|
|
|
Bolivia takes sea access dispute with Chile to world court
Court Watch |
2018/03/19 14:19
|
Bolivia made an emotional appeal Monday for the International Court of Justice to order Chile to enter talks over granting the landlocked South American nation access to the Pacific Ocean, saying the dispute will remain a source of conflict if it's not resolved.
Bolivia lost its only seacoast to Chile in a war between from 1879 to 1883, and has been demanding access to the Pacific for generations. Bolivia also accuses Chile of reneging on pledges to negotiate.
"For 139 years, Bolivia has suffered the historical injustice of becoming landlocked," former Bolivian President Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze told judges sitting in the ornate Great Hall of Justice at the world court's headquarters, the Peace Palace. "Restoring Bolivia's sovereign access to the sea would make a small difference to Chile, but it would transform the destiny of Bolivia."
Chile argues that its border with Bolivia was settled in a 1904 treaty and that it's not under any legal obligation to negotiate. Chile's lawyers will present their case later this week.
Prof. Payam Akhavan, a lawyer representing Bolivia, said that despite the treaty, Chile had made repeated pledges to find a solution to the dispute.
"If the 1904 treaty settled all issues for all times, if there was no remaining dispute, why did the parties continue to negotiate sovereign access for more than a century?" he said.
"This case is not an academic exercise. It is not mere political posturing," Akhavan told judges. "The people have suffered real and continuing injury. Chile cannot sweep this dispute under the carpet. It will remain a constant source of conflict until it is resolved."
Rodriguez said that Bolivia's lack of direct access to the sea is holding back its economy.
"It is estimated that if Bolivia had not been stripped of the sea, the annual GDP (gross domestic product) growth could be at least 20 percent higher," he told judges.
Rulings by the court, the United Nations' highest judicial organ, are final and binding. Judges will likely take months to issue a decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court takes up challenge by crisis pregnancy centers
Headline Legal News |
2018/03/18 14:20
|
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a free speech fight over California's attempt to regulate anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.
The case being argued Tuesday involves information required by a state law that the centers must provide clients about the availability of contraception, abortion and pre-natal care, at little or no cost. Centers that are unlicensed also must post a sign that says so.
The centers say that they are being forced to deliver a message with which they disagree because their aim is to steer women away from abortion.
California and abortions rights group that backed the law say its goal is to provide accurate information about the range of options facing a pregnant woman.
The outcome also could affect laws in other states that seek to regulate doctors' speech.
In Louisiana, Texas and Wisconsin, doctors must display a sonogram and describe the fetus to most pregnant women considering an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. Similar laws have been blocked in Kentucky, North Carolina and Oklahoma.
Doctors' speech has also been an issue in non-abortion cases. A federal appeals court struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients.
In another lawsuit over regulating crisis pregnancy centers, a federal appeals court in New York struck down parts of a New York City ordinance, although it upheld the requirement for unlicensed centers to say that they lack a license.
The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice California was a prime sponsor of the California law. NARAL contends that the centers mislead women about their options and try to pressure them to forgo abortion. Estimates of the number of crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S. run from 2,500 to more than 4,000, compared with fewer than 1,500 abortion providers, women's rights groups said in a Supreme Court filing.
California's law was challenged by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an organization with ties to 1,500 pregnancy centers nationwide and 140 in California. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court limits reach of tax crime statute
Court News |
2018/03/16 14:20
|
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday to make it harder for the federal government to use a section of tax law to convict someone of obstruction.
The government had interpreted a section of the tax code to give it a broad ability to charge someone with obstructing or impeding the work of the Internal Revenue Service. It argued that someone could violate the statute by doing something intended to obstruct the IRS' work, like shredding records, even if the person wasn't under investigation at the time or was under investigation but didn't know it.
But the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 to limit the application of the statue. The justices said that to convict someone, the government must show a connection between the obstructive action the person takes and a particular investigation or audit that was pending, or at least reasonably foreseeable.
The court's majority opinion pointed out problems with reading the law broadly. "Interpreted broadly, the provision could apply to a person who pays a babysitter $41 per week in cash without withholding taxes, leaves a large cash tip in a restaurant, fails to keep donation receipts from every charity to which he or she contributes, or fails to provide every record to an accountant.
Such an individual may sometimes believe that, in doing so, he is running the risk of having violated an IRS rule, but we sincerely doubt he would believe he is facing a potential felony prosecution for tax obstruction," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court won't upend Arizona licenses for immigrants
Court Watch |
2018/03/15 14:12
|
The Supreme Court is rejecting Arizona's plea to stop issuing driver's licenses to young immigrants known as "Dreamers" who are protected from deportation.
The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place an appeals' court decision in favor of the immigrants who sought licenses.
About 20,000 young immigrants in Arizona are protected from deportation under a 2012 program started by the Obama administration. The Trump administration is trying to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but has been blocked by federal courts.
The high court recently turned down an administration request to take on the DACA controversy.
Arizona sought to prevent DACA-protected immigrants from getting licenses. Then-Gov. Jan Brewer cited a desire to reduce the risk of licenses being used to improperly access public benefits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Czech top court delays alleged Russian hacker extradition
Court News |
2018/03/14 14:12
|
The Czech Republic's top court said Tuesday it has delayed the extradition of an alleged Russian hacker until it deals with a last-ditch complaint filed by him.
It means that the justice minister can't finalize Yevgeniy Nikulin's extradition until the Constitutional Court rules on the matter.
Nikulin has exhausted all appeals, but his lawyers presented a final complaint to the court in a bid to postpone his extradition to either the U.S. or Russia. The contents of the complaint weren't made public, but Nikulin's defense has previously said that appeals court judges were biased.
Czech authorities arrested Nikulin in Prague in cooperation with the FBI in October 2016. He is accused by U.S. prosecutors of hacking computers at Silicon Valley firms including LinkedIn and Dropbox in 2012 and the U.S. wanted him extradited to face a trial there.
Moscow also wants him extradited on a separate charge of internet theft in 2009.
Both countries submitted their extradition requests on the same date.
Nikulin denies he's a hacker. His defense attorney claimed his case was politically motivated in the U.S.
Czech courts ruled that both extradition requests meet the necessary legal conditions, leaving the final decision to Justice Minister Robert Pelikan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
