Mississippi
4 judges tapped to help with backlog of cases
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Four former circuit court judges will help handle a backlog of criminal cases that have accumulated in Mississippi’s largest county during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mississippi Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike Randolph appointed Andrew K. Howorth of Oxford, Betty W. Sanders of Greenwood, Stephen B. Simpson of Gulfport and Frank G. Vollor of Vicksburg.
Administrative Office of Courts director Greg Snowden said in a news release Thursday that Hinds County has an urgent need to handle cases that were postponed when courtrooms were closed to prevent the spread of the virus.
“Accused people have a right to their day in court, whether they are incarcerated pending trial or out on bond,” Snowden said. “If defendants are found guilty, they need to be sent to prison, but if they are found not guilty, they need to be released.”
Howorth retired in June 2020 after more than 18 years as a circuit judge in the 3rd Circuit in Benton, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Lafayette, Marshall, Tippah and Union counties.
Sanders retired in December 2014. She was a judge for 20 years in the 4th Circuit in Leflore, Sunflower and Washington counties. Before that, she served five years as a special magistrate hearing cases filed by prisoners at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman.
Simpson is a former state lawmaker who served eight years as a judge in the 2nd Circuit in Hancock, Harrison and Stone counties. He resigned in May 2008 to become state public safety commissioner, serving almost three years.
Vollor is a former Warren County prosecutor who served 20 years in the 9th Circuit District in Issaquena, Sharkey and Warren counties. He returned to private law practice in May 2009.
Washington
Judge rejects Justice Dept.’s bid to stop sugar merger
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has rejected the Justice Department’s bid to block a major U.S. sugar manufacturer from acquiring its rival, clearing the way for the acquisition to proceed.
The ruling, handed down Friday by a federal judge in Wilmington, Delaware, comes months after the Justice Department sued to try to halt the deal between U.S. Sugar and Imperial Sugar Company, one of the largest sugar refiners in the nation. The government had argued that allowing the acquisition to go through would be harmful to consumers and anticompetitive.
U.S. Sugar has argued that the acquisition will increase production and distribution of refined sugar and provide a more secure supply.
The ruling was a blow for the Justice Department as it pushes forward with aggressive enforcement of federal antitrust laws that officials say aim to ensure a fair and competitive market. The Justice Department could appeal the decision and said it was reviewing the judge’s ruling.
“We are disappointed in the court’s decision not to block this merger, which would combine the world’s largest sugar cane refiner with one of its primary competitors in the Southeastern United States and increase reliance on foreign imports,” Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter said. “Further consolidation in the market for this important kitchen staple will have real-world consequences for millions of Americans.”
U.S. Sugar said in a statement that it was “pleased that today’s court ruling will allow our acquisition of Imperial Sugar to proceed as planned, enabling us to increase our sugar production, enhance the local Georgia economy and benefit our employees and customers.”
The Justice Department has said U.S. Sugar, which operates a large refinery in Florida, sells all of its sugar through a marketing cooperative known as the United Sugars Corporation. Imperial Sugar operates a refinery in Savannah, Georgia, and a sugar transfer and liquidation facility in Ludlow, Kentucky.
The companies announced the acquisition in March, saying that it would return Imperial Sugar to all-American ownership. Imperial Sugar is a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus Company, which is headquartered in the Netherlands. The Justice Department says Imperial Sugar’s revenues were over $700 million in 2020.
Delaware
Judge bars enforcement of ‘ghost gun’ restrictions
DOVER, Del. (AP) — A federal judge has issued an injunction barring Delaware from enforcing provisions of a new law outlawing the manufacture and possession of homemade “ghost guns,” which can’t be traced by law enforcement officials because they don’t have serial numbers.
Friday’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed by gun rights advocates after Democratic Gov. John Carney signed a law last October criminalizing the possession, manufacture and distribution of such weapons as well as unfinished firearm components.
Judge Maryellen Noreika denied a motion by Democratic state Attorney General Kathleen Jennings, the sole defendant, to dismiss the lawsuit. She instead granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs to prohibit enforcement of certain provisions pending resolution of the lawsuit.
The judge wrote that without an injunction, the plaintiffs would “face irreparable harm ... because they are threatened by criminal penalties should they engage in conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”
While declining to issue a permanent injunction, Noreika said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their arguments that a ban on possessing homemade guns violates the Second Amendment, and that the prohibition on manufacturing untraceable firearms is also likely unconstitutional.
Noreika said Jennings had offered no evidence to support her assertion that the prohibitions don’t burden protected conduct because untraceable firearms are “not in common use and typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Jennings similarly failed to substantiate her argument that the prohibitions on possession and manufacturing are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
At the same time, however, Noreika said restrictions on the distribution of unfinished firearm frames or components do not unduly burden a person’s Second Amendment rights. She noted that such components are still available if they include serial numbers and manufacturer information and are obtained from federally licensed gun dealers.
The judge also held that a provision restricting the distribution of instructions for using a three-dimensional printer to produce a firearm or component is not an unjustifiable regulation of speech under the First Amendment.
“The statute prohibits only the distribution of functional code,” the judge wrote. “It does not prohibit gunsmiths and hobbyists from exchanging information about how to use their 3D-printer to manufacture a firearm, or for instructing individuals on how to program their 3D-printer to make the firearm of their choice.”
