A day after the Politico report came, White House official Justice Ruth Bader was preparing for a possible "death or farewell" of Jinesburg, who had performed surgery to remove two cancers from the lungs at the end of December, The Supreme Court announced today that there was no evidence in any other cancer, and 85-year-old Ginsberg would not need any other treatment. Supreme Court spokesman Cathlene Arberg said in a statement: "The recovery of the genusburg from the surgery is on track", although the judge will miss the verbal argument next week, in the case of reading the same arguments and statements he had done this week. ran away.
Meanwhile, the judges today issued orders from their private conference, in which eight new cases were included. The issues included everything from the constitutionality of a Wisconsin law, which allows law enforcement to draw blood from an unconscious motor driver when the laws of the borders run on the basis of evidence of criminal prosecution for federal civil rights claims It seems. In the list of grants, however, some high-profile cases are not included which are considered this morning, which include issues such as abortion, gun rights, Trump Administration's "Suspended Action for Childhood Action" program concludes Decision to do, ban on Transgender Service Sebors in the Army and whether Federal Employment Discrimination Law protect LGBTQ employees.
In Rehoff vs United StatesJudge agreed to decide whether, when the government is prosecuting a non-citizen citizen who, in the United States, prohibits illegal gun or ammunition for violating federal law, the government Need to show that the defendant knew that he was illegally in the country, or is it enough to show that the defendant knew that he had guns or ammunition Land.
In the case of Hamid Mohammad Ahmad Ali Rahaf, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, a student visa came to the United States, but he was dismissed from school – and, consequently, was no longer legally in the country. Several months later, Rehoff was arrested and accused of placing ammunition in his hotel room; He was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit of the United States retained the sentence of Rehoff, rejecting his argument that he could be held guilty only when he knew that he was illegally in the country.
In Michelle v Wisconsin, The judiciary will govern the constitutionality of a state law, which will allow law enforcement officials to take blood from unconscious drivers without warrant. In the case petitioner Gerald Mitchell was arrested while driving into intoxication. An initial respiratory test indicated that Michelle had 0.24 blood-alcohol concentration; When the police took Mitchell to the hospital because he had come out, a blood test showed the 0.222 blood-alcohol concentration.
When Mitchell went to court, he argued that blood test results should not be accepted because the police did not obtain a warrant before drawing blood – a violation, he said, the fourth amendment. After retaining the blood test by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Mitchell asked to weave the US Supreme Court. The fact that Wisconsin law authorized the blood test, did not make any difference to the theory that Michelle agreed to go behind the wheel and test it. Law constitutional, they protested.
McDonough vs. Smith The first case of two cases filed by former acting solicitor general Neil Katyal is. Question in McDonough When the law of borders begins to run for claims of a federal civil rights, it is alleged that the prosecution fabricated evidence in criminal proceedings – when the defendant has been misrepresented, or when he should have known The evidence was fabricated? The question arises in the case of Edward McDonough, a former Election Officer of New York, who was accused of 74 felony charges, alleging that he was involved in the forgery of absentee ballots and absentee ballots. McDonough was acquitted in 2012 and the case was filed less than three years later. But a federal trial court concluded that their lawsuit came very late, because the limitations of claims for evidence of their construction started very long before their acquittal, when he knew or should have known that the evidence was constructed. A Federal Appeal Court upheld the decision, and today agreed to weigh in the Supreme Court.
Fort bend county versus davis Katyal's second grant is today. Before filing a suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee who accuses that he is a victim of employment discrimination should first go to the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The question that has been agreed for the review today is whether the federal courts have the power to review claims VII, if the employee has not filed any charge with EEOC, or what is the title VII It is necessary that the plaintiff first goes to EEOC or not, instead of what is known as a "claim-processing rule" – a rule for which a person needs to take specific steps The Ykta occurs, often orders can be can be forgiven – that to promote or seized.
In Food Marketing Institute vs. Argus Leader MediaJustice will consider the meaning of the term "confidential" in the Freedom of Information Act, which protects the disclosure of all "confidential" private-sector "commercial or financial information" in the possession of the government, in particular, the judicial decision will be whether the government Should stop any commercial or financial information that is not publicly broadcasted, or whether the unit opposing disclosure of information It should be said that disclosure will cause considerable competitive damage.
This case was born when Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper, tried to get data about the federal food stamp program. The US Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, refused to launch data on the sale of food tickets at specific stores, but the district court ordered issuance of data saying that "no damage to the shops" Was speculative in the form ". The Food Marketing Institute appealed in this case that after refusing to do so by the USDA, the U.S. Appeals Court dismissed it for the ruling and the 8th Circuit.
In today's other grants, Quarls vs. usaThe Justice Armed Career will decide on a matter related to the time of intent to steal for the purpose of "violent felony" under criminal law: Does the prosecutor need to prove that the defendant committed a crime when it was first in the building Where was the stolen, or is it enough that the defendant has decided to steal while in the building at some time?
In Parker Drilling Management Services v. NewtonThe judges will decide whether California overtime and wage laws apply to the outer continental shelf land under the outer continental shelf.
And in North Carolina Department of Revenue vs. Kimberley Rice Castner 1992 Family TrustThe judge will decide that the due process of the Constitution prohibits the state from the tax trusts when the beneficiary of the trust is a resident of the state. Urging the Supreme Court to take up this matter, the state stressed that "120 billion dollars of our nation's income flows through trusts", which makes them a significant source of tax revenue for the states.
Today's congressional order is expected to be given on Monday 14 January at 9.30 in the morning. The judge will meet again on next Friday, January 18 for his next conference and can add more cases in the matter of his qualification that day. After that, the next day of the scheduled conference is not until Friday 15th February.
This post was originally published On the court.
[[[[Disclosure: Winson and Elkins, the LLP's law firm, whose lawyers contribute to this blog in various capacities, is between the petitioner's lawyer Quarles And in the support of the petitioner, an Amicus concise is also between the lawyer Food marketing institute And Parker drilling, But the writers of this post are not affiliated with the firm.]
Ginsburg Recovery "on the track" eight new grants, surgery,
SCOTUSblog (January 11, 2019, 5:32 p.m.),