Good afternoon . .
The Supreme Court declined to hear arguments from former POWs in the First Gulf War.
This let's stand the overturning of a multi-million dollar judgment against Saddam Hussein and the Iraq Intelligence Service.
The original lawsuit was brought under a 1996 law that allows lawsuits against state sponsors of terrorism..
The appeals court ruling said that the 17 servicemen and 37 family members could not bring the case under the law at issue.
Following the award, the Justice Department intervened argued the law no longer applied and they cited the emergency appropriations law adopted by Congress that authorized the Administration to suspend sanctions against Iraq and to take it off the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment.
Yahoo! News - Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by 1991 POWs in Iraq
--
The US Supreme Court will consider whether the IRS can seize Social Security benefits to pay off student loan debt that are more than a decade old.
The 9th District Court of Appeals sided with the Department of Education granting the IRS permission to seize monthly Social Security checks. James Lockhart says that he needs the monthly checks to pay for food or medicine.
The case hinges on a pair of Congressional actions that send a mixed message as to whether Social Security payments are shielded: the Debt Collection Act and the Higher Education Act (HEA).
The HEA. passed in 1991, eliminated the 10 year limit on the government's right to seek collection.
The Debt Collection Act, however, created an exception for Social Security payments. Although it was later amended to include Social Security payemts, the 10 year limit remained intact.
When the case is heard during the Court's new term starting in October, the Court will attempt to resolve the intent of Congress in providing conflicting rules for the collection of student loans.
Yahoo! News - Court to Hear Dispute Over Student Loans
--
An Oregon death penalty case will be heard by the US Supreme Court.
The Court agreed to consider whether someone convicted of murder can off evidence during sentencing that casts doubts about culpability.
Randy Guzek was convicted of murder in 1988. During the penalty phase, Guzek sought to introduce transcripts of witness testimony that suggested he could not have been present at the crime scene. Guzek's attorney argued it was "mitigating evidence" relevant to the imposition of the death penalty.
The trial judge ruled it inadmissible, saying such "alibi evidence" is only relevant to the defendants guilt.
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled the 8th Amendment allows this evidence during sentencing, as well as, the guilt phase of the trial.
The state of Oregon is bringing the appeal.
The case will be heard in the Court's new term beginning in October.
Yahoo! News - Supreme Court Takes Up Death Penalty Issue
--
More tomorrow including a report on new (or continued) problems at PBS.
No comments:
Post a Comment