With Robert Wilkins' confirmation to the D.C. Circuit by the U.S.. Senate, President Obama's overhaul of "the country's second most powerful court" is complete, the Associated Press reports. Now there is a 7-4 majority in favor of the Democracts on the court that hears appeals of federal rules and regulations.
A defendant convicted in a terrorism case is challenging the use of warrantless surveillaince in his case, The Washington Post reports: "Late Monday, [Mohamed Osman] Mohamud’s attorneys filed a 66-page motion in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., seeking discovery of information that they believe will aid in an eventual challenge to the constitutionality of the law that authorized the surveillance used in his case. At the very least, they say, Mohamud deserves a new trial because he was not informed that the government used the warrantless program in bringing its case the first time."
The D.C. Circuit, 2-1, has struck down the FCC's rules imposing net neutrality, Gigaom reports. The majority said the FCC has the authority to regulate in the area of Internet traffic, but it can't impose requirements that "'contravene express statutory mandates,"' Gigaom reports.
"The upshot of Tuesday’s ruling is that it could open the door for internet giants like Verizon and Time Warner to cut deals with large content providers — say Disney or Netflix — to ensure that their web content was delivered faster and more reliably than other sites," Gigaom further reports.
The Indiana House Judiciary Committee heard testimony today about legislation that would start the process to amend Indiana's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But the vote was delayed by the committee chair, the Associated Press reports.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.
I wrote a piece for the Connecticut Law Tribune about Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker looking to duplicate its lobbying success in New York's capital in Connecticut. The firm has opened a new office in Hartford, the second one in Connecticut. An excerpt of the piece:
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker is looking to duplicate the lobbying success it's had at New York's capital at Connecticut's seat of government, firm leaders said. In early January, the national law firm announced the opening of a new office in Hartford that will focus in part on governmental relations.
Wilson Elser "has the most successful lobbying firm in Albany," said David A. Rose, the partner responsible for forming the law firm's governmental relations practice in Connecticut. According to the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics, Wilson Elser has more than 160 lobbying clients in Albany.
As for the goals in Connecticut, Rose noted that Wilson Elser does not have a "niche lobbying practice" like some other firms.
"We're a law firm," Rose said. "As long as we can ensure there's not a conflict with any existing clients we're hopeful to work with as many and varied" lobbying clients as Wilson Elser does in Albany.
Rose has been involved in governmental affairs for 21 years either as a governmental lawyer or lobbyist. He worked as senior counsel for two Connecticut House speakers: Democrats Moira Lyons and James Amann. In 2007, he went to work as assistant counsel for then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and stayed on through the tenure of Gov. David Patterson and then through the transition of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
While there are a lot of similarities between Hartford and Albany, Rose said that "Connecticut has a much more transparent government" that is easier to access as a lobbyist or as a regular citizen. Unlike in Albany, anyone can walk into the Capitol building in Hartford without having to pass through metal detectors, he said.
If you spend enough time in the building, you will run into state leaders just by virtue of using the common elevators and corridors, Rose said.
"You have to be at the Capitol," Rose said, to have the opportunity to meet with top lawmakers, including the happenstance meetings in which elevator speeches for clients can be rolled out. There's nothing that beats the in-person interaction to "tell your client's story," Rose said.
The U.S. Supreme Court's workload might reach a new low because the court will consider only half the usual number of cases when it convenes in March, The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports. Yet the issues the court will consider are central to American society- whether corporations are entitled to religious expression, affirmative action and separation of powers between the presidency and Congress over the appointment of governmental officials, Barnes writes. “The court has had several cases implicating major issues of national debate each of the last few years. What that shows is that this is a court that’s not at all shy about tackling hot-button issues,” Supreme Court litigator Kannon Shanmugam told Barnes.
One of the cases that the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on last week was the case of bondholders who are seeking repayment of the sovereign debt Argentina defaulted on, BBC reported. The court will decide if American law protects Argentinian sovereign assets from collection. Argentina defaulted on "some $100bn (worth £60.7bn in 2014) of debts and has since restructured its debt twice, cancelling around 75% of the nominal value of the bonds," BBC further reports.
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
