Court leaves Blankenship conviction in place
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it won’t review the conviction of former coal CEO Don Blankenship, who was found guilty of conspiring to violate safety standards at West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch mine before the 2010 explosion that killed 29 men.
The justices said Monday they would not take the case of the former CEO of Massey Energy who spent a year in prison following his conviction stemming from the worst U.S. coal mining disaster in 40 years. That leaves in place lower court decisions rejecting his efforts to get his misdemeanor conviction thrown out. As is typical, the high court did not explain its decision and denied the case among a long list of others. Monday was the first day of the court’s new term.
A federal jury in West Virginia convicted Blankenship in 2015 of conspiring to willfully violate mine safety standards but acquitted him of more serious charges. He was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $250,000.
In 2019, however, a federal magistrate judge recommended that Blankenship’s conviction be thrown out. The judge agreed with Blankenship that his rights were violated because prosecutors didn’t turn over evidence that was favorable to him. That included FBI and Department of Labor interviews with Massey employees. A government review separately found that some material should have been turned over.
A federal district judge, however, ruled that despite the prosecution’s failure to disclose numerous documents, the conduct “resulted in no prejudice” toward Blankenship. Most of the substance of the documents that was favorable to Blankenship did come out at trial, the judge said. An appeals court also ruled against Blankenship before the Supreme Court declined to hear his case.
Investigations into the Upper Big Branch mine disaster found that worn and broken cutting equipment created a spark that ignited accumulations of coal dust and methane gas. Broken and clogged water sprayers allowed what should have been a minor flare-up to become an inferno.
Supreme Court won’t take up MyPillow head’s defamation case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it won’t intervene in a lawsuit in which Dominion Voting Systems accused MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell of defamation for falsely accusing the company of rigging the 2020 presidential election against former President Donald Trump.
As is typical, the high court did not say anything Monday about the case in rejecting it among a host of others. Monday was the first day the high court is hearing arguments after taking a summer break.
Lindell is part of a case in which Dominion also accused Trump allies Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani of defamation for falsely claiming that the election was “stolen.” The Denver, Colorado-based Dominion has sought $1.3 billion in damages from the trio.
A lower court judge in August of last year declined to dismiss the case and instead said it could go forward. Lindell had appealed that determination, but a federal appeals court said his appeal was premature. The Supreme Court declined to take up that issue.
Powell and Giuliani, both lawyers who filed election challenges on Trump’s behalf, and Lindell, who was one of Trump’s most vocal public supporters, made various unproven claims about the voting machine company during news conferences, election rallies and on social media and television.
There was no widespread fraud in the election, which a range of election officials across the country, including Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, have confirmed. Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia, key battleground states crucial to Biden’s victory, also vouched for the integrity of the elections in their states. Dominion machines tabulated ballots in 28 states.
In September, a judge in Minnesota declined to dismiss a separate defamation lawsuit by a different voting machine maker, Smartmatic, against Lindell. Smartmatic’s machines were used only in Los Angeles County during the 2020 election. MyPillow is based in Minnesota.
Supreme Court rejects bump stock ban cases
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t take up two cases that involved challenges to a ban enacted during the Trump administration on bump stocks, the gun attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
The justices’ decision not to hear the cases comes on the heels of a decision in June in which the justices by a 6-3 vote expanded gun-possession rights, weakening states’ ability to limit the carrying of guns in public.
The cases the justices declined to hear were an appeal from a Utah gun rights advocate and another brought by the gun rights group Gun Owners of America and others. As is typical the justices made no comments in declining to hear the cases and they were among many the court rejected Monday, the first day of the court’s new term.
The Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks took effect in 2019 and came about as a result of the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. The gunman, a 64-year-old retired postal service worker and high stakes gambler, used assault-style rifles to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes into the crowd of 22,000 music fans. Most of the rifles were fitted with bump stock devices and high-capacity magazines. A total of 58 people were killed in the shooting and two died later. More than 850 people were injured.
The Trump administration’s move was an about-face for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
In 2010, under the Obama administration, the agency found that bump stocks should not be classified as a “machinegun” and therefore should not be banned under federal law. Under the Trump administration, officials revisited that determination and found it incorrect.
The high court previously declined a different opportunity to take a case involving the ban.
The cases the court rejected Monday are W. Clark Aposhian v. Merrick B. Garland, 21-159, and Gun Owners of America v. Merrick B. Garland, 21-1215.
High court will hear social media terrorism lawsuits
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear two cases seeking to hold social media companies financially responsible for terrorist attacks.
Relatives of people killed in terrorist attacks in France and Turkey had sued Google, Twitter, and Facebook. They accused the companies of helping terrorists spread their message and radicalize new recruits.
The court will hear the cases this term, which began Monday, with a decision expected before the court recesses for the summer, usually in late June. The court did not say when it would hear arguments, but the court has already filled its argument calendar for October and November.
One of the cases the justices will hear involves Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen studying in Paris. The Cal State Long Beach student was one of 130 people killed in Islamic State group attacks in November 2015. The attackers struck cafes, outside the French national stadium and inside the Bataclan theater. Gonzalez died in an attack at La Belle Equipe bistro.
Gonzalez’s relatives sued Google, which owns YouTube, saying the platform had helped the Islamic State group by allowing it to post hundreds of videos that helped incite violence and recruit potential supporters. Gonzalez’s relatives said that the company’s computer algorithms recommended those videos to viewers most likely to be interested in them.
But a judge dismissed the case and a federal appeals court upheld the ruling. Under U.S. law — specifically Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.
The other case the court agreed to hear involves Jordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf. He died in the 2017 attack on the Reina nightclub in Istanbul where a gunman affiliated with the Islamic State killed 39 people.
Alassaf’s relatives sued Twitter, Google and Facebook for aiding terrorism, arguing that the platforms helped the Islamic State grow and did not go far enough in trying to curb terrorist activity on their platforms. A lower court let the case proceed.
Court rejects Russian company’s dispute with Ukraine
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is siding with a Russian oil company in a dispute with Ukraine worth millions, a win for the company as Russia continues to wage war in Ukraine.
The justices said Monday they would not intervene in a dispute between PAO Tatneft, one of Russia’s largest oil companies, and Ukraine. The case will continue in lower U.S. courts which have sided with the company and declined to dismiss the case.
As is typical, the high court did not comment on the case but said only it would not hear it. The dispute is one of many the court said Monday it would not hear. Monday is the first day the court is hearing arguments after a summer break.
The case the court rejected dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s and involves Ukraine’s largest oil refinery, the Kremenchuk oil refinery, which was destroyed by Russia in April. The refinery was originally half-owned by Ukraine and half-owned jointly by Tatneft and by the oil-rich Russian region of Tatarstan. A dispute between the parties led to arbitration in which Ukraine was ordered in 2014 to pay $112 million plus interest.
Tatneft has tried using courts in the United States to seek compensation, but Ukraine says the U.S. has no connection to the case. Lawyers for Ukraine say Tatneft should be using courts in Ukraine which, despite the war, “remain open and would fairly consider Tatneft’s request for relief.”
The case is Ukraine v. PAO Tatneft, 22-19.
