 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, August 8, 2012 |
 |
|


Germany constitutional court grants equal tax benefits to same-sex couples
Sung Un Kim on August 8, 2012 3:32 PM ET

[JURIST] The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany [official website, in German] on Wednesday ruled that homosexual couples in a civil union [JURIST news archive] should receive the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples. The court held [Deutsche Welle report] that with regard to land transfer tax, gay couples should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples and further noted that the decision should apply retroactively, meaning that those couples who did not receive any benefits in the past would be compensated. The judge for the court ruled that the unequal treatment of gay and heterosexual couples before 2010 is unconstitutional without legal justification. In 2010, the law related to land transfer tax was amended to allow the same benefits for gay couples in case of a divorce as heterosexual couples. On Monday, thirteen politicians, members of the country's ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) [party website, in German] party, had called [Spiegel report] for the joint-filing tax benefits, which allows married couples to pool their tax rebates and pay less tax, to also to apply to gay couples. Germany has recognized same-sex civil unions since 2001 but there are still areas of rights that they do not enjoy as heterosexual couples.
In 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court had ruled [JURIST report] that a portion of the tax code requiring gay couples to pay a larger inheritance tax than partners in heterosexual marriages is unconstitutional. Before the ruling the German tax code required gay couples to pay between 17 and 50 percent for an inheritance tax upon the death of a partner, while heterosexual married partners are required to pay between 7 and 30 percent for the tax. In June of the same year, an administrative court in Berlin held [JURIST report] that a same-sex marriage performed abroad must be recognized in a registered partnership in Germany. A year earlier the country's constitutional court ruled [JURIST report] that surviving partners in a registered civil partnership have a right to collect under the occupational pension scheme for civil service employees


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

|

Federal judge blocks Florida limit on campaign contributions by minors
Rebecca DiLeonardo on August 8, 2012 1:49 PM ET

[JURIST] A federal judge on Monday issued a temporary injunction [order, PDF] barring enforcement of a Florida statute [text] that prevents minors from donating more than $100 to any political candidate or committee within an election period. Under the law, adults are allowed to contribute up to $500 per election. The lawsuit was brought by Julie Towbin, a 17-year-old Florida resident who was unable to purchase a $150 ticket to a political dinner due to concerns about the law, and the suit was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLU-FL) [advocacy website]. In her order, the judge found that the law was substantially likely to be a violation of Towbin's First Amendment rights to free expression. In a statement [text] Randall Marshall, Legal Director of the ACLU of Florida praised the decision:This law put an unconstitutional limit on some citizens' ability to engage in political activities based solely on their age. Our laws should encourage everyone regardless of age—and especially young people—to participate in the political process. Instead, this law took away speech and political participation rights to young citizens. Florida authorities are barred from enforcing the law until the judge makes a final ruling in the suit. The law did not apply to federal elections.
Florida election laws and policies have faced numerous federal challenges recently. Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner announced last month that the federal government will allow Florida access [JURIST report] to a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration database to challenge individuals' voting rights if the state suspects them of not being US citizens. In June a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a request [JURIST report] by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue a temporary injunction barring Florida from continuing the practice of purging its voter rolls. The DOJ alleged that Florida's policy violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) [text] as well as the National Voter Registration Act [text], which requires all voter roll maintenance to cease 90 days before the primary election, meaning all purging in Florida should have stopped by May 16. Florida also faces challenges to its purging policy from the ACLU-FL and a coalition of rights groups [JURIST reports] on behalf of several Florida citizens. Earlier in June, amidst calls to end its purging practices, Florida filed suit [JURIST report] seeking access to the DHS immigration database. Earlier that month, a spokesperson for Governor Rick Scott said that the state would continue to search for ineligible voters, even after receiving a letter from the DOJ ordering them to stop the practice [JURIST report].


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

|

Supreme Court refuses to halt Texas execution of man with low IQ
Sung Un Kim on August 8, 2012 1:31 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday denied [order, PDF] an application to stay the Texas execution of a man with in IQ of 61. Justice Antonin Scalia refused [Reuters report] the challenge brought by Marvin Wilson who claimed that his execution is unconstitutional under the 2002 ruling in Atkins v. Virginia [opinion, PDF], which prohibits the execution of mentally retarded persons. Wilson was sentenced to death in 1994, two years after he was convicted of murder for killing a police drug informant. His IQ was determined to be 61lower than the mentally competent level which is set at 70. Texas however argued that the IQ test was conducted by an intern and that that the result was flawed. Defense lawyers claimed that state officials used nonclinical factors in determining Wilson's mental competency. They also raised the issue that the state allegedly received new evidence demonstrating that their client was not the shooter. However, the Supreme Court did not address the issue. Wilson was executed Tuesday night.
Texas courts had previously stayed an execution of a mentally ill defendant. In July the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals [court website] ordered [JURIST report] a stay of execution [order, PDF] for convicted killer Marcus Druery who had been scheduled for execution on August 1. He had been diagnosed as schizophrenic by both prison and private doctors. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] in the case of Bobby v. Bies [Cornell LII backgrounder] that a post-conviction hearing to determine the mental competency of a capital defendant convicted before the Court's 2002 ruling in Atkins does not violate the Double Jeopardy [Cornell LII backgrounder] clause. Despite the ruling in Atkins, in 29 states, including Texas, Tennessee and New Jersey [JURIST reports], the defendant still carries the burden of proving mental retardation in death-penalty [JURIST news archive] cases to receive a lesser sentence.


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

|

Ninth Circuit dismisses Islamic charity wiretapping suit
Sung Un Kim on August 8, 2012 12:46 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Tuesday reversed [opinion, PDF] a lower court's decision in favor of an Oregon-based Islamic nonprofit corporation challenging the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program. The US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] held that the federal government implicitly waived sovereign immunity under Section 1810 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [LII backgrounder]. The court also awarded the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation [JURIST news archive] $40,800 in damages and $2.5 million in attorney's fees and legal costs. District court Judge Vaughn Walker found [JURIST report] that the National Security Agency (NSA) [official website] warrantless wiretapping program violated the rights of organization under the FISA. Judge Margaret McKeown for the court of appeals, however, held that the lower court was wrong in its decision because Section 1810 of the FISA "does not include an explicit waiver of immunity, nor is it appropriate to imply such a waiver." With its decision, the appeals court also noted that the case raised an important issue of balancing national security and individual liberties:In light of the complex, ever-evolving nature of this litigation, and considering the significant infringement on individual liberties that would occur if the Executive Branch were to disregard congressionally-mandated procedures for obtaining judicial authorization of international wiretaps, the charge of "game-playing" lobbed by the government is as careless as it is inaccurate. McKeown noted that the recent decision will end the continuous attempt by the organization to hold the government responsible for wiretapping without judicial authorization.
Al-Haramain filed a motion [JURIST report] for partial summary judgment in July 2009. In February of that year the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling [JURIST reports] denying a government appeal to keep the NSA call log secret, despite its accidental release to Al-Haramain in 2004. The call log had been deemed a state secret [JURIST report], but the decision required the government to allow the foundation to view the document. JURIST contributor Victor Comras said that Walker had done a "truly remarkable job" balancing national security and due process [JURIST comment] in the case. Walker had previously dismissed the suit [JURIST report], finding that Al-Haramain lacked a cause of action because the state secrets privilege trumped procedural requirements under FISA.


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

|

Russia court reduces sentence for Khodorkovsky partner
Rebecca DiLeonardo on August 8, 2012 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] A Russian court on Wednesday reduced the sentence of the former business partner of jailed Russian oil executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive]. Platon Lebedev [defense website; JURIST news archive] has been incarcerated since 2003 for various charges associated with his business partnership with Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are each serving prison sentences for fraud, theft and money laundering, scheduled to run until 2016. Lebedev's 13-year prison sentence was reduced [AP report] Wednesday, moving his scheduled release date to March 2013. Khodorkovsky's sentence will remain intact until an appeal is heard in his case. A senior Russian judge last month ordered a court to review [JURIST report] Khodorkovsky's appeal. Khodorkovsky has denied all the charges and maintains that he was falsely convicted as retribution for funding opposition parties during a former presidency of current President Vladimir Putin [BBC profile]. His former oil company, Yukos Oil [JURIST news archive], was split up and Russian state-controlled oil firm Rosneft eventually bought the largest production assets, making Rosneft the country's biggest oil producer.
Opposition leaders and other groups have shown skepticism about the validity of Khodorkovsky's sentence. In December the Russia Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights under President Dmitry Medvedev called for the prosecutor general to petition to annul the conviction [JURIST report]. Describing the verdict as fictitious, council member and former Constitutional Court judge, Tamara Morshchakova, noted the council found neither evidence nor substance to the charges brought against Khodorkovsky in the second trial. The council's decisions are non-binding and have seldom elicited action from Russian authorities. In July, the council urged amnesty for economic crimes in a meeting with Medvedev that would include amnesty for the crimes of Khodorkovsky. Last year former Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov testified [JURIST report] that former president and current prime minister Vladimir Putin ordered Khodorkovsky's arrest for political reasons, indicating that Khodorkovsky had funded the Communist Party without first getting approval to do so from the president.


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

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