemble a fully functional firearm. They have no serial numbers, do not require background checks and provide no transfer records for easy traceability. Critics say they are attractive to people who are legally prohibited from buying firearms.

    In the Justice Department’s emergency application to the justices, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out that a district court judge had essentially ignored an order the Supreme Court issued just two months ago.

    Back in August, a 5-4 court sided with the Biden administration in a challenge brought by a group of manufacturers and allowed the regulations to remain in effect while legal challenges play out. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices in the government’s favor.

    After the order was issued, however, a district court judge based in Texas stepped in to block the regulations as applied to two manufacturers. The injunction was then largely upheld by the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In an unusually sharp filing, Prelogar told the justices in an emergency application that the district court and the 5th Circuit “have effectively countermanded this Court’s authoritative determination about the status quo that should prevail during appellate proceedings in this case.”

    The court “should not tolerate that affront,” she wrote.

    “Although there’s no explanation for today’s ruling, it’s hard to see it as anything other than a repudiation of the lower courts for not correctly reading the tea leaves of the court’s August ruling that froze a similar injunction,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “In that sense, it’s just the latest in an increasing line of rulings by the Supreme Court pushing back against district courts in Texas and the 5th Circuit.”

    Prelogar called the lower court ruling “a grave threat to public safety because the lack of background checks makes ghost guns uniquely appealing to felons, minors, and other prohibited persons – and because when ghost guns are inevitably used in crime, they are essentially impossible to trace.”

    In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives updated its regulations to define the kits as firearms under the law so that the government could more carefully track them.

    The rule does not prohibit the sale or possession of any ghost gun kit, nor does it block an individual from purchasing such a kit. Instead, it requires compliance with federal laws that impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. Those conditions include requirements that commercial manufacturers and sellers mark products with serial numbers and keep records to allow law enforcement to trace firearms used in crimes.

    Source link

  • Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Around the country, politicians are waging high-stakes battles over new congressional lines that could influence which party controls the US House of Representatives after the 2024 election.

    In North Carolina, the Republicans who control the state legislature have crafted a map that could help them flip at least three seats. Democrats, meanwhile, could pick up seats in legal skirmishes now playing out in New York, Louisiana, Georgia and other states.

    In all, the fate of anywhere from 14 to 18 House seats across nearly a dozen states could turn on the results of these fights. Republicans currently hold just a five-seat edge in the US House. That razor-edge majority has been underscored in recent weeks by the GOP’s chaotic struggle to elect a new speaker.

    “Given that the majority is so narrow, every outcome matters to the fight for House control in 2024,” said David Wasserman, who follows redistricting closely as senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

    And with fewer competitive districts that swing between the political parties, Wasserman added, “every line change is almost existential.”

    Experts say several other factors have helped lead to the slew of consequential – and unresolved – redistricting disputes, just months before the first primaries of the 2024 cycle.

    They include pandemic-related delays in completing the 2020 census – the once-a-decade population count that kicks off congressional and state legislative redistricting – as well as a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that threw decisions about partisan gerrymandering back to state courts.

    In addition, some litigation had been frozen in place until the US Supreme Court’s surprise ruling in June, which found that a Republican-crafted redistricting plan in Alabama disadvantaged Black voters in the state and was in violation of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    That decision “is functionally reanimating all of these dormant cases,” said Adam Kincaid, the president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which supports the GOP’s redistricting efforts.

    Kincaid said it’s too soon to tell whether Republicans or Democrats will emerge with the advantage by Election Day 2024. In his view, either party could gain or lose only about two seats over redistricting.

    In many of the closely watched states where action is pending, just a single seat hangs in the balance, with two notable exceptions: North Carolina and New York, where multiple seats are at stake. Republicans control the map-drawing in the Tar Heel State, while the job could fall to Democrats in New York, potentially canceling out each party’s gains.

    “Democrats kind of need to run the table in the rest of these states” to gain any edge, said Nick Seabrook, a political scientist at the University of North Florida and the author of the 2022 book “One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America.”

    Here’s a state-by-state look at recent and upcoming redistricting disputes that could shape the 2024 race for control of the US House:

    In one of the cycle’s highest-profile redistricting cases, a three-judge panel in Alabama approved a map that creates a second congressional district with a substantial Black population. Before the court action, Alabama – which is 27% Black – had only one Black-majority congressional district out of seven seats.

    The fight over the map went all the way to the Supreme Court – which issued a surprise ruling, affirming a lower-court opinion that ordered Alabama to include a second Black-majority district or “something quite close to it.” Under the map that will be in place for the 2024 election, the state’s 2nd District now loops into Mobile to create a seat where nearly half the population is Black.

    The high court’s 5-4 decision in June saw two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, side with the three liberals to uphold the lower-court ruling. Their action kept intact a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act: that it’s illegal to draw maps that effectively keep Black voters from electing a candidate of their choice.

    The ruling has reverberated around the country and could affect the outcome of similar court cases underway in Louisiana and Georgia that center on whether Republican-drawn maps improperly diluted Black political power in those states.

    Given that Black voters in Alabama have traditionally backed Democrats, the party now stands a better chance of winning the newly reconfigured district and sending to of its members to Congress after next year’s elections.

    The new map – approved in recent days by the lower-court judges – also could result in two Black US House members from Alabama serving together for the first time in state history.

    A state judge in September struck down congressional lines for northern Florida that had been championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, ruling that the Republican governor’s map had improperly diluted Black voting power.

    This case, unlike the Alabama fight decided by the US Supreme Court, centers on provisions in the state constitution.

    The judge concluded that the congressional boundaries – which essentially dismantled a seat once held by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, that connected Black communities across a northern reach of the Florida – violated the state’s Fair Districts amendments, enacted by voters. One amendment specifically bars the state from drawing a district that diminishes the ability of racial minorities “to elect representatives of their choice.”

    Arguments before an appeals court are slated for later this month, with litigants seeking a decision by late November. The case is expected to land before the all-Republican state Supreme Court, where DeSantis appointees hold most seats.

    A separate federal case – which argues that the map violates the US Constitution – is pending.

    But observers say the outcome of the state litigation is more likely than the federal case to determine whether Florida lawmakers must restore the North Florida district, given the state constitution’s especially strong protections for the voting rights of racial minorities and the lower burden of proof required to establish that those rights were abridged.

    A redistricting case now before a federal judge could create a more competitive seat for Democrats in the Atlanta suburbs.

    The plaintiffs challenging the congressional map drawn by Georgia Republicans argue that the increasingly diverse population in the Peach State should result in an additional Black-majority district, this one in the western Atlanta metro area. A trial in the case recently concluded and awaits a final ruling by US District Judge Steve Jones.

    In 2022, Jones preliminarily ruled that some parts of the Republicans’ redistricting plan likely violated federal law but allowed the map to be used in that year’s midterm elections.

    A separate federal case in Georgia challenges the congressional map on constitutional grounds and is slated to go to trial next month.

    Currently, Republicans hold nine of the 14 seats in Georgia’s congressional delegation. Black people make up a majority, or close to it, in four districts, including three in the Atlanta area.

    The Kentucky Supreme Court could soon decide whether a map drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature amounts to what Democrats assert is an “extreme partisan” gerrymander in violation of the state’s constitution.

    Much of the case focuses on disputes over state legislative maps, but the congressional lines also are at stake, with critics saying lawmakers moved Kentucky’s capital city – Democratic-leaning Frankfort – out of the 6th Congressional District and into an oddly shaped – and solidly Republican – 1st District to help shore up Republican odds of holding the 6th District.

    The 6th District, represented by GOP Rep. Andy Barr, was one of the more competitive seats in Kentucky under its previous lines. (Democrat Amy McGrath came within 3 points of beating Barr in 2018; last year, Barr won a sixth term under the new lines by 29 points.)

    A lower-court judge already has ruled that the Republican-drawn map does not violate the state’s constitution.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama could pave the way for a new congressional map in Louisiana ahead of the 2024 election, but the case has quickly become mired in appeals.

    Although Black people make up roughly a third of the state’s population, Louisiana has just one Black lawmaker in its six-member congressional delegation.

    A federal judge threw out the state’s Republican-drawn map in 2022, saying it likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Republican officials in the state appealed to the US Supreme Court, which put the lower-court ruling on hold until it decided the Alabama case, which it did in June this year.

    Once the high court weighed in on the Alabama case, the legal skirmishes again lurched to life in Louisiana.

    Louisiana Republicans have filed an appeal with the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and successfully halted a district court hearing to discuss imposing a new, court-ordered map.

    On Thursday, the US Supreme Court declined to allow the federal district judge to move forward with discussions about drawing a new map while the appeal advances through the courts.

    GOP state officials say, among other things, that they are seeking time to redraw the map themselves. Critics of the state’s original map argue that Republicans are using legal maneuvers to delay a new redistricting plan, which could result in a second Democratic-leaning seat.

    Legal battles that drag on risk judges invoking the so-called Purcell Principle, a doctrine that limits changing voting procedures and boundaries too close to Election Day to guard against voter confusion.

    “Some of the reason it becomes too late is because, in many of these cases, the state is prolonging the litigation … and buying more time with an illegal map,” said Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

    Republicans in New Mexico say the congressional lines drawn by the Democrats who control state government amount to an illegal gerrymander under the state’s constitution.

    At stake: a swing district along the US border with Mexico. If Republicans prevail, the seat – now held by a Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez – could become more favorable to Republicans.

    A state judge recently upheld the map drawn by Democrats, but the New Mexico Supreme Court is expected to review that order on appeal.

    Republicans flipped four US House seats in New York in the 2022 midterm elections, victories that helped secure their party’s majority in the chamber.

    Current legal fights in the Empire State over redistricting, however, could erase those gains.

    A state court judge oversaw last year’s process of drawing the current map following a long legal battle and the inability of New York’s bipartisan redistricting commission to agree on new lines. But Democrats scored a court victory earlier this year when a state appellate court ruled that the redistricting commission should draw new lines.

    Republicans have appealed that decision, and oral arguments are set for mid-November before New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. The commission’s map-making also is on hold.

    If Democrats prevail, it could make it easier for their party to pick up as many as six seats now held by Republicans.

    North Carolina’s legislature, where Republicans hold a supermajority, has drawn new congressional lines that observers say could prove a windfall for the GOP and boost the party’s chances of retaining its House majority next year.

    The state’s current House delegation is split 7-7 between Democrats and Republicans.

    A map that state lawmakers recently approved puts three House Democrats in what one expert called “almost impossible to win” districts.

    The affected Democrats are Reps. Jeff Jackson, who currently represents a Charlotte-area district; Wiley Nickel, who holds a Raleigh-area seat; and Kathy Manning, who represents Greensboro and other parts of north-central North Carolina.

    A fourth Democrat, Rep. Don Davis, saw his district retooled to become more friendly toward Republicans while remaining competitive for both parties.

    State-level gains in the 2022 midterm elections have given the GOP new sway over redistricting in this swing state. Last year, Republicans flipped North Carolina’s Supreme Court, whose members are chosen in partisan elections. The new GOP majority on the court this year tossed out a 2022 ruling by the then-Democratic leaning court against partisan gerrymandering.

    A map that had been created after the Democratic-led high court’s ruling resulted in the current even split in the state’s House delegation.

    Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper does not have veto power over redistricting legislation.

    A redistricting case pending before the US Supreme Court centers on the future of a Charleston-area seat held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, who made headlines recently for joining House GOP hard-liners in voting to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

    Earlier this year, a three-judge panel concluded that lines for the coastal 1st Congressional District, as drawn by state GOP lawmakers, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    The Republican lawmakers appealed to the US Supreme Court. And, during oral arguments earlier this month, several justices in the court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism that South Carolina officials had engaged in an improper racial gerrymander and seemed inclined to reinstate the lawmakers’ map.

    The state Supreme Court, in a case it heard in July, is considering whether it even has the authority to weigh in on map-drawing decisions by the GOP-controlled state legislature.

    Republican state officials argue that the court’s power over redistricting decisions is limited.

    Advocacy groups and a handful of voters are challenging a congressional map that further carved up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County between four decidedly Republican districts.

    Doing so, the plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit, “takes a slice of Salt Lake County and grafts it onto large swaths of the rest of Utah,” allowing Republican voters in rural areas and smaller cities far away from Salt Lake to “dictate the outcome of elections.”

    Redistricting fights over congressional maps are ongoing in several other states – ranging from Texas to Tennessee – but those cases might not be resolved in time to affect next year’s elections.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, revived the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines that prioritize which noncitizens to deport, dismissing a challenge from two Republican state attorneys general who argued the policies conflicted with immigration law.

    The court said the states, Texas and Louisiana, did not have the “standing,” or the legal right, to sue in the first place in a decision that will further clarify when a state can challenge a federal policy in court going forward.

    The ruling is a major victory for President Joe Biden and the White House, who have consistently argued the need to prioritize who they detain and deport given limited resources. By ruling against the states, the court tightened the rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies with which they disagree. The Biden administration policy was put on pause by a federal judge nearly two years ago and the Supreme Court declined to lift that hold last year.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote Friday’s majority opinion in the case.

    “In sum, the states have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.”

    Kavanaugh said that the executive branch has traditional discretion over whether to take enforcement actions under federal law. He said that if the court were to allow the states to bring the lawsuit at hand, it would “entail expansive judicial direction” of the executive’s arrest policy and would open the door to more lawsuits from states that think the executive is not doing enough to enforce the law in other areas such as drug and gun regulation and obstruction of justice laws.

    “We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path,” Kavanaugh said.

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the administration welcomes the court’s ruling and that his department looks forward to using the immigration guidelines.

    The guidelines “enable DHS to most effectively accomplish its law enforcement mission with the authorities and resources provided by Congress,” Mayorkas said.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring an opinion that concluded that the states also lacked standing, but for different reasons than the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

    At the heart of the dispute was a September 2021 memo from Mayorkas that laid out priorities for the apprehension and removal of certain non-citizens, reversing efforts by former President Donald Trump to increase deportations.

    In his memo, Mayorkas stated that there are approximately 11 million undocumented or otherwise removable non-citizens in the country and that the United States does not have the ability to apprehend and seek to remove all of them. As such, the Department of Homeland Security sought to prioritize those who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security.  

    Kavanaugh’s opinion stressed that the standing doctrine “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper – and properly limited – role in our constitutional system.” He said that by ensuring a party has standing to sue, “federal courts prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”

    The majority did not address the underlying question of whether the administration had the authority to implement the policy.

    “We take no position on whether the executive branch here is complying with its legal obligations under §1226(c) and §1231(a)(2),” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the relevant immigration statutes. “We hold only that the federal courts are not the proper forum to resolve this dispute.”

    Kavanaugh pointed out that five presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.

    In his sole dissent, Alito wrote that this “sweeping executive power endorsed by today’s decision may at first be warmly received by champions of a strong Presidential power, but if presidents can expand their powers as far as they can manage in a test of strength with Congress, presumably Congress can cut executive power as much as it can manage by wielding the formidable weapons at its disposal.”

    “That is not what the Constitution envisions,” he wrote.

    Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who filed an amicus brief in the immigration case, noted that Friday’s ruling was the second decision within the last week in which the court “held that red states lacked standing to challenge a federal policy – perhaps a signal of dissatisfaction with how liberally lower courts, especially the Fifth Circuit, have permitted these challenges to go forward.”

    “And it’s the second in the last two years in which it has reversed a nationwide injunction against a Biden immigration policy in a suit brought by Texas,” Vladeck said. “When states are the right plaintiffs to challenge federal policies is also one of the central issues before the court in the challenges to Biden’s student loan program – in which the court is expected to rule next week.”

    Kavanaugh’s opinion emphasized that, in “holding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing, we do not suggest that federal courts may never entertain cases involving the executive branch’s alleged failure to make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”

    In court, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stressed that Congress has never provided the funds to detain everyone, prompting different administrations to consider how to prioritize limited funds. She noted that the executive branch retains the authority to focus its “limited resources” on non-citizens who are higher priorities for removal and warned that if the states were to prevail, it would “scramble” immigration enforcement on the ground, leading to a totally unmanageable landscape. She said the states’ view in the case was a “senseless” way to run an immigration system.

    “I think that that is bad for the executive branch. I think it’s bad for the American public and I think it’s bad for Article Three courts,” she said.  

    The guidelines call for an assessment of the “totality of the facts and circumstances” instead of the development of a bright-line rule. The government lists aggravating factors weighing in favor of an enforcement action, including the gravity of the offense and the use of a firearm, but it also lists mitigating factors that include the age of the immigrant. 

    Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, representing Texas and Louisiana, argued that the administration lacked the authority to issue the memo because it conflicts with existing federal law. He accused the government of treating immigration law in the area as “discretionary” and not “mandatory” and argued that the executive branch lacks the authority to “disregard” Congress’ instruction.

    “The states prove their standing at trial based on harms well recognized,” Stone said, emphasizing the costs incurred when the government “violates federal law.”

    A district court judge blocked the guidelines nationwide. “Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization’ the executive branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” ruled Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee on the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “The law does not sanction this approach.” 

    A federal appeals court declined to issue a stay of the decision, prompting the Biden administration to ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief last July. A 5-4 court ruled against the administration, allowing the lower court’s decision to remain in effect while the legal challenge played out.

    Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her three liberal colleagues in dissent without providing any explanation for her vote.  

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Source link

  • Prince Harry gives tense testimony in historic courtroom battle against British media | CNN Business

    Prince Harry gives tense testimony in historic courtroom battle against British media | CNN Business


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Prince Harry has become the first senior British royal to give evidence on a witness stand in 132 years, as his bitter fight against the UK’s tabloid press came to a head in tense courtroom showdown on Tuesday.

    Harry is suing a big British newspaper group, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), alleging the publisher’s journalists hacked his phone and used other illicit means to gather information about his life between 1996 and 2009.

    Follow live updates from the courtroom here.

    As the landmark hearing got underway at the High Court in London, Prince Harry answered questions in a measured, almost hushed tone. He appeared nervous at first, and was at one point asked to raise his voice.

    He faced forensic and detailed questioning from MGN’s lawyer, Andrew Green who probed him on the specifics of his claims and occasionally left him scrambling to recall sections of his written statement or find pieces of evidence.

    But the Duke of Sussex brought to court an overriding argument that he has previously made on television programs and in podcast interviews: that the media’s intrusion and tactics caused him significant distress and wrecked some of his closest relationships.

    And he increasingly asserted himself as the testimony wore on, clashing at times with the publisher’s lawyer as they dissected reams of press coverage and legalese.

    “Some editors and journalists do have blood on their hands” for the distress caused to him, Harry told the court at one point – and “perhaps, inadvertently death,” he added, in reference to his mother Princess Diana.

    Here’s what we learned as Harry began giving evidence on Tuesday.

    Tuesday’s courtroom session touched on dozens of snippets from Harry’s youth, repeated aloud in court as the prince and MGN’s lawyer parsed over the fine details of several news articles.

    Harry’s diagnosis with the “kissing disease,” also known as mono; his teenage trips to the pub; his broken thumb and a back injury sustained in a game of polo; his gap year afternoons on the beach; and Princess Diana’s trips to collect him from school – all were all the subject of stories entered into evidence, and each was dissected by Green and the duke.

    Overall, the prince alleges that about 140 articles published in titles belonging to Mirror Group contained information gathered using unlawful methods, and 33 of those articles have been selected to be considered at the trial.

    In the courtroom on Tuesday, Harry said that “every single article has caused me distress.”

    “All of these articles played an important role – a destructive role – in my growing up,” Harry said. The newspapers in question were on constantly display “in every single palace, unfortunately,” while he was growing up. At school, fellow students and others would read the articles, he said. Harry described the level of coverage as “incredibly invasive.”

    Green began by attempting to establish whether Harry remembered reading the articles in question at the time of publication. When the duke conceded he could not always recall, Green pressed him on how he could realistically argue they could have affected him so strongly. It was a theme to which Green would often return.

    In a written statement entered into the court record on Tuesday, Harry expressed concern that his conversations with family and friends may have been intercepted. He noted that he and his brother, Prince William, “naturally discussed personal aspects of our lives as we trusted each other with the private information we shared.”

    He said private information about his life was raised on voicemails left on the phones of his father Charles and his mother Diana.

    Prince Harry at his school, Eton, in 2003. The period being examined in the trial covers Harry's teenage years and his early 20s.

    Harry said that he would discuss “private and sensitive matters regarding our family and personal lives” on voicemails left on the phone of the then Kate Middleton, now the Princess of Wales, he said. The Duke listed a number of other friends with whom he had been in contact, including the late TV presenter Caroline Flack, in his witness statement.

    He said he recalled “unusual mobile activity” relating to his voicemails that he dismissed at the time, but now alleges was caused by phone hacking.

    “I remember on multiple occasions hearing a voicemail for the first time that wasn’t ‘new’,” he wrote. “I would simply put it down to perhaps a technical glitch, as mobile phones were still relatively new back then, or even just having too many drinks the night before (and having forgotten that I’d listened to it).”

    Also in his written statement, Harry argued that the press actively tried to ruin his relationships. “I always felt as if the tabloids wanted me to be single, as I was much more interesting to them and sold more newspapers,” Harry wrote.

    “Whilst they would, of course, report on my successes in life, it seemed to me that they took far greater pleasure in knocking me down, time and time again,” he added.

    Harry claimed that papers would go about that task by putting “strain” on his relationships and creating distrust between him and his partners. He spoke regularly about one of his former girlfriends, Chelsy Davy, alleging journalists would find out about flight details to photograph her at airports, and would book rooms in the same hotels as the couple when they were on vacation.

    The duke evidently believes that continues to be the case since his marriage to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. “This twisted objective is still pursued to this day even though I’m now married,” he wrote.

    There was a throng of media outside the court on Tuesday.

    The atmosphere in court was occasionally tense. “Are we not, Prince Harry, in the realms of total speculation,” Green asked Harry at one point on Tuesday, after an exchange over a story about the teen prince breaking his thumb. Green had quizzed the duke about which specific illicit means of newsgathering Harry was alleging.

    “I’m not the one who wrote the article,” Harry replied.

    “No, but you’re the one who’s bringing the claim,” Green said.

    Earlier in the morning, when discussing Harry’s use of a landline phone to talk to his mother from school, Harry suggested that either that phone or Diana’s could have been hacked.

    “That’s just speculation you’ve come up with now,” Green said in response.

    The exchanges between Harry and Green ultimately settled into a predictable pattern; when a new article was brought up, Green would press Harry on how he could know that the information was obtained illegally, and not through typical means.

    Harry would often respond that he couldn’t fathom how information would have made its way into newspapers without illicit involvement. And he would repeatedly assert that the journalists who wrote the stories, not the subject of the stories, should answer questions about their sourcing.

    There were times during the back-and-forth between Harry and Green when the prince appeared uncomfortable or unaware of the minutiae of his case.

    Harry at one point joked that he was being put through a “workout” by having to repeatedly reach for bundles of evidence, stacked in folders beside him.

    Green offered to arrange for someone to help the prince navigate the evidence, and Harry would often reply “if you say so,” when Green sought to establish details of the articles the prince’s team entered into evidence.

    After a brief mid-morning recess, the judge asked Harry to raise his voice to ensure he could be heard throughout the courtroom, telling the duke that a number of observers in the courtroom had struggled to hear him.

    The questioning was far more intense and detailed than anything Harry has experienced in the many television and podcast interviews he has given on the topic of press intrusion.

    And Green sought to poke a number of holes in Harry’s argument, including that Harry was initially unaware of several specific stories, or that details in those stories could not have come through phone hacking as they had already been reported by other outlets.

    In a lengthy witness statement and over the course of an hours-long testimony, the Duke of Sussex touched on a number of topics. They included:

    The British government: Harry criticized the current Conservative government in his written testimony, in particular for what he described as an overly close relationship with the media.

    “On a national level as, at the moment, our country is judged globally by the state of our press and our government – both of which I believe are at rock bottom,” Harry wrote.

    He added that Rishi Sunak’s government “clearly have no appetite” for press regulation, “because their friends in the press said so.”

    Piers Morgan: The British broadcaster was the editor of The Mirror from 1995 to 2004, and has been intensely critical of the duke and his wife, Meghan, in recent years. “The thought of Piers Morgan and his band of journalists earwigging into my mother’s private and sensitive messages … makes me feel physically sick,” Harry wrote in his evidence.

    He claimed that, in response to his lawsuit, “myself and my wife have been subjected to a barrage of horrific personal attacks and intimidation from Piers Morgan,” suggesting that Morgan has taken the stance “in the hope that I will back down.”

    Morgan has been unapologetic about his criticism of the pair, calling them “repulsive narcissistic hypocrites” in one December tweet.

    The Queen’s concerns: Harry said he had recently learned that Queen Elizabeth II had a member of her staff secretly fly to Australia in 2003, and stay in a house down the road from where Harry was staying on his gap year.

    “She was concerned about the extent of the coverage of my trip and wanted someone I knew to be nearby, in case I needed support,” Harry wrote.

    At the time Harry had been photographed on the beach with friends – photos that Harry claims must have been obtained illicitly, because he did not understand how any journalists would know he was there.

    Source link