Thursday, June 28, 2012

Opinions Anticipated in Court Ruling

Story first appeared in USA Today.

Tea Party and union members, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats have two things in common as the Supreme Court prepares to announce its verdict on President Obama's health care law Thursday.

They have no clue what the court will decide. And they will have plenty to say outside the court immediately after — in high praise or denunciation.

Much like the court's three days of oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act in late March, Thursday will feature a crowded, hushed courtroom and a cacophonous series of sidewalk demonstrations.

For some lawyers and lawmakers who have fought the health care battle for years — and in some cases, decades — it's an opportunity to witness history inside the marble courthouse.

There's an atmosphere of intense, quiet excitement. People are sitting in that room knowing history is about to be made.

The executive director of the health consumer group Families USA, has been there the past three days the court delivered opinions, just in case health care was among them. Thursday, he plans to arrive several hours early to make sure he picks up every nuance from the nine justices.

His allies will be outside as well, to react before dozens of TV cameras. Within minutes, the group plans to send its analysis and recommendations for further action to more than 100,000 supporters. It has prepared eight news releases based on potential court rulings.

On the other side of the debate, Tea Party demonstrators also will be out in force. They plan a "flash rally" in front of the court, thanks to "Minutemen" coming from hours away.

Within 36 hours, the Tea Party Patriots plan a teleconference for their members with key opponents of the law.

Members of Congress will be inside and outside. The House Speaker will dispatch two members of his leadership team. The Speaker has vowed to seek repeal of any portions of the law left standing by the court.

Liberal Democrats, anticipating that the court's conservative majority may strike at least part of the law, plan to march from the Capitol to the court with signs urging "Medicare for all," a type of government-run health care.

Some of the most prominent advocates involved with the case won't attend — they'll be busy reading and responding.

A Georgetown University law professor and plaintiff in the case on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business, will be reading the justices' opinions, writing on legal blog sites, doing radio commentary and fielding a steady stream of media calls.


For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Arizona Immigration Law Gets Cut up

Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

The Supreme Court struck down the harshest parts of an Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants, ruling the state interfered with congressional authority over U.S. borders, but it let stand a requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop for traffic or other offenses.

By a vote of 6-2, the court voided a provision making it a state crime for an immigrant to fail to carry federal registration papers. By 5-3 votes, it invalidated sections that authorized jail time for illegal immigrants who seek work in Arizona and that gave state and local police more power to arrest immigrants suspected of offenses.

Arizona's one victory came in the court's decision to uphold the status-check provision. Federal law already requires immigration authorities to respond to checks from state and local officers, indicating that Congress saw nothing wrong with such consultation between arms of government.

The ruling on the state law, known as SB 1070, was greeted with cautious favor from people on both sides of immigration debate. Opponents of the law were generally relieved and said the ruling lifted some of the fears illegal immigrants felt about being picked up by state police during everyday activities. But they said much would depend on how the surviving provision is interpreted.

There's still going to be a lot of uncertainty until it's clear how police will approach this, according to Columbus Immigration Lawyers.

The Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff, known for his tough stance on illegal immigrants, said the most important part of the law was upheld.

Although the status-check provision contains no criminal sanctions or authority for the state to hold illegal immigrants without federal permission, it emerged as the flash point of controversy over effectively enlisting every Arizona law officer in a state campaign to "discourage and deter" the presence of illegal immigrants, as the statute says.

Raleigh Immigration Lawyers feel that the court left open the possibility that the surviving provision could be challenged, should it lead to prolonged detentions solely to determine immigration status.

The government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.  Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire nation.

One Justice agreed with the majority that Arizona's alien-registration requirement was void, but voted to uphold SB 1070 provisions making it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work and authorizing warrantless arrests of certain aliens. Two other Justices each filed separate dissents arguing that SB 1070 should be upheld in its entirety.

The majority deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there.

One Justice acknowledged that the problems posed to the State by illegal immigration must not be underestimated, and cited figures indicating that unauthorized aliens are responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime—a reported 21.8% of felonies in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, where they constitute 8.9% of the population.

Nonetheless, since 1940, the federal government has occupied the field of alien registration, leaving no room for Arizona to pile on penalties. SB 1070 went further than federal law, forbidding probation and even the possibility of a pardon for such an offense.

Another SB 1070 section made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek work, in contrast to federal law, which punishes employers for hiring unauthorized immigrants but not the workers themselves, unless they used fraudulent documents or committed perjury to obtain work. The state law would interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress over the labor market.

One Justice concluded with a paean to America's history as a nation of immigrants, observing that last month a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem and took the oath of citizenship.

Opponents of the law said they would redouble efforts to challenge the remaining part of the law. This proves Arizona cannot criminalize immigrants.

A Republican governor who signed the law in 2010, called the ruling a victory and said she had once again ordered law-enforcement officials to undergo training on how to enforce the law without engaging in racial profiling.

As a result of Monday's ruling, state officials can't jail an illegal immigrant under state law solely for failing to carry papers. In the absence of another crime, the most they can do is refer the case to federal authorities for possible deportation proceedings.

Federal policy will continue to put priority on deporting those who commit crimes, have repeatedly violated immigration laws or have crossed the border recently.  That means otherwise law-abiding immigrants aren't likely to face deportation, even if Arizona police, using the surviving part of the law, discover the immigrants lack documents allowing them to be in the U.S.

Arizona's illegal-immigration measure, officially titled the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, reflected outrage among tea-party conservatives over what they considered lax enforcement by federal immigration authorities. Yet Arizona voters sent a mixed message on the measure when its author, state Senate President Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a November recall election to another Republican.

Similar measures have been introduced in other states, including Alabama, which recently drew unwelcome attention when executives from German and Japanese car makers that the state had lured there were arrested for failing to produce immigration papers.

Reaction was mixed in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina, three states that passed legislation in 2011 aimed at restricting illegal immigration. Those laws had a provision similar to the one in Arizona that was upheld. Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, a Republican, called the ruling a victory, while opponents in the three states said the Supreme court had upheld their view that immigration was essentially a federal matter.

Each state law has other provisions, including some that weren't in the Arizona statute, and it wasn't clear how federal courts would apply the Supreme Court's reasoning in those cases. Georgia made it a state crime for people to knowingly house or transport an illegal immigrant, a provision that was blocked by a lower court and is now under appeal.


For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Monday, June 25, 2012

The Black Keys Sue for Copyright Infringement

Story first appeared in The Associated Press.

The Black Keys are not shilling power tools or pizza, the band said in copyright infringement lawsuits against The Home Depot and Pizza Hut.

The "Lonely Boy" band filed the federal lawsuits Thursday, claiming Home Depot did not have permission to use elements of the hit song in an ad promoting power tools and that Pizza Hut misused "Gold on the Ceiling" in a recent ad.

Both songs appeared on the rock group's seventh album, "El Camino," which was released last year and has sold nearly 840,000 copies. Musician-producer known as Danger Mouse, is also suing the companies.

The experts confirmed that this was copyright infringement, according to San Diego Copyrights Lawyers.

The cases seek unspecified damages of more than $75,000 apiece and an order preventing the continued use of the songs in the commercials.

A spokesman for Home Depot said that they haven't seen the complaint yet, but respect for intellectual property rights is a matter we take very seriously.

A Pizza Hut spokesman said the company also hasn't seen the case, but fully respects artists' rights. He directed inquiries to the ad's creators, The Martin Agency and The Interpublic Group of Companies.

A Martin Agency spokesman said the company doesn't respond to pending lawsuits, and a spokesman for the Interpublic Group of Companies was not immediately available.

The suits claim both companies were given written notices that the ads misused The Black Keys' music. The Home Depot ad touts Ryobi power tools, while the Pizza Hut ad touts its new "Cheesy Bites Pizza."

New York Copyrights lawyers stated that neither company received permission to use musical elements from the songs. The ads do not include any vocals.

"Lonely Boy" and "Gold on the Ceiling" both topped the Billboard alternative music chart after their release.

The Black Keys won two Grammy Awards in 2010 for music from their album "Brothers," which won the Best Alternative Music Album award that year.

Arkansas Kills Execution Law

Story first appeared in USA Today.
The Arkansas Supreme Court struck down the state's execution law Friday, but did not deem lethal injection or the death penalty unconstitutional.

Rather, in a split decision, it sided with 10 death row inmates who argued that the 2009 execution law violated part of the state's constitution that deals with separating the branches of government.

It is evident to this court that the Legislature has abdicated its responsibility and passed to the executive branch, in this case the (Arkansas Department of Correction), the unfettered discretion to determine all protocol and procedures, most notably the chemicals to be used, for a state execution.

Two justices dissented, arguing that the correction department's discretion is not "unfettered" because it is bound by federal and state constitutions that guard against cruel and unusual punishment.

In addition, Arkansas is left no method of carrying out the death penalty in cases where it has been lawfully imposed.

The 2009 law says death sentences are to be carried out by lethal injection of one or more chemicals that the director of the Department of Correction chooses. The law also says that in the event that the lethal injection section is found to be unconstitutional, death sentences will be carried out by electrocution.

That option doesn't seem likely. An Arkansas history museum has the state's two electric chairs in storage. And although Arkansas and eight other states authorize electrocution under certain circumstances, all use lethal injection as the primary method of execution, according to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center.

No one has been forced to have an electrocution for many years, so it immediately comes under scrutiny under the cruel and unusual.

Arkansas prisons spokeswoman Dina Tyler said there's no reason to revert to electrocution because lethal injection remains the state's method of execution. She said the state couldn't put anyone to death right now anyway because of the court's decision and a shortage of a lethal injection drug.

There are 40 death row inmates in Arkansas, but no pending executions. The state hasn't put anyone to death since 2005 and Friday's decision suggested it won't anytime soon.

They have to go back to the legislative drawing board and try to figure out how to do this differently. And that's going to take time because statutes will be debated and challenged and new appeals will be raised. That's just the nature of this punishment.

The legislative session begins in January. Gov. Mike Beebe said he doesn't plan to call a special session to address the court's ruling at this point.

The death penalty is still the law in Arkansas, but the Department of Correction now has no legal way to carry out an execution until a new statute is established.

The governor also said he hopes to have a proposed remedy in the next few months after meeting with the state's attorney general and legislative leaders.

Although Beebe has set several execution dates since he took office in 2007, courts have stopped all of them, including the death row inmate who brought the lawsuit against the state. About a week before Jack Harold Jones Jr. was scheduled to die on March 16, 2010, he sued the head of the correction department, challenging the state's 2009 execution law.

A court halted his death and nine other inmates later joined the suit, asking that the law be struck down.

Recently, though, Arkansas asked the state's high court to free up several executions it had halted because of this lawsuit.

Josh Lee, an attorney for some of the death row inmates who challenged the law, declined to comment Friday.

Arkansas adopted lethal injection as its method of capital punishment in 1983, and is one of 33 states — plus the federal government — that has the death penalty.

Joseph Cordi, an attorney for the state, told the state Supreme Court last week that he thought the state would fall back on the 1983 law if the court struck down the entire 2009 statute.

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's spokesman Aaron Sadler said they plan to meet with clients about how to move forward in light of the court's decision.


For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Apple in Trouble Again

Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

Apple Inc. must pay damages to South Korean rival Samsung Electronics Co. for breaching one of its patents, a Dutch court ruled.

The ruling is the latest twist in a long-running spat between the two smartphone makers over patent and copyrights that has been playing out in numerous courtrooms around the world.

The amount of damages Apple must pay hasn't been determined, but will be calculated within the next two months from the number of patent-breaching products contained in smartphones and tablet computers sold by Apple in the Netherlands over the time period of the infringement, which the court decided began on Aug. 4, 2010.

The court said the calculation will also include the revenue and profit that Apple made from them. The products themselves, however, can continue to be sold in stores.

Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., started a legal battle with Samsung and other companies it believes have copied its popular iPhone, while those companies have countersued with allegations of their own. The Silicon Valley company has racked up rulings in its favor, while Samsung's countersuits have so far failed to win injunctions that would hobble sales of Apple products.

An Apple spokeswoman reiterated the company's earlier statement in the suits with Samsung, accusing it of "blatant copying."


For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Ex-Rutgers Student Gets Out of Jail

Story first appeared in USA Today.

The former Rutgers University student convicted of using a webcam to spy on his roommate will likely be released from prison Tuesday after serving 20 days of a 30-day sentence, say Hackensack Personal Injury Lawyers.

The twenty-year-old reported to the Middlesex County Jail on May 31, even though he could have remained free while his case is appealed.

The Warden told The Associated Press on Friday that he is in line to be released Tuesday, 20 days after he reported. Like other inmates with that length sentence, he began with five days of credits for good behavior and five for working. The warden said he has not lost any of those credits.

The defendant's roommate committed suicide in September 2010, days after the defendant used a webcam to see — briefly — live streaming video of the deceased and another man kissing.

A jury convicted the defendant in March of all 15 criminal counts he faced, including bias intimidation, for which he could have been given a 10-year prison sentence. Last month, a judge said he should have a shorter sentence in part because he did not commit violence.

Prosecutors are asking an appeals court for a longer sentence while he is appealing his conviction.

The Hackensack Criminal Defense Lawyers handling the case have told a judge that he will begin making monthly payments toward the more than $11,000 in fines and assessments he was ordered to pay as part of his sentence and will start serving 300 hours of community service.

If the sentence stands, the defendant also will have to check in with a probation officer for three years.


For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.
For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.
For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.
For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.