Court Ruling

This week, the Supreme Court took another step - albeit a small one - toward restricting the severity of punishments courts can impose on juvenile offenders. In a 5-4 ruling, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court's liberal wing, the justices ruled that juveniles convicted of murder may not be given mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said "a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty" on minors under the age of 18. The decision, based on the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, was the third recent ruling in which Justice Kennedy sided with the court's liberals to limit the kinds of punishments that can be imposed on youthful offenders.

The Supreme Court's ruling on President Barack Obama's health care initiative was a cause for great anticipation for Alicia Steinberg. In the parking lot of Brown Memorial Woodbrook Church on Thursday, the West Towson resident was waiting until the last possible moment to take her daughter Avey, 3, into her music class as she listened to the news. She heard the initial - and inaccurate - report across the radio that the individual mandate, a piece of the Obama package requiring people to purchase health care, had been struck down by the nation's highest court.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Baltimore cannot require faith-based pregnancy counseling centers to post disclaimers noting they won't assist clients in receiving abortions or birth control. The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court's ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional - drawing praise from Catholic leaders who had opposed the ordinance and a defense of the law from MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blake, its original sponsor.

Tuesday's victory by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has once again demonstrated that the science of climate change, while famously "inconvenient," is virtually impossible for fair and reasonable people to deny. In upholding the agency's right to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, under a handful of cases, the three-judge panel recognized climate change as the legitimate threat to public health and safety that it is, and that the Clean Air Act gives the agency appropriate authority to regulate it. This shouldn't have come as much surprise to opponents, as the decision is in line with the Supreme Court's 2007 decision affirming the EPA had that power.

The U.S. is badly in need of immigration reform, and if the case hadn't been made sufficiently by President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's dueling views of the matter last week, the nation's highest court has now weighed into the debate, too. In striking down three of four challenged sections of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law on a 5-3 vote (with Justice Elena Kagan recused), theU.S. Supreme Court has chosen to side with the Obama administration on everything but what many saw as the most controversial aspect of the 2010 law - the provision that allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.

A General Assembly work group looking into how the legislature should respond to a court decision ruling pit bulls inherently dangerous wants to rewrite the state's liability laws to treat all breeds equally and to do away with the doctrine that essentially gives each dog one free bite, a co-chairman of the panel said. Del. Curt Anderson, the House chairman of Task Force to Study Court Decision Regarding Pit Bulls, said the consensus of the panel was that the Court of Appeals was off the mark when it singled out a particular breed in a ruling this spring.

Singing the praises of major U.S. insurance companies is not a common pastime on these pages, but recent events require at least a stanza and perhaps even a chorus. Such is the tuneful news that several have decided that no matter how the U.S. Supreme Court rules, they intend to retain certain provisions of President Barack Obama's health care reform law. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. was the first to make that announcement and was later joined by Aetna and Humana. The move will allow policyholders to get certain kinds of preventive care without a co-payment, allow adult children up to age 26 to stay on parents' health plans, and avoid lifetime claims limits on individuals with chronic diseases, just as they would under the health care reform act. UnitedHealth's leadership in this is particularly helpful because it is the nation's largest health insurer by market value.

The dancing days are over at Milan . The Little Italy establishment is now prohibited from allowing or providing live entertainment, including disc jockeys, on its premises. The May 31 decision was made in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City in what amounted to a default hearing. No one representing Milan showed up. Milan's opponents have long claimed that the establishment was a nightclub masquerading as a restaurant, and they have repeatedly pressed the Baltimore City Liquor License Board to take action.

As lawmakers and lobbyists gird for another special session that the governor called this summer to debate an expansion of gambling — an issue that has led to pitched battles for years — dog lovers are hoping to get their pet issue some attention that could prove just as divisive. In a 4-3 decision in April, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous" for liability purposes. Several legislators have vowed to reverse the ruling, spurred by letters from concerned pet owners and advocates who say meddling by the court could have broad consequences.

Just as we're trying to figure out the sudden departure Police CommissionerFrederick H. Bealefeld IIIcomes the stark reminder that we're still not quite done with a city chief fired more than seven years ago. Kevin P. Clark, fired back when Martin O'Malley was mayor, in 2004, still has a claim pending before the state's highest court. He wants money, and according to his attorney, wouldn't mind getting his old job back. This is the guy who the mayor sent armed SWAT members to remove from the police headquarters building on East Fayette Street.