Court turns away appeal over Ohio ballot law
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of an Ohio law that changed the standards for absentee and provisional ballots in ways that critics said posed an illegal burden on minority voters.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that had blocked rules requiring precise completion of the ballots, but upheld other changes that reduced the time voters could cure errors and prohibited poll worker assistance.
Advocates for the homeless and the Ohio Democratic Party sued Ohio's elections chief over the changes.
Ohio officials argued that the changes passed by Ohio's Republican-led legislature in 2014 were reasonable, nondiscriminatory and impose minimal burden on voters.
Justices reverse ruling that overturned man's death sentence
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has thrown out a lower court ruling that overturned the death sentence of an Ohio man convicted of aggravated murder in a 1985 slaying.
The justices ruled Monday that a federal appeals court was wrong to consider the merits of Percy Hutton's claim that his trial judge gave jurors faulty instructions during sentencing.
The Cleveland man was convicted in 1986 of aggravated murder and other charges. Prosecutors said he fatally shot Derek Mitchell and tried to kill another man in an argument over a sewing machine.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled 2-1 last year that Hutton should be resentenced.
Court sides with drugmaker in Plavix lawsuit
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says hundreds of out-state-residents can't sue drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in California state court over adverse reactions to the blood thinner Plavix.
The justices ruled 8-1 Monday that there was not a strong enough connection between the claims against the drugmaker and the company's ties to the state.
The ruling is a win for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies that want to avoid lawsuits in state courts seen as more favorable to plaintiffs.
The case involved 575 non-California residents who joined 86 California residents in suing the New Jersey-based company.
California's highest court ruled 4-3 that all the cases could move ahead in state court even if the specific claims were not connected to California because the company did other business in the state.
Justices won't hear appeal over dancing baby video
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal in a long-running copyright dispute over a YouTube video that shows a baby dancing to Prince's song, "Let's Go Crazy."
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that cleared the way for a trial in a lawsuit filed by the baby's mother against Universal Music.
Universal had sent a notice demanding that YouTube take the video down. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that copyright holders can't demand that videos be taken down without determining whether they constitute "fair use."
But the court said the mother must show Universal had actual knowledge it was misrepresenting the law when it ordered the video removed. She said that standard allows copyright holders that abuse the law off the hook.
9/11 detainees can't sue top U.S. officials
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Muslim men detained after the Sept. 11 attacks can't sue top U.S. law enforcement officials.
The justices by a 4-2 vote ended a long-running lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and other top Bush administration officials. The suit was filed by Muslim men who were detained for months in harsh conditions in a Brooklyn jail after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
They were seeking damages against Ashcroft, Mueller, former immigration chief James Ziglar and the man who ran the federal jail. A lower court still may re-examine claims against the jailer.
In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the case arose in the aftermath of the deadly attacks, when U.S. officials wanted to be sure that there were no other potential attackers in the country. The men who were arrested all were in the United States illegally, many having stayed past the expiration of a visa.
He also acknowledged that the men were treated badly.
"There is therefore a balance to be struck, in situations like this one, between deterring constitutional violations and freeing high officials to make the lawful decisions necessary to protect the Nation in times of great peril," Kennedy wrote. But Congress, not the courts, should set when top officials can be sued, Kennedy said.
The decision was the third in which the court has intervened and ruled for Ashcroft in lawsuits against him and others from Muslims who were arrested in the U.S. following the 2001 attacks.
In a dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ability to hold officials accountable is especially important in a time of war or national security emergency. "History warns of the risk to liberty in times of national crisis," Breyer said in a dissent he summarized aloud from the bench Monday.
Only six of the nine justices were eligible to take part in the case. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor had been involved in earlier stages of the lawsuit, before they were on the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court nearly three months after the case was argued.
Court rules in favor of Alabama death row inmate
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that an Alabama inmate was deprived of an independent mental health expert to help him try to stave off a death sentence at his trial more than 30 years ago.
The justices divided 5-4 in siding with inmate James McWilliams, and ordered a lower court to consider anew whether his death sentence can remain in place. McWilliams did not have his own expert when he was convicted of raping and killing a convenience store clerk in Tuscaloosa.
The outcome also could affect Arkansas death row inmates Bruce Earl Ward and Don Davis, whose executions were scheduled for April 17 and were halted over the same issue.
The justices had previously decided that poor defendants whose mental health might be a factor in the criminal charges they are facing have a right to an expert's evaluation.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court that McWilliams' mental health assistance "fell far short" of what the earlier case, Ake v. Oklahoma, required.
Prior to McWilliams' sentencing, a state psychologist appointed by the trial judge determined that McWilliams had "organic brain damage" and other problems stemming from earlier head injuries. The report was delivered to the inmate's lawyers two days before the sentencing hearing, followed by voluminous mental health records and a prison file showing that McWilliams was taking psychotropic drugs.
The judge refused a defense request to delay the hearing to digest the new material and sentenced McWilliams to death.
Most states, including Alabama, now routinely provide an expert specifically for the defense team, Breyer said.
But the court stopped short of saying such an arrangement is required by the Constitution.
The decision split the court between liberal and conservative justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining his more liberal colleagues.
In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said he would have upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Alabama. Alito said nothing in the Ake decision requires that a defendant be provided "an expert who functions solely as a dedicated member of the defense team.
Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarks, ruling in favor of an Asian-American rock band called the Slants and giving a major boost to the Washington Redskins in their separate legal fight over the team name.
The justices were unanimous in saying that the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights guaranteed in the Constitution's First Amendment.
"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend," Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court.
Slants founder Simon Tam tried to trademark the band name in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the request on the ground that it disparages Asians. A federal appeals court in Washington later said the law barring offensive trademarks is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court agreed.
The Redskins made similar arguments after the trademark office ruled in 2014 that the name offends American Indians and canceled the team's trademark. That case, before a federal appeals court in Richmond, had been on hold while the Supreme Court considered the Slants case.
Tam insisted he was not trying to be offensive, but wanted to transform a derisive term into a statement of pride. The Redskins also contend their name honors American Indians, but the team has faced decades of legal challenges from Indian groups that say the name is racist.
Tam said the band was "beyond humbled and thrilled" with the ruling.
"This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it's been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what's best for ourselves," he said.
Despite intense public pressure to change the Redskins name, team owner Dan Snyder has refused, saying in the past that it "represents honor, respect and pride" for Native Americans. Snyder issued a quick statement after Monday's decision: "I am THRILLED. Hail to the Redskins."
Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the court's decision effectively resolves the Redskins' longstanding dispute with the government.
"The Supreme Court vindicated the team's position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government's opinion," Blatt said.
Trademark office spokesman Paul Fucito said officials are reviewing the court's ruling and planned to issue further guidance on how they will review trademark applications.
Indian groups opposing the Redskins said the ruling does not change the fact that the name "is a dictionary-defined racial slur."
"If the NFL wants to live up to its statements about placing importance on equality, then it shouldn't hide behind these rulings, but should act to the end this hateful and degrading slur," said a joint statement from the National Congress of American Indians and the group Change the Mascot.
The ruling means offensive trademarks can no longer be denied, even for names that intend to disparage individuals or groups of people, said Megan Carpenter, dean at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and an expert on trademark law.
While the justices all agreed on the outcome, they split in their rationale. Alito rejected arguments that the government has an interest in preventing speech that is offensive to certain groups.
"Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate," Alito said in a part of his opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.
Writing separately, Justice Anthony Kennedy stressed that the ban on disparaging trademarks was a clear form of viewpoint discrimination forbidden under the First Amendment.
"A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all," Kennedy said in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the case, which was argued before he joined the court.
Government officials said the law did not infringe on free speech rights because the band was still free to use the name even without trademark protection. The same is true for the Redskins, but the team did not want to lose the legal protections that go along with a registered trademark. The protections include blocking the sale of counterfeit merchandise and working to pursue a brand development strategy.
Critics of the law said the trademark office has been wildly inconsistent over the years in deciding what terms are too offensive to warrant trademark protection. The government has in the past rejected trademarks for the terms "Heeb" and "Injun," but allowed those for companies such as Baked By A Negro bakery products, Midget Man condoms, and Dago Swagg clothing.
--------
Associated Press writer Stephen Whyno contributed to this report.
Published: Wed, Jun 21, 2017
