Tag: circuit court

Civil rights attorneys make 2nd attempt to sue Oregon over public defense failures

Posted on by Judith E. Ashton

Oregon is once again being sued over the state’s troubled public defense system, which has left hundreds of people facing criminal charges without the court-appointed attorneys that they’re entitled to under the US Constitution.

As of Wednesday, roughly 831 people in Oregon were facing criminal charges without attorneys, according to the Oregon Judicial Department. Of those, 45 people were in custody without an attorney.

Related: Listen to “OPB Politics Now”: Oregon’s public defender crisis explodes into public view

This is the second attempt this year by civil rights attorneys to sue the state over its failure to provide attorneys, “in clear violation of basic standards of justice and long-settled state and federal law,” as the most recent lawsuit states. The original lawsuit was dismissed after a judge ruled that she didn’t have jurisdiction to even hear the case, let alone determine it was a class action. She was also unwilling to make a declaration that the defendants’ rights were being violated.

Multinomah County Justice Center front.

A file photo of the Multnomah County Justice Center in downtown Portland, which houses a jail and four courtrooms. A lawsuit filed Wednesday in Multnomah County Court is seeking class-action status over Oregon’s failure to provide defense attorneys to people charged with crimes and unable to afford a lawyer.

Amanda Troxler

Like the previous lawsuit, this new complaint was filed by attorneys working with the nonprofit Oregon Justice Resource Center. It was filed on Wednesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court on behalf of the four defendants charged with crimes and who cannot afford an attorney. Despite the four asking for public defenders to handle their cases, the lawsuit states, Oregon did not appoint attorneys for any of them.

In addition to the state of Oregon, the lawsuit names Jessica Kampfe, who was hired less than a week ago

… Read the rest
Read more

SC Supreme Court upholds civil asset forfeiture law, urges legislative reform |

Posted on by Judith E. Ashton

The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s civil forfeiture law in an order issued Sept. 14 but acknowledged the state Legislature could decide to change the law to make it more fair to those who’ve had possessions reserved by law enforcement.

The decision comes more than 20 months after the court heard oral arguments in a case that presented a constitutional challenge to the state law. The court ruled the case did not meet the high bar to strike down the state law.

“Several states have amended their statutory schemes to impose more stringent requirements on the government; however, the fact that certain states have legislatively altered their civil forfeiture laws provides no support for judicially changing ours,” the order said. “Legislative alteration might be a good thing, but we are not called upon to decide whether a change in the law would be wise.”

The case originated out of the 15th Circuit Solicitor’s Office in Horry County following the seizure of nearly $20,000 in 2017 from Travis Lee Green, a convicted Myrtle Beach drug dealer. Fifteenth Circuit Court Judge Stephen John placed a stay on all forfeiture cases in the circuit, asked for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the state’s law and then ruled the state law violated both the state and US constitutions.

The solicitor’s office appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the circuit court for a jury trial on the merits of Green’s forfeiture case.

The challenge drew attention from state and national advocates against forfeiture laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union, SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Police Accountability Project. Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote an argument in favor of the

… Read the rest
Read more

Subreddit Requires Calling Abbott ‘Little Piss Baby’ in Protest

Posted on by Judith E. Ashton
An image of Greg Abbott's head on a cartoon baby surrounded by red cut outs of Texas.

A gift to the subreddit r/PoliticalHumor. Love, Gizmodo.
Illustration: Jody Serrano / Gizmodo

understanding the wacky laws that get passed in Texas—my home state—to “rein in” Big Tech can get confusing. Is it free speech to tell a private company what its users are and are not allowed to post? Or is that censorship? One of the Texas’ most recent laws targets social media companies and bans them from moderating, or, as the state says, “censoring,” users’ posts based on their political views. I’ll explain, and I’ll ask you to remember one phrase: “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.” It’s the key to understanding it all.

Over the weekendnd, the moderators over at r/PoliticalHumor, a dedicated subreddit to discuss the absurdity of US politics, decided to educate members about the “bullshit” law by blatantly breaking it. To accomplish this, the subreddit declared that until further notice, all comments or posts published to the community would have to include the phrase, “Greg Abbott [the Texas governor] is a little piss baby.” Anyone that did not abide by the condition would be banned from the subreddit.

“To be clear, the mod team is of sound mind and body, and we are explicitly censoring the viewpoint that Greg Abbott isn’t a little piss baby,” wrote moderator u/BlatantConservative in a post on Saturday. “Anyone denying the fact that Abbott is a little piss baby will be banned from the subreddit.”

In their post, u/BlatantConservative explained that the Texas law forces social media companies to host content they don’t want to host and requires moderators to not to censor any specific point of view, which is a pretty good way to explain it. More specifically, the law, passed in 2021, obligates private social media companies to keep content up

… Read the rest
Read more

SC Supreme Court upholds civil asset forfeiture law, urges legislative reform | Greenville News

Posted on by Judith E. Ashton

The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s civil forfeiture law in an order issued Sept. 14 but acknowledged the state Legislature could decide to change the law to make it more fair to those who’ve had possessions reserved by law enforcement.

The decision comes more than 20 months after the court heard oral arguments in a case that presented a constitutional challenge to the state law. The court ruled the case did not meet the high bar to strike down the state law.

“Several states have amended their statutory schemes to impose more stringent requirements on the government; however, the fact that certain states have legislatively altered their civil forfeiture laws provides no support for judicially changing ours,” the order said. “Legislative alteration might be a good thing, but we are not called upon to decide whether a change in the law would be wise.”


SC justices accuse attorney of dodging questions in challenge to civil forfeiture law

The case originated out of the 15th Circuit Solicitor’s Office in Horry County following the seizure of nearly $20,000 in 2017 from Travis Lee Green, a convicted Myrtle Beach drug dealer. Fifteenth Circuit Court Judge Stephen John placed a stay on all forfeiture cases in the circuit, asked for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the state’s law and then ruled the state law violated both the state and US constitutions.

The solicitor’s office appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the circuit court for a jury trial on the merits of Green’s forfeiture case.

The challenge drew attention from state and national advocates against forfeiture laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union, SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Police Accountability Project. Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote an argument in favor of

… Read the rest
Read more

Planned Parenthood wants Supreme Court to review appellate court decision not to enjoin abortion law

Posted on by Judith E. Ashton

Planned Parenthood is gearing up to ask the state Supreme Court to weigh in on whether a Tallahassee appellate court should have blocked Florida’s new abortion law from taking effect.

That law bans women and girls from getting abortions after 15 weeks of gestation.

The First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee notified the Supreme Court on August 15 that Planned Parenthood Southwest and Central Florida had filed a notice notifying it of its plans to ask the state’s high court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction and review the July 21 appellate court ruling.

“The decision is within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction because it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Supreme Court on the same question of law,” florida“American Civil Liberties Union of Florida attorney Daniel Tilley wrote.

At press time, the Supreme Court had not decided whether it would agree to consider the case.

The case was on appeal after a group of abortion clinics represented by the ACLU challenged the law in circuit court alleging it violated Florida’s voter-approved privacy clause, which in the past has been cited as a reason by the state Supreme Court to block abortion restrictions .

Circuit Court Judge John Cooper ruled that the ban — which does not include exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking, but does have an exception for the pregnant woman’s life — was likely unconstitutional and issued a temporary injunction. The state, however, immediately appealed the ruling, which prevented the injunction from taking effect.

The decision was appealed to the First District Court in Tallahassee. In July, a split 2-1 decision was issued denying the request to stay the law.

Writing for the majority, Judge Brad Thomas suggested those challenging the law — including a doctor — could not show

… Read the rest
Read more