Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares14 Views

    Alex Polikoff, Who Won a Marathon Housing Segregation Case, Dies at 98

    by

    He notched a victory in a Supreme Court decision against the City of Chicago in 1976. He then spent over 40 years making sure the ruling was enforced.Alex Polikoff, who won a landmark discrimination case before the Supreme Court in 1976 showing that the City of Chicago had segregated Black and white public housing residents, and who then spent decades fighting to make sure that the court’s will was enforced, died on May 27 at his home in Keene, N.H. He was 98.His daughter Eve Kodiak confirmed the death.Mr. Polikoff’s class-action lawsuit, known as Gautreaux after its lead plaintiff, Dorothy Gautreaux, ranks among the most important decisions in the history of civil rights litigation.Ms. Gautreaux, a public-housing resident, and her five co-plaintiffs claimed that the Chicago Housing Authority had systematically funneled Black residents into a small number of poorly constructed high-rise complexes, which became havens of crime and drug use.Such segregation was an open secret in Chicago, and the subject of decades of protest — Mr. Polikoff filed the case in August 1966, just months after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began his own grass-roots campaign to desegregate the city.But Chicago, under Mayor Richard J. Daley, pushed back. Dr. King left the city without success, while Mr. Polikoff spent a decade fighting the city in court. Ms. Gautreaux died in 1968, eight years before the case reached the Supreme Court.By then, the lawsuit had been combined with a similar suit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In oral arguments before the court, Mr. Polikoff squared off against one of his former classmates from the University of Chicago Law School: Robert H. Bork, the solicitor general.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares23 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Reinstates Product Safety Regulators Fired by Trump

      by

      It’s the latest setback for President Trump in his effort to purge perceived political opponents from independent agencies.A federal judge in Maryland reversed President Trump’s firings of the three Democratic members of the five-member Consumer Product Safety Commission, which monitors the safety of products like toys, cribs and electronics.In the ruling, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the Federal District Court in Maryland said that the law only allowed Mr. Trump to fire the officials for “neglect of duty or malfeasance,” while Mr. Trump had purported to fire them without cause.“Plaintiffs have performed ably in their roles,” Judge Maddox wrote, “and have never been accused of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office by either President Trump or President Biden.”It is the latest setback for Mr. Trump in his effort to purge perceived political opponents from independent agencies in the government, part of an assault on counterweights to his authority. Another federal judge ruled last month that Mr. Trump broke the law when he fired Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent civil liberties watchdog.The three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Mary T. Boyle, Richard L. Trumka Jr. and Alexander Hoehn-Saric, said in separate statements after Mr. Trump moved to fire them that they had been targeted for votes they cast to stop the importing of poorly made lithium-ion batteries and objecting to staffing cuts.Ms. Boyle’s term as a commissioner ends in October, and Mr. Trump will be able to pick her replacement, granting him a Republican-controlled majority on the commission. More

    • 113 Shares45 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Trump Voting Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship

      by

      A judge ruled that President Trump likely exceeded his authority with elections changes that included punishing states that didn’t stop counting ballots after Election Day.A federal judge sided with a coalition of states on Friday that had sued to stop stringent new voting ID requirements that President Trump laid out in an executive order in March.The ruling went further than a previous court decision to block most of the key aspects of Mr. Trump’s efforts to overhaul election law by executive order. In addition to indefinitely blocking provisions that would allow the federal government to require proof of citizenship for new voters, the judge’s ruling on Friday blocks a directive for Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against states that continue counting ballots beyond Election Day.In her opinion, Judge Denise J. Casper of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote that the states were likely to succeed in showing that the order exceeded President Trump’s authority and risked disenfranchising some of the electorate. The ruling blocked the order from taking effect until the resolution of the case.“The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections,” Judge Casper, an Obama appointee, wrote.In April, another judge in Washington, D.C., delivered a similar ruling that found much of the executive order likely unconstitutional. But that order, issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, stopped short of blocking the provision that sought to force an Election Day deadline on states for counting mail-in ballots.Thirteen states currently allow counting of mail-in ballots beyond Election Day if they were sent on time, and since the case before Judge Casper was brought by a coalition of 19 states that included the 13 “ballot recipient states,” she found they had standing to challenge that provision. Her order also blocked a provision that would withhold federal funding from states that failed to comply with the deadline.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Inside the Jury Room at the Weinstein Trial, Rancor and Recrimination

      by

      As the panelists deliberated over whether the former Hollywood mogul should be convicted of sex crimes for a second time in Manhattan, accusations began to fly.Inside the jury room at the second New York sex crime trial of Harvey Weinstein, things were getting tense.The 12 jurors had already acquitted the former Hollywood mogul on one felony sex crime charge, and they had begun to deliberate on a second when the discussions suddenly turned pointed, and personal.One juror, who had been calm and had even prayed with the others, abruptly began accusing another of having been “bought out” by Mr. Weinstein or his lawyers.The moment, which occurred on the second day of deliberations in a case that was brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office after its earlier sex crime conviction against Mr. Weinstein was overturned, foreshadowed the rancor and dysfunction that would ultimately consume the panel, leading it to deadlock on Thursday over the question of whether Mr. Weinstein raped an aspiring actress in a hotel room in 2013.This account of what occurred in the jury room is based on interviews with several jurors, particularly one panelist who came forward twice to voice concerns to the judge about the behavior of his fellow jurors.That panelist, juror No. 7, described the interactions as having grown increasingly contentious and marked by personal attacks.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares56 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination Case

      by

      Disability rights groups had followed the case closely, warning that arguments by the school district could threaten broader protections for people with disabilities.The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a teenage girl with epilepsy and her parents who had sued a Minnesota school district, claiming that her school had failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which made it difficult for her to receive instruction.The case hinged on what standard of proof was required to show discrimination by public schools in education-related disability lawsuits.In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court held that the student and her family needed to show only that the school system had acted with “deliberate indifference” to her educational needs when they sued.That is the same standard that applies when people sue other institutions for discrimination based on disability.The school district argued that a higher standard — a stringent requirement that the institution had acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” — should apply. Had the district prevailed, the new standard might have applied broadly to all kinds disability rights claims filed under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.That argument had unnerved some disability rights groups, which had cautioned that a ruling for the school could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Revives Suit From Victims of Botched F.B.I. Raid

      by

      Lower courts ruled in favor of agents who had used a battering ram and a flash-bang grenade in mistakenly raiding the home of an Atlanta couple.The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously revived a suit from a couple whose home was mistakenly raided by the F.B.I., giving them a fresh opportunity to try to persuade lower courts that they should be able to sue the federal government for the harm they suffered.The case, Martin v. United States, No. 24-362, arose from a raid very early on a fall morning in 2017, when F.B.I. agents used a battering ram to knock down the front door of the home of the couple, Hilliard Toi Cliatt and Curtrina Martin. Guns drawn, the agents set off a flash-bang grenade and charged inside.The couple barricaded themselves in a closet. The agents dragged Mr. Cliatt out at gunpoint and handcuffed him. They told Ms. Martin to keep her hands up as she pleaded to see her 7-year-old son, who had been asleep in another room.As they questioned Mr. Cliatt, he gave his address. It was different from the one the agents had a warrant to enter.One of the agents, Lawrence Guerra, had earlier identified the correct house, which he said looked similar and was nearby, on a different street. But on the morning of the raid, he said he went to the wrong house because he had been misdirected by his GPS device.The couple sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery and other claims but lost in the lower courts on a variety of grounds, notably that government officials’ actions are protected from lawsuits when they perform a duty that involves discretion.The case turned on the Federal Tort Claims Act, which sometimes allows suits against the government notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A 1974 amendment to the law made it easier to sue over wrong-house raids after notorious ones in Collinsville, Ill. But the law is subject to a tangled series of exceptions and provisos. More

    • 150 Shares66 Views

      in Elections

      Defense Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia Ask Judge to Release Him Pretrial

      by

      The request came as lawyers in Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s separate civil case were poised to ask a different judge to hold the Trump administration in contempt for sidestepping one of her orders.Defense lawyers for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant who was recently brought back to the United States to face a federal indictment after being wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador, said in court papers on Wednesday that he should remain free from custody as he awaits trial.The papers, filed in Federal District Court in Nashville, amounted to the opening salvo of efforts by the defense lawyers to challenge the charges that were filed last week against Mr. Abrego Garcia.“With no legal process whatsoever, the United States government illegally detained and deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia and shipped him to the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) in El Salvador, one of the most violent, inhumane prisons in the world,” the lawyers wrote.“The government now asks this court to detain him further,” they went on, asking Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., who is handling the criminal case, to deny the request. Judge Crenshaw is set to hold a hearing on Friday to arraign Mr. Abrego Garcia and to hear arguments about whether to detain him before the trial.Mr. Abrego Garcia, a metalworker who was living in Maryland when he was arrested on March 12 and summarily deported three days later to El Salvador, had for weeks been trying through lawyers representing him in a separate civil case to enforce a court order instructing the Trump administration to take active measures toward securing his freedom.But after the administration repeatedly sought to sidestep and delay complying with that order, the Justice Department abruptly changed course. Top department officials announced on Friday that Mr. Abrego Garcia had been brought back to the United States to stand trial on charges of taking part in a yearslong conspiracy to smuggle thousands of undocumented immigrants across the country as a member of the violent street gang MS-13.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares37 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Court Agrees to Keep Trump Tariffs Intact as Appeal Gets Underway

      by

      The appeals court’s decision delivered an important but interim victory for the Trump administration.A federal appeals court agreed on Tuesday to allow President Trump to maintain many of his tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, extending a pause granted shortly after another panel of judges ruled in late May that the import taxes were illegal.The decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, delivered an important but interim victory for the Trump administration, which had warned that any interruption to its steep duties could undercut the president in talks around the world.But the government still must convince the judges that the president appropriately used a set of emergency powers when he put in place the centerpiece of his economic agenda earlier this year. The Trump administration has already signaled it is willing to fight that battle as far as the Supreme Court.The ruling came shortly after negotiators from the United States and China agreed to a framework intended to extend a trade truce between the two superpowers. The Trump administration had warned that those talks and others would have been jeopardized if the appeals court had not granted a fuller stay while arguments proceeded.At the heart of the legal wrangling is Mr. Trump’s novel interpretation of a 1970s law that he used to wage a global trade war on an expansive scale. No president before him had ever used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose tariffs, and the word itself is not even mentioned in the statute.But the law has formed the foundation of Mr. Trump’s campaign to reorient the global economic order. He has invoked its powers to sidestep Congress and impose huge taxes on most global imports, with the goal of raising revenue, bolstering domestic manufacturing and brokering more favorable trade deals with other countries.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Jackson Just Helped Reset the D.E.I. Debate

      by

      At the heart of the debate over diversity, equity and inclusion is a question: How much should the law treat a person as an individual rather than as a member of a group?For a very long time, American law and American institutions answered that question unequivocally. People were defined primarily by the group they belonged to, and if they happened to be Black or Native American or a woman, they were going to enjoy fewer rights, fewer privileges and fewer opportunities than the people who belonged to the categories white and male.That was — and remains — a grievous injustice. At a minimum, justice demands that a nation and its institutions cease and desist from malicious discrimination. But doesn’t justice demand more? Doesn’t it also require that a nation and its institutions actually try to provide assistance to targeted groups to help increase diversity in employment and education and help targeted groups overcome the systemic effects of centuries of discrimination?On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously decided a case that was directly relevant to the latter question, and while the outcome wasn’t surprising, the court’s unanimity — and the identity of the author of the court’s opinion — certainly was.The facts of the case, Ames v. Ohio, are simple. In 2004, the Ohio Department of Youth Services hired a heterosexual woman named Marlean Ames to work as an executive secretary. By 2019, she’d worked her way up to program administrator and set her sights higher — applying for a management position in the agency’s Office of Quality and Improvement.The department interviewed Ames for the job but decided to hire someone else, a lesbian. The department then demoted Ames and replaced her with a gay man. Believing she’d been discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation, she filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More