Guam can pursue $160M dump cleanup lawsuit
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says the U.S. territory of Guam can pursue a $160 million lawsuit against the federal government over the cost of cleaning up a landfill on the island.
The justices on Monday unanimously overturned a lower court decision that had said Guam had waited too long to pursue the claim.
The case before the justices involves a long-running dispute over the Ordot Dump on Guam. The lawsuit says the Navy built the dump during the 1940s and then deposited toxic military waste there before turning over control to Guam in 1950.
Guam operated the dump for decades. The U.S. has said Guam "vastly expanded" it and "failed to provide even rudimentary environmental safeguards." In 2002, the government sued Guam over pollution from the dump. Guam ultimately agreed in 2004 to close the dump and take steps to stop pollution from the dump, among other things.
In 2017, Guam sued the United States, arguing that it's responsible for some of the costs of the cleanup, which Guam estimates to be more than $160 million. A trial court had allowed the lawsuit to go forward, but an appeals court had dismissed it.
In an email, Guam's attorney Gregory Garre said: "We are thrilled with the Court's decision in favor of Guam today, which paves the way for the United States to pay its fair share for the cleanup of the Ordot Dump."
The case is Territory of Guam v. United States, 20-382.
Justices reject case of retired cop put in police chokehold
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a retired federal law enforcement officer who was put in a chokehold and wrestled to the ground at a VA hospital security checkpoint.
The justices did not comment in refusing to revive a lawsuit filed by Jose Oliva, 76, against three officers who violently detained him in an altercation that was captured on camera. Oliva was 70 at the time of the incident in El Paso, Texas.
A Vietnam veteran who spent 25 years in federal law enforcement, Oliva had an appointment for dental work at the VA facility in 2016. The officers said he failed to produce identification, which Oliva said he already had put in a bin that was about to be scanned.
He underwent shoulder surgery and treatment for his throat, hand and ear after the altercation.
A trial judge allowed his civil rights lawsuit to go forward, but a federal appeals panel reversed the initial ruling.
Court won't hear case of Ohio driver killed by police
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place an appeals court decision that the family of a Black driver who was fatally shot by a white police officer in an Ohio city can't sue the city or the officer.
The high court declined on Monday to hear the case involving the fatal shooting of 23-year-old Luke Stewart, which inflamed racial tensions in Euclid, in suburban Cleveland. As is typical, the court did not comment in turning away the case, one of many it declined to hear.
Stewart's family had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit after he was shot by Officer Matthew Rhodes in 2017. Stewart's family had contended that police training in the city "encouraged, or at least condoned, excessive force." The training included the use of a sketch by comedian Chris Rock, in which he gives "tips" on how to avoid being beaten by police, and cartoons allegedly making light of police violence.
Stewart's death came after police responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle and found him sleeping behind the wheel of a car. Police said they believed Stewart was intoxicated and saw signs suggesting drug use. Officers woke Stewart, and Rhodes ultimately got into the car in an attempt to get Stewart out. But Stewart drove away with Rhodes still in the car. The two struggled, and Rhodes shot Stewart, who was unarmed.
A trial court dismissed the case, and an appeals court agreed, saying there was no clearly established law barring the officer's conduct.
Rhodes won't face charges in the case after a grand jury declined to indict him after hearing evidence from prosecutors.
The Stewart family's lawsuit came as activists had been criticizing Euclid police for an arrest in which a white officer with a history of disciplinary issues was caught on video punching a Black man more than a dozen times in a traffic stop.
Stewart's shooting and the traffic stop arrest prompted other people to step forward to complain about police abuse, provoking racial tensions in the city, which is about 46% white and 54% Black, according to 2010 census figures.
Missouri killer seeking firing squad loses high court appeal
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from a Missouri death row inmate who is seeking execution by firing squad.
Over the dissent of the three liberal justices, the court left in place a lower court ruling against inmate Ernest Johnson that could allow him to be executed by lethal injection. He is on death row for killing three convenience store workers in Columbia, Missouri, in 1994.
Johnson has argued that Missouri's lethal injection drug, pentobarbital, could trigger seizures because of a brain condition. Johnson still has part of a benign tumor in his brain.
The effect of the court's order Monday is to prevent Johnson from amending his lawsuit to include the possibility of execution by firing squad, which is not authorized under Missouri law.
Based on prior Supreme Court rulings, an inmate who objects to the state's chosen method of execution has to suggest an alternate means.
Johnson initially suggested he could be put to death using nitrogen gas, which is allowed in Missouri. But the Supreme Court has held that states could decline to use a method of execution that has no track record, as is the case with nitrogen gas.
But when Johnson tried to suggest a firing squad, a method with a long history of use in the U.S., judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said he acted too late.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for herself and colleagues Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan that Johnson should be able to make his case. "We should not countenance the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment simply for the sake of expediency. That is what the Eighth Circuit's decision has done. Because this Court chooses to stand idly by, I respectfully dissent," Sotomayor wrote.
The state planned to execute Johnson in 2015, but the Supreme Court intervened on his behalf then.
