Supreme Court Notebook

Court won't hear appeal over NYC rent control WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal that seeks to end rent stabilization laws in New York City. The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from James and Jeanne Harmon, who have lost earlier court attempts to get rent stabilization laws thrown out. The Harmons inherited a building with three rent-controlled apartments near Central Park on Manhattan's Upper West Side. The Harmons say rent stabilization laws forces them to rent the apartments at rents 59 percent below market rate. They argue that by giving the tenants lifetime tenure with succession rights, the government has illegally taken their property. A federal judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City threw out their lawsuit. The high court refused to review that decision. Court rejects torture victims' appeal vs. Chevron WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal by Nigerians seeking to hold Chevron accountable for deaths in the Niger Delta under a U.S. law aimed at helping torture victims. The court's action Monday follows a unanimous decision last week that the Torture Victim Protection Act allows lawsuits only against individuals. The federal appeals court in San Francisco already had thrown out the suit by the Nigerians claiming that the company hired soldiers who shot and killed protesters at an offshore oil platform in the Niger Delta in 1998. The company claims the protesters were armed youths who were shot after they demanded money and took more than 200 workers hostage. The case is Bowoto v. Chevron, 10-1536. Court: Judges can consider new patent evidence WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says federal judges can review unsubmitted patent evidence when inventors challenge their rejection by the Patent and Trademark Office. Gilbert Hyatt asked for patents relating to a "computerized display system for processing image information" in 1995. They were rejected and he sued in federal court. But Hyatt offered judges evidence of the suitability of his application that he never showed to patent officials. Court officials asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to dismiss the case because Hyatt never showed them his evidence. But Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the unanimous decision on Wednesday there are "no evidentiary restrictions" beyond the normal ones in these cases. Courts, however, can consider whether inventors could have shown their new evidence to patent officials, he said. Court limits suits under torture victim law WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that organizations may not be sued for claims they aided in torture or killings abroad under a U.S. law aimed at helping torture victims. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court's opinion Wednesday dismissing the lawsuit filed by the family of an American who died in custody of Palestinian intelligence officers in Jericho in 1995. The family wanted to sue the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization under the Torture Victim Protection Act. Sotomayor said the 1992 law's use of the word "individual" is persuasive evidence that only people may be sued over claims they took part in torture. The court has already said that a second case over another, older law that has been used by torture victims won't be decided until next year. Who is the Supreme Court's first disabled justice? BOSTON (Daily Record Newswire) -- When Justice Sonia Sotomayor won confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, much was made of the fact that she was the first Latina to sit on the bench. Likewise, the confirmation of Justice Elena Kagan marked the first time the Court featured three women. But now the Obama administration, in touting its judicial appointment record, is hailing another judicial milestone: the confirmation of the first disabled justice on the Court. That sent some Court watchers and writers momentarily scratching their heads and asking who that justice might be. Sure, a few of the justices wear glasses, and Sotomayor has been seen sporting a cast or brace on her ankle or knee, but those were due to injuries she suffered, not a permanent disability. But Sotomayor does fall within the definition of disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the justice is a diabetic. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a child. While the disease has clearly not held Sotomayor back, causing some like New York magazine's Dan Amira to question whether it "substantially limits one or more of a [her] major life activities" under the ADA. But under the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, that is no longer necessary. Diabetes fits the bill because it "substantially limits endocrine function." Published: Tue, Apr 24, 2012