Court Watch
Court Allows Church to Use Hallucinogenic Tea
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New Mexico church has the right to use a hallucinogenic tea in its services, rejecting a government argument that the tea is illegal and potentially dangerous. The ruling brings to a close a long-running legal fight between federal officials and the Brazil-based O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal over the church's use of hoasca tea, brewed from plants found in the Amazon River Basin.
Running Away Gets De Facto Death Penalty?
Court Sides With Police Over Deadly Force
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused to clarify when police can use deadly force to stop fleeing suspects but said a lower court got it wrong in allowing a lawsuit against an officer in Washington state who shot a burglary suspect. Law enforcement groups and 16 states had encouraged the court to use the officer's appeal to clarify protection for officers from lawsuits when they injure or kill fleeing suspects. The court issued an unsigned opinion that found only that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco erred in ruling that the officerette, Rochelle Brosseau, clearly violated the suspect's constitutional rights. Brosseau shot Kenneth Haugen in 1999 as he fled in his Jeep to avoid being arrested for drug charges and for questioning in a burglary. Haugen pleaded guilty to fleeing police but then filed suit claiming a civil rights violation. He suffered a punctured lung in the shooting but recovered. The 9th Circuit said Brosseau should face a jury. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a dissent that the officer was out of bounds in shooting a suspect who had not threatened anyone, and that it should be left to a jury to decide if she should have to pay damages.
Court OKs Arrest on 'Reasonable' Grounds
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police have authority to arrest suspects on charges that later fall apart, so long as officers had a second, valid reason for the detention. The 8-0 ruling sets aside a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Jerome Alford. Two Washington State Patrol officers had arrested him for tape recording their conversation during a traffic stop in November 1997.
Court to Hear File-Sharing Dispute
The Supreme Court said it will consider whether Internet file-sharing services are responsible for their customers illegally swapping songs and movies, a multibillion-dollar case testing the limits of copyright law in the digital age. Justices will hear a challenge to a lower court ruling in favor of Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. that was a blow to recording companies and movie studios seeking to stop the online distribution of their copyrighted works. At issue is whether the file-sharing services should be held liable, even if they have no direct knowledge of what millions of online users are doing with the software they provide for free.
Rehnquist Sits Out Some High Court Cases
WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has cut back on his workload while receiving treatment for thyroid cancer, a Supreme Court spokeswoman. Until Monday, Rehnquist had participated in every decision. After two rulings were released that did not include votes by Rehnquist, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg issued a statement saying the chief justice will not participate in decisions from the dozen cases heard in November unless the remaining eight justices are deadlocked.
Ailing Rehnquist Plans to Swear in Bush again
WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, suffering from thyroid cancer and absent from the bench for seven weeks, still plans to preside at President Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said. The chief justice normally swears in the president, but it had been unclear if Rehnquist would be well enough. Little information about his condition has been released, though it's known he is undergoing the kind of treatment often used for the most serious type of thyroid cancer.
Rehnquist's Health Still Top Court News
WASHINGTON -- The biggest news to come out of the Supreme Court so far this session has nothing to do with the law. It's the health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, which remains shrouded in mystery as the court hibernates for the holidays. The few details released about Rehnquist's condition have been mixed: He won't rule on cases heard in November, but plans to participate in the cases argued in December. He works exclusively at home for now, but intends to swear in President Bush on Jan. 20.
Court to Join Int'l Death Penalty Debate
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court waded into a fierce international debate over how the United States prosecutes foreigners in death penalty cases, agreeing to hear the case of a Mexican man in an unexpected move that expands the court's examination of fairness in capital punishment. The justices already are considering the constitutionality of executing killers who committed their crimes as juveniles.
Court Upholds Inmate's Death Penalty
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Florida death row inmate should not automatically get a new trial because his lawyer conceded the man's guilt without his consent. The high court also rejected an appeal from Texas death row inmate Troy Kunkle. The move allows his execution to proceed, even though one justice declared that Kunkle's sentence clearly violated the Constitution.
Court to Review 'Supermax' Prisons
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to consider how much flexibility corrections officials have to put inmates in super maximum-security prisons. Most states and the federal government have such prisons, intended to separate the most dangerous prisoners from other inmates. Justices will review an appeal next year from Ohio, which opened a super-security prison with about 500 beds in 1998 after a deadly inmate riot five years earlier at a state prison.
Court Limits Pollution Cleanup Lawsuits
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday put restrictions on companies that want to clean up voluntarily their polluted land and sue former owners to share the costs. The court ruled 7-2 against a company that in 1981 bought land in Texas that had been used for aircraft engine maintenance businesses and then went to court to recover some of the $5 million it spent cleaning up pollution there. The justices said the company improperly tried to use the Superfund law to sue because the government had not demanded that the cleanup be done.
Court Considers Beef Ad Campaign Case
WASHINGTON -- A food fight broke out at the Supreme Court with justices considering whether the government can force farmers to pay for ad campaigns with catchy phrases like "Beef: It's what's for dinner" and billboards featuring milk mustaches on celebrities. Farmers are challenging the multimillion-dollar beef promotion program, saying they shouldn't have to pay for ads they disagree with. The eventual ruling could jeopardize more than 100 federal and state campaigns for other products — eggs, mangoes, popcorn and even alligators.
Court to Hear Property Limits Case
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Friday it would hear a challenge to a local ordinance intended to preserve housing for the poor, disabled and elderly. A historic San Francisco hotel has been in a long-running battle with the city over the hotel's decision to convert rooms previously designated for permanent residents to accommodate tourists. The plans of the San Remo Hotel conflicted with a 14-year-old ordinance that restricts such conversions, unless owners pay a sizable fee.
Court Reverses Cosmetics Case Ruling
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower ruling in favor of a cosmetics company that contended a competitor was unfairly using the name of its tattooing ink. The unanimous decision set aside a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Lasting Impressions, which had sued KP Permanent Make-up alleging trademark infringement over ink used to give women permanent lipstick, eyebrow color and even beauty marks. Both companies wanted to call their product "micro color."
Major Cases for Supreme Court in 2005
Some of the major issues to be decided by the Supreme Court next year:
DEATH PENALTY: Is it unconstitutionally cruel to execute juvenile killers? (Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.) Argument heard Oct. 13. And may the United States try and sentence to death foreign nationals without notifying their government, in violation of international law? (Medellin v. Dretke, 04-5928.) Argument not yet scheduled.
FREE SPEECH: May the government require beef producers to pay fees that are used to promote the industry, even if the producers disagree with some of the marketing campaigns? (Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1164, and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1165.) Argument heard Dec. 8.
POLICE SEARCHES: Can police use drug-sniffing dogs to check stopped cars whose drivers have given police no particular reason to suspect illegal activity? (Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923.) Argument heard Nov. 10.
LAND RIGHTS: When can local governments seize people's homes and businesses to be used for tax-producing projects like shopping malls? (Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.) Argument scheduled for Feb. 22.
TEN COMMANDMENTS: Do government displays of the Ten Commandments at public buildings violate the First Amendment's ban on an "establishment" of religion? (Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.) Arguments scheduled for March 2.
Posted by Editor at December 22, 2004 02:57 PM
