FTX founder could be sent to US after extradition hearing

Sam Bankman-Fried is back in a Bahamian court Wednesday for an extradition hearing that could clear the way for the one-time billionaire to be sent to the U.S. to face criminal charges related to the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. In a court in Nassau, Bahamas, on Monday, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers said he had agreed to be extradited to the U.S., but the necessary paperwork had not yet been written up. If approved, Bankman-Fried could be on a plane to the U.S. as early as Wednesday afternoon. Bahamian authorities arrested Bankman-Fried last week at the request of the U.S. government. U.S. prosecutors allege he played a central role in the rapid collapse of FTX and hid its problems from the public and investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission said Bankman-Fried illegally used investors’ money to buy real estate on behalf of himself and his family. The 30-year-old could potentially spend the rest of his life in jail. Bankman-Fried was denied bail Friday after a Bahamian judge ruled that he posed a flight risk. The founder and former CEO of FTX, once worth tens of billions of dollars on paper, is being held in the Bahamas’ Fox Hill prison, which has been has been cited by human rights activists as having poor sanitation and as being infested with rats and insects. Once he’s back in the U.S., Bankman-Fried’s attorney will be able to request that he be released on bail.

Supreme Court weighs ‘most important case’ on democracy

The Supreme Court is about to confront a new elections case, a Republican-led challenge asking the justices for a novel ruling that could significantly increase the power of state lawmakers over elections for Congress and the presidency. The court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case from North Carolina, where Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court because the GOP map violated the state constitution. A court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last month’s midterm elections in highly competitive North Carolina. The question for the justices is whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections cuts state courts out of the process. “This is the single most important case on American democracy — and for American democracy — in the nation’s history,” said former federal judge Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who has joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court decision.

Judge denies 19-year-old’s ask to attend father’s execution

A federal judge has denied a request from a 19-year-old woman to allow her to watch her father’s death by injection, upholding a Missouri law that bars anyone under 21 from witnessing an execution. Kevin Johnson is set to be executed Tuesday for killing Kirkwood, Missouri, Police Officer William McEntee in 2005. Johnson’s lawyers have appeals pending that seek to spare his life. His daughter, Khorry Ramey, had sought to attend the execution, and the American Civil Liberties Union had filed an emergency motion with a federal court in Kansas City. The ACLU’s court filing said the age requirement served no safety purpose and violates Ramey’s constitutional rights. But U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes ruled late Friday that Ramey’s constitutional rights would not be violated by the law. “I’m heartbroken that I won’t be able to be with my dad in his last moments,” Ramey said in a statement. “My dad is the most important person in my life. He has been there for me my whole life, even though he’s been incarcerated.” While the judge acknowledged that the law would cause emotional harm for Ramey, he found that was just one part of the court’s consideration and the law did not violate her constitutional rights. Ramey said she was praying that Gov. Michael Parson would grant her father clemency. Johnson’s lawyers have filed appeals seeking to halt the execution. They don’t challenge his guilt but claim racism played a role in the decision to seek the death penalty, and in the jury’s decision to sentence him to die. Johnson is Black and McEntee was white. Johnson’s lawyers also have asked the courts to intervene for other reasons, including a history of mental illness and his age — he was 19 at the time of the crime. Courts have increasingly moved away from sentencing teen offenders to death since the Supreme Court in 2005 banned the execution of offenders who were younger than 18 at the time of their crime. In a court filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office stated there were no grounds for court intervention.

Man granted new trial in 2006 triple murder freed after plea

An man granted a new trial in the murders of three men in Ohio more than a decade and a half ago has been released after reaching a plea agreement with prosecutors. Stoney Thompson, 43, was originally sentenced in Lucas County to three consecutive life terms in the October 2006 slayings of Todd Archambeau, 44, Kenneth Nicholson, 41, and Michael York, 44, who were found shot and stabbed in a boarded-up house in Toledo. Thompson, originally convicted of complicity to commit murder, was resentenced on involuntary manslaughter convictions under the plea agreement, The (Toledo) Blade reported. He submitted an Alford plea, in which a defendant does not acknowledge guilt but concedes that prosecutors have sufficient evidence for conviction. Judge James Bates sentenced Thompson to six years for each involuntary manslaughter count to be served consecutively for a total of 18 years. The judge allowed his release but ordered him to remain on probation for the remaining two years of the sentence. The Sixth U.S. District Court of Appeals in July had ordered a new trial for Thompson, citing evidence not turned over to the defense by prosecutors that included other potential suspects, recorded testimony of other parties, and a photo of a bloody shoe print that didn’t match Thompson’s own shoes. Thompson’s brother, Goldy, was acquitted in the same case following a separate trial in which the evidence hadn’t been withheld, the newspaper reported. The appeals court judges also cited a lack of physical evidence tying the defendant to the crimes and noted as “strange” the jury’s decision to acquit Thompson of firearms specifications in each death, given that the victims were all shot and one died of a gunshot wound.

Montana vote adds to win streak for abortion rights backers

Abortion rights supporters secured another win Thursday as voters in Montana rejected a ballot measure that would have forced medical workers to intercede in the rare case of a baby born after an attempted abortion. The result caps a string of ballot defeats, months after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade galvanized abortion-rights voters. Michigan, California and Vermont voted to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions, and Kentucky voters rejected an anti-abortion amendment in a tally that echoed a similar August vote in Kansas. Abortion rights groups said the outcomes show that voters across the political spectrum support access to abortion, even after a dozen Republican-governed states legislatures adopted near-total bans in the wake of the Roe decision. Anti-abortion groups, on the other hand, say they were outspent in the state races and point out anti-abortion candidate victories. Like voters nationwide, only about 1 in 10 voters in California, Michigan, Montana Kentucky or Vermont said abortion should generally be illegal in all cases, according to AP VoteCast. The Montana ballot measure would have raised the prospect of criminal charges carrying up to 20 years in prison for health-care providers unless they take “all medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life” of an infant born alive, including in the rare case of a birth after an abortion. Doctors and other opponents argued the law could keep parents of babies born with incurable diseases from spending peaceful moments with their infants if doctors were forced to attempt treatment.

Federal judge rules in favor of bikini baristas over dress

A Washington city’s dress code ordinance saying bikini baristas must cover their bodies at work has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. The decision in a partial summary judgment this week comes after a lengthy legal battle between bikini baristas and the city of Everett over the rights of workers to wear what they want, the Everett Herald reported. Everett is about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Seattle. U.S. District Court in Seattle found Everett’s dress code ordinance violated the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. The Court found that the ordinance was, at least in part, shaped by a gender-based discriminatory purpose, according to a 19-page ruling signed by U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. It is difficult to imagine, the court wrote, how the ordinance would be equally applied to men and women in practice because it prohibits clothing “typically worn by women rather than men,” including midriff and scoop-back shirts, as well as bikinis. Bikini baristas were “clearly” a target of the ordinance, the court also ruled, adding that the profession is comprised of a workforce that is almost entirely women. In 2017, the city enacted its dress code ordinance, requiring all employees, owners and operators of “quick service facilities” to wear clothing that covers the upper and lower body. The ordinance listed coffee stands, fast food restaurants, delis, food trucks and coffee shops as examples of quick service businesses. The owner of Everett bikini barista stand Hillbilly Hotties and some employees filed a legal complaint challenging the constitutionality of the dress code ordinance. They also challenged the city’s lewd conduct ordinance, but the court dismissed all the baristas’ claims but the dress code question. The court directed the city of Everett to meet with the plaintiffs within 14 days to discuss next steps.

Baton Rouge judge suspended for abusing power

The Louisiana Supreme Court has suspended a Baton Rouge judge without pay for 180 days for abusing her power to hold people in contempt. East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court Judge Charlene Charet Day, who has held the seat since 2011, violated the law when she issued a bench warrant that resulted in a teacher being arrested at the school where she works, the high court ruled Friday. The Louisiana Judiciary Commission, which investigates complaints of judicial conduct, recommended the six-month suspension in July, finding that Day violated rules of conduct and committed “willful misconduct” when she locked up litigants for contempt of court. Day was directed to pay the commission a $6,260 fine. The justices unanimously agreed that a suspension was warranted, though one thought a less-severe penalty was required, The Advocate reported. “Judge Day’s conduct harmed the integrity of and respect for the judiciary,” Justice William Crain wrote in the prevailing opinion. “When a judge abuses the immense power to deprive a person of their liberty, it has a profound effect on public confidence in the judiciary.”

NC legislative races: Sharp divisions over abortion, economy

With abortion restrictions, looser gun rules and deeper tax reductions likely in the balance, North Carolina Republican lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Roy GOP lawmakers appeal Ohio map flap to US Supreme Court Republican state lawmakers involved in Ohio’s political map-making process appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, seeking a review of an Ohio Supreme Court decision finding the state’s latest round of congressional maps unconstitutional. The move by Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman, Ohio House Speaker Bob Cupp and a state senator and representative who also sit on the Ohio Redistricting Commission was foreshadowed when the group flouted an August deadline they’d been given by the Ohio Supreme Court to redraw the boundaries. In a statement, the GOP lawmakers called the high court’s July 17 decision rejecting a second proposed congressional map as gerrymandered to GOP partisan advantage “fundamentally flawed.” Their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asserts the ruling encroached on their legislative authority “in multiple ways.” “While many believe that the Ohio Supreme Court majority misinterpreted state law, there is also the broader concern that the Court assumed a role the federal constitution does not permit it to exercise,” they said. The head of one of the groups that brought suit against the maps criticized the appeal.

Court rejects request to rehear gender dysphoria case

A federal appeals court on Friday denied a request to rehear a case that found that gender dysphoria is a condition covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. In August, a three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court in the country to find that the landmark federal law protects people with gender dysphoria, a condition that causes anguish and other symptoms as a result of a disparity between a person’s gender identity and their assigned sex at birth. The decision came in the case of Kesha Williams, a transgender woman who sued the Fairfax County sheriff in Virginia for housing her in a jail with men under a policy that inmates must be classified according to their genitals. In her lawsuit, Williams said that she was harassed and that her prescribed hormone medication was repeatedly delayed or skipped, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. A federal judge granted a motion by the sheriff’s office to dismiss the lawsuit, but the 4th Circuit panel reversed that ruling, finding there is a distinction between gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria. The modern diagnosis of gender dysphoria “affirms that a transgender person’s medical needs are just as deserving of treatment and protection as anyone else’s,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the opinion.

Judge won’t toss suit over Delaware court political balance

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Democratic Gov. John Carney over Delaware’s requirement for political balance on its courts. Friday’s ruling is the latest in a long-running legal battle over a “major-party” provision in Delaware’s constitution under which judicial appointments to the state’s three highest courts are split between Republicans and Democrats. The Supreme Court, Court of Chancery and Superior Court are subject to a separate “bare majority” provision that also applies to Family Court and the Court of Common Pleas. That provision says no more than a bare majority of judges on those courts can be affiliated with a single political party. The result of the major-party provision is that any person not affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic Party is unable serve on the Supreme Court, Superior Court or Court of Chancery. Wilmington lawyer James Adams, a former Democrat who is now an unaffiliated voter, claims that the provision violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by barring him from being considered for a judgeship on the Superior Court, a position for which he has twice applied and been rejected. Judge Maryellen Noreika ruled Friday that Adams had legal standing to challenge the major-party provision and denied the governor’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Court rehears fight over vaccine mandate for federal workers

President Joe Biden has the same authority to impose a COVID-19 vaccine requirement on federal workers that private employers have for their employees, an administration lawyer told a federal appeals court Tuesday. A lawyer for opponents of the vaccine requirement, which has been blocked nationwide by a federal judge in Texas, said the requirement imposes an “unconstitutionally intolerable choice” for executive branch workers — taking a vaccine they don’t want or losing their jobs. Judges on the appeals court meanwhile questioned how far the chief executive’s authority goes, asking, theoretically, whether the president could require employees to meet certain healthy body weights or forbid them from smoking at home. It was the second time arguments on the issue were heard before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the same court had upheld the Biden requirement for executive branch workers, overturning the Texas judge. But the full appeals court, currently with 16 active members, vacated the panel ruling and agreed to rehear the case. There was no indication when the court would rule. Administration lawyers argue that the employees opposing the mandate should have taken their objections not to federal court but to a federal review board, in accordance with the Civil Service Reform Act. The administration also argues that the president has the same authority, under the Constitution, as the CEO of a private corporation to require that employees be vaccinated.

Court okays grand jury probe in school sex assaults

An attempt by the Loudoun County School Board to shut down a grand jury investigating the school system’s handling of two sexual assaults was rejected Friday by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The high court upheld a ruling in July by a circuit court judge who denied the school board’s request for an injunction to stop the grand jury from proceeding. The board argued that a special grand jury empaneled by Attorney General Jason Miyares is politically motivated and violates the mandate in the Virginia constitution giving local school boards authority over educational affairs. Miyares maintains that the grand jury is needed to uncover why the school system allowed a boy who had been accused of sexually assaulting a girl in one high school to transfer to another high school, where he was convicted of sexually assaulting a second girl. Miyares empaneled the grand jury after Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, on his first day in office, issued an executive order requesting an investigation by the attorney general’s office. Youngkin and Miyares, both Republicans, had criticized the school board during their successful 2021 campaigns. They said the board was not transparent in how it handled the case as it revised its guidelines over policies governing transgender students. The assaults attracted national attention in part because the boy was wearing a skirt when he committed at least one of the attacks. The boy was later convicted in juvenile court.

Google workers demand abortion protections, data privacy

Hundreds of Google employees are petitioning the company to extend its abortion healthcare benefits to contract workers and to strengthen privacy protections for Google users searching for abortion information online. Google parent company Alphabet had pledged to pay travel and other health care costs for employees seeking an out-of-state abortion and to help some workers relocate after the U.S. Supreme Court repealed the constitutional right to an abortion. The June decision overturning 1973′s Roe v. Wade ruling has paved the way for severe abortion restrictions or bans in nearly half of the U.S. states. The benefits for abortion services offered by Google and other tech companies don’t cover contract workforces, which are common in the tech industry and often get paid less and have fewer perks than full-time employees. A letter signed by more than 650 employees and sent this week to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and other Alphabet executives calls for the inclusion of contractors in those benefits. It also demands that the company cease any political donations or lobbying of politicians or organizations “responsible for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade and continue to infringe on other human rights issues related to voting access and gun control.” The employees seek additional protection for Google users, such as by blocking advertisements that misleadingly direct users to anti-abortion “pregnancy crisis” centers. The petition was organized by members of the Alphabet Workers Union, a labor union that’s been trying to gain traction inside the company. Google declined to comment about the petition Thursday. The company said in July it would start automatically purging information about users who visit abortion clinics or other places that could trigger legal problems. Users have always had the option to edit their location histories on their own, but Google said it will proactively do it for them as an added level of protection. The employees’ petition said the company should also institute immediate data privacy controls for all health-related activity, including abortion information, so that it “must never be saved, handed over to law enforcement, or treated as a crime.”

Ex-Manchester United star Ryan Giggs starts assault trial

Former Manchester United star Ryan Giggs, adored by fans throughout a 24-year career, has a more sinister side to his character, prosecutors said Monday as he went on trial on charges of assault and use of coercive behavior against an ex-girlfriend. Prosecutor Peter Wright told the jury at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester that while Giggs’ soccer skills were a thing of beauty, his off-field life was very different. “In the privacy of his own personal life at home or behind closed doors, there was, we say the facts reveal, a much uglier and more sinister side to his character,” Wright told the jury. “This was a private life that involved a litany of abuse, both physical and psychological, of a woman he professed to love.” The 48-year-old Giggs is accused of assaulting Kate Greville, 36, and causing actual bodily harm at his home in Worsley, greater Manchester in November 2020. He is also charged with common assault of Greville’s younger sister during the same incident, as well as using controlling and coercive behavior toward his former girlfriend between August 2017 and November 2020. Giggs has denied all of the charges. He stood down as manager of the Wales national team in June, saying he didn’t want to jeopardize preparations for the World Cup later this year in Qatar. He had been on leave since November.

Kentucky judge extends block of state’s abortion ban

A Kentucky judge granted an injunction on Friday that prevents the state’s near-total ban on abortions from taking effect, meaning the state’s two clinics can continue providing abortions, for now. Jefferson Circuit Judge Mitch Perry’s ruling says there is “a substantial likelihood” that Kentucky’s new abortion law violates “the rights to privacy and self-determination” protected by Kentucky’s constitution. The injunction issued in Louisville allows the state’s only two clinics to continue providing abortions while the case is litigated. Kentucky’s trigger law was meant to ban abortions as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but Perry issued a restraining order in June blocking the ban. His ruling means that of the 13 states with trigger bans, five are in effect. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican running for governor, said he was disappointed by the ruling and will appeal it to the state appeals court. Kentucky’s trigger law contains a narrow exception allowing a physician to perform an abortion if necessary to prevent the death or permanent injury of the pregnant woman. Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, has denounced that law as “extremist,” noting it lacks exceptions for rape and incest. Thirteen states created trigger bans, and of those, at least five are currently in effect: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Five are not due to take effect yet: Idaho, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming. The remaining three — in Kentucky, Louisiana and Utah — are not in effect because of litigation. In all, about half the U.S. states are likely to have bans or deep restrictions in place as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

Judge holds hearing on challenge of Mississippi abortion law

A judge held a hearing Tuesday but didn’t say how she would decide a lawsuit filed by Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, which is trying to remain open by blocking a law that would ban most abortions in the state. The law — which state lawmakers passed before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling that allowed abortions nationwide — is set to take effect Thursday. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization sought a temporary restraining order that would allow it to remain open, at least while the lawsuit remains in court. The closely watched lawsuit is part of a flurry of activity that has occurred nationwide since the Supreme Court ruled. Conservative states have moved to halt or limit abortions while others have sought to ensure abortion rights, all as some women try to obtain the medical procedure against the changing legal landscape. Meanwhile a Florida judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new 15-week abortion ban days after it took effect in the state, an expected move following an oral ruling last week in which he said the law violated the state constitution.

Alabama Supreme Court sets execution date for inmate

The Alabama Supreme Court has set an execution date of July 28 for a man convicted of killing his one-time girlfriend after breaking into her home in Jefferson County almost three decades ago, according to a court order made public Monday. Joe Nathan James Jr. would become the second Alabama inmate put to death this year unless a court intervenes. James, 49, was sentenced to die after being convicted of capital murder during a burglary in the killing of his one-time girlfriend, Faith Hall, in Birmingham. James, who had a history of stalking and harassing the woman, showed up at her apartment on Aug. 15, 1994, forced his way inside and accused her of unfaithfulness, court documents show. James pulled a gun out of his waistband and shot the woman, who died of multiple gunshot wounds, and James was later arrested in California. A Jefferson County jury convicted James of capital murder in 1996 and voted to recommend the death penalty, which a judge imposed. The conviction was overturned when the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a judge wrongly admitted some police reports into evidence.

No state charge for billionaire Sanford in child porn probe

The South Dakota attorney general’s office has declined to file charges against billionaire T. Denny Sanford following an investigation into possible possession of child pornography, saying it found no “prosecutable offenses” within the state’s jurisdiction, according to a court document filed Friday. Sanford, a banker turned philanthropist, is the state’s richest man and has donated billions to hospitals, universities and charities. South Dakota investigators in 2019 began searching his email account, as well as his cellular and internet service providers, for possible possession of child pornography after his accounts were flagged by a technology firm. The attorney general’s office said in Friday’s court filing that the “South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation has completed its investigation ... and has determined that there are no prosecutable offenses within the jurisdiction of the State of South Dakota.” The attorney general’s office had no comment beyond the court filing. “Mr. Sanford appreciates the public acknowledgement by the SD Attorney General’s office that the DCI has concluded its investigation and they have found no prosecutable crime,” Marty Jackley, Sanford’s attorney, said via text. South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had earlier requested the involvement of federal law enforcement. A state filing in January said both state and federal investigations were continuing at the time. The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday when asked if a federal investigation is ongoing.

Accountant avoids prison time in college admissions scandal

An accountant who worked for the consultant at the center of the college admissions bribery case has avoided prison for his role in the sweeping scheme. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani on Friday sentenced Steven Masera, 72, to time already served, ordered him to pay a $20,000 fine and remain on three years’ supervised release. Masera pleaded guilty in 2019 to a charge of racketeering conspiracy in Boston federal court. Masera, of Folsom, California, was an accountant for Rick Singer, the mastermind of the bribery scheme that involved rigged test scores and bogus athletic credentials. Prosecutors say Masera created fake donation receipt letters and bogus invoices that allowed the wealthy parents who paid bribes to write their payments off as donations or business expenses. Prosecutors argued that Masera is less culpable than the parents and coaches involved in the scheme, noting that he was working at Singer’s direction and “stood to gain nothing beyond his hourly compensation.” An email seeking comment was sent Friday to lawyers for Masera. His attorneys wrote in court documents that he is “ashamed that he would agree to be involved in such conduct, but is nevertheless handling the situation with grace.” Singer pleaded guilty to a slew of charges and has yet to be sentenced. Others convicted in the case have received sentences ranging from probation to 15 months behind bars.

Supreme Court rules against Boston in Christian flag case

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that Boston violated the free speech rights of a conservative activist when it refused his request to fly a Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court that the city discriminated against the activist, Harold Shurtleff, because of his “religious viewpoint,” even though it had routinely approved applications for the use of one of the three flagpoles outside City Hall that fly the U.S., Massachusetts and Boston flags. Occasionally, the city takes down its own pennant and temporarily hoists another flag. Shurtleff and his Camp Constitution wanted to fly a white banner with a red cross on a blue background in the upper left corner, called the Christian flag, to mark Constitution Day, Sept. 17, in 2017. The city had approved 284 consecutive applications to fly flags, usually those of other nations, before it rejected Shurtleff’s because it was a Christian flag. The city said he could fly a different banner, but Shurtleff refused, and lower courts upheld the city’s decision. But the high court said the lower courts and the city were wrong. The case hinged on whether the flag-flying is an act of the government, in which case Boston can do whatever it wants, or private parties like Shurtleff, Breyer wrote.

Arizona court won’t halt sex suits naming Boy Scouts, others

Arizona victims of long-ago child sex abuse can proceed with lawsuits against groups like the Boy Scouts of America after the state Supreme Court rejected claims that a state law extending victims’ right to sue was unconstitutional. Arizona is among many states that have reacted to child sex abuse in recent years by allowing victims of even decades-old abuse to sue groups that didn’t protect them from predators. That has led to lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church, Scouts and others. The high court last week rejected appeals by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and its affiliates in central and southern Arizona of lower court rulings that found a 2019 law extending the statute of limitations was constitutional. The rulings appear to be the first to directly address whether the Arizona law is legal, according to Phoenix attorney Robert Pastor, who represents victims in the two cases the high court considered. Those lawsuits allege that the group that connects youth called “Littles” with adult mentors known as “Bigs” did not properly oversee the Bigs. The cases involved two men who abused boys, one in 1983 and one in the 1970s, court filings show. The men are not defendants.

2nd defendant pleads guilty in 2018 hate crime in Washington

A second defendant has pleaded guilty in federal court to a hate crime and making false statements in connection with a 2018 racially-motivated assault in the Seattle area. U.S. Attorney Nick Brown said Jason DeSimas, 45, of Tacoma, Washington, is one of four men from across the Pacific Northwest being prosecuted for punching and kicking a Black man at a bar in Lynnwood, Washington. U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones scheduled sentencing for July 8. According to the plea agreement, DeSimas was a prospective member of a white supremacist group. DeSimas believed that he and his group could go into bars and initiate fights, so that the rest of the members of the group could join in. On Dec. 8, 2018, the men went to a bar in Lynnwood, Washington and assaulted a Black man who was working as a DJ. The group also assaulted two other men who came to the DJ’s aid. The attackers shouted racial slurs and made Nazi salutes during the assault. DeSimas also admitted making false statements to the FBI during the investigation of the case. Under terms of the plea agreement, both sides will recommend a 37-month prison term. The judge is not bound by the recommendation. Daniel Delbert Dorson, 24, of Corvallis, Oregon, has already pleaded guilty in the case and is scheduled for sentencing Aug. 19. Jason Stanley, 44, of Boise, Idaho, and Randy Smith, 39, of Eugene, Oregon, are also charged in the case and are in custody awaiting trial.

Minshew & Ahluwalia LLP Attorney - Nicholas C. Minshew

Nicholas C. Minshew, Attorney at Law, concentrates his practice in the areas of Family Law including divorce, separation, child support, child custody, alimony, division of property, separation agreements, domestic violence, prenuptial agreements, and child support enforcement & modification. Mr. Minshew provides legal services to clients in Washington, D.C., and throughout Maryland, including Montgomery County, Frederick County, and Prince George’s County. Mr. Minshew obtained his Juris Doctorate degree from the American University, Washington College of Law in 2000, where he worked as an editor for the Administrative Law Review. After receiving his law degree, Mr. Minshew worked as an attorney for the global law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and for Leonard Street & Deinard LLP representing companies in Federal proceedings. During that time, Mr. Minshew redirected his focus to provide legal services directly to individuals and families.

New lawsuit challenges end of vaccine mandate exemption

After losing their case in federal court, opponents of Connecticut’s elimination of a long-standing religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements have filed a new challenge in state court seeking to restore the exception. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Hartford Superior Court by the groups We The Patriots USA and CT Freedom Alliance, as well as three parents of schoolchildren. It names as defendants the state departments of Education and Public Health, local school boards in Bethel, Glastonbury and Stamford, and other state agencies and officials. Among the lawsuit’s arguments is that the ending of the religious exemption for childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care centers last year violates religious freedom rights provided by the state constitution. The state’s list of required vaccines does not include COVID-19 vaccines. The parents’ religious objections include the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in the research, development and production of vaccines, the suit says. A federal judge last month dismissed a similar lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, saying the state has an interest in protecting the health of Connecticut’s students. We The Patriots, CT Freedom Alliance and the parents have appealed the ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Clyburn, architect of Biden’s court pledge, pushes his pick

At President Joe Biden’s lowest moment in the 2020 campaign, South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn came to him with a suggestion: He should pledge to put the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. After some cajoling, Biden made the promise at a Democratic debate, a move Clyburn credits with turning out the Black support that helped Biden score a resounding victory in the South Carolina primary and ultimately win the White House. Two years later, the hoped-for vacancy on the court has arrived with the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. Biden is standing by his pledge. And Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress, has another ask. As the lobbying begins over filling the open court seat, Clyburn is harnessing his history with Biden and his stature as the No. 3 House Democrat to make a forceful case for his preferred choice, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs, a jurist from his native South Carolina. It’s a campaign he’s making in public and in private, helping elevate Childs to an emerging short list of Black women who could soon make history. In addition to Childs, early discussions about a successor include California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, as well as Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk who is now on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Biden is also looking at U.S. District Court Judge Wilhelmina Wright from Minnesota and Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor who is an expert in family law and reproductive rights justice. For Biden, the court opening is a chance to show Black voters that he has not forgotten his promises to them, particularly after his failure this month to deliver on voting rights legislation in the Senate. He said Thursday that having a Black woman on the court is “long overdue” and that he would announce his choice by the end of February.

Court to hear appeal of man convicted in son’s hot-car death

A man whose toddler son died after he left him in a hot car for hours is asking Georgia’s highest court to overturn his convictions for murder and child cruelty. Justin Ross Harris, 41, was convicted in November 2016 on eight counts including malice murder in the death of his 22-month-old son, Cooper. A judge sentenced him to life without parole as well as 32 more years in prison for other crimes. Harris has appealed his convictions for murder and first-degree child cruelty. The Georgia Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for Tuesday. Harris, who moved from Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to the Atlanta area for work in 2012, told police he forgot to drop his son off at day care on the morning of June 18, 2014, driving straight to his job as a web developer for Home Depot without remembering that Cooper was still in his car seat. Cooper died after sitting for about seven hours in the back seat of the vehicle outside his father’s office in suburban Atlanta, where temperatures that day reached at least into the high 80s. Prosecutors argued at trial that Harris was unhappily married and killed his son on purpose to free himself. Defense attorneys described him as a doting father and said the boy’s death was a tragic accident. Police officers who interacted with Harris after his son’s death didn’t think he acted the way a father should under the circumstances, and began investigating all aspects of his life, according to a defense brief filed with the high court. Evidence showed he was a loving and attentive father, even if exchanging sexually explicit messages and graphic photos with women and teenage girls and meeting some of them for sex revealed that Harris was not a great husband, the defense brief says. Investigators “cherry picked the mountain of electronic data to support the conclusion that (Harris) murdered his son, ignoring contrary evidence,” the brief says.