Appeals court ruling restores NFL lockout

Ryan Mundy of the Pittsburgh Steelers reports to the team's training facility on Friday, before the court ruling was announced.Two judges backed the temporary stay, while one dissentedA federal appeals court grants a temporary stay, meaning the NFL lockout can resumeOn Monday, a lower court judge had ruled NFL owners couldn't lock out their playersThe legal wrangling threatens the scheduled September start of the NFL season

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court on Friday granted a temporary stay of an April 25 lower court order that had ruled that National Football League owners could not lock out their players.

The 2-1 ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis allows NFL owners to again suspend football operations, as they seek to revise the current system and negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with the league's players.

"We are back to a lockout," said 8th Circuit court clerk Michael Gans, who confirmed the court's ruling.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said clubs were notified of the ruling Friday night.

"As a result, the clubs have been told that the prior lockout rules are reinstated effective immediately," he said.

The football league's owners imposed a lockout last month, after talks aimed at forging a new agreement broke down and the players officially disbanded their union.

Nine players -- including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning -- instigated a lawsuit filed against the owners, saying the owners had no legal right to impose a work stoppage that threatens the scheduled September 8 start of the upcoming season.

The players also want a future trial to determine if the NFL lockout is in violation of federal antitrust laws.

In her ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said that the decision by the players to disband their union meant the case no longer came under federal labor law that prohibits injunctions, as claimed by the owners.

The NFL then asked the federal appeals court in St. Louis to lift Nelson's ruling. That led to Friday's announcement, which became public during the second round of the NFL Draft -- the last element covered under the previous agreement between the two sides.

Appeals court judges Duane Benton and Steven Colloton voted for the temporary stay, writing that they wanted to "give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal."

The lone dissenting judge, Kermit Bye, said that the temporary stay shouldn't be granted -- arguing unsuccessfully that such an order should apply only to an "emergency situation."

If games don't start on time late this summer, it would be the first NFL work stoppage since 1987. This comes after several months already of testy labor and legal maneuvering that has left many fans confused about how arguably America's most popular sports league lacks enough money to satisfy everyone.

The heart of the issue between the players and the owners is how to divide the league's $9 billion in revenue.

Right now, NFL owners take $1 billion off the top of that revenue stream. After that, the players get about 60%.

The owners say that the current labor deal doesn't take into account the rising costs related to building stadiums and promoting the game. The players argue that the league has not sufficiently opened up its books to prove this.

In addition, the owners also want to increase the season by two games, which the players are against because it might increase the risk of injuries.

While star players earn millions of dollars each year, the median NFL salary is $790,000 and the average career lasts about four years.

CNN's Justin Lear contributed to this report.

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

U.S. appeals court OKs decision blocking Arizona immigration law

Undocumented immigrants walk in Arizona's Sonoran Desert after illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on January 19. STORY HIGHLIGHTSNEW: An immigrant activist says, "This decisions says ... Gov. Brewer is wrong"Brewer says the ruling harms "the safety and well-being of Arizonans"U.S. appeals court judges on Monday affirm an earlier ruling on Arizona's SB 1070That ruling had blocked key provisions of the law, just before they became lawRELATED TOPICSImmigrationArizonaU.S. Court of AppealsU.S. Department of Justice (CNN) -- A federal appeals court on Monday affirmed a previous injunction of Arizona's controversial immigration law, another setback for legislation that has drawn sharp opposition from President Barack Obama's administration.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the U.S. Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB 1070 into law last year.

Among other things, this legislation would have required local law enforcement in Arizona to apprehend and help deport illegal immigrants. The Obama administration sued, arguing that only the federal government has that authority.

That lawsuit led to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision last July, which temporarily blocked the law's most contested parts just a day before they were scheduled to go into effect. That included the requirement that local police officers should check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Monday's decision came more than five months after both sides presented their cases in San Francisco to the federal appeals court judges. The ruling was written by federal Judge Richard Anthony Paez and supported in full by Judge John Noonan. Judge Carlos Bea partially concurred and partially dissented from the ruling opinion.

"We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion," the ruling states. "Therefore, we affirm the district court's preliminary injunction order enjoining these certain provisions of SB 1070."

Arizona's governor and attorney general will now consider "their legal options," according to a statement, including possibly an immediate petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brewer claimed Monday in this statement that the latest decision "does harm to the safety and well-being of Arizonans who suffer the negative effects of illegal immigration."

"For decades, the federal government has neglected its constitutional duty to American citizens by failing to secure the border," she said. "States like Arizona have borne the brunt of that failure."

Those on the other side of the issue, including key figures in Arizona's immigrant community, applauded the ruling.

'What this decision says is that Governor Brewer is wrong," Lydia Guzman of Somos America, an activist group focused on promoting social justice and equal rights for immigrant communities in Arizona, told reporters Monday. "This decision shows a victory on the side of justice and it shows that civil rights prevails."

The ruling is the biproduct of a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department that challenged six of the Arizona law's provisions, meaning other parts of the law went into effect in July. That includes a ban on "sanctuary cities": municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants. Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. In addition, the ruling allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Republican lawmakers, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other state governments were among those filing briefs with the appeals court supporting Arizona's argument. The Mexican government, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the city of Tucson, Arizona, were among those filing briefs supporting the Justice Department's side.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department challenged only six of the Arizona law's provisions, meaning others went into effect in July. That includes a ban on "sanctuary cities": municipalities with laws or policies that render them relatively safe for undocumented immigrants. Bolton's ruling also allowed a provision making it illegal to hire day laborers if doing so impedes traffic. In addition, the ruling allowed parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The decision Monday sides with the U.S. Justice Department, largely on the argument that federal immigration policy would be greatly undermined -- as might America's standing in the world -- if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws. Doing so, the ruling contends, equates to a given state adopting its own foreign policy, one that may be in opposition to national policy.

"That 50 individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained. In matters affecting the intercourse of the federal nation with other nations, the federal nation must speak with one voice," the ruling says.

Brewer, along with Attorney General Tom Horne, on Monday said the appeals court relied too much on testimony from "foreign governments," calling it wrong to give such nations "the de facto right to veto the duly-enacted laws of a sovereign state of the United States."

In his partial dissent -- which represents his opinion, but does not equate to law -- Bea contended that local and state officers do have a role in addressing federal immigration laws.

"Congress intended that state officers be free to inquire of the federal officers into the immigration status of any person, without any direction or supervision of such federal officers -- and the federal officers 'shall respond' to any such inquiry," he writes.

In February, Brewer announced that Arizona had filed a countersuit against the federal government, seeking the authority to implement its own border security efforts.

At that time, Homeland Security Department spokesman Matt Chandler called Arizona's court claim a "meritless" one that "does nothing to secure the border."

View the Original article

High Court Turns Away Appeals by Gitmo Detainees

Reuters

A detainee walks inside a yard at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay May 31, 2010.

In what would have been the latest in a string of cases stemming from the U.S. government's War on Terror, the Supreme Court passed on an opportunity to hear arguments that would have further determined the legal rights of the detainees kept at the Guantanamo Bay military camp in Cuba.

The petition the justices turned away Monday asked them to establish the standards of evidence lower court judges should use to determine if the detainees can remain locked up while waiting for their cases to be heard.

Unlike the other cases the high court was asked to resolve in recent years that ultimately rejected the Bush administration's attempts to administer justice, this case was presented as unfinished business from its 2008 ruling that said the prisoners have a right to challenge their detention in a federal court. The 5-4 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush written by Justice Anthony Kennedy left unanswered how federal judges should rule over that process.

This case specifically challenged the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the standard judges should use in determining if the government has sufficiently proved its case to keep a detainee locked up indefinitely.

David Cynamon, lawyer for Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al-Odah, said U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly gave the government too much leeway with introducing evidence he described as "largely consisting of subjects about whom little or nothing is known, most of which were taken years after the fact under undisclosed circumstances by unknown interrogators whom the government did not make available for cross-examination or to answer interrogatories."

Cynamon also objected to what he thinks is a low threshold standard Kollar-Kotelly used to determine that the government could continue to imprison al-Odah. He says Kollar-Kotelly's handling of the case, which was largely guided by the order of a fellow judge tasked with coordinating al-Odah's case with scores of other similar challenges, has undermined through procedural unfairness, the high court's ruling in Boumediene.

The judge's decision was upheld by the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last year. Cynamon says both decisions were built on a shaky foundation "allowing wholesale reliance on hearsay without regard to the standards of admissibility....and by applying a standard of proof ill-suited for deciding whether a person should spend potentially the rest of his or her life in prison."

Some detainees like al-Odah have been on the island for more than nine years waiting for their cases to be heard by a military commission or some other legal tribunal.

The Obama administration, which entered office on a high-profile agenda to change policies on handling the Guantanamo detainees, asked the high court to turn away al-Odah's request.

In his brief asking the justices to deny review, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued that the district court properly performed its task in accordance with Boumediene and "nothing in the Constitution or any other source of law requires the application of different standards or procedures."

Kneedler defended Kollar-Kottelly's assessment that al-Odah should remain in military custody, in part, based on the detainee's own admission that he had military training at a Taliban camp in Afghanistan and was in the Tora Bora mountains during the battle there.

Now retired Justice John Paul Stevens was viewed as the court's driving force in its prior War on Terror decisions. Because the court announced its decision to deny review without comment, it's not clear how many justices, if any, voted to take the case. Supreme Court rules require that at least four justices must agree to hear a case to grant further review.

The justices also denied the similar appeal of detainee Adham Mohammed Awad.

The court took no action on a pending appeal by the five remaining Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, who remain in Cuba but want to relocate to the United States. The government says they are free to leave at any time but have turned down offers of at least two countries for repatriation.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Obama Justice Department Appeals Judge's Health Care Ruling

AP

Attorney General Eric Holder speaks during a news conference in Washington March 9.

ATLANTA -- The Obama administration has appealed a judge's ruling that found the federal overhaul of the health care system unconstitutional. 

The Justice Department filed a 62-page motion Friday to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that said there's clear and well-established precedent that Congress acted within its authority in adopting the overhaul. It said Congress mad "detailed findings establishing a foundation" for exercising the authority. 

Florida and 25 other states filed the lawsuit that said Congress exceeded its authority by requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed in a Jan. 31 ruling that said Obama's entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional. It is considered the most sweeping ruling against the health care law. 

Some states, including Alaska, have cited the decision in refusing to cooperate with the health care law. But Vinson issued another ruling last week ordering states to continue implementing the law while the case makes its way through the courts. 

Either way, the broad challenge seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court. Two other U.S. district judges have previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees to the federal bench. 

Vinson's rulings have found that lawmakers do not have the power to penalize citizens for not doing something. But he has acknowledged that the 11th Circuit could disagree with him. 

"It is likely that the Court of Appeals will also reach divergent results and that, as most court-watchers predict, the Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well," he wrote in the March 3 ruling. 

Other states that joined Florida in filing the lawsuit were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Administration appeals judge's health care ruling

usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

ShareWe've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

Advertisement

Most Popular E-mail Newsletter

View the Original article