USLegal Reporter

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has filed an emergency motion with the Texas Supreme Court seeking a stay of a ruling by the 3rd Court of Appeals. The appeals court ruled on Thursday that Texas Child Protective Services did not have the right to remove all 468 children from parents living at a ranch run by a polygamous religious group.

A three judge panel for the state appellate court said “the department (CPS) did not present any evidence danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty.” The court also noted that Texas officials made no attempt to see if a less aggressive approach could have been used to safeguard the children.

The ranch is operated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 

Sources: http://www.abajournal.com/news/texas_to_appeal_decision_calling_for_return_of_468_flds_kids_to_parents/

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5798346.html

The Supreme Court today ruled that leading someone to believe you have child pornography to sell or trade regardless of whether or not you really do is a punishable crime.

Michael Williams signed onto a chat room in Florida and offered to “swap” sexually explicit pictures of his daughter for someone elses. He was tracked by a Secret Service agent and eventually charged with pandering and possession of child pornography. The pandering charge was later overturned by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals who held the 2003 federal child porn statute was “overbroad and impermissibly vague.”

In writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “Offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.”

Critics have argued that the decision could inhibit free speech rights.

 The decision was 7-2. The case is United States v. Williams.

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf

A US District Court in Georgia ruled Wednesday that the state’s lethal injection procedures were not unconstitutional. The court compared the execution methods to those of Kentucky and upheld by the US Supreme Court recently in Baze v. Rees. The court held that a higher risk of pain than that allowed in Kentucky was not associated with the Georgia protocol.

Jack Alderman, an inmate convicted of murder whose execution was stayed pending the US Supreme Court’s decision, argued that Georgia did not have in place the safeguards used in Kentucky, such as training of officials to perform the executions and confirmation by such officials that an inmate is unconscious prior to administering additional drugs. The state, however, contended that Georgia uses trained officials to carry out executions, experienced licensed nurses who monitor the consciousness of inmates and standby physicians.

Georgia may conduct the first execution since the Baze case of William Earl Lynd on May 6, 2008.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/05/federal-judge-rejects-challenge-to.php

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that an Indiana state statute that required voters to present a photo ID before voting did not violate the US Constitution. Opponents of the law had argued it would hinder voting by older individuals, poor persons and minorities, while supporters claimed it would deter voter fraud. The law was previously upheld last year by the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals.

The Court held that the law did not impose an excessive burden on any specific class of voters. Courts have upheld voter identification laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, and many states currently require some form of identification.

The case is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/04/supreme-court-allows-indiana-voter.php

A U.S. District court in Louisiana held Tuesday that Bible distribution in the Tangipahoa Parish School District violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a “religious activity without a secular purpose” and “amounted to [the] promotion of Christianity by the School Board….” The judge distinguished between the ability of elementary versus secondary school students to understand the lack of the school system’s endorsement of the distribution.

Members of the Gideons International organization handed out Bibles outside the classrooms in one of the district’s elementary schools in May 2007. Gideons International distributes Bibles to hotels, prisons, hospitals and schools around the world. Students at the Loranger Middle School were given the opportunity to obtain a Bible outside the principal’s office, but were not required to accept one.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana sued the school board on behalf of a 5th grade student’s family who claimed the student took a Bible from the display out of fear of her classmates’ reactions. The school board’s attorney indicated the board may appeal the decision to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The case is John Roe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, et al., Civil Action No: 07-2908.

Source:  http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/04/federal-judge-rules-bible-distribution.php

The United States Supreme Court today ruled that evidence gathered after an invalid state arrest could still be used against a suspect at trial.

David Lee Moore had been pulled over by police for driving on a suspended license. Under Virginia law, police in such situations issue a citation and let the driver go. Instead, police searched Moore’s vehicle and found crack cocaine. He was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Moore should not have had the drug evidence used against him and overturned his conviction. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed.

Writing for the Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, “When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.”

The case is Virginia v. Moore.

Sources: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/23/scotus.searches/

The U.S. Supreme Court, after ruling last Wednesday that the lethal injection procedure used in Kentucky does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, denied appeals today from inmates in Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. The Supreme Court previously stayed the executions of Thomas Arthur from Alabama, Earl Wesley Berry from Mississippi and Carlton Turner from Texas while it considered the issue in Baze v. Rees.

Executions in other states across the country that were halted pending the Supreme Court’s decision are also likely to resume.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154//04-21-2008/20080421072002_16.html

The United State Supreme Court ruled today that a three-drug lethal injection procedure can be used as a form of capital punishment in Kentucky. This clears the way for 36 states including Kentucky to resume the practice to execute convicted felons who have been given the death sentence.

At issue what whether or not execution by the three drug method amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” as prohibited by the 8th Amendment. Petitioners, who were death row inmates in Kentucky, filed suit to stop the practice in Kentucky arguing that if drugs were not properly administered according to protocol, they could result in significant unnecessary pain.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that “petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” 

The decision was 7-2. The case is Baze et al. v. Rees, Commissioner, Kentucky Department Corrections, et al.

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-5439.pdf

Abigail Noel Fisher, an 18-year old high school student from Richmond, Texas, has filed a lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin. Fisher, who is white, alleges that the university unlawfully uses race and ethnicity in its admissions criteria.

Fisher will finish in the top 12 percent of her graduating class in May. She learned last month that she was not admitted to UT-Austin. Her lawsuit was filed on Monday.

UT’s minority enrollment is at an all time high. The university is required by law to guarantee admission to those who finish in the top 10 percent of a Texas high school graduating class. UT also considers “race and ethnicity” among other factors.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race and ethnicity may be a factor considered by colleges and universities in determining admissions because of the value created by diversity, but it can not be an overriding factor. 

 Source: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/08/0408utsuit.html

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that Roommates.com can be sued for asking questions of its users which could violate fair housing laws. Roommates.com is a website designed to match people renting out rooms with those looking for places to live. In order to use the site, users are asked to create a profile in which they are asked questions about gender, sexual orientation, and children. This information is then used to screen potential matches.

Roommates.com contends it is immune from liability under a provision of The Communications Decency Act which protects site owners from content created by third parties. However in this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the CDA, does not “grant immunity for inducing third parties to express illegal preferences.”

The Court said, “For example, a real estate broker may not inquire as to the race of a prospective buyer, and an employer may not inquire as to the religion of prospective employee. If such questions are unlawful when posed face-to-face or by telephone, they don’t magically become lawful when asked electronically online. The Communications Decency Act was not meant to create a lawless no man’s land on the Internet.”

Source: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F71559D8162BA7EE8825741F00771BC1/$file/0456916.pdf?openelement