Court rejects businesses' challenge to Michigan tax
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is rejecting challenges by IBM, Goodyear and other businesses seeking more than $1 billion in tax refunds from Michigan.
The justices on Monday turned away the companies' appeal of state court rulings that upheld changes the state made to the way business taxes are assessed. The companies said they were being treated unfairly because the state retroactively changed its tax laws.
Gov. Rick Snyder signed a measure into law in 2014 that affected business taxes back to 2008. The law was upheld by a Michigan appeals court.
Justices won't hear appeal over release of federal mug shots
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the Detroit Free Press that asked the government to release mug shots of federal criminal defendants in Michigan and three other states.
The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that said the photos don't have to be released under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
The ruling last year from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals covers Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The U.S. Marshals Service already refuses to release booking photos in other states due to policy or rulings from other courts.
The lawsuit was filed by the newspaper and joined by other media organizations, including The Associated Press.
Court upholds 'soft money' limits
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is upholding federal limits on political parties' use of so-called soft money for federal elections.
A three-judge court in Washington, D.C., had earlier upheld the restrictions in a challenge brought by Louisiana Republicans. Political parties may only use money they raise through the federal system for elections for Congress and president. This money often is called hard money because it is raised under rules limiting the size of contributions and requiring disclosure of its source.
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas in calling for the Supreme Court to consider striking down limits on how political parties spend money. Gorsuch and Thomas said they would have set the case for argument. They did not otherwise comment.
Florida appeal over death penalty rejected
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has left in place a lower court ruling that said imposing a death sentence in Florida requires a unanimous jury.
The justices on Monday turned away an appeal from Florida officials seeking to overturn the ruling last year from the state's highest court.
The Florida Supreme Court had struck down a newly enacted law allowing a defendant to be sentenced to death as long as 10 out of 12 jurors recommend it. That ruling concluded that Timothy Lee Hurst - convicted of a 1998 murder at a Pensacola Popeye's restaurant- deserves a new sentencing hearing.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Florida's death penalty sentencing law unconstitutional. State legislators responded by overhauling the law.
Justices turn down Indiana's appeal in triple murder case
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear Indiana's appeal of a ruling that threw out the conviction and death sentence of an Indiana man for the 1998 slayings of his wife, her ex-husband and her 10-year-old son.
The justices on Monday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that said jurors should have heard evidence that one of the victims was seen alive after the time prosecutors allege Wayne Kubsch committed the killings.
Indiana officials said the appeals court misinterpreted the law.
Kubsch was first convicted in 2000, but the Indiana Supreme Court set aside his death sentence and convictions and ordered a retrial. He was convicted again after a second trial in 2005.
Court makes it easier for companies to defend patent cases
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for companies to defend themselves against patent infringement lawsuits in a ruling that places strict limits on where such cases can be filed.
The justices ruled unanimously that patent owners must bring lawsuits only in states where the targeted company is incorporated. The issue is important to many companies that complain about patent owners "shopping" for favorable courts in other parts of the country to file lawsuits.
The case involved an appeal from TC Heartland, an Indiana-based food sweetener company sued by Kraft Foods in Delaware. Lower courts refused to transfer the case to Indiana.
But the Supreme Court's ruling will have the biggest impact on federal courts in eastern Texas, where more than 40 percent of patent lawsuits are now filed. Local rules there favor quick trials and juries tend to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs.
The ruling is a blow to so-called patent trolls - shell companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face expensive litigation. Many of those cases now may have a tougher time getting to trial or result in jury verdicts that are less generous.
Companies including eBay, Kickstarter and online crafts site Etsy had urged the high court to restrict where such cases can be filed, saying they have been sued repeatedly in courts hundreds or thousands of miles away from corporate headquarters. Even Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller led a coalition of 17 states calling for an end to so-called forum shopping in patent cases.
Groups representing inventors and patent owners said new restrictions would place burdens on patent holders and encourage infringing behavior and piracy.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas relied on a 1957 Supreme Court case that said patent cases can be brought only where the defendant company is incorporated. He said the federal appeals court in Washington that handles patent appeals was wrong to say that Congress had changed those rules.
The ruling is a "seismic decision" that will affect patent litigation around the country, said John O'Quinn, a Washington, D.C., lawyer specializing in patent law. He said it may lead to a surge in patent cases in Delaware, where many companies are incorporated due to favorable state law.
That shift will mean a dramatic decline in cases at the federal courthouse in Marshall, Texas, where hundreds of patent lawsuits are filed each year.
Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case, which was argued before his confirmation.
Court strikes down two NC congressional districts
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court struck down two congressional districts in North Carolina Monday because race played too large a role in their creation, a decision voting rights advocates said would boost challenges in other states.
The justices ruled that Republicans who controlled the state legislature and governor's office in 2011 placed too many African-Americans in the two districts. The result was to weaken African-American voting strength elsewhere in North Carolina.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled for civil rights groups and black voters in challenges to political districts in Alabama, North Carolina and Virginia.
A Democratic group led by former Attorney General Eric Holder is focusing on redistricting challenges to counter political gains Republicans have made since the 2010 census and the redrawing of electoral districts that followed. Marc Elias, who argued the North Carolina case and is a senior adviser to Holder's group, said the ruling "will serve as a warning to Republicans not just in North Carolina but throughout the country that their cynical efforts to use race will not go unchallenged."
In North Carolina, both districts have since been redrawn and the state conducted elections under the new congressional map in 2016. Even with the new districts, Republicans maintained their 10-3 edge in congressional seats.
New challenges have been filed to the redrawn districts, this time claiming that politics played too much of a role in their creation. The Supreme Court has never ruled that a partisan gerrymander violates the Constitution.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said the state did not offer compelling justifications to justify its reliance on race in either district.
The issue of race and redistricting one is a familiar one at the Supreme Court and Kagan noted that one of the districts was "making its fifth(!) appearance before this court."
States have to take race into account when drawing maps for legislative, congressional and a host of municipal political districts. At the same time, race can't be the predominant factor without very strong reasons, under a line of high court cases stretching back 20 years.
A three-judge federal court had previously struck down the two districts. The justices upheld the lower court ruling on both counts.
The court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling on District 1 in northeastern North Carolina. Kagan wrote that the court will not "approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence."
The justices split 5-3 on the other district, District 12 in the southwestern part of the state. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to form a majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case.
The state insisted that race played no role at all in the creation of one district. Instead, the state argued that Republicans who controlled the redistricting process wanted to leave the district in Democratic hands, so that the surrounding districts would be safer for Republicans.
"The evidence offered at trial...adequately supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district's reconfiguration," Kagan wrote.
Alito said in dissent that the evidence instead shows that the district's borders "are readily explained by political considerations."
Voting rights advocates said the ruling supports their arguments in yet another case pending before the Supreme Court that challenges North Carolina's state legislative districts. A federal court had previously thrown out 28 state House and Senate districts as illegal racial gerrymanders.
But earlier this year the Supreme Court temporarily halted an order to redraw those legislative districts. The justices could act on the challenge to the state districts as early as next week.
The lawyer leading the challenge to the state districts, Anita Earls of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said Monday's ruling has clear implications for that case.
"It's abundantly clear that what the state of North Carolina did in drawing its legislative districts cannot withstand constitutional muster," Earls said.
The court action comes at a time of intense political division in the state, highlighted by legal battles over moves by the GOP-controlled legislature to pass laws limiting some of the powers of North Carolina's new Democratic governor, Roy Cooper. Democrats have hoped that a redrawing of state districts could help them erode veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.
Robin Hayes, the state Republican chairman, said court rulings on redistricting have put legislative mapmakers "in an impossible situation, with their constantly changing standards." Hayes, a former member of Congress, noted that Holder's Justice Department signed off on the two congressional districts under a provision of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court has since struck down.
Cooper issued a statement applauding Supreme Court for supporting "a level playing field and fair elections" for voters.
"The North Carolina Republican legislature tried to rig Congressional elections by drawing unconstitutional districts that discriminated against African Americans and that's wrong," Cooper said.
The Rev. William Barber, the president of the North Carolina NAACP who has sued separately over voting rights, said the high court's ruling shows that the General Assembly "engaged in systemic racism and cheated to win elections."
--------
Associated Press writer Jonathan Drew contributed to this report from Raleigh, North Carolina.
Published: Wed, May 24, 2017
