WebProNews

Tag: Appeals Court

  • Same-Sex Marriages In Michigan Halted By Court

    Michigan Judge Bernard Friedman ruled on Friday that the state ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, sparking a flurry of same-sex marriages over the weekend.

    That came to a halt after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati issued a stay on Saturday. The court’s intention was to give itself plenty of time to weigh the state’s case against Friedman’s decision.

    Whether this pause is temporary is anyone’s guess, but the federal appeals court expects that it will make a ruling on Wednesday.

    It’s possible the gay unions will stand or they may be retroactively banned.

    Should the appeals court uphold the decision of Friedman, Michigan will join 17 states and the District of Colombia in the recognition of same-sex unions.

    Some surprising locations to feature the striking down of gay marriage bans include Texas and Utah, areas of the country that are known for their rather socially conservative populations.

    These are a couple of the states where federal courts have issued stays that have halted gay marriages. The appeals courts will keep the marriages on hold until a ruling is finally made for or against the unions.

    It’s very possible that a series of state decisions could be made over the next few months or years that would bring legalized gay marriages to half the United States.

    This number would be a far cry from the limited availability of recognized same-sex unions about a decade ago.

    Some are still wondering whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will take the initiative at some point to declare state-issued bans on gay marriage constitutional or unconstitutional once and for all.

    After Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion, it’s reasonable to consider gay marriage the most controversial topic in all of the United States. One major reason why the Supreme Court continues to avoid directly dealing with the issue.

    As for whether or not gay marriage bans will be lifted across the country, the decision will ultimately depend on the evolving views of the constituents of each state.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

    Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

    For the past few years, Verizon has been in a bitter battle with the FCC over the Commission’s enforcement of net neutrality rules. The case made its way all the way to the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals where both sides argued for whether or not the Commission could enforce the rules.

    The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its anticipated ruling today in Verizon v. FCC with Verizon being named the victor in a 2-1 decision. The decision guts the FCC’s Open Internet Order – a set of rules that intended to prevent ISPs from discriminating against certain types of traffic. For example, Verizon wouldn’t be able to give preference to Redbox over Netflix under the FCC’s rules. With those rules gutted, Verizon and other ISPs now have free reign to either slow down transfer speeds for competitors or make those competitors pay for speedy access to customers.

    Wow, that sounds pretty horrible. Why did the appeals court rule in favor of something that seems so anti-consumer? Well, it’s kind of the FCC’s fault. While the ruling holds that the FCC has general authority over how ISPs treat Internet traffic, the courts say that the Commission didn’t provide a compelling enough reason to justify its authority over specific instances.

    Here’s the relevant bit of the decision:

    As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

    So, where does this leave us – the Internet consumers that will be most affected by this? Well, there are two ways this can now go. Either the FCC can appeal to the Supreme Court, or they can just let this fight go. For the former, the Supreme Court would likely either refuse to hear it or rule in favor of Verizon again considering the current makeup of the court.

    As for the latter, it’s not like the rules were stopping ISPs from introducing programs that violates the net neutrality philosophy. During CES last week, AT&T announced Sponsored Data – a new plan that allows content providers to pay for their customers’ data. In essence, AT&T is letting the big guys pay to win while small businesses will be forced to compete at a major disadvantage.

    With the FCC’s net neutrality rules being gutted like this, it’s really only a matter of time before all of the major ISPs introduce something similar to sponsored data. For you to reliably enjoy Netflix on Time Warner Cable, Netflix will now have to pay Time Warner for faster access to your home. This will in turn force Netflix to raise its prices. It would also negatively impact small businesses and startups that rely on streaming to deliver content as they wouldn’t be able to afford the fees. This would negatively impact innovation and competition as only the established players could afford the gatekeeper fees.

    In the end, all of the above is merely speculation until we know how the FCC is going to progress from here. The net neutrality rules were put into place by former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. His successor, Tom Wheeler, was a former lobbyist for the telecom industry so the chances of him appealing the decision are slim to none. Still, miracles can happen as Wheeler supported and helped set up an agreement that lets Americans unlock their phones after their contract has expired.

    UPDATE: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has issued the following statement in regards to today’s ruling:

    “The D.C. Circuit has correctly held that ‘Section 706 . . . vests [the Commission] with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure’ and therefore may ‘promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic.’ I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment. We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

    [h/t: Ars Technica]
    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Rod Blagojevich’s Win Not Likely To Scare Prosecution

    Even though ex Ill Governor Rod Blagojevich will get another chance to plead his case, the prosecution has made it fully aware that they have no intention of letting the conviction be overturned in their 169 page response motion calling his appeal an ‘extraordinary claim.’

    His legal defensed filed an appeal in July arguing that his case should be overturned or at least have the harsh sentence reconsidered. On Friday, the 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago agreed to hear their case according to NBC news.

    On December 13, the convicted Chicago politician will have his 2011 case revisited as he argues that he was unjustly sentenced to prison for doing what he felt was ‘standard political horse-trading.’ The prosecution doesn’t seem worried that their conviction is in jeopardy.

    Rod Blagojevich was convicted at his 2nd trial in 2011 on 17 counts including wire fraud, attempted extortion, and conspiracy to commit bribery. In 2008, he was caught trading money for cabinet positions in return for appointing Valerie Jarrett to replace Obama. He was sentenced to 14 years.

    In their response, the prosecution argues that Blagojevich offers no legal authority supporting the belief that his actions were lawful because the money was provided by another public official. The evidence was clear that there was an exchange of Medicare rate increase for campaign contributions. The proof that contributions were made with the expectation that politicians’ actions would be influenced was overwhelming according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Riggs Bonamici.

    According to MSN, His defense attorneys are claiming that if their client believed that what he was doing was unlawful, why would he not make any effort to conceal what he was doing? The courts had excluded his testimony that he “honestly believed” his conduct was legal. Blagojevich not only felt it was lawful, but also in the interest of the public. He also did not profit from the deals.

    The prosecution ultimate claim is the abundance of evidence against Blagojevich regardless of his contention of ignorance.

    Photo from Wikimedia Commons

  • Bin Laden Photos: Ruling Could Release Death Pictures

    This week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case regarding the release of 52 photos, some of which depict Osama bin Laden dead. The case stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the conservative group Judicial Watch. The group is appealing the decision of a U.S. District court, which ruled that the images could harm national security.

    Judicial Watch argued that the U.S. government has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the photos should be kept secret. From the group’s brief:

    Specifically, Defendants have failed to provide any evidence that all 52 images, including those depicting bin Laden’s burial at sea, pertain to “foreign activities of the United States.” Defendants also have failed to provide any evidence that images depicting the burial at sea actually pertain to “intelligence activities.” Nor have they demonstrated that the release of images of a somber, dignified burial at sea reasonably could be expected to cause identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage to national security.

    According to a CNN report on the hearing, the U.S. Justice department argued that there are obvious “sensitivities” surrounding the death of bin Laden, and that releasing the photos could end up provoking violence against Americans abroad.

    The appellate judges did not announce when their final ruling would be made.

    (Image courtesy the U.S. Federal Government via Wikimedia Commons)

  • Your Smartphone Can Now Be Used To Track You Without A Warrant

    Warrants are an important part of the legal process in this country. If the police want to search your house, they must obtain a warrant from a judge. New technology like social media and smartphones are not as strictly defined by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, it leads to problems.

    Ars Technica is reporting that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that police can track people via their smartphones without a warrant. What would cause them to rule in favor of warrantless tracking? The court says that it’s because you gladly share your location via smartphones.

    The case in question involved a drug runner named Melvin Skinner. The police used his GPS location information to track and arrest him. Skinner’s defense says that the police were in violation of the Fourth Amendment because they needed a warrant to see that data. One of the judges in the case, John Rogers, wasn’t buying it. Here’s what he wrote in the majority opinion:

    “There is no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone. If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.”

    By the court’s logic, it was Skinner’s fault that he was caught. He essentially handed the police his location via his smartphone and the police could track it very easily. Simple, right? Unfortunately, nothing in this world is ever so simple.

    It turns out that the police were able to track him thanks to the Stored Communications Act. The law does not allow law enforcement to listen in on conversations, but it does allow them to see where calls are being directed. This lets them know, via GPS tracking, where a person is.

    What about the case earlier this year concerning the warrantless GPS tracking of cars? The Supreme Court knocked that one down. The Appeals Court said that Skinner could be tracked because obtaining his GPS data was not a “physical intrusion.”

    Does this mean that police can now start tracking you via your smartphone whenever they want? Not really. It does, however, raise the question of what role the Fourth Amendment should play in the 21st centry. It’s obvious that we need to amend laws, and maybe even the Constitution, to address concerns of the modern age. Skinner’s case is just another catalyst that may or may not enact that change.

  • Facebook Wins In Appeals Court Against Leader Technologies

    Back in 2008 Leader Technologies,a developer of internet-based system, filed a lawsuit against Facebook claiming they had infringed on one of their patents with the invention of the site. The technology in question was one which it made it possible for people to communicate on a large scale such as we do on Facebook. An ultimate jury decision found that Facebook had indeed infringed on the patent.

    Yesterday we learned that the patent claim was rendered invalid by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. Their decision was largely based on the company taking too long to apply for patent protection for the technology. Typically one must seek protection within a year of offering an invention for sale. Evidence suggests Leader was peddling the technology all throughout 2002, but didn’t file for protection until December 2003.

    So Facebook is off the hook with this lawsuit, but it seems there are countless others always popping-up around the social-networking giant’s technology platform. In early March Yahoo filed a claim against Facebook asserting the site had infringed on patents stemming from their research and development efforts.

    Yahoo comments on the suit in a written statement:

    “Yahoo! has invested substantial resources in research and development through the years, which has resulted in numerous patented inventions of technology that other companies have licensed. These technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. Unfortunately, the matter with Facebook remains unresolved and we are compelled to seek redress in federal court. We are confident that we will prevail.”

    Recently Yahoo updated its court filing against Facebook claiming they also infringed on several more open source technology patents from Yahoo. This brings the number of patents in question to 16. It seems there’s no end to these patent disputes.

    We will keep you posted on all of Facebook’s patent wars and the upcoming public offering and IPO roadshow. In the meantime, try to figure out if there’s anything you can sue Facebook for, after all, it seems like the trendy thing to do.

  • Federal Appeals Court Upholds Graphic Anti-Smoking Disclaimers, Other New Regulations

    If you’ve traveled much to other countries, especially in Europe, you’ve probably noticed cigarette packs with massive labels on them, warning of the dangers of smoking. It’s our Surgeon General’s Warning on steroids. “Smoking Kills,” says a British version, eloquent and succinct, across half the pack. Or there’s my favorite, the German “Rauchen kann zu einem langsamen und schmerzhaften Tod führen.” This means: Smoking can lead to a slow and painful death. But it loses a lot of umph in translation.

    Soon we might not have to look abroad for big warnings like these. That’s one of the consequences of a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision handed down today, which upholds most provisions of a new law giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate tobacco products, including the requirement for large, graphic warnings on cigarette packs. The ruling affirms the FDA’s authority to prevent the tobacco industry’s targeting of children and misleading of the American public. It marks the second time the FDA law has been broadly upheld.

    Plaintiffs in the case had challenged the law, especially the provision for requiring graphic warning labels on their products, largely on First Amendment grounds. But the court majority found that such labels “are reasonably related to the government’s interest in preventing consumer deception and are therefore constitutional,” and that they “do not impose any restriction on Plaintiff’s dissemination of speech, nor do they touch on Plaintiffs’ core speech. Instead, the labels serve as disclaimers to the public regarding the incontestable health consequences of using tobacco.”

    Other key provisions that were upheld in the ruling include those that:

    • Prohibit tobacco companies from making health claims about tobacco products without FDA review;
    • Ban several forms of tobacco marketing that appeal to children, including brand name sponsorships, tobacco-branded merchandise such as caps and t-shirts, and free samples of tobacco products; and
    • Prohibit tobacco companies from making statements implying that a tobacco product is safer because it is regulated by the FDA.

    The ruling today largely affirms an earlier decision by Judge Joseph H. McKinley in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, whose decision upheld the warning labels provision and other provisions of the law. It also serves as a powerful refutation of another, narrower case, in which Judge Richard Leon, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, struck down the new cigarette pack warnings. That ruling is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for April 10.

    Today’s decision marks a very clear victory for public health over the tobacco industry’s private interest and long history of deception regarding health hazards, and it strongly supports Congress’ findings in enacting the requirement and finds the warnings are supported by the scientific evidence. I don’t always stand behind Congressional decisions, but for once, at least, they seem to have gotten something right.

    While today’s decision largely upheld the new tobacco regulation law, two major provisions were struck down in the decision, including one banning the use of color and imagery in tobacco advertising in locations where lots of kids will see them, and a second prohibiting the use of free gifts to encourage tobacco purchases.

    If you want to read the ruling for yourself, the full text of today’s decision can be found here.