Court won't hear case over Cal. beach access
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from a California billionaire who doesn't want to open a road on his property so that the public can access a beach.
The justices said that they will not take up Vinod Khosla's appeal of a California appeals court decision. The case had the potential to upend California's longstanding efforts to keep beaches open to the public.
Khosla bought the property in the San Francisco Bay Area for $32.5 million in 2008 and later blocked the public from accessing it. That prompted a lawsuit by the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation.
A state appeals court ruled last year that Khosla needed to apply for a coastal development permit before denying public access.
Khosla - a venture capitalist who co-founded the Silicon Valley technology company, Sun Microsystems - closed a gate, put up a no-access sign and painted over a billboard at the entrance to the property that had advertised access to the beach, according to the appellate ruling.
The secluded beach south of Half Moon Bay, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) south of San Francisco, is only accessible by a road that goes over Khosla's land.
"This win helps to secure beach access for all people, as is enshrined in our laws," said Angela Howe, legal director of the foundation. "The Surfrider Foundation will always fight to preserve the rights of the many from becoming the assets of the few."
The previous owners of the property allowed public access to the beach for a fee. But Khosla's attorneys say the cost to maintain the beach and other facilities far exceeded revenue from the fees.
The government cannot demand that people keep their private property open to the public without paying them to do so, Khosla's attorneys said in their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The state appeals court ruling would "throw private property rights in California into disarray," the appeal argued, saying other property owners along California's coast would prefer to exclude the public.
The Surfrider Foundation said Khosla's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was premature because he had not yet applied for a permit and received a decision from the state.
Dori Yob Kilmer, an attorney for Khosla, said Khosla will now seek a permit from California's Coastal Commission.
"No owner of private business should be forced to obtain a permit from the government before deciding who it wants to invite onto its property. However, we will comply with the decision of the California Court of Appeal and apply for the required permit," Yob said. "If denied, we will start this process over again."
Lisa Haage, chief of enforcement at the Coastal Commission, said the case reaffirms that property owners cannot unilaterally shut down access to a beach "that has provided generations of families with memories."
"We will be considering how to proceed and hope the owner will work with us to assure that the historical public access to Martin's Beach remains available for present and future generations," she said.
Drew Peterson's appeal rejected
CHICAGO (AP) - The U.S. Supreme court has refused to grant former suburban Chicago police Sgt. Drew Peterson a new trial, dealing another blow to his efforts to have his murder conviction in the 2004 drowning death of his third wife overturned.
The decision announced Monday follows two rulings by the Illinois Supreme Court to reject Peterson's appeal of his 2012 conviction in the death of Kathleen Savio.
The 64-year-old former Bolingbrook police officer is serving a 38-year sentence for Savio's death and another 40-year sentence after being convicted of plotting to kill the prosecutor. Peterson is a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but hasn't been charged.
Peterson's attorney, Steve Greenberg says the next step might be appealing the conviction through the federal court system.
Justices won't review complaint against prosecutor
PLATTE CITY, Mo. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a reprimand the Missouri Supreme Court issued against Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd.
Missouri's high court reprimanded Zahnd in May for publicly naming some residents of a northwest Missouri town who defended a convicted child sex offender. The U.S Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider the issue.
The case began in October 2015 when Zahnd issued a news release naming residents of Dearborn who wrote letters supporting Darren Paden while Paden was awaiting sentencing for sexually abusing a young girl.
The Kansas City Star reports the Missouri Press Association and the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys supported Zahnd's request. They argued that the case raised issues of whether an elected prosecutor can tell the truth in a news release about public information once a case is over.
Tennessee abortion case declined
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - In a victory for opponents of abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in a case that has made it easier to restrict abortion in Tennessee.
Abortion-rights supporters had hoped to overturn a 2014 change to the state constitution, which added language saying nothing in the document "secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."
The change was approved by 53 percent of voters, but the plaintiffs argued the state's method of counting votes was unfair and allowed voters to game the system.
A federal judge agreed in 2016, calling the vote-counting system unconstitutional. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision in January.
Monday's denial by the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the constitutional amendment intact.
Court denies review of Grand Canyon-area mining ban
By Felicia Fonseca
Associated Press
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court won't review an Obama-era action that put land around the Grand Canyon off-limits to new mining claims, ending the legal battle as environmentalists keep a close eye on actions by the Trump administration that they fear could lead to more access for the mining industry.
The Obama administration put about 1,562 square miles (4,045 square kilometers) outside the boundaries of the national park off-limits to new hard rock mining claims until 2032. The 20-year ban was meant to slow a flurry of mining claims over concern that the Colorado River - a major water source serving 30 million people - could become contaminated and to allow for scientific studies.
The mining industry asked the Supreme Court in March to review the ban, saying it was based on an unconstitutional provision of federal law. The high court on Monday declined the request, leaving the ban in place.
"Clearly, we're disappointed," said Ashley Burke, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association. "There continues to be great risk to our domestic supply chain thanks to unwarranted withdrawals like this."
Burke said the association will continue advocating for land access. The American Exploration and Mining Association also challenged the ban.
Environmentalists hailed the court's decision but are worried the ban could be undone administratively.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is investigating the link between U.S. national security and uranium imports at the request of two uranium mining companies, Energy Fuels Resources Inc. and UR-Energy Inc. The companies have asked the government to impose a quota on imports that would preserve one-quarter of the U.S. market for domestic uranium and for a "Buy America" policy for government agencies that use uranium. The public comment period ended last week.
A separate report to President Donald Trump and others on critical minerals is due in November. Uranium recently was added to the list.
"We're very relieved and happy to see the Supreme Court decision, but it's a multi-faceted issue," said Amber Reimondo, energy program director for the Flagstaff-based environmental group, the Grand Canyon Trust. "Until we know that the Grand Canyon isn't being considered as a result of any Commerce decisions, then we'll be alert."
Much of the land in the withdrawal area is north of the Grand Canyon and has some of the richest deposits of uranium ore in the U.S. Republicans in Congress, and some counties in Arizona and Utah said cutting off access eliminates hundreds of jobs in a remote area and puts the nation's security at risk.
No one is mining uranium in the withdrawal area now but Energy Fuels is waiting for uranium prices to rise to restart a mine about six miles (10 kilometers) from the canyon's South Rim in the national forest. The ban didn't affect the roughly 3,000 mining claims that existed before it went into effect, which federal officials say could result in less than a dozen mines if the companies that own them can prove a sufficient quality and quantity of the mineral resource.
Scientists have said they have not had the money needed to fully study the impact of uranium mining on water resources.
Published: Wed, Oct 03, 2018
