NEWS
By Tricia Bishop | July 7, 2009
The murder and carjacking convictions against Leeander Jerome Blake, who helped steal a Jeep Cherokee from an Annapolis man killed during the crime, will stand, a federal appeals court ruled last week. Blake, who was 17 at the time of the 2002 carjacking, avoided prosecution at the state level by successfully arguing that police illegally interrogated him. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the state's appeal, federal prosecutors took up the case, indicting Blake in 2006 on murder, carjacking and gun charges.
NEWS
By Tricia Bishop | June 22, 2009
Maryland's U.S. District Court judges already handle an average of 250 cases apiece, and the caseload is about to get heavier, with the U.S. Senate expected soon to confirm Andre Davis to a new position on the region's federal appeals court. With one judge's seat already vacant, that would leave eight full-time judges out of 10 possible positions on one of the country's busiest courts. The shortage could hold up case processing and put a greater strain on already-strapped judges, who oversee complicated cases involving everything from antitrust issues to witness murders and gang activity.
NEWS
By New York Times News Service | July 16, 2008
President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled yesterday in a fractured 5-4 decision. But a second, overlapping 5-4 majority of the court, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., must be given an additional opportunity to challenge his detention in federal court there. An earlier court proceeding, in which the government had presented only a sworn statement from a defense intelligence official, was inadequate, the second majority ruled.
NEWS
By STEVE CHAPMAN | July 8, 2008
"Islamic terrorists have constitutional rights," lamented one conservative blog, when the Supreme Court said Guantanamo inmates can challenge their detention in court. "These are enemy combatants," railed Sen. John McCain. The court, charged former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy of National Review, sided with foreigners "whose only connection with our body politic is their bloody jihad against Americans." The operating assumption here is that the prisoners are terrorists who were captured while fighting a vicious war against the United States.
NEWS
By Tricia Bishop | December 7, 2007
W.R. Grace & Co. and executives criminally charged in 2005 with the deadly asbestos contamination of a Montana town lost a bid this week to challenge an earlier court ruling that allowed one of the government's charges to stand. The move would have further delayed the trial, which has undergone a series of postponements and legal appeals. On Wednesday, a San Francisco federal appeals court declined to reconsider an earlier decision by three of its judges upholding the government charge of "knowing endangerment" against the Columbia-based chemical manufacturer.
NEWS
November 18, 2007
Lest there be any doubt about the importance of federal courts, consider the role courts are now playing in prodding the federal government toward a more practical approach to energy and the environment. The most recent example came last week with a federal appeals court ruling adopting the view of Maryland, California and other states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be considered by the federal government when regulating vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. But that was only the last in a series of decisions that have injected a healthy dose of common sense into a debate that has been wildly politicized.
NEWS
By LOS ANGELES TIMES | February 1, 2007
CINCINNATI -- A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union urged a federal appeals court yesterday to affirm a lower court decision that the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program is illegal and that "the president has to obey the law." But a Justice Department lawyer insisted the program is legal and called on the judges to overturn the ruling, while also arguing that the case is now moot. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals peppered them with questions about broad constitutional principles as well as the issue of whether the ACLU's clients have standing to challenge the program.
NEWS
By LOS ANGELES TIMES | January 31, 2007
CINCINNATI -- One of the Bush administration's most controversial initiatives in the war on terrorism is set for its first hearing in a federal appeals court today, but if government lawyers have their way the case will quickly be dismissed. Justice Department attorneys contend that the challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union to the government's warrantless domestic surveillance program is moot since the program is now being monitored by a special court. They are asking that the ruling that the program is unconstitutional be thrown out. But ACLU lawyers maintain that the case is still viable and are calling on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm Judge Ella Diggs Taylor's ruling in August that the Terrorist Surveillance Program violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution and ran afoul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Each side has described the case in stark terms.
NEWS
By JAMES P. MILLER | March 22, 2006
The Supreme Court, clearing up an ambiguity in the law, ruled yesterday in favor of limiting class action lawsuits filed by investors who allege that they were misled into holding on to risky stocks that they otherwise would have sold. Stockholders tricked into holding their shares are subject to the same rules that govern those who were duped into buying or selling stocks, the court ruled. The ruling, which favors defendant Merrill Lynch, "is of great significance to all publicly traded companies and financial services firms," said Merrill attorney Jay Kasner, because it "closes an enormous loophole" in the laws covering such litigation.
NEWS
By ROBERT LITTLE | November 24, 2005
The Justice Department, which secured an indictment of alleged al-Qaida sympathizer Jose Padilla on criminal charges and announced plans this week to transfer him out of military custody, appears to be trying to avoid a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the rights of suspected terrorists, constitutional lawyers and legal analysts said yesterday. But if that strategy fails and the Supreme Court chooses to review whether "enemy combatants," as Padilla has been designated, are entitled to court hearings and access to a lawyer, the result could alter the way the Bush administration must treat terrorism suspects worldwide - possibly including those reportedly detained in secret prisons overseas.