Tag Archives: hear

US Supreme Court to hear case involving Austin's ordinance on billboards

AUSTIN (KXAN) — A case involving the City of Austin will be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the next term, starting October 2021.

The City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc. will take a look at the City’s ordinance regarding billboards.

Austin’s local ordinance allows businesses to use digital billboards on-premises, but digital off-premises signs are not permitted.

Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc. applied for permits to digitize 84 off-premises billboards and sued the City when the permits were denied, according to the Supreme Court docket.

The Supreme Court will answer the question of whether Austin’s distinction between on and off-premises signs is unconstitutional.

A spokesperson for the City told KXAN it believes Austin’s ordinances allow “ample room for free speech in advertising.”

“The City welcomes the United States Supreme Court’s action taking up review of the constitutionality of our local ordinance regulating billboards. Cities all across the country, including Austin, must grapple with balancing the public policy needs of ensuring traffic safety and protecting local aesthetic values, while also allowing ample room for free speech in advertising. We believe our ordinances do that and are pleased that the Court now has given us an opportunity to explain why what we’ve done achieves the correct balance.”

City of Austin spokesperson

Author: Andrew Schnitker
This post originally appeared on KXAN Austin

Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Military Draft

Lower courts had agreed with that assessment.

In 2019, Judge Gray H. Miller, of the Federal District Court in Houston, ruled that since women can now serve in combat, the men-only registration requirement was no longer justified. A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, agreed that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed.” But it said that only the Supreme Court could overrule its own precedent.

The Trump administration defended the differing registration requirements in the appeals court. The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, No. 20-928, but it did not defend the constitutionality of the law. Instead, it asked the justices to give Congress more time to consider the matter.

Last year, a congressional commission concluded that expanding the registration requirement to women was “a necessary — and overdue — step” that “signals that both men and women are valued for their contributions in defending the nation.” That echoed recommendations from military leaders. But Congress, which has long been studying the question, has yet to act.

Men who fail to register can face harsh punishments, including criminal prosecution, denial of student loans and disqualification from citizenship. Eight states do not let men enroll in public universities unless they have registered.

The government has not drafted anyone since the Vietnam War, and there is no reason to think that will change. The challengers said that was a reason for the court to act now, before a crisis arises.

“Should the court declare the men-only registration requirement unconstitutional,” their brief said, “Congress has considerable latitude to decide how to respond. It could require everyone between the ages of 18 and 26, regardless of sex, to register; it could rescind the registration requirement entirely; or it could adopt a new approach altogether, such as replacing” the registration requirement “with a more expansive national service requirement.”

A group of retired military officers, along with the Center for Military Readiness, urged the court to deny review, saying the 1981 precedent was sound.

Author: Adam Liptak
This post originally appeared on NYT > U.S. News

Supreme Court to Hear Major Abortion Case

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear a case from Mississippi challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The case will give the court’s new 6-to-3 conservative majority its first opportunity to weigh in on state laws restricting abortion.

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19- 1392, concerns a law enacted by the Republican-dominated Mississippi legislature that banned abortions if “the probable gestational age of the unborn human” was determined to be more than 15 weeks. The statute included narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or “a severe fetal abnormality.”

Lower courts said the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe, which forbids states from banning abortions before fetal viability — the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or around 23 or 24 weeks.

Mississippi’s sole abortion clinic sued, saying the law ran afoul of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding.

Judge Carlton W. Reeves of Federal District Court in Jackson, Miss., blocked the law in 2018, saying the legal issue was straightforward and questioning the state lawmakers’ motives.

“The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Judge Reeves wrote. “This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.”

“With the recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, it may be that the state believes divine providence covered the Capitol when it passed this legislation,” wrote Judge Reeves. “Time will tell. If overturning Roe is the state’s desired result, the state will have to seek that relief from a higher court. For now, the United States Supreme Court has spoken.”

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed Judge Reeves’s ruling. “In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and reaffirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability,” Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote for majority.

Judge James C. Ho, issued a reluctant concurring opinion expressing misgivings about the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence.

“Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution establishes a right to an abortion,” he wrote. “Rather, what distinguishes abortion from other matters of health care policy in America — and uniquely removes abortion policy from the democratic process established by our Founders — is Supreme Court precedent.”

Lynn Fitch, Mississippi’s attorney general, urged the justices to hear the state’s appeal in order to reconsider their abortion jurisprudence. “‘Viability’ is not an appropriate standard for assessing the constitutionality of a law regulating abortion,” she wrote.

Lawyers for the clinic said the case was straightforward. The law, they wrote, “imposes, by definition, an undue burden.”

“It places a complete and insurmountable obstacle in the path of every person seeking a pre-viability abortion after 15 weeks who does not fall within its limited exceptions,” they wrote. “It is unconstitutional by any measure.”

The court will hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October. A decision is not expected until the spring or summer of 2022.

Author: Adam Liptak
This post originally appeared on NYT > U.S. News

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear Ken Paxton’s challenge

Author: Karen Brooks Harper
This post originally appeared on The Texas Tribune: Main Feed

Prince Harry's new job: 'Ability to hear and regurgitate corporate-speak will help him'

“Harry’s job title is so non-specific that it might entail little more than breezing into the office a few hours a month to share some great ideas and figurehead the marketing,” Judi said.

“If not though he might struggle as a boss in terms of solid, hands-on management skills. A great boss will usually know their business inside out. Great bosses have often worked their way up through the business to enable them to lead and manage with wisdom and experience.

“Many bosses need to know how to avoid the quagmire of office politics too and I suspect that Harry, with his eye on changing the world, might not excel at dealing with the kind of petty but lethal jealousies, fall-outs and other gripes that can be part of the true day to day running of most businesses.”

Although, the Duke may be suited to employment in other ways.

This article originally appeared on Daily Express :: Life and Style Feed
Read More