Justices rule against Montana homeowners near Superfund site
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court delivered a setback Monday to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting.
The court said the homeowners cannot proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency. But it did not order an end to the state court lawsuit that was under review.
The smelter, near the town of Opportunity, Montana, belongs to BP-owned Atlantic Richfield Co. and sits at the center of a 300-square-mile Superfund site. The company says it has spent $470 million to clean the site.
Homeowners who are dissatisfied with the EPA-ordered cleanup want Atlantic Richfield to pay for the removal of more arsenic-tainted soil from their properties. And the Montana Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that their claims could proceed in state court.
But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the high court that federal environmental law requires the homeowners to seek EPA approval for additional cleanup. "That approval process, if pursued, could ameliorate any conflict between the landowners' restoration plan and EPA's Superfund cleanup, just as Congress envisioned," Roberts wrote.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a dissent that Justice Clarence Thomas joined that the court's reading of the Superfund law "strips away ancient common law rights from innocent landowners and forces them to suffer toxic waste in their backyards, playgrounds, and farms. Respectfully, that is not what the law was written to do; that is what it was written to prevent."
An EPA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the decision. The EPA backed Atlantic Richfield in the Supreme Court, urging several ways in which the justices could rule against the homeowners.
Joseph Palmore, who represented the homeowners at the Supreme Court, said he was pleased the court did not dismiss his clients' suit. "We look forward to working with the EPA toward a clean-up that will protect the environment and safeguard the health and property of the residents of Opportunity," Palmore said.
Court declines to hear Nebraska and Missouri death cases
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is passing for now on deciding whether juries must find all facts necessary to impose a death sentence or whether judges can play a role, an issue Nebraska and Missouri death row inmates had asked the court to take up.
The high court on Monday declined to hear appeals brought by Nikko Jenkins and Craig Wood. The court, as is usual, didn't comment in turning away the cases.
Wood is on death row in Missouri after being convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing 10-year-old Hailey Owens in 2014. The jury that convicted Would couldn't decide whether to sentence him to death or life in prison without parole. That left the decision up to the judge who oversaw Wood's trial.
Jenkins is on death row in Nebraska after killing four people in Omaha shortly after his 2013 release from prison, where he had served 10 years for two carjackings. Jenkins pleaded no contest to the killings and a three-judge panel was appointed to sentence him. Jenkins waived his right to have a jury assess aggravating circumstances and the panel sentenced him to death.
Justices won't send St. Louis to arbitration with Rams
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition from the Los Angeles Rams to send a lawsuit regarding their relocation from St. Louis into arbitration.
The court rejected the Rams' long-shot petition Monday. The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in St. Louis late next year, or it could be settled out of court.
The city and county of St. Louis and the regional sports complex authority sued the Rams 15 months after owner Stan Kroenke returned his franchise to Los Angeles in early 2016. The Rams had spent 21 years in St. Louis before returning to their hometown for the previous 49 years.
The St. Louis parties allege the Rams and the NFL committed fraud and breach of contract while moving the franchise.
Court bans nonunanimous jury verdicts in Oregon
By Andrew Selsky
Associated Press
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Until Monday, Oregon was the only state that still allowed nonunanimous jury convictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court ended that in a decision involving a murder conviction in Louisiana, a state which, until 2019, had also allowed nonunanimous jury convictions. But the ruling also applied to Oregon's law.
State Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said Oregon will now address "the many cases" that require review because of the decision.
"We have been expecting this ruling, and we're well-prepared to address its significant consequences for Oregon's justice system," Rosenblum said.
The Supreme Court decision "has finally ended an unjust rule with a shameful past in Oregon," said professor Aliza Kaplan, director of the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.
In 1934, Oregon voters decided to amend the state constitution to allow split-jury verdicts - a decision fueled by white supremacy and anti-minority sentiment. First-degree murder convictions still required a unanimous jury verdict.
Cash Spencer was one of two jurors in a 2016 trial in Portland who voted that the defendant was innocent. She was also the only African-American on the jury in which the defendant was also black.
The 10-2 conviction of Olan Williams for felony sodomy was all the more remarkable because a third juror had said she believed Williams was innocent, but changed her vote because she didn't have child care and didn't want to return the next day.
On Monday, Spencer applauded the Supreme Court ruling and said Williams' conviction should be thrown out.
"I think it's great news," Spencer said. "When you think about something as serious as whether someone is guilty or innocent, you would want to know at least that it was determined unanimously."
Marc Brown, an Oregon public defender who works on appeals, represents Williams.
"We are waiting to hear from the state about which cases they will agree should have new trials," Brown said. "Our position is that any case in which the jury was not unanimous should go back for a new trial."
It will be impossible to rectify cases going back almost 90 years, Brown noted.
"For many of those individuals, this decision comes too late but for many others, today's decision will allow them an opportunity to have a new trial in which the state will truly have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt," he said in an email.
The Oregon District Attorneys Association said the change to unanimous verdicts could make criminal convictions more difficult, but added: "It is a hallmark of our justice system that it should be difficult to take someone's liberty."
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote Monday that juries in state criminal trials must be unanimous to convict a defendant.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the practice is inconsistent with the Constitution's right to a jury trial and that it should be discarded as a vestige of Jim Crow laws in Louisiana and racial, ethnic and religious bigotry that led to its adoption in Oregon in the 1930s.
Kaplan said her justice clinic is available to assist those with non-unanimous jury convictions who remain in custody along with those no longer incarcerated who wish to revisit their convictions.
"Now Oregon will be able to join the rest of the country and require unanimous juries in all criminal cases ensuring a more fair trial for all those accused of crimes and ensuring that all jurors' voices are heard," the Lewis & Clark Law School professor said.
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Evangelisto Ramos. He is serving a life sentence in Louisiana for killing a woman after a jury voted 10-2 to convict him in 2016. In 2018, Louisiana voters changed the law for crimes committed beginning in 2019.
Published: Wed, Apr 22, 2020
