 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, June 23, 2005 |
 |
|


Supreme Court eminent domain ruling riles private property champions
Holly Manges Jones on June 23, 2005 8:23 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court's Thursday ruling in Kelo v. New London [text] allowing local governments to expropriate private property for development [JURIST report] has sparked intense negative reaction from defenders of private property rights, with a number hailing this as a "dark day for American homeowners". David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) [official website], called the ruling a "slap in the face" [press release] saying, "It is outrageous to think that the government can take away your home any time it wants to build a shopping mall." In an online chat [transcript] on the Washington Post website Carol DeGrasse, president of Property Rights of America, compared the ramifications of the high court's decision on middle class neighborhoods with the condemnations that ruined black communities during the 1950s and 60s.
The Institute for Justice [official website], a conservative public interest law firm, expects a strong battle over the issue [statements by the Institute for Justice and its clients] in the state supreme courts. The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) [official website], a non-partisan group that filed an amicus brief [PDF] in the case, stressed that that the implications go beyond affecting property owners to also burden taxpayers [press release].
Meanwhile, the National League of Cities (NLC) [official website] praised the decision, calling it a "victory for cities" [press release] and said eminent domain is "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."
University of Florida law professor Michael Allen Woolf, holder of the law school's local government chair, said late Thursday, however, that the wash of negative reaction may be unwarranted: The only thing that was surprising about the decision was that Justice Sandra Day O?Connor wrote the dissent, supporting the homeowners. One of the reasons why the majority sided with the city of New London was that the Supreme Court, in a 1984 opinion written by Justice O?Connor herself, upheld a very broad-based use of the takings clause by the state of Hawaii, allowing property to be taken from one private party and transferred, upon payment of just compensation, to another private party.
Contrary to the horror stories spread by the supporters of the homeowners in New London, not all Americans? homes are at risk. In fact, in many states the state and local governments are restricted in their use of eminent domain power. For example, in several states, like Florida, only blighted property may be taken in cases such as this by the government. Also, it must be remembered that the United States Constitution guarantees all property owners just compensation when their property is taken. This is not a token payment, but fair market value.
Finally, the political alignments in this case are somewhat surprising. On the one hand, the five justices who refused to strike down the taking (Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Souter), that is, the justices who restrained themselves and allowed state and local officials to proceed, are not the most conservative members of the court. These moderate and left-left leaning judges respected states? rights, refusing to elevate federal law over local law. In the process, they ignored the pleas of homeowners and elevated the interests of the powerful Pfizer Corporation and its allies in government. That sounds like pro-business conservatism to me. On the other hand, the dissenters (O?Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) attempted to play the role of judicial activists in this case and tried to use federal constitutional law to reverse the decisions of duly elected lawmakers, railing against "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." That sounds like good old-fashioned liberalism to me.
The bottom line is that, after this decision, the future of eminent domain law is in the hands of state and local elected and appointed officials. While the Michigan Supreme Court did recently reverse its previous position and rendered an opinion more in line with the Kelo dissent than the majority, we can expect that most of the moves for change will now be in state legislatures, not courtrooms. And, conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike can probably agree that that is the best place to make these socially and politically charged decisions. US Newswire also offers a statement on the Supreme Court decision by Ralph Nader [official website].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

States brief ~ CA high court rules "forgetting" to register as sex offender no excuse
Rachel Felton on June 23, 2005 5:22 PM ET

[JURIST] Leading Thursday's states brief, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a 4-3 decision that forgetting to register for Megan's Law [ CA Attorney General website] because of stress is an insufficient excuse. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that forgetting is only a valid excuse when the sex offender suffers from an "involuntary condition" such as amnesia or Alzheimer's disease. In the opinion [PDF text], Justice Janice Rogers Brown, recently elevated to the federal appeals bench, wrote, "It is simply not enough for a defendant to assert a selective impairment that conveniently affects his memory as to registering, but otherwise leaves him largely functional." Joseph Sorden showed up to register two weeks late, saying he had forgotten to register earlier because he was suffering from depression. AP has more.
In other state legal news ... - The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled Thursday in a unanimous decision, that for someone to be convicted of refusing to take a breathalyzer test [NJ Attorney General guidelines, PDF] the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof had previously been by a preponderance of the evidence. In its decision [PDF] the court said that a change in the standard was needed because the penalties for an accused drunk driver refusing to take a breathalyzer test have substantially increased. A first-time offense carries with it a seven month to one year driver license suspension. The higher standard of proof will apply to future and present cases, including those presently on appeal. AP has more.
- Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller [official website] has said that the state will use the $1.7 million it received in the Microsoft settlement to buy state patrol vehicles, upgrade its DNA lab and improve the state's sex-offender registry website. In a press release [text], Miller said "The Legislature and the Governor get credit for using this money to help meet important law enforcement needs in the state." Under a 2002 settlement agreement of an antitrust case by Miller and other attorney general's, Microsoft agreed to pay the states $28.6 million dollars. Iowa received approximately $2 million. Iowa's Quad-City Times has local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

International brief ~ 200 NGOs appeal to UN, AU to stop Zimbabwe evictions
D. Wes Rist on June 23, 2005 5:16 PM ET

[JURIST] Leading Thursday's international brief, in an immense demonstration of cooperation, over 200 African and international NGOs have made a collective appeal to the United Nations and the African Union [official website] to force Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe [Wikipedia profile] and the Zimbabwean government [official website] to cease "Operation Restore Order", the program of systematic evictions and arrests of illegal squatters and merchants that has resulted in over 30,000 arrests and an unknown number of homeless individuals, with estimates ranging from 300,000 to closer to one million being completely without shelter. The petition, spearheaded by Amnesty International [advocacy website] among other leading NGOs, calls on the UN to take immediate action to cease the evictions, now moving into rural areas, instead of waiting to hear from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's recently appointed special envoy [JURIST report]. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Zimbabwe [JURIST news archive]. Read Amnesty International's press release. ZimOnline has local coverage.
In related news, the Zimbabwe government has authorized Local Government Minister Ignatius Chombo and Agriculture Minister Joseph Made to approach national and international NGOs for assistance in caring for those left homeless by "Operation Restore Order" and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of homes. The decision is a reversal of a previous refusal [JURIST report] to allow NGOs to help in aid efforts and is seen as highly embarrassing for President Mugabe and the ruling Zanu PF party [official website]. Chombo and Made have already begun speaking to NGO representatives, and some, such as the Red Cross and Christian Care, have already sent workers in to begin aiding families in the affected zones. The first official complaints of deaths caused directly by police action [ZimOnline report] in razing 'illegal' housing were filed Thursday, as reports indicated that three children had been killed, two by direct police orders to send bulldozers into buildings that had children still sleeping inside. The exact ages of the children have not been reported, but one was a toddler and one was a high school student. Zimbabwean police deny direct responsibility and blame the parents of the children instead for failing to evacuate their condemned building fast enough. ZimOnline has local coverage
In other international legal news ... - The Nepali government was caught lying to the Nepal Supreme Court Thursday, after it declared that Nawaraj Subedi, Secretary General of the Jana Morcha Nepal political party had not been rearrested following a court ordered release last week. Sudeep Pathak, a member of the Nepal National Human Rights Committee [official website], told the Supreme Court that, despite government assurance that they were not detaining Subedi, a team from the NHRC had met with Subedi in the district police office in Lalitpur on Thursday, one day after the government's testimony that Subedi was not in there custody. The government responded that Subedi had been detained and not re-arrested. The government has had a revolving door arrest policy with many outspoken opponents to the declaration of a state of emergency [JURIST report] by King Gyanendra [official profile] rearrested after being released them pursuant to court order. Subedi was rearrested within hours of his release [Kantipur Online report] following last week's Supreme Court-ordered release. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Nepal [JURIST news archive]. Kantipur Online has local coverage.
- The UN General Assembly [official website] met Wednesday and approved a $3.2 billion (USD) budget for UN peacekeeping operations [official website], the largest budget ever granted peacekeeping in UN history. The General Assembly included with its approval a call for heightened scrutiny of fiscal allocations of peacekeeping funds, more efficiency in management departments, and quicker implementation of budgetary changes. The Assembly also acknowledged the work of the UN peacekeeping forces and warned that more care was needed in deploying those forces, as international demand for UN interventions was at an unprecedented high. Read the official UN press release. The UN News Centre has local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court says city can expropriate land for private redevelopment
Bernard Hibbitts on June 23, 2005 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday in Kelo v. New London [Duke Law backgrounder] that a local government authority can expropriate private property - land, homes and businesses - for private redevelopment that confers economic benefits on the community such as more jobs and tax revenue so long as it is not just a private use of the property for private benefit. The City of New London Connecticut had authorized expropriation of properties to accommodate a development plan for its Fort Trumbull area which included condominiums, hotels, and a conference center, as well as a new Pfizer pharmaceutical plant. Homeowners had objected, insisting that legal expropriation for public use under the Fifth Amendment was limited to clear public purposes such as roads, school, or renewal of urban blight. Read the opinion [via Cornell LII]. AP has more.
In other rulings Thursday... - the Court held 6-3 in Halbert v. Michigan [Duke Law backgrounder] that a Michigan state statute that refused counsel to indigent defendants pleading guilty to a crime but later seeking leave to appeal is unconstitutional. Read the opinion [via Cornell LII].
- in Mayle v. Felix [Duke Law backgrounder], the Court upheld the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled 7-2 that an amended habeas petition that makes a new claim on different facts is still subject to a one-year filing deadline. Read the opinion [via Cornell LII].
- in Orff v. U.S [Duke Law backgrounder], a unanimous Court, again upholding the Ninth Circuit, held that the doctrine of soverign immunity rendered the US government immune from a suit by farmers who claimed that the US Bureau of Reclamation had breached a contract to deliver water to their district. Read the opinion [via Cornell LII].
- in the consolidated cases of Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods [Duke Law backgrounder] a sharply divided court ruled 5-4 that a rule requiring a federal court claim to be worth $75,000 is satisfied where one party has that much at stake, even when other parties to a claim fo not. Read the opinion [via Cornell LII].
- in the habeas procedure case of Gonzalez v. Crosby [Duke Law backgrounder], the Court ruled 7-2 that a seeking to challenge a District Court ruling on the statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions can be decided by a District Court without a Circuit Court's permission. Read the opinion [via Cornell LII].
The Ten Commandments cases, which some observers expected to be handed down Thursday, were not decided, leaving them to be announced next week before the end of the current Court term. Five other cases remain to be disposed of.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN torture investigator complains of US delays in approving Gitmo visit
David Shucosky on June 23, 2005 8:48 AM ET

[JURIST] Manfred Nowak [ICJ profile], the UN special investigator on torture, complained Thursday that the US was stalling on his request to visit detainees at Guantanamo [JURIST news archive]. A US spokeswoman denied any delay, however, and put the lack of response to the mid-April request down to the request review process, which involves the White House, Congress, and the courts. So far, only the International Committee of the Red Cross has been allowed to visit the prison [JURIST report]. Allegations of abuse in their report to the US government were leaked, but the Red Cross would not confirm or deny them. UN human rights investigators have been trying to visit Guantanamo since 2002. The UN has issued this statement on the visitation delay. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|