Bail Bonds Services Sanford – The Supreme Court Sets a Higher Standard for Special Education

Source     : Real Clear Education News
By             : Brian Rogers, Mihir Zaveri, and Gabrielle Banks
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

The Supreme Court Sets a Higher Standard for Special Education

Amid the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District and handed down what may prove to be the most important special education ruling in thirty-five years. The unanimous decision in Endrew F. smacks down the Rowley decision which has, since 1982, fueled an often-contentious relationship between parents and school districts. It was tough news for a man awaiting confirmation to the highest court as Gorsuch had supported the Rowley standard as a federal judge in the Tenth Circuit. Despite that drama, the Endrew F. ruling is good news for children, families and special educators, and a crucial milestone in the 40th year of implementing federal special education law. Under Rowley, public schools were only required to establish a floor for opportunity through their special education programs. The Endrew F. decision ruled that a floor, alone, was insufficient. It reflects a belief in the potential of all students by requiring that schools offer “an IEP [individualized education plan] reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”  Endrew F. is not specific; it does not prescribe a definition of progress or offer grade level equivalents that are the basis of mainstream schooling.  The Endrew F. case shifts the position of the school district from one that must satisfy a minimum standard to one that must offer a reasonable hope of progress and in doing so, takes a step toward fulfilling the promise of special education that started with President Ford’s signing of Public Law 94-142 in 1975.

Few teachers today can remember the “bad old days” when a school administrator could refuse to enroll a child with a disability. When Congress passed Public Law 94-142, it was focused on the million children who were excluded from public schools and on the lack of quality services for many of those severely challenged children who were enrolled. It became illegal after the law to exclude children from school because of a disability. The law was rooted in a commitment to access—all children are entitled to a public education. But the law was not written for benefit. Public Law 94-142 and its successor, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), do not set academic, social or behavioral expectations. The law watched after the outcomes for children by giving parents an unprecedented role in designing and approving the program for their children. Giving parents a voice in their child’s IEP was an amazing feat. Congress knew that parents were not educators and that many parents lacked an adequate education themselves. But Congress also knew that parents love their children. Giving parents a voice was revolutionary in 1975 and still remarkable today. But the administrative realities of having mom and dad engaged in the IEP process mounted as the number of children covered under the law grew to more than 6 million.

Perhaps it should be no surprise that a law designed to address access ultimately failed to advance equity. Compliance superseded opportunity as the law’s primary focus. Sadly, the cost of compliance fueled fiscal nightmares for state and district leaders. Special education became a maintenance system for too many students whose disabilities remained static. Serving the students was mandatory; improving their lot in life was not. But Endrew F. changes that. The reauthorization of IDEA now looms large and presents an opportunity for the U.S. Department of Education to recapture the high ground in special education. While President Trump’s “skinny budget” showed no decrease in support for special education, it also showed no increase or no move to the full funding that has eluded federally guided special education since its implementation. Endrew F. is an upgrade for children and a concomitant increase in expenditures for school districts. States and districts will now look for guidance and leadership from an understaffed U.S. Department of Education in the application of Endrew F. In recent decades, special education has drifted from its role as a champion of access and of care for those with disabilities to a compliance-driven model. Children should not have to pay for the organizational inadequacies of the education system or for the underfunding of special education. But they do. The Endrew F. decision provides a mandate for school districts to move beyond de minimus and toward appropriate progress. It’s a step in the right direction and a move in keeping with the law’s original intent as a champion for those with disabilities.

Read more here : realcleareducation.com/articles/2017/04/11/the_supreme_court_sets_a_higher_standard_for_special_education__110141.html

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – Supreme Court: Challenging Quick-Look Eligibility Denials

Source     : Patentlyo News
By             : Dennis Crouch
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Supreme Court: Challenging Quick-Look Eligibility Denials

A newly filed petition for writ of certiorari offers a substantial challenge to the quick-look eligibility decisions that have been so popular among district courts.  The challenge here is especially focused on no-evidence eligibility decisions that serve as a substitute for an obviousness determination. In the case, the claims of BBiTV’s U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 have been repeatedly upheld as non-obvious before a Hawaii district court ruled them ineligible on summary judgment.  In its 103 analysis, the Hawaii court also denied summary judgment of obviousness – finding questions of material fact regarding whether (1) elements of the claims were found in the prior art or (2) PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine those elements.  In its simultaneous 101 decision, however, the court determined as a matter of law that those same elements were “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry” that lack the “inventive concept” required by Alice.  The decision was (as is now common) affirmed without opinion by the Federal Circuit.

The petition challenges the decision and the newly-popular approach of using eligibility as a shortcut to more difficult and fact-intensive obviousness analysis. The three three questions:
1. Evidence for Underlying Factual Findings: Whether the statutory presumption of validity set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 282 applies to claims challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as set forth by this Court in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P., 564 U.S. 91 (2011), when the ultimate legal conclusion relies upon underlying findings of fact, such as whether the additional novel and non-obvious elements of the claims are merely well-understood, routine, and conventional or whether they add an inventive concept.
2. Standard for Summary Judgment: Whether, unlike every other area of law involving motions for summary judgment, as set forth by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and its progeny, a district court may resolve material underlying fact disputes against the non-movant party on a summary judgment motion for lack of patent-eligibility under § 101.
3. Not All Abstraction Are Abstract: Whether the judicially-created exception for “abstract ideas” broadly includes any abstraction of a claim (including novel business practices or methods of organizing human activities) or only “fundamental” and “long-standing” (i.e., pre-existing) practices and methods, as recognized by this Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) and Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356- 57 (2014).

The questions begin with the implicit understanding that, although a question of law, eligibility decisions are based upon a set of factual determinations that should be treated like any other factual determination by the court.  This approach is directly contrary to the approach often taken these days that follows Judge Mayer’s concurring opinion in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014). An important legal question here is how close the link should be between obviousness and eligibility.  Post-KSR and Alice, there does appear to be substantial connection between the obviousness analysis associated with combining-old-elements and the eligibility analysis of elements that are “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”  The two should often correlate, the court here may have the opportunity to explain the differences both in doctrine and procedure.

Read more here: patentlyo.com/patent/2017/04/supreme-challenging-eligibility.html

Bail Bonds Services Sanford – US Supreme Court hesitant to expand debt collection abuse law

Source     : Raw Story News
By             : Reuters Press
Category :  Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

US Supreme Court hesitant to expand debt collection abuse law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of widening the scope of who can be subject to a federal law targeting debt collectors’ abusive practices by including those who buy debt, sometimes for pennies on the dollar. The justices heard oral arguments in a proposed consumer class action lawsuit against Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc over allegations it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A lower court had dismissed the case brought by four Maryland residents who had defaulted on car loans.

That law typically applies to entities whose primary purpose is debt collection for others, not to lenders who give out and collect their own loans, such as banks or full-service finance companies. The justices, both liberal and conservative, appeared concerned that players in the debt collection industry could evade the law merely by buying the debt, but suggested that the statute is not as elastic as the plaintiffs in the case view it. “Just look at the language,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan told the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Kevin Russell. “Can you come up with a sentence that points to your reading?” “I acknowledge that may not be the first interpretation that leaps to mind,” Russell replied.

Companies that buy delinquent debt from the original lenders and then try to collect it from the borrowers are becoming a fast-growing segment of the multibillion-dollar debt collection industry. Debt buyers made $4.4 billion in revenue in 2015, according to legal papers. The plaintiffs filed the class action in 2012 in federal court accusing Santander of violations of the debt collection law including misrepresenting debt loads and bypassing debtors’ lawyers. Their debts had been sold to Santander, a Dallas-based consumer finance company specializing in car loans, owned in part by a subsidiary of Banco Santander, the euro zone’s second-largest bank by market value. Santander then tried to collect on the loans.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lawsuit’s dismissal last March, saying the law applied only to debt collectors, and Santander became a creditor when it purchased the loans. The U.S. Congress enacted the law in 1977 to regulate debt collectors, who might be less concerned about future business with the customer than original lenders and therefore willing to use abusive practices or harassment to recoup the money.

When conservative Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that as a debt collector Santander has less incentive to maintain goodwill, Santander’s attorney Kannon Shanmugam countered that the company is not the kind of “fly-by-night” operation the law targets, and it might seek to sell other financial products to the clients. Russell told the justices that the 4th Circuit decision could be used by companies that service debt to avoid the law by buying the defaulted loans. In court papers, the plaintiffs also said that increasingly common large debt buyers might try to evade the law by diversifying their businesses to ensure their primary purpose is not debt collection. The plaintiffs were supported by a group of 28 states, including Oregon and Florida, and the District of Columbia, which said in legal papers that consumers see no difference between debt buyers and debt collectors and should be protected from unscrupulous tactics by both.

Read more here: rawstory.com/2017/04/us-supreme-court-hesitant-to-expand-debt-collection-abuse-law/

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – High Court lifts legal bar on sale of Lynam’s Hotel on O’Connell Street

Source     : Independent News
By             : Aodhan O’Faolain
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

High Court lifts legal bar on sale of Lynam’s Hotel on O’Connell Street

The High Court has removed a legal notice which it was claimed was holding up the sale of a Dublin city hotel which had been used to accommodate homeless families. On Tuesday, Nama-appointed receiver Aiden Murhpy asked the court to remove the registered notice, called as a lis pendens, indicating that there was a legal action pending over Lynam’s Hotel, Upper O’Connell Street.  Mr Justice Paul Gilligan agreed to remove the lis pendens. However, he granted a stay on his decision until lunchtime Wednesday to allow lawyers for the former hotel operator to seek a further stay before the Court of Appeal pending a full hearing of the appeal.

The lis pendens was registered last September by Theresa Andreucetti who operated the hotel for many years under a lease she entered into with the former owners in 2008. Eamon Marry Bl, for the receiver, said that a contract for sale had been agreed with an unnamed party. Last year Ms Andreucetti, of Fawn, Castleknock Road, Dublin, brought injunction proceedings preventing the receiver taking possession after she claimed she was put out of the hotel. The injunction proceedings were settled on various terms including that she would vacate the premises by August 1 last year.

Mr Marry said that despite agreeing to vacate the premises, she had registered the lis pendens. This “was an attempt to get back in via the back door” and was attempting to frustrate to proposed sale, counsel said. Robert Beatty SC, for Ms Andreucetti, urged the court not to remove the lis pendens pending the outcome of the full dispute between the parties. That full action relates to applications for various orders against the receivers including that the termination of her lease is invalid and unlawful.

She also claims the receiver’s actions caused her reputational damage. Mr Justice Paul Gilligan was satisfied to vacate the lis pendens on grounds including that Ms Andreucetti had not progressed her claim against the receiver with expedition. He said Ms Andreucetti knew that the receiver had intended to sell the hotel once vacant possession was handed over. He also said the full dispute should be heard as soon as possible. To facilitate that, the court put a timetable in place for the exchange of documents between the parties. It was a matter for the potential buyers of the hotel to decide if they wished to proceed with the purchase or if they wanted to await the outcome of the full hearing of the action, he said.

Read more here: independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-lifts-legal-bar-on-sale-of-lynams-hotel-on-oconnell-street-35593626.html

Bail Bonds Services Sanford – Animal rights lawyer will argue chimpanzees should have ‘personhood rights’ at New York’s Supreme Court

Source     : Daily Mail News
By             : Forrest Hanson and Ben Ashford
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Animal rights lawyer will argue chimpanzees should have ‘personhood rights’ at New York’s Supreme Court

The question of whether an ape should have ‘personhood’ rights has made its way to the appellate division of New York’s Supreme Court. On Thursday, animal rights lawyer Steve Wise will argue before Manhattan’s appellate court that his clients, chimpanzees Kiko and Tommy, should be considered ‘persons’ rather than ‘things.’ Corporations and ships are among non-human entities that have been awarded ‘personhood’ rights.

Wise told NBC News: ‘A “person” is the law’s way of saying that entity has the capacity for rights. A “thing,” which chimpanzees are now, don’t have capacity for any kind of rights.’ He added: ‘To treat them as things destroys them.’ Wise, who founded advocacy group the Nonhuman Rights Project, has fought for the chimpanzees since 2013 and was profiled in a 2016 documentary, ‘Unlocking the Cage,’ which debuted on HBO in February. He has used habeas corpus, or the right to be brought before a court if in jail or ‘detention,’ as an argument to free chimpanzees, considered autonomous, from potentially unjust confinement.

Tommy was previously owned by Patrick Lavery, who had kept him in a cage of cement and steel in an upstate New York trailer lot with a TV for entertainment, which Lavery previously said was a form of ‘enrichment.’ When animal rights activists found him in the care of Lavery, they asked for him to be transferred to a reputable animal sanctuary. Lavery refused, prompting the NHRP to launch a landmark 2013 lawsuit claiming he was being unlawfully detained that was eventually dismissed by Albany’s appellate court on procedural grounds. In the documentary film, Lavery tells Wise that Tommy is ‘lonely’ and should live on a farm in Florida, which Wise does not believe would be a good environment for him.

Paperwork obtained by Daily Mail Online suggested the chimpanzee was ‘donated’ to the DeYoung Family Zoo in Michigan’s remote Upper Peninsula in September 2015. The roadside attraction is owned by Bud DeYoung and his younger partner Carrie Cramer, whose eccentric lifestyle and passion for wildlife earned them their own short-lived reality TV show, My Life is a Zoo, on National Geographic Wild. But when Daily Mail Online visited last summer there was no sign of Tommy and neither DeYoung nor Cramer were prepared to answer any questions or talk about the chimp’s wellbeing.  Tommy, believed to be in his late 30s or early 40s, played Matthew Broderick’s simian sidekick in the hit 1987 movie Project X.

Kiko is kept by Carmen and Christie Presti in their Niagara Falls-located Primate Sanctuary, which Nonhuman Rights Project says is run out of their home and is not a proper environment for apes. Wise and the Project say they are not accusing either party of breaking the law. He told NBC: ‘What we’re saying is those laws are grossly insufficient and [the chimpanzees] should have a right to bodily liberty.’ He added: ‘We’re trying to protect their rights.’ Scientists such as Jane Goodall wrote an affidavit to be used in support of Wise’s argument. His last case arguing for chimpanzees Hercules and Leo, who were used for research at Stony Brook University in New York, ruled against his cause. But since then, a judge in Argentina became the first in the world to grant a chimpanzee named Cecelia ‘nonhuman legal person’ status. If Wise’s case is successful, he said he would like for Tommy and Kiko to live at ‘Save the Chimps,’ a sanctuary in Florida.

Read more here: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4306320/Animal-rights-lawyer-argues-chimpanzees.html

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – Apple, Google, Facebook skip legal challenge to new travel ban

Source     : CNBC News
By             : Press Release
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Apple, Google, Facebook skip legal challenge to new travel ban

Apple, Alphabet’s Google and Facebook are among more than 60 technology companies that appear to have backed away from the legal fight against U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, deciding not to put their weight behind a lawsuit seeking to block the second version of his executive order. A legal brief filed in federal court in Hawaii on Tuesday on behalf of Silicon Valley companies listed the support of 58 companies, less than half the 127 signatories to a similar brief filed in an appeals court last month after Trump’s first executive order banning travel from a number of countries the administration said posed a security risk. Airbnb, Dropbox and Kickstarter are among the companies that did sign the brief.

Major tech companies that signed on to the earlier effort but not this week included Microsoft, eBay, Intel, Netflix, and Twitter. The lawsuit may succeed despite losing the overt support of such big names. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu on Wednesday ordered an emergency halt to Trump’s executive order that aimed to temporarily bar entry to the United States of most refugees as well as travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. The halt is temporary. Trump says the ban is necessary for U.S. national security, and called Watson’s order “unprecedented judicial overreach.”

Tech companies, which generally rely on skilled workers from overseas more than other industries, played a large part in the legal effort to halt the first version of Trump’s executive order, which was put on hold by a Seattle judge in early February. It was not immediately clear why fewer of them signed on to the “friend-of-the-court” brief this time around. Companies will have an opportunity to join the effort as it moves through the court system, said Robert Atkins, a New York lawyer and co-author of the brief. “We do expect the group to expand.”

Ride-hailing company Uber Technologies was in the process of adding its name, a spokesman said. Box Inc, a file-sharing service, said that although it did not sign the brief, there had been no change to its position. A Twitter spokeswoman pointed to past company statements opposing Trump’s initial travel ban in January but declined to comment further. A spokeswoman for Facebook declined to comment. Representatives of Apple, Google, eBay, Intel, Microsoft and Netflix did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read More : cnbc.com/2017/03/16/apple-google-facebook-skip-legal-challenge-to-new-travel-ban.html

Bail Bonds Services Sanford – State Supreme Court justice says 3 parents can have ‘tri-custody’

Source    : News Day
By            : Sarah Armaghan
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

State Supreme Court justice says 3 parents can have ‘tri-custody’

A state Supreme Court justice in Central Islip granted three adults “tri-custody” of their 10-year-old son, a ruling the plaintiff’s lawyer says is likely the first of its kind in New York. The case involved a child who has two mothers and a father. A Long Island couple married since 1994, identified in court papers as Dawn M. and Michael M., had tried unsuccessfully to have a child before they met Audria G., a downstairs neighbor who lived there with her boyfriend.

The two women forged a close friendship in 2001 and when Audria G.’s boyfriend moved out, the woman moved in upstairs, court documents state. The three began an “intimate” relationship sometime in 2004, soon considered themselves “a family,” and planned on having a child together. Audria gave birth to the boy, known as J.M. in court papers, in 2007, according to the March 8 ruling. The judge’s ruling came after the married couple’s relationship dissolved and the two women moved out of the home with the child. The nonbiological mother of the child sought shared custody. Justice Patrick Leis III said his decision “is the logical evolution” of 2011’s federal Marriage Equality Act and of a state Court of Appeals case from last year that permitted adoptive or nonbiological parents to establish standing and petition for custody and visitation with a child. That case determined it is up to a trial court to determine whether or not granting such rights is in the best interest of the child.

While Dawn M., Audria G. and the child continue to live together, Dawn M. sought a custody agreement that included her “because she fears that without court-ordered visitation and shared custody, her ability to remain in J.M.’s life would be solely dependent upon obtaining the consent of either Audria” or Michael, the decision states. “This court finds credible the testimony of Audria and plaintiff that J.M. was raised with two mothers and that he continues to the present day to call both ‘mommy,’” the decision reads. “J.M. is a well adjusted ten-year-old boy who loves his father and his two mothers.” The case was heard during a three-day-long trial in October. The judge granted Dawn M. time alone with J.M. every Wednesday for dinner, as well as a weeklong school recess and two weeks out of the summer.

“She is very thankful and relieved,” attorney Karen G. Silverman of Commack said of Dawn M. in a phone interview Wednesday. “She was very concerned about her continuing rights with regard to her son who she has been a mother of since birth.” Michael M. will continue to get shared custody and has time with his son three weekends a month. Defense attorney Kenneth J. Molloy of Central Islip said both he and his client are “quite disappointed with the results” and said will appeal. “The judge has diminished the meaning of ‘parents,’” Molloy said. “Our argument is that you can only have two parents. He’s created three parents and there’s no legal basis for it.” In Leis’ ruling, he took into consideration that Dawn M.’s medical insurance that was used to cover Audria’s care during pregnancy and delivery, and that the two “shared duties as J.M.’s mother,” including the women both taking J.M. to doctor’s appointments and taking turns waking up in the night to feed him.

Read More : newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/state-supreme-court-justice-says-3-parents-can-have-tri-custody-1.13270516

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – US Supreme Court to Colorado think tank: Disclose your donors or don’t run these ads

Source     : Colorado Independent News
By             : Corey Hutchins
Category :  Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

US Supreme Court to Colorado think tank: Disclose your donors or don’t run these ads

The nation’s highest court on Monday upheld a lower court’s money-in-politics ruling in a case out of Colorado that requires groups to disclose who pays for ads that mention candidates during election season. The decision is a setback for those hoping to chip away at certain disclosure requirements for paid political speech.  The case stems from 2014 when the Colorado-based libertarian Independence Institute sued the Federal Election Commission. The nonprofit think tank— its motto: Think Freedom— wanted to run radio ads supporting a federal law that would give judges more discretion in sentencing nonviolent offenders. That was all well and good, but at the end of the ad, a speaker would implore listeners to call Democratic U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet. At the time, Udall was up for re-election; Bennet was not. But the group also said it wanted to run similar ads when Bennet would be up for reelection in 2016. They are known as “issues ads,” which do not expressly advocate for or against a candidate.

Because of the looming election, and because the ad would air within 60 days of it in a place where voters paying attention to the race would likely hear it, the Federal Election Commission would have barred the Independence Institute from putting the ad on the airwaves without disclosing who paid for it. To avoid that disclosure, the group sued the FEC in federal court, saying the agency was infringing on its free speech rights. A three-judge court in November ruled the group could not air its ads without disclosure. “The advertisement mentions a Senate candidate by name,” the judges wrote. “It would air within the sixty days preceding a general election.” If the Institute wanted to run the ads, the judges said, then the group must disclose the names of those who paid at least $1,000 apiece to fund it. Jon Caldara, who runs the Independence Institute, told The Colorado Independent that not once in three decades has the Independence Institute disclosed who funds the group. Some donors, for instance, might worry about retaliation if they are outed, he said.

The outspoken think tank director said he saw the case as a good, clean test for the U.S. Supreme Court. So, with help from the Washington, D.C.-area Center for Competitive Politics— its motto: Campaign Freedom— up to the nation’s highest court the case went. Caldara frames his argument like this: Why should his group have First Amendment rights that disappear after a certain date on a calendar? The ads would have been OK for Bennet who was not up for re-election, but because Udall was facing voters within 60 days, the ads were deemed what is called electioneering communication. “It seems to me that if we have the right to say something on Monday then we have the right to say it on Tuesday,” Caldara said this week upon hearing the Supreme Court’s decision. “But apparently we do not.” And he says the court’s decision applies to any liberal-leaning group, too.

The High Court upheld the lower federal court ruling against the group Monday, without comment, essentially saying the lower court got it right. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to forgo full consideration of this important appeal, and instead summarily affirmed the lower court,” said Center for Competitive Politics legal director Allen Dickerson in a statement. “We look forward to continuing our efforts to defend the right to free speech and association.”

Dickerson told The Independent he still believes there is tension between the court’s blessing of laws that regulate advocacy for or against candidates and its rulings in favor of “privacy of association” in other contexts. The radio ads were not attack ads against a candidate, he says, but rather a discussion about pending legislation that merely mentioned an officeholder who happened to be running for reelection. Caldara said he believes if President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Colorado judge Neil Gorsuch, were on the court the justices might have chosen to take up the case and hear more about it. One Colorado attorney who practices political law and appeals, however, was not so surprised by the result. “In two previous opinions, the Court upheld federal laws that require disclosure of money spent on political speech,” says Chris Jackson of the Sherman & Howard L.L.C. firm in Denver. “While the Supreme Court has looked skeptically on contribution limits, it has generally upheld disclosure rules. This order fits squarely within that framework. I think the Supreme Court was right as a matter of law and as a matter of policy.” A provision of campaign finance law on which the case hinged, he says, “doesn’t prohibit anyone from speaking their mind; it’s a reasonable reporting requirement that helps to promote transparency in the political process.”

Read More : coloradoindependent.com/164153/supreme-court-disclosure-colorado-political-ads

Bail Bonds Services Sanford – Supreme Court justices seem sympathetic to immigrant in underage sex deportation case

Source     : CBS News
By             : Agency Press
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Supreme Court justices seem sympathetic to immigrant in underage sex deportation case

The Supreme Court seems sympathetic to a Mexican immigrant facing deportation after he was convicted of having consensual sex with an underage girl. The case before the justices on Monday involved Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a lawful permanent resident who had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend when he was 20 and 21 years old. That was a violation of California law, which criminalizes having sex with anyone under 18 if the age difference is more than three years. Federal officials later moved to deport him, but Esquivel-Quintana says his conduct would have been legal under federal law and the laws of 43 other states that are less strict.

The case comes at a time when the Trump administration has pledged to step up enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, including its ability to deport people who commit crimes. At issue is what happens when immigration laws are unclear and whether courts should defer to immigration officials in interpreting criminal laws that are vague. Several justices seemed reluctant during arguments in the case to defer to the government when it comes to criminal enforcement.

Justice Elena Kagan said it didn’t seem right to flesh out immigration law using the strictest state law available. She said the case was “like a freshman in college going out with a junior in college.” Justice Anthony Kennedy said courts normally defer to federal agencies to interpret the laws they enforce, but questioned whether that extends to criminal laws. But Justice Samuel Alito said it looked like a classic example of Congress realizing there are a variety of state laws covering sex abuse and leaving it up to the attorney general to decide how far federal immigration law should go. Esquivel-Quintana moved to the United States with his family when he was 12 and became a lawful permanent resident. He pleaded no contest to the California charges and was sentenced to 90 days in jail.

When he moved to Michigan, the federal government began deportation proceedings. Immigration officials said he was convicted of “sexual abuse of a minor,” an offense that subjected him to deportation under immigration laws. An immigration judge said he should be deported and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. A divided federal appeals court affirmed that ruling. Arguing for Esquivel-Quintana, lawyer Jeffrey Fisher said it would be unfair to punish his client for actions that are legal in most of the country. He said it would be a “dramatic departure” to defer to the board’s interpretation of a criminal statute.

Justice Department attorney Allon Kedem, representing the Trump administration, said drawing a line in the case was “very difficult” and called it a “strong reason to defer to the board.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that many civil laws also include criminal sanctions. She seemed concerned about a broad ruling that might whittle away the principle that courts defer to federal agencies. But Justice Stephen Breyer noted that when Congress passed the immigration statute in the mid-1990s, there was a federal law on the books defining sexual abuse of a minor that would not cover Esquivel-Quintana. Why not just assume Congress intended the immigration law to have the same definition — “end of case,” he said.

Read More : cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-seem-sympathetic-to-immigrant-in-deportation-case/

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – Law Schools That Graduated Supreme Court Justices

Source     : US News
By             : Ilana Kowarski
Category : Bail Bonds Services Sanford , Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Law Schools That Graduated Supreme Court Justices

There are certain things that today’s sitting Supreme Court justices have in common: All eight have law degrees from Ivy League universities, for instance. But over the last 100 years, the resumes of Supreme Court justices show a lot more variety in their academic backgrounds. U.S. News looked into where Supreme Court justices who were appointed between 1916 and 2016 earned their law degrees, and some interesting patterns emerged.

For one, until the 21st century, the majority of Supreme Court justices had a bachelor’s of law degree, commonly known as an LL.B., rather than a Juris Doctor degree, commonly known as a J.D. In the mid-1960s and early 1970s, U.S. law schools began to replace LL.B. programs with J.D. programs. Even though today a J.D. is the standard entry-level credential for lawyers, it is not a requirement to serve on the Supreme Court. For instance, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has an LL.B. from Columbia University, and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist had an LL.B. from Stanford University. Both ascended to the pinnacle of the legal profession without a J.D.

Another notable pattern is the high proportion of justices who earned their law degrees from elite law schools in the Northeast. Among the 46 justices who were appointed between 1916 and 2016, 25 received law degrees from Ivy League schools. However, over the past century, many justices have been appointed without an Ivy League law school pedigree, and six justices were appointed without law degrees. Among the six without law degrees, three attended law school without receiving a degree and three did not attend law school at all.

It used to be common for aspiring U.S. attorneys to apprentice for an experienced lawyer and learn about the law through work experience rather than in a school setting, and several Supreme Court justices chose this nonacademic route. The Supreme Court justices in the past century who did earn formal law degrees earned those degrees from a variety of schools, including state universities in the South and West. Two of the justices appointed in this past century earned two law degrees – Sherman Minton, who had both an LL.B. from Indiana University—Bloomington and an LL.M. from Yale University, and Lewis Powell, who had both an LL.B. from Washington and Lee University and an LL.M. from Harvard University. Below is a map of the schools where Supreme Court justices who were appointed in the past century earned law degrees, along with the school’s 2017 Best Law Schools ranking, if applicable.

Read More : usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2017-02-10/map-where-this-centurys-supreme-court-justices-got-law-degrees