The Second Circuit recently denied the government’s petition for a rehearing en banc, thereby allowing the constitutional challenge to a […]
An Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently decided the “first case involving Facebook to have resulted in an ALJ decision.” Judge Arthur Amchan stated that “the only substantive issue in this case . . . is whether by their postings on Facebook, the five employees engaged in activity protected by the [National Labor Relations] Act (NLRA).” Judge Amchan stated that “discussing” employment conditions is protected “regardless of whether there is evidence that such discussions are engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing group action.” Should NLRA protection turn on whether the Facebook post receives a “Like” or a few one-line lighthearted responses by friends who happen to be co-workers?
Anthony Cooper is far from the most sympathetic litigant before the Supreme Court this term. In 2003, Cooper shot a woman four times as she ran away from him. Though Cooper’s behavior was by all accounts egregious, his attorney’s conduct was pretty bad as well. When a criminal defendant turns down a plea deal based on his attorney’s ignorance of the law and subsequently receives a harsher sentence after trial, can he seek to overturn his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel?
Jaycee Dugard has filed suit against the U.S. government, alleging that the failure of law enforcement officers to adequately monitor
U.S. jurisprudence has dealt with constitutional rights since the enactment of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, it was explicitly decided by the framers of the Australian Constitution to not include a similar Bill of Rights, although the American notions of judicial review, separation of powers, and federalism were incorporated. Accordingly, throughout Australian history courts have rarely acted to protect civil rights on the basis of constitutional interpretation. This method of rights protection has been largely inadequate to protect Indigenous Australians from breaches of their civil rights, particularly in regards to equal protection and racial discrimination.
A round-up of some of the top stories in civil rights and civil liberties news.
In a relatively little-noted decision last term, the Supreme Court favored a particular vision of federalism over the protection of religious freedom. The 6-2 ruling, in Sossamon v. Texas, barred money damages in private actions brought by prisoners against state and local governments under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Sossamon continues a trend of denying prisoners any effective opportunity for the enforcement of their rights.
In October, California will become the first state in the country to implement a publicly-funded pilot program that provides appointment of counsel to very low-income persons in certain civil proceedings where basic human needs are at stake. While the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), that criminal defendants have a right to counsel based on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, that decision does not extend to civil cases. California’s Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act (AB 509), signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in October 2009, marks a trend in a number of states to address this need for counsel in cases where basic human needs are on the line.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, inmates have been able to sue individual prison officials for violating their Eighth Amendment rights. A recent trend in federal prisons is threatening to destroy this cause of action for prisoners. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to clear up this controversial question and resolve the circuit split.
The Crime Victims’ Rights Act gave crime victims the right to notice of any public court proceeding involving the perpetrator and full and timely restitution. Under the CVRA, notice is given to victims whenever a criminal defendant, anywhere in the country and who would otherwise have been unknown to the victim, is convicted of any child pornography offense involving their images, including cases where the defendant only possessed images without having done more. Suddenly, victims could go after a new and potentially massive group of defendants for restitution.
As the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is (hopefully) hopefully underway, with a possible certification by top Pentagon officials
