EMERITUS NEWS ADVOCACY-LEGAL

PEW STUDY SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DOWN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Illegal immigration has dropped sharply since 2005. A report released today from the Pew Hispanic Center says much of that is due to the drop in illegal immigration from Latin American nations other than Mexico.

The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005, according to new estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

This sharp decline has contributed to an overall reduction of 8% in the number of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. -- to 11.1 million in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million in March 2007, according to the estimates. The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades.

The Pew Hispanic Center's analysis also finds that the most marked decline in the population of unauthorized immigrants has been among those who come from Latin American countries other than Mexico. From 2007 to 2009, the size of this group from the Caribbean, Central America and South America decreased 22%.

By contrast, the Mexican unauthorized population (which accounts for about 60% of all unauthorized immigrants) peaked in 2007 at 7 million and has since leveled off. The number of unauthorized immigrants from the rest of the world did not change.

Even though the size of the Mexican unauthorized population living in the United States has not changed significantly since 2007, the inflows from that country have fallen off sharply in recent years.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center's estimates, an average of 150,000 unauthorized immigrants from Mexico arrived annually during the March 2007 to March 2009 period -- 70% below the annual average of 500,000 that prevailed during the first half of the decade.

Also,

• In 2009, 59% of unauthorized immigrants resided in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and New Jersey. However, the share living in those states has declined from 80% in 1990, as unauthorized immigrants have dispersed to new settlement areas.
• Unauthorized immigrants accounted for 28% of the nation's foreign-born population in 2009, a decline from 31% in 2007.
• Nearly half of unauthorized immigrants living in the country in 2009 -- 47%, or 5.2 million people -- arrived in 2000 or later.
• The number of male unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007 at 6.3 million and declined to 5.8 million in 2009. The number of female unauthorized immigrants, 4.2 million in 2009, is roughly the same as it was in 2007.
• The number of children who are unauthorized, 1.1 million in 2009, declined slightly over the decade. By contrast, the population of U.S.-born children with at least one unauthorized parent nearly doubled from 2000 to 2009, when they numbered 4 million.
• There were 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants in the labor force in 2009, or 5.1% of the total. The size of the unauthorized labor force peaked in 2007 and declined in both 2008 and 2009. There were 7 million unauthorized immigrants employed in March 2009.

Pew Hispanic Center press release, copy click here. 09/01/2010

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT CHANGES TARGET CRIMINALS AND SECURITY RISKS / SOME CASES AGAINST NO-RISK OFFENDERS BEING DROPPED

More in this article in the Houston Chronicle, click here- 08/27/2010

COURT ORDER HALTS FED FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH / DOES NOT AFFECT PRIVATELY FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- Full text of actual decision from US District Court for District of Columbia, click here - 08/23/2010

ISSUE UPDATE: THE DEBATE OVER 3D PARTY USE OF YOUR INTERNET SITE TRACKING INFO

YouTube video of story from Voice of America, click here. 08/21/2010

A-D-A REVIEW FINDS DISABLED MAKING LITTLE PROGRESS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A status review of the lives of disabled Americans finds , although there has been substantial improvement reported in education attainment and political participation since 1986, discrimination in employment and financial independence continues with few improvements. The review examining 20 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, claims large gaps still exist between people with and without disabilities with regard to: employment, household income, access to transportation, health care, socializing, going to restaurants, and satisfaction with life . And according to the review, "....in some instances, the spread has actually gotten worse since the inception of the survey in 1986".

The darker assessment of the lives of the disabled is primarily traced to a declining economy over a 5 to 6 year period. The survey also adds other factors.

"Since this survey was last conducted in 2004, America has undergone a significant economic downturn. Some areas measured in the survey, such as employment, poverty, and going to restaurants were negatively impacted by the state of the economy. However, the consistency of the size of the gaps this year suggests that people with disabilities and without disabilities were affected as much, or more, by the recession. In addition to the gap measures that have been included in this and previous research, the survey includes an expanded section on employment, and selected questions on financial independence. These items add further texture to the disadvantages faced by people with disabilities and point to the potential of accommodations and programs that can be designed to facilitate and improve the employment outcomes of more people with disabilities.
There have been some improvements measured over the years that may be in part attributable to the implementation of the ADA of 1990. However, there is clearly much work to be done in order to narrow the very substantial gaps that still exist. Hopefully policymakers, employers, and the disability community will work together to translate these findings into actions and policies that will improve the lives of the millions of Americans with disabilities in the future".

 Among all working-age (18-64) people with disabilities, only 21% say that they are employed full or part-time, compared to 59% of working-age people without disabilities – a gap of 38 percentage points.
 This gap has been decreasing since 1998, but it still remains large and its decline has been slow (gap in 1998: 50 points; 2000: 49 points; 2004: 43 points).
 People with disabilities who are not employed describe themselves as unemployed but looking for work (14%), unemployed and not looking for work (14%), retired (14%), a stay-at-home spouse or partner (7%), or something else (29%).
 Among those with disabilities who describe themselves as unemployed, 73% cite their disability as one of the reasons why they are not working right now. Other reasons for unemployment include being unable to find a job in their line of work (cited by 56%) and being unable to get the accommodations needed to effectively perform in the workplace.

Also considered, is public and human perception the disabled experience from their contact with others.

"A majority of people with disabilities say they are treated the same as others when people learn that they have a disability or health problem. However, a considerable minority have experienced a negative reaction.
 Around three-quarters (72%) say they are treated the same as others when people learn they have a disability and half (50%) report that people are surprised to find out about their disability. On the other hand, 28% report that people generally act as if they are sorry for the person with a disability, 27% say they are treated differently and 14% say people tend to avoid further contact with them.
 People with more severe disabilities are much more likely to describe negative experiences when asked how people generally react toward them: half (49%) of people with somewhat or very severe disabilities describe negative experiences, compared to 29% of those with slight or moderate disabilities".

Full text of ADA report, click here. 08/12/2010

TWO MORE HIGH PROFILE "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" MILITARY FIRINGS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Court challenges could end the, "Don't ask, don't tell", military policy regarding gay service members, before President Obama and Congress repeal it. Two notable cases involving military officers this week, have brought more high profile media attention to the legal battle.

Media reports this week have focused on the cases of two recently fired officers. One of them has filed a lawsuit in an Idaho federal court.

Air Force Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach was reprimanded and reduced to desk duty for allegedly being gay and assaulting a civilian. The assault charge was dropped for lack of evidence, with the charge of being gay remaining. The military decided to discharge Fehrenbach, which he is challenging in the court filing. Ferhrenbach never admitted publicly being gay, however he did admit his sexual orientation to Idaho investigators which was being observed by military investigators, without his knowledge. Despite the assault charge being dropped, the military continued their "Don't ask, don't tell" case with the testimony of the civilian accuser. Fehrenbach may avoid the courtroom as Air Force officials are reviewing his case.

Another high profile case is that of Army Captain Jonathan Hopkins. Fourth in his class as a graduate of West Point, Hopkins was also a decorated veteran for his tours of duty commanding forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was dismissed this week. During an interview last night on the MSNBC program, "Rachel Maddow Show", Hopkins said he was notified of the charge against him on the same day he was told of his eligibility for a promotion.

Video of Hopkins interview with MSNBC'S Rachel Maddow, click here. Press release on Fehrenbach case from the Service Members Legal Defense Network, click here. Service Members Legal Defense Network home page, click here. 08/12/2010

RED LIGHT CAMERAS FACE MOUNTING PUBLIC OUTRAGE

More in this article from the New York Times, click here- 08/08/2010

 KAGAN CONFIRMED AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan was confirmed by the U-S Senate today, by a vote of 63-37 with five Republicans (Collins ME, Graham SC, Gregg NH, Lugar IN, Snowe ME), joining all but one Democrat (Sen. Ben Nelson NE). Kagan takes the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, considered one of the more liberal members of the court, who was nominated by former President Gerald Ford in 1975. CSPAN bio video on Kagan, click here. Vote score sheet, voting and hearing videos, click here. 08/05/2010

GAY MARRIAGE BAN OVERTURNED IN CALIFORNIA

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Less than two years after 52% of California voters approved a law banning gay marriage, a federal court has overturned it. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, in a 136 page ruling, found the California law, passed in November 2008 as Proposition 8, violated Equal Protection and and Due Process, and failed to prove why gay marriage should not be granted the same rights as marriage between heterosexual couples. Judge Walker, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Due to delays, Walker did not take the bench until 1989 under President George HW Bush. Reports in February from the San Francisco Chronicle claim Walker is gay, but those who know him say he is not a judge with a liberal agenda. During an interview today on CNN, David Gergen, former presidential advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, told host Wolf Blitzer, that Walker, was "... not a lefty from the left coast", explaining that Walker has a solid reputation for thorough consideration of constitutional arguments.

The case now heads to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court. Because California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the gay marriage ban, they refused to defend it in court, leaving it up to Project Marriage, which succeeded placing the gay marriage ban on the California ballot and winning a close vote. Advocates say Walker's ruling stands a good chance of being upheld in the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another historic note about this case is that former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, appointed under President George W. Bush, teamed up with David Boies to defeat the gay marriage ban. Olson and Boies had faced off against each other in the landmark Bush v. Gore U. S Supreme Court case which determined the 2000 presidential election. Scribd copy of order from Judge Walker (136 pages), click here. 08/04/2010

FEDERAL JUDGE CLEARS BENEFITS FOR GAY SPOUSES IN GAY MARRIAGE STATES

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- A federal judge in Boston issued a clear signal that federal benefits cannot be limited to heterosexual marriages in states where gay marriages are legal. The ruling could also serve as a precedent for state and local government benefits in those states where gay marriage is legal. The ruling, from Judge Joseph L. Tauro, strikes down The Defense of Marriage Act in gay marriage states lifting limits for spouses of gay federal employees. In the ruling, Tauro stated,

"There can be no dispute that the subject of domestic relations is the exclusive province of
the states.119 And the powers to establish eligibility requirements for marriage, as well as to issue
determinations of martial status, lie at the very core of such domestic relations law.120 The
government therefore concedes, as it must, that Congress does not have the authority to place
restrictions on the states’ power to issue marriage licenses. And indeed, as the government aptly
points out, DOMA refrains from directly doing so. Nonetheless, the government’s argument
assumes that Congress has some interest in a uniform definition of marriage for purposes of
determining federal rights, benefits, and privileges. There is no such interest".

The government had claimed, that due to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal benefits were limited to families of heterosexual spouses. In 1996, Congress enacted, and President Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). At issue in this case is Section 3 of DOMA, which defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman. In particular, it provides that:

Judge Tauro, in his historical background on the law, said the DOMA set the meaning of the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

But Judge Tauro denied the governments claims and ordered that the plaintiffs in the case, gay federal employees and their partners/spouses be allowed federal benefits in states where gay marriages are legal.

"The states alone have the authority to set forth eligibility requirements as to familial relationships and the federal government cannot, therefore, have a legitimate interest in disregarding those family
status determinations properly made by the states". Direct link to Judge Tauro's decision, click here. 07/09/2010

FEDERAL JUDGE WHO STRUCK DOWN GULF DRILLING MORATORIUM SOLD EXXON-MOBIL STOCK THE DAY OF HIS DECISION

More from the Washington Post, click here- 06/25/2010

G-A-O PRELIMINARY REPORT CLEARS NOW DEFUNCT "ACORN" OF WRONGDOING / AGENCY ALSO SAYS EPA WILL BE OVER BUDGET WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- After being hounded by detractors over alleged wrongdoing, mainly from conservative groups, the GAO has issued a preliminary report, clearing ACORN, the anti poverty, voter registration non-profit, which was driven out of existence. An article, written by an attorney who wrote a book about the organization, claims the preliminary report was released on June 14th, "vindicating" the organization. More in this article by John Atlas in AlterNet, click here.

ALSO, THE G-A-O CLAIMS that the E-P-A is going to come up short on money for environmental cleanups. The agency's report says,

"Over 60 percent of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable human exposure have all or more than half of the work remaining to complete remedial construction. According to EPA regional officials' responses to our survey, EPA has plans to control human exposure at all of the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure; however, our survey results also show that EPA regional officials expect 41 of the sites to continue to have unacceptable exposure until fiscal year 2015 or later".

The totality of the problem is made more sobering by the financial shortcomings of the so called, "Superfund" money for cleanup.

The G-A-O claims, "EPA regional officials' cost estimates for remedial construction for the next 2 years--fiscal years 2011 and 2012--are $253 million to $414 million greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA allocated for remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years 2000 through 2009, EPA allocated $220 million to $267 million in ann border.
-- To enhance the rule of law.
-- And to protect Arizonans and Americans from violence committed by terrorists, organized crime syndicates, drug cartels and common criminals.
Make no mistake: The responsibility to ensure that we have an orderly, secure border – not just some imaginary line in the dirt or a rickety fence – belongs to the federal government.
They have failed.
And we, in Arizona, have for too long paid the price for those failures.
This failure has hurt our economy, stifled trade and legal travel, and pitted neighbor against neighbor".

Brewer signed the bill amid a recent populist fury over the killing of a rancher near the Mexican border, and increasing pressure from rank and file law enforcement officers over the problems handling suspects and defendants who are, in their eyes, obviously illegal entrants into the country, who should be handled as such.

In this context, Brewer's announcement today was not really a surprise, though upper level law enforcement personnel have seemed to have considerable influence with state officials including Brewer. However, complications with border security and this year's absolute fiasco and PR disaster surrounding a canceled virtual fence project involving Boeing, which didn't work, contributed to the pressure for Brewer's decision today.

As for potential challenges to the Governor's decision...the American Civil Liberties Union will likely waste not time taking the state to federal court, in a case which might qualify for immediate consideration before the expiration of the court's current term....and more importantly, for opponents of the law ...consideration of the case before the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, considered the most liberal on the Supreme Court. More updates on this story as available.

The ACLU, in a press release today said,

"The law creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona strongly condemn the governor’s decision to sign the unconstitutional law and are dismayed by her disregard for the serious damage it could cause to civil liberties and public safety in the state". According to the ACLU, the new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their “papers” at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

Former Arizona Governor, now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitaono, says the new law will interfere with with border enforcement efforts. In a statement released after the governor's signing, Napolitano claims the problem can only be settled at the national level and not by a patchwork of laws enacted by states. Governor Brewer's Border Security press release from April 22, 2010, click here.ACLU press release, click here. Arizona legislative summary of SB 1070, click here. Story from AZ Central, click here. 04/23/2010

JURY AWARDS 18.5 MILLION TO MAN SEXUALLY ABUSED BY BOY SCOUT LEADER IN THE 1980'S / JURY FINDS SCOUTS LIABLE FOR ABUSE AND COVER UP

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- After winning $1.4 million dollars in compensatory damages April 13, Kerry Lewis today was awarded another $18.5 million in punitive damages by a jury in an Oregon court. Lewis claimed he was molested by scout leader Timur Dykes after Dykes had admitted to molesting 17 others in a 1983 confession. Lewis sued claiming the Scouts allowed Dykes to be in a leadership roll, knowing his history of being a convicted child sex offender. In addition, another case was filed last month against Dykes by six others claiming to be victims. More in this must read article from the Oregonian, click here. 04/23/2010

U-S SUPREME COURT REJECTS FEDERAL LAW BANNING SALES AND PRODUCTION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY VIDEOS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Calling the federal law prohibiting creation and sales of animal cruelty videos "startling and disturbing", the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to reject the law as unconstitutional. The case before the court stemmed from the 1999 federal law which bans depictions of animal cruelty, which was used to prosecute film producer Robert Stevens. Stevens has created and sold videos showing pit bull dog fights. But, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion that the first amendment prevents government restriction of expression, "because of it's message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content". Full text of actual decision from the U-S Supreme Court (U.S. -v.- Stevens), click here. 04/20/2010

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT REMOVES LAW BANNING UNMARRIED AND SAME SEX COUPLES FROM ADOPTING AND FOSTERING CHILDREN

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Arkansas Supreme Court on Friday set aside a state law passed in 2008 which prevented same sex and unmarried couples from becoming adoptive and foster parents. The case involved Sheila Cole and her partner, who had previously been foster parents and wanted to take in a special needs child. Their case had been taken by the ACLU, which welcomed the Arkansas Supreme Court decision on Friday. A law called, "Act One" prevented Cole and her partner from doing so though they had previous experience as foster parents before the law was passed. In a statement released by the ACLU, Holly Dickson, staff attorney with ACLU of Arkansas said, “We are happy that the court recognized that Act 1 harms Arkansas� are often highly subjective, which also allows stereotypes to operate. "It eliminates potential qualified parents,” Dickson added,“We have a critical shortage of homes now and this ban was denying good, loving homes to our most vulnerable children". The original trial judge, Christopher C. Piazza of the Pulaski County Circuit Court held that the law casts an unreasonably broad net and did not “serve the State’s interest in determining what is in the best interest of the child.”Arkansas officials have not announced whether they will appeal. Full text of ACLU press release, click here. 04/19/2010

ARIZONA GOVERNOR UNDECIDED ON FELLOW REPUBLICANS' NEW IMMIGRATION BILL PASSED IN LEGISLATURE / WOULD GIVE LOCAL POLICE POWER TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS / CHIEFS OF POLICE AGAINST IT

More from the Houston Chronicle, click here- 04/19/2010

MASSEY ENERGY FACES TOUGH QUESTIONS OVER HANDLING OF UPPER BIG BRANCH MINE / CONGRESSMAN GETS PROMISE FOR HEARINGS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom - Federal Investigators say workers at the Upper Big Branch Mine operated by a subsidiary of Massey Energy, were evacuated from the mine at least three times over the past two months due to a buildup of methane gas. The cause of the explosion, which has claimed at least 25 lives, has not yet been determined, however preliminary indications from agencies involved in the disaster is that a buildup of methane is probably the primary cause. As of Tuesday night, some of the victims bodies still had not been identified due to the severity of their injuries. The mine had been cited for repeated violations including more than 50 last month in an inspection by Mine Safety and Health Administration. Former mine regulators complain fines against mining companies, including Massey, are often left unpaid or paid in such small installments that the effectiveness of the penalties is lost.

U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), whose district includes the mine, today called on House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) to hold hearings on yesterday’s tragic explosion at Massey Energy's Performance Coal Company’s Upper Big Branch mine.  Chairman Miller has agreed to Rahall’s request to hold a hearing to examine the disaster. In 2006, a buildup of methane gas killed 12 workers in the Sago Mine Disaster about 100 miles from the Upper Big Branch Mine.

An article in the New York times today, quoted J. Davitt McAteer, a former assistant director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration MSHA, said the Massey company “is certainly one of the worst in the industry” when it came to safety, and called recent violations at the mine for substandard ventilation and other problems “cardinal sins.” This despite statements today from Massey Energy executives claiming Massey and its subsidiaries have one of the best safety records in the business. The New York Times also reported that, in 2008, the Aracoma Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey, agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal fines and civil penalties and to plead guilty to several safety violations related to a 2006 fire that killed two miners at a coal mine in Logan, W.Va.

After the fire broke out, the two miners found themselves unable to escape, partly because the company had removed some ventilation controls inside the mine. The workers died of suffocation. Federal prosecutors at the time called it the largest such settlement in the history of the coal industry.

ACCORDING TO REPORTS EMERITUS NEWS HAS LOCATED, WHICH ARE FILED WITH THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MHSA), the Upper Big Branch Mine, since 2006, has been tagged with more than $1.8 million dollars in proposed fines, including $188,000 in proposed fines, so far this year. Full text of MSHA overview, click here. The report lists Massey subsidiary Performance Coal as the operator of the mine. The MSHA lists a document dated March 30, 2010, which sets up required improvements and monitoring for the mine's methane gas problems. Full text of March 30th order, click here. MSHA Directory of Upper Big Branch Mine violations and remedial required action, click here.

New York Times story on Upper Big Branch Mine violations, click here. 04/06/2010

CORPORATIONS PUT PRESSURE ON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL CLINICS TO STOP FILING LAWSUITS AGAINST THEM

More from this article in the New York Times, click here- 04/05/2010

GAO REPORT SAYS EPA CLEAN UP FUNDS COULD RUN OUT

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Government Accountability Office says, depending on the number of cleanup sites, annual cost estimates for remedial construction at these sites exceed past annual funding allocations for such actions. For example, EPA regional officials' cost estimates for remedial construction for the next 2 years--fiscal years 2011 and 2012--are $253 million to $414 million greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA allocated for remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years 2000 through 2009, EPA allocated $220 million to $267 million in annual funding for remedial actions. According to EPA headquarters officials, however, funds from additional sources--such as prior year funds, settlements with responsible parties, and state cost share agreements--may also be available to fund remedial construction from year to year. While the amount of funding available through these sources may vary substantially from year to year, according to EPA headquarters officials, approximately $123 to $199 million was available from additional sources for remedial actions in fiscal years 2007 through 2009". Copy of G-A-O summary of report, click here. 06/25/2010

THREE BIG DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT / DECISIONS ON SENTENCING FOR JUVENILES / CONTINUED INCARCERATION OF JUVENILE DEFENDERS/ MOTHER LOSES DECISION IN INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In a 5-3 decision the U-S Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole when the crime does not match the punishment.

The opinion is based on the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. The vote is 6-3, reversing a lower court ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida. The ruling will now forces states to give juvenile offenders in these types of crimes the chance to prove they have been reformed. Another decision represented a big loss for those fighting the Affordability Care Act as it relates to the continued incarceration of sexual offenders.

The Supreme Court upheld the act allowing mentally ill sex offenders to be civilly detained after they have served their sentences if they “would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”  The vote was 7-2 with Chief Justice Roberts joining the Court’s four moderates to form a majority. Justices Kennedy and Alito each filing concurring opinions and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

The third major decision dealt a clear blow to American parents who have abducted their children from parents in another country and amounts to U-S court recognition of an international child abduction treaty, called, "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction" from the Hague Convention. The case before the Supreme Court, Abbott V. Abbott, involved the use of the international child abduction treaty to return a child to his father in Chile. The father had claimed the American mother had abducted the child by taking him to the U-S without the father's permission. The father, who is of British decent, had earlier won a court decision for "right of custody" of the child in Chile. As applied in the Abbott case, the 6-3 U-S Supreme Court decision means the father may now use the international abduction treaty to petition an American court for the return of the child. The father must still convince an American court the removal of the child will not result in "grave" physical or psychological harm. The child is currently living with his mother in Texas. Full text of decision on Graham V. Florida, click here. Full text of U-S v. Comstock decision involving incarceration of sexual offenders, click here. Full text of Abbott v. Abbott, recognizing custody decisions from other countries, click here. 05/17/2010

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FINDS F-B-I TERRORIST LIST SLOPPY AND UNFAIR / LEADS TO PASSPORT AND VISA DENIALS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The FBI has been taken to task over how the list of suspected terrorists is managed. A report filed by the Inspector General's office at the Justice Department claims :

"... the FBI did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists to the consolidated terrorist watch list in accordance with FBI policy and did not update or remove watch list records as required. In addition, the audit found that the internal controls over processes used to nominate individuals to the terrorist watch list are weak or nonexistent.
During the audit, we notified FBI officials about involve murder. The opinion is based on the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. The vote is 6-3, reversing a lower court ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida. The ruling will now forces states to give juvenile offenders in these types of crimes the chance to prove they have been reformed. Another decision represented a big loss for those fighting the Affordability Care Act as it relates to the continued incarceration of sexual offenders.

The Supreme Court upheld the act allowing mentally ill sex offenders to be civilly detained after they have served their sentences if they “would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”  The vote was 7-2 with Chief Justice Roberts joining the Court’s four moderates to form a majority. Justices Kennedy and Alito each filing concurring opinions and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

The third major decision dealt a clear blow to American parents who have abducted their children from parents in another country and amounts to U-S court recognition of an international child abduction treaty, called, "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction" from the Hague Convention. The case before the Supreme Court, Abbott V. Abbott, involved the use of the international child abduction treaty to return a child to his father in Chile. The father had claimed the American mother had abducted the child by taking him to the U-S without the father's permission. The father, who is of British decent, had earlier won a court decision for "right of custody" of the child in Chile. As applied in the Abbott case, the 6-3 U-S Supreme Court decision means the father may now use the international abduction treaty to petition an American court for the return of the child. The father must still convince an American court the removal of the child will not result in "grave" physical or psychological harm. The child is currently living with his mother in Texas. Full text of decision on Graham V. Florida, click here. Full text of U-S v. Comstock decision involving incarceration of sexual offenders, click here. Full text of Abbott v. Abbott, recognizing custody decisions from other countries, click here. 05/17/2010

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FINDS F-B-I TERRORIST LIST SLOPPY AND UNFAIR / LEADS TO PASSPORT AND VISA DENIALS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The FBI has been taken to task over how the list of suspected terrorists is managed. A report filed by the Inspector General's office at the Justice Department claims :

"... the FBI did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists to the consolidated terrorist watch list in accordance with FBI policy and did not update or remove watch list records as required. In addition, the audit found that the internal controls over processes used to nominate individuals to the terrorist watch list are weak or nonexistent.
During the audit, we notified FBI officials of organizations linked to Osama Bin-Ladin and al-Qaeda and therefore, a "terrorist organization". The attorneys, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, are U-S citizens. Federal officials confiscated the Islamic foundation's Oregon branch assets in 2004, pending their investigation of "possible crimes". Federal prosecutors claimed evidence against the Islamic foundation was obtained through "classified information sources". As it turned out, the information came from illegal wiretaps on the Oregon group's attorneys during conversations with an al-Harramain group in Saudi Arabia. In today's ruling, California Northern District Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker stated that the foundation and the attorneys were entitled to additional court time, "to determine the quantum of damages or other specifics of the judgment". The case originated during what was called, the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", now abandoned, which was instituted under former President George W. Bush after the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Attorney General Eric Holder continued to defend the Bush Administration's position in the case, with federal prosecutors claiming court ordered release of evidence in the Islamic Foundation case would reveal "State Secrets". The Terrorist Surveillance Program was used to bypass requests for court ordered wiretaps and was abandoned in 2007 after media reports in a similar case in Detroit.

OBAMA NAMES REPLACEMENT FOR RETIRING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEVENS / SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN WAS FIRST FEMALE DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- As Dean of Harvard Law School, she was known for recruiting more conservative legal faculty to balance what was presented to students. Elena Kagan, now 50, later became Solicitor General of the United States and today, was nominated by President Obama as his choice to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Being Solicitor General, Kagan has presented cases to the Supreme Court, and according to the President, in his announcement today at the White House. Obama told those gathered at the White House,

"She has won accolades from observers across the ideological spectrum for her well-reasoned arguments and commanding presence. But Elena is respected and admired not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament -- her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, “of understanding before disagreeing”; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder". 

In her response to the President's nomination, Kagan told those assembled,

"I'm thankful to my brothers and other family and friends for coming to Washington to be with me here today.  And much more, I am thankful for all of their support and loyalty and love, not just on this day but always.If this day has just a touch of sadness in it for me, it is because my parents aren’t here to share it.  They were both, as the President said, the children of immigrants and the first in their families to go to college.  My father was the kind of lawyer who used his skills and training to represent everyday people and to improve a community.  My mother was a proud public schoolteacher, as are my two brothers -- the kind of teachers whom students remember for the rest of their lives. My parents’ lives and their memory remind me every day of the impact public service can have, and I pray every day that I live up to the example they set".

Response to her nomination has been mostly muted from liberals and conservatives alike, since she has spent most of her life in academia and public policy, previous to her position as Solicitor General. Text and video of announcement today at the White House, click here. 05/10/2010

U-S ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SAYS ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW SUBJECT TO "POTENTIAL ABUSE" / HOLDER CONSIDERING COURT CHALLENGE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Attorney General Eric Holder, during a news conference on an unrelated matter involving a settlement on the lawsuit against drug maker Astra Zeneca (See on health care page), today echoed the same concerns expressed by President Obama last week, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a tough immigration enforcement bill into law. Holder says the Arizona law drives a wedge between law enforcement and minority communities. Holder admitted that he is considering his options, including the consideration of a possible court challenge. Video of Holder news conference, click here. 04/27/2010

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING: REPEAT OFFENDER LAWS IN NEW YORK UNCONSITUTIONAL / COULD HAVE IMPACT ON OTHER REPEAT OFFENDER LAWS AROUND THE COUNTRY

More in this article from the New York Times, click here Full text of actual decision (45 pages) by Judge Walker, click here. 03/31/2010

MISSISSIPPI FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT OF LESBIAN STUDENT TO ATTEND PROM WITH GIRLFRIEND / SCHOOL CANCELED PROM RATHER THAN ALLOW THEIR ATTENDANCE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Eighteen year old high school student Constance McMillen had planned to take her girlfriend to a prom held by the Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. The school canceled the prom rather than allow her and her girlfriend to attend. With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, McMillen took the school to court . Today the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, in a 12 page ruling said,

“The record shows Constance has been openly gay since eighth grade and she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and to express her identity through attending prom with a same-sex date. The Court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment. The Court is also of the opinion that the motive behind the School Board's cancellation of the prom, or withdrawal of their sponsorship, was Constance’s requests and the ACLU’s demand letter sent on her behalf.”

The court also ruled McMillen and her girlfriend be allowed to attend a privately organized party, in which the school was also involved. A-P story, click here. Full text of the ACLU press release, click here.

03/23/2010

Copyright 2010 © Emeritus News and emeritusnews.com

SETTLEMENT WITH INJURED WORKERS IN 2001 WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK REJECTED BY JUDGE / NEW TALKS ORDERED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- New York Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein today shocked the courtroom when he rejected last week's agreement reached between insurance companies and attorneys for injured firefighters, police, rescue, construction and sanitary personnel. It provided up to 657 million dollars to compensate more than 10,000 workers. During a Friday afternoon hearing, Judge Hallerstein said the agreement was "not enough", too complicated for the average worker to understand, and not clear as to how much of the settlement would actually be lost to attorney fees. Hallerstein suggested that attorney fees should not be counted as part of the settlement for the workers and should be negotiated separately. He had already taken over control of selection of a administrator and a medical panel to supervise the management of the money and medical treatment of the workers. The ruling means that both sides will have to renegotiate terms of a new agreement, presumably with Hallerstein's involvement. As of this posting, there was no indication whether either side planned to appeal. Judge Hallerstein's order taking control of administrator and medical panel, click here. Full text of attorneys statement of agreement from March 11th, click here. 03/19/2010

FAA SUPERVISOR AND AIR CONTROLLER SUSPENDED FOR ALLOWING JUVENILE TOWER VISITOR TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO PLANES

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Federal Aviation Administration has announced that has suspended and placed on administrative leave, a control tower supervisor and controller from JFK International Airport, New York, after allowing a juvenile visitor to the control tower, to provide directions to several flights. The incident brought terse comments from both the FAA and the union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. The juvenile visitor was at the tower February 17th, during the President's Day holiday period. The FAA issued a statement today explaining,

“This lapse in judgment not only violated FAA’s own policies, but common sense standards for professional conduct. These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “We have an incredible team of professionals who safely control our nation’s skies every single day. This kind of behavior does not reflect the true caliber of our workforce.”

The two JFK Tower employees, a supervisor and an air traffic controller, are on administrative leave pending the outcome of an official FAA investigation into the incident which is already underway.

In addition, all unofficial visits to FAA air traffic control operational areas, such as towers and radar rooms, will be suspended during the investigation. The FAA Administrator has directed a team to conduct a full-scale review of air traffic control policies and procedures related to facility visitors". Full text of FAA statement, click here. 03/03/2010

GAY MARRIAGE COUPLES FLOOD WASHINGTON DC COURT FOR LICENSES

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 03/03/2010

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SIGNAL STATE AND LOCAL GUN LAWS MAY BE ILLEGAL

More in this article from the Washington Post, click here- 03/02/2010

SENATE PASSES ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO PATRIOT ACT / PRIVACY CHANGES LEFT OUT, SENT TO HOUSE

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- The Senate has passed a year extension to sections of the Patriot Act, which faced expiration at the end of the month. The extension avoids privacy protection provisions some senators wanted to add. The proposal now advances to the house. The extension allows multiple roving phone taps by court order. Court ordered seizure of property and records as part of an anti terrorism filing. And surveillance of non U-S citizens who are part of established recognized terror groups. 02/25/2010

ACORN OPPONENTS ARRESTED AFTER TRYING TO BUG SEN. MARY LANDRIEU'S OFFICE / ONE SUSPECT THE SON OF AN ACTING U-S ATTORNEY

More from the Emeritus Newsroom -Conservative activist James O'Keefe, remembered for his undercover video that allegedly showed the the group ACORN stretching eligibility of applicants to get housing assistance, has been arrested with three others for trying to electronically bug the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The four identified themselves as telephone repairmen in order to access the Senator's offices in a New Orleans federal building. According to a press release from the FBI, JOSEPH BASEL, age 24; ROBERT FLANAGAN, age 24, son of acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan in Shreveport, LA. ; JAMES O’KEEFE, age 25; and STAN DAI, age 24, were charged in a criminal complaint with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony. According to the FBI, FLANAGAN and BASEL were each dressed in blue denim pants, blue work shirts, light green fluorescent vests, tool belts, and construction-style hard hats when they entered the Hale Boggs Federal Building, located at 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. Once in the building, FLANAGAN and BASEL sought access to the offices of Senator Landrieu. O’KEEFE was already present in the office, holding a cellular phone so as to record FLANAGAN and BASEL. Once inside Senator Landrieu’s reception area, FLANAGAN and BASEL told a member of Senator Landrieu’s staff that they were telephone repairmen, and they requested access to the main telephone at the reception desk. FLANAGAN and BASEL then manipulated the telephone system. FLANAGAN and BASEL next requested access to the telephone closet because they needed to perform work on the main telephone system. They were directed to the main office of the United States General Services Administration, also inside the Hale Boggs Federal Building, where they again represented themselves to be employees of the telephone company and stated that they needed to perform repair work in the telephone closet. Both FLANAGAN and BASEL stated that they had left their credentials in their vehicle. In addition, the complaint alleges that O’KEEFE and DAI assisted FLANAGAN and  BASEL in the planning, coordination, and preparation of the operation. The men were apprehended by the United States Marshal’s Service soon thereafter.

If convicted, FLANAGAN, BASEL, O’KEEFE, and DAI each face a maximum term of 10 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, and three (3) years of supervised release following any term of imprisonment.

The Washington Post is reporting that, O'Keefe on Thursday gave a speech to Libertarian Pelican Institute in New Orleans. O'Keefe was hailed as a conservative hero for dressing as a pimp and taping ACORN employees offering advice on how he and a partner could get away with running an international under-age prostitution scheme.

The United States Attorney’s Office reiterated that the complaint is merely a charge and that the guilt of the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The investigation is being conducted by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Deputy Marshals with the United States Marshal’s Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jordan Ginsberg. Full text of FBI press release, copy click here. 01/26/2010

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LIMITS TO CORPORATE, UNION AND INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- Contribution limits on corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were struck down this morning by the United State Supreme Court. According to the Supreme court ruling, in January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primaryelections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcasts and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive re-lief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary;and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements,BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillaryand the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United a prelimi-nary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission(FEC) summary judgment. The ruling explains:

"....prohibitionon corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest".

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion".

HOWEVER, the court also upheld disclosure requirements that groups reveal who is sponsoring broadcast and cable TV political ads. The court said:

"The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied to Citizens United’s ads. They fall within BCRA’s “electioneer-ing communication” definition: They referred to then-Senator Clintonby name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and “insure that the voters are fully informed” about who is speaking...".

In a dissenting opinion, Justices Breyer, Ginsber, and Sotomayor joined Justce Stevens to say:

"All that the parties dispute is whether CitizensUnited had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court mustrewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case. The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is itsiteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based
on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetoricalappeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United maybe required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the politicalsphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
In the context of election to public office, the distinctionbetween corporate and human speakers is significant.Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests mayconflict in fundamental respects with the interests ofeligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. The majority’s approach to corporate electioneeringmarks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 3 Court today rejects a century of history when it treats thedistinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relyinglargely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981). In his landmark concurrence in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936), Justice Brandeis stressed the importance of adhering to rules the Court has “developed . . . for its own governance” when deciding constitutional questions. Because departures from those rules always enhance the risk of error, I shall review the background of this case in some detail before explaining why the Court’sanalysis rests on a faulty understanding of Austin and McConnell and of our campaign finance jurisprudencemore generally .1 I regret the length of what follows, but the importance and novelty of the Court’s opinion requirea full response. Although I concur in the Court’s decisionto sustain BCRA’s disclosure provisions and join Part IVof its opinion, I emphatically dissent from its principalholding".

Full Text of Supreme Court decision, copy click here. 01/21/2010

F-B-I ILLEGALLY USED TERRORISM CLAIMS TO MONITOR PHONE CONVERSATIONS / ACLU CLAIMS LAW BEING MISUSED

More from the Emeritus Newsroom- In the wake of a report from the Washington Post this morning that the FBI routinely misused claims of terrorist connections to monitor phone conversations, the ACLU called for congressional action to tighten the rules in the re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

"With the reauthorization of Patriot Act authorities now pending, Congress has an opportunity to narrow the use of NSL powers and help avoid such abuses in the future. Given what we now know, it would be unthinkable not to make such changes in the law now while it’s possible", according to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

The ACLU claims that the FBI routinely claimed false terrorism emergencies to illegally collect the phone records of Americans for four years of the Bush administration by abusing an already expansive Patriot Act power. Using “exigent letters,” or emergency letters, to gain private records for investigations when no emergency existed, the FBI seemingly violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The FBI also routinely issued National Security Letters (NSLs) after the fact in an attempt to legitimize the use of exigent letters. ACLU attorneys claim the NSL statute, widely broadened with the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, allows the FBI to secretly demand personal records about innocent customers from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), communications service providers, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without suspicion or prior judicial approval. The statute also allows the FBI to bar NSL recipients from disclosing anything about the record demand. Congress recently extended three unrelated provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire last year until February 28, 2010. There are several bills in both the House and Senate that address those provisions as well as the NSL statute. In 2004, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of an ISP that the FBI served with an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2008 that the gag order provisions were unconstitutional, the “John Doe” NSL recipient in that case remains gagged. Full Text of ACLU press release, copy click here. 01/19/2010

MAJOR LEGAL GROUP THAT SUPPORTED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CHANGES POSITIONS / DISBANDS

More from the New York Times, copy click here- 01/04/2009