Category Archives: Supreme Court

Supreme Court – The latest news about Supreme Court from the Lawstarz Blog – Latest news and coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Drug company leaders should face prosecution, Oregon official says

William Theobald, USA Today 12:12 p.m. PST February 23, 2016

WASHINGTON – Drug company executives should be prosecuted for improper actions that contribute to the growth of opioid addiction, an Oregon assistant attorney general told a Senate committee Tuesday.

“We have to have more personal accountability of the executives who make these decisions,” David Hart testified at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee on the opioid addiction epidemic. “They can’t walk away with their stock options and their salaries.”

Hart, head of the Oregon attorney general’s health fraud unit, has led several investigations into improper marketing and promotion practices by pharmaceutical companies that make the highly addictive painkillers.

In response to questions from Sen. Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Hart also said the companies should be required to forfeit the profit they earn from their improper actions.

“We need to have these companies help clean up the messes they make,” Hart said.

He cited the state’s investigation of Insys, the maker of a painkiller called Subsys. Investigators alleged the company provided “improper financial incentives” to doctors to increase prescriptions, promoted the drug to doctors not qualified to prescribe it, and deceptively promoted its use for mild pain.

The company agreed to a voluntary settlement last August that included a $1.1 million payment, which Hart said amounted to two times its sales of the drug in the state of Oregon. The money is being used to fight opioid addiction.

Hart also was involved in a 2007 settlement among Oregon and 26 other state attorneys general and Purdue Pharma, after the company was accused of misrepresenting OxyContin’s risk of addiction.

Wyden said one common theme he heard during public meetings in Oregon last week on opioid abuse was a phenomenon he dubbed the “prescription pendulum.”

In past years, he said, doctors were criticized for not being aggressive enough in prescribing medication to manage severe pain. Now, the issue has swung the other way and doctors are being criticized for overprescribing pain killers.

Oregon ranked fourth among states in the rate of abuse of prescription painkillers, according to a 2013-2014 survey by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. That’s down from first among the states in the same 2010-2011 survey.

Between 2000 and 2013, there were 2,226 deaths in Oregon due to opioid overdoses. While the overdose death rate has dropped in recent years, in 2013 it was still nearly three times the rate in 2000.

“This epidemic is carving a path of destruction through communities all across the country,” Wyden said.

He said he worries policymakers are splitting into opposing camps: one focused on increasing enforcement and the other favoring more resources for treatment.

“What’s needed is a better approach that includes three things: more prevention, better treatment, and tougher enforcement,” Wyden said. “True success will require all three to work in tandem.”

The committee is expected to take up legislation soon that would allow for people in the Medicare program who are identified as at-risk for opioid addiction to be placed in a special program under which all of their prescriptions would be handled by one doctor and/or one pharmacy. Opioid abusers often will obtain multiple prescriptions for the painkillers.

In 2013, 3.6 million prescriptions for opioid painkillers were dispensed in Oregon, enough for nearly one prescription for every resident.

Apple’s clash with the FBI will be a tough legal fight

BY SERGIO HERNANDEZ & CHRISTINA WARREN

Apple may face an uphill climb in its latest fight with the feds over digital privacy.

The company’s CEO, Tim Cook, said in a statement on its website Wednesday that Apple opposes a federal court’s order to write special software so federal investigators can penetrate the passcode for an iPhone once used by Syed Farook.

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were the perpetrators of a shooting spree in San Bernardino, Calif., on Dec. 2, which killed 14 people and injured 22 others. The shooters were later killed during a gunfight with police.

Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and lawyers from the Justice Department have said Farook’s phone, and iPhone 5C, may contain key evidence about his communications in the weeks before the attack, but they cannot access it without Farook’s passcode.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym issued the Apple order on Tuesday, after the local U.S. Attorney petitioned a federal court for Apple’s help.

FBI agents have been unable to access the phone’s contents because of security features built into the device’s software. Those include one that forces users to wait several minutes before entering different passcodes. Another erases a decryption key necessary to access the device’s data if a user enters a wrong passcode too frequently.

The judge’s order instructs Apple to write custom software, called a “Software Image File,” to bypass these security features so the FBI can quickly test an unlimited number of passcodes until it finds the right one. Once that as-yet-uncreated software is installed on the phone, security experts say it would take no more than a day to find the code.

News of the order triggered fierce debate last week as technologists wondered whether Apple can, as a matter of technical ability, comply with the demand, while privacy advocates said engineering such software could have dangerous security implications. Legal experts said it raises constitutional questions about how far the government can go when conscripting private, third parties to assist with law enforcement.

Cook’s statement, which indicated the company planned to fight the order in court, prompted the Justice Department to file a new motion on Friday, asking Pym to compel Apple to comply with her previous order.

Read Full Article – http://mashable.com/2016/02/21/apple-fbi-legal-issues/#Im3rLfAR_iq9

NJ town providing legal tips to illegal immigrants to skirt ICE raids

By

A New Jersey town is attempting to protect illegal immigrants from “really unfortunate” arrests by publishing handouts in English and Spanish that encourage immigrants “to remain silent” and “have a plan!” if confronted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

The response from Princeton officials comes following the targeted arrest of two illegal immigrants in the town early Thursday morning, one of whom had a drunken driving conviction, an ICE official told NJ.com.

Councilwoman Heather Howard has been a leading advocate for working with the local immigrant population to prevent detentions and deportations.

protect your illegal family
raid ice

“These [arrests] are really unfortunate,” she told NJ.com. “They cause fear and panic in the community, and they work to undermine the community’s effort to improve law enforcement relations.”

An ICE spokesperson told FoxNews.com the town’s efforts wouldn’t impede ICE’s duties.

“It’s not gonna hinder our operations,” Alvin Phillips said. “Standard operations are still ongoing and based on priorities.”

He added: “ICE arrests are not unfortunate. In fact to the contrary of previous reports — ICE actions are in keeping with the laws and homeland security priorities: National Security, Public Safety and Border Security. I will also add, arrests in question are afforded an opportunity to meet with legal counsel.”

Several “Know Your Rights” handouts on the town government’s website advise immigrants “if you or someone you love is deportable, have a plan!” Another section of one of the pamphlets tells immigrants to not “answer questions about your immigration status or where you were born. Keep saying you want to call your attorney.”

The publications come complete with cartoons of smiling immigrants flashing cards that say “I want to speak with my lawyer” and shocked immigrants being busted by angry ICE agents, often appearing menacing and wearing dark sunglasses.

The pamphlets even encourage readers not to provide their names to officers: “Remember that providing your name has risks, and that your name can be used to start a deportation process.”

A “Right To Remain Silent Card” is printed near the end of one of the publications with cut-out lines drawn around it for those who wish to detach and carry it.

lawerice

The card states: “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be informed that I am choosing to exercise my right to remain silent and the right to refuse to answer your questions. If I am detained, I request to contact an attorney immediately. I am also exercising my right to refuse to sign anything until I consult with my attorney.”

Elisa Neira, the executive director of Human Services, said the goal of the literature is to better inform illegal immigrants of their rights.

Read Full Article – http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/17/nj-town-providing-legal-tips-to-illegal-immigrants-to-skirt-ice-raids.html

Is Sports Betting About To Become Legal Outside Of Nevada?

I cover the intersection of sports and money.

The State of New Jersey has fought for years to establish a sports betting scheme that would allow it to bring in more money for its troubled budget and provide a boost to its struggling casino industry. Each effort has been shot down, with the NCAA and the “Big Four” American professional sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA) claiming that allowing New Jersey such an exception would be a blatant violation of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (“PASPA”), which bans states from offering any form of sports betting to individuals within their borders. The one exception among the U.S. states that is allowed a sweeping form of sports betting is Nevada, as it was grandfathered in when PASPA was passed.

There may finally be hope for New Jersey and others states that seek to implement a sports wagering system. This Wednesday, February 17, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear New Jersey’s case as to why it believes it should be able to permit casinos and racetracks within the state to offer sports betting at such venues. A majority of judges in the Third Circuit were required to vote for a rehearing in order for it to be granted, which is a promising sign for New Jersey in its ongoing quest to essentially circumvent PASPA.

Why is the Third Circuit’s rehearing so important?

Rehearings are extremely rare; circuit courts of appeal are reluctant to grant such requests. By way of example, in 2006 a total of 1,028 motions for rehearing were filed in the Fourth District Court of Appeals and only twenty-one of them were granted. That makes the granting of New Jersey’s case a special exception to the rule and may be read as a positive sign as to the likelihood of success on the merits of the state’s argument.

“It’s huge,” said New Jersey Senator Raymond Lesniak when the rehearingwas initially announced. ”Chances are, they wouldn’t have vacated the ruling if they were only going to later on confirm it.”

While New Jersey has certainly gained an edge over its prior position by way of receiving approval for a rehearing, it is not case closed for the state. It still must prove that the prior decisions were wrong and that New Jersey should be entitled to enact the sports betting system it selected in the past.

“We are glad that the ruling – which robbed New Jersey of the opportunity to benefit from the billion-dollar sports betting industry – will be reconsidered and heard by the full court,” said Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr. and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey in October 2015. “Not only do the citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and the revenue that would come to the state with it, but existing federal law picks winners and losers, and is unconstitutional and arbitrary.  We remain committed to seeing sports betting become legal in New Jersey, and this reconsideration is a positive and important development.”

How will the rehearing work?

New Jersey’s rehearing on its sports betting plan will require that the court sits “en banc.” That is a Latin phrase meaning that all judges of the Third Circuit will participate in the rehearing, which is atypical, as standard Third Circuit decisions are provided by a panel of three judges.

There will be a total of twelve judges participating on Wednesday. Some of the judges have been involved in this case the past, either siding with the State of New Jersey or the NCAA and professional sports leagues in their efforts to keep sports betting banned.

Importantly, the en banc court’s decision will carry the day. The panel’s decision, which ruled against the State of New Jersey, was vacated when the en banc rehearing was granted. It is as though the prior decision of the court never existed.

If the en banc court of twelve judges vote in a 6-6 tie, then the district court’s original ruling will be reinstated. Thus, the State of New Jersey wants a 7-5 result in its favor, or better.

What is at issue?

This is New Jersey’s second major attempt to allow for sports betting within its borders. The first time around, PASPA’s constitutionality was challenged as a violation of states’ rights. New Jersey lost in a 2-1 decision, which indicated that the state is not prohibited from repealing its own ban on sports wagering under PASPA.

Thus, New Jersey repealed its own sports betting ban to the extent that it would only allow for casinos and racetracks to accept sports wagers. The state was told again, in a 2-1 decision, that its plan was unlawful. The court did not view New Jersey’s plan as a repeal, but instead deemed it to be a wrongful authorization for select entitles to be involved in sports betting.

The real issue is reconciling the two decisions, which may appear to contradict each other. The first loss for New Jersey indicated that the state could repeal a ban on sports betting, but the second loss seems to state that it cannot be done on a preferential basis. What an approved system would look like and how it would comport with PASPA are questions that remain unanswered.

What’s next after the rehearing?

Do not expect a ruling from the en banc court on Wednesday nor in close proximity to the rehearing. These decisions can take upwards of six monthsbefore actual rulings are released.

If New Jersey fails to win on rehearing, then it could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court receives roughly 8,000 petitions for cases to be heard per year, and it grants and hears oral argument in approximately eighty of them. Thus, the statistical odds of this case making it to the U.S. Supreme Court are slim.

Should New Jersey prevail, then it would be extremely likely that the NCAA and professional sports leagues file an appeal. Additionally, the NCAA and professional sports leagues would be destined to seek an injunction against New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks offering any forms of sports betting while an appeal is ongoing. Either way, the en banc court’s decision on rehearing may not be the end of this lingering battle concerning sports betting.

A ruling in favor of New Jersey not only has the potential to change the sports betting landscape within the state, but could have ramifications for other states that seek implementing a similar system. If the court deems that New Jersey’s effort is permissible, then we could see a similar structure adopted by other states, possibly leading to more lawsuit, but also potentially resulting in the death of PASPA.

Read Full Article – http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2016/02/15/is-sports-betting-about-to-become-legal-outside-of-nevada/#56e2cf745c02

Marijuana residue laws too vague, lawyer tells Nevada Supreme Court

A former Las Vegas stripper, who has spent 16 years in prison for killing six teenagers working on a road cleanup crew, is appealing once again to the Nevada Supreme Court.

A jury found Jessica Williams guilty in February 2001 of six counts of felony driving with a prohibited substance in her blood, part of the state’s law on driving under the influence.

Michael Pescetta, assistant federal public defender, argued that state laws regarding marijuana residue and driving under the influence conflict with one another. In one statute, marijuana metabolite does not qualify as a prohibited substance, he said.

“Why does this one (statute) control and not that one? This situation is at best a tie,” he said, adding that a “tie goes to the defendant.”

A panel of three — Chief Justice James Hardesty and Justices Nancy Saitta and Kristina Pickering — heard about 30 minutes of arguments Thursday but did not make a ruling.

Williams, who was 20 at the time of the March 2000 crash, admitted that she had smoked marijuana two hours before she fell asleep behind the wheel of a white Ford van. Her lawyer at trial said that she had used the stimulant-hallucinogen Ecstasy 10 hours earlier but maintained that she was not impaired and simply fell asleep before her van ran off Interstate 15 just north of Las Vegas.

Six teenagers died when the van veered into the I-15 median near Las Vegas Motor Speedway at a spot where a youth offenders work crew had been assigned to pick up trash.

Killed were Anthony Smith, 14; Scott Garner Jr., 14; Alberto Puig, 16; Maleyna Stoltzfus, 15; Rebeccah Glicken, 15; and Jennifer Booth, 16.

Pescetta wrote in court papers that Williams was denied fair warning that having marijuana metabolite in her blood would subject her to criminal liability.

He argued before the court that prosecutors did not thoroughly examine the conflicting statutes because the “notorious case” gained so much public attention.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Bruce Nelson said the high court had previously ruled — in 2004 — that state law was not vague.

“What’s changed?” he said. “Nothing. There is absolutely nothing new in this case.”

Hardesty responded: “I’m not sure the 2004 decision addressed the conflict adequately.”

Pescetta said the court did not perform a “vagueness analysis” on two statutes, “one of which says the defendant is guilty, and one of which says the defendant is not guilty.”

Nelson also said that medical marijuana was not legal at the time in Nevada. Since legalization, people can still face prosecution for driving under the influence of medical pot.

Pescetta also argued that her previous attorney, John Watkins, failed to raise the issue that marijuana metabolite was not a prohibited substance at the time of the crash. The prosecutor said Watkins’ representation was effective.

Williams, 36, remains in custody at the Jean Conservation Camp.

Contact reporter David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Find him on Twitter:@randompoker

Read Full Article – http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/marijuana-residue-laws-too-vague-lawyer-tells-nevada-supreme-court