Posts

Kentucky has an OxyContin problem. For years, the drug has been so pervasive in the eastern part of the state that it’s become known as “Heroin of the Hills,” The Associated Press reports. State officials sued Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, alleging the company misrepresented the drug as “less addictive and less likely to cause withdrawal than other pain medications.” The most recent legal wrangling in the ongoing battle between Kentucky and Purdue didn’t address the merits of the case, but rather which court should hear the case....

We know that it’s cliché, but the saying that “two wrongs don’t make a right” rings true in today’s upward variance case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Herbert Dixon was miffed after a federal district judge sentenced him to prison for fraudulent use of an unauthorized credit card, so he sent the judge six unsigned, letters demanding money and threatening the judge’s life. One of the letters contained faux-Anthrax, which was later determined to be artificial sweetener....

Would Justice Sonia Sotomayor – the Wise Latina herself – sue her beloved New York City? Perish the thought. New York, after all, is her beloved world. But Gladys Sotomayor, a 56-year-old, Hispanic New York City schoolteacher who shares a surname with the Justice, claims that the New York City Department of Education skirted a slew of state and federal law by discriminating against her. That’s quite a complaint, but the district court agreed with the school system that Sotomayor’s claims should be dismissed in summary judgment....

Voter ID laws have been having a tough summer in federal appellate courts. Less than a month ago, the Fifth Circuit struck down Texas’s controversial voter ID law, finding that it had a discriminatory effect. Just a few days later, the Fourth Circuit overturned a similar law in North Carolina, in a blistering opinion that condemned the “discriminatory intent” behind the law. Now, both states are looking for the Supreme Court to intervene....

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! The Supreme Court announced its October 2011 hearing schedule on July 18. First Monday is October 3. There are twelve cases scheduled for oral arguments in October, with topics ranging from patients’ rights to copyright restoration. A complete list is available below. Monday, Oct. 3: Douglas v. Independent Living Center (09-958) – examining federal law preemption of state reduction in Medicaid payments. Reynolds v . U.S. (10-6549) – reviewing standing to sue under the federal sex-offender registration act....

Environmental Challenge to Old-Growth Forest Thinning In The Lands Council v. McNair, No. 09-36026, an action challenging the United States Forest Service’s (Forest Service) decision to thin 277 acres of old-growth forest in the Mission Brush Project area, located in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (IPNF), claiming that the Project violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where 1) the Forest Service reasonably relied on the 10%-old-growth standard as set forth in the IPNF Plan; and 2) it was within the Forest Service’s discretion to rely on its own data and to discount the alternative evidence proffered by petitioner....

District court order granting defendant’s motion to reduce the amount held by maritime attachment pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions is affirmed where defendant demonstrated good cause to reduce the amount of the attachment, and the district court properly exercised its discretion in drawing the preliminary conclusion that plaintiff was likely to recover only the costs it incurred in securing the release of the Vessel and in thus reducing the amount of the attachment....

Over free speech arguments, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York’s law requiring registered charities to disclose their donors. Citizens United had challenged the law, saying it violated the First Amendment by intimidating donors who want to remain anonymous. The free speech group also said the law was a prior restraint on the ability to solicit donations. In Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation v. Schneiderman, the appeals court said the state has an important interest in stopping fraud and abuse by charities by requiring them to disclose donor information....

Conviction for Communicating National Defense Information Affirmed In US v. Abu-Jihaad, No. 09-1375, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction for communicating national defense information respecting the movements of a United States Navy battlegroup to unauthorized persons, holding that 1) there were no constitutional defects in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA) certification requirement of “a significant” rather than a primary “purpose…to obtain foreign intelligence information”; 2) no denial of due process in the district court’s decision not to order disclosure of FISA materials to the defendant, or to conduct a preliminary hearing to rule on defendant’s challenge to FISA’s implementation in this case; and 3) the record convincingly satisfied FISA’s purpose and probable cause requirements....

Defendant’s direct criminal appeal of district court’s request to the Bureau of Prisons is dismissed as appellate review is not available when a sentencing judge suggests that the Bureau should evaluate or treat certain physical or emotional problems. Read US v. Hebert, No. 07-2438 Appellate Information Argued: September 21, 2009 Decided and Filed: October 23, 2009 Judges Opinion by Circuit Judge Merritt Counsel For Appellant: Paul A. Peterson, Federal Public Defenders Office, Marquette, Michigan...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tackled a matter of first impression in Transbay v. Chevron when it found that a party’s willful ignorance of the contents of a document can possibly lead to an admission of the truth of the contents. Anyone who’s planning to whip out the “I knew nothin’” defense will have to reassess her strategy. Every litigator loves hearsay – and its infamous loopholes. It looks like the Ninth Circuit has finally spoken and closed another loop on the “ostrich defense....

One hundred and eight pages. A 3-2-1-2 split, with a separate concurrence and a recusal. Justice Breyer sided with the conservative wing of the court. Justice Sotomayor wrote for 57 pages in dissent, and got personal with the other justices, leading to a two-page separate concurrence/rebuttal by Chief Justice Roberts. In other words, this is a massive headache of an opinion, with a holding that narrows past SCOTUS precedent and allows states to ban race conscious admissions policies....

Last week, we blogged about the Big Fall Conference (aka long conference) at the U.S. Supreme Court. After a summer’s worth of backlog clogs up the docket with around 2,000 certiorari petitions, the clerks of the Court sort through the chaff, the justices review their recommendations, and less than one percent are granted cert. Of the 1,845 listed for Monday’s BFC, and SCOTUSblog’s “Petitions We’re Watching” list, here are a few that we’re particularly interested in, covering everything from equality (in marriage and employment) to juvenile sentencing:...

Running from the law – literally – is not a crime. That’s the crib notes version of United States v. Derek Daniel Brown, a decision from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court said it was not a crime in Washington for Brown to run from police even though he had a gun. Actually, it was not a crime for him to run with a gun and drugs....

With Mothers Day right around the corner, some lawyers may be scrambling for last minute gifts, or some children of lawyers might be wondering just what in the world to get their lawyer-mothers. After all, if you’re the lawyer, you’ve probably made sure your mother wants for nothing, and if your mom is the lawyer, she probably made sure of that herself. Fortunately for you gift-buying procrastinators, below you can find a list of some of the best gifts for lawyer moms, and the mothers of lawyers, most of which you can buy online and gift the same or next day....

In US v. Basciano, No. 09-0281, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder convictions in part where, because distinct factual elements must be proved to establish 18 U.S.C. section 1959(a)(5) and section 1962(d) conspiracies, a defendant may be prosecuted under both statutes without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, the court reversed in part on the ground that defendant’s prosecution on a successive substantive racketeering charge, as pleaded in the pending indictment, was barred by double jeopardy....

Lee v. Holder, No. 07-71193, involved a petition for review of the BIA’s order removing petitioner from the U.S. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding that the IJ did not err in finding petitioner ineligible for U visa interim relief, a temporary form of relief that was previously made available to immigrant victims of crime, because only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services could grant such relief. Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, No....

The California Court of Appeals recently held that Bill Cosby could be liable for public comments his ex-lawyer made on his behalf. This was the second time the California Court of Appeals took up defamation issues involving Cosby and Janice Dickinson, who accused Cosby of raping her in 1982. The opinion came out a day after Bill Cosby and Janice Dickenson settled for what Dickinson’s attorney described as an “epic amount....

Cutting away at a subpoena for being too broad, a federal appeals court turned back an investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling against the EEOC because the agency issued a subpoena that sought more information than justified by its investigation. The agency was investigating one worker’s claim of pregnancy and disability discrimination, but had issued subpoenas for “a complete list” of records about other pregnant or disabled employees....

Most people haven’t heard of the Administrative Procedures Act, but it’s become a legal thorn in the Trump administration’s side. The Act provides minimum procedural standards that federal agencies must follow when creating or changing rules, and federal courts have ruled against the president and his executive orders in over 90 percent of cases where the law comes into play. And yet another federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration rule....