Legal Research Blog

 

After 25 Years, NYC Settles Homelessness Suit

This week, the city of New York settled a class action lawsuit first brought by advocates for the homeless in 1983, reinstating a comprehensive plan to tackle homelessness that had been significantly hampered by the costly litigation.

The central suit, McCain v. Koch, alleged that New York City failed to offer sufficient or suitable emergency housing for homeless families.  Since 1983, the McCain case has been joined by others, including complaints that families were illegally denied access to or prevented from applying for temporary housing.  While other lawsuits have forced the city to guarantee a right to shelter and protected the voting rights of the homeless, the McCain suit dragged on, hampering the Bloomberg administration’s efforts to pursue its ambitious anti-homelessness agenda.
As recently as 2006, the city submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, pointing to the improvements and reforms made to the system since it was first filed.  But the case continued, until this week, when the parties involved came to a settlement outlining a way forward.  As reported in the New York Times:
“Under the settlement, the parties agreed a new case would be filed and, following a class action settlement hearing, all cases against the city and state, as well as the new one, would be dismissed.”
The settlement outlines regulations and agency specifics to govern the city’s policies for the homeless, and has been praised by both city officials and the plaintiffs.  Some advocacy groups also favor the settlement, including the Coalition for the Homeless:
“We applaud today’s settlement of the McCain litigation. On the brink of open court testimony from mothers with children who have been relegated to sleeping on our sidewalks, in church basements, laundry mats, and other public spaces, the Bloomberg Administration has come to its senses and agreed to codify an enforceable Right to Shelter for families with vulnerable children.”

This Day in Legal History: September 17th

Today marks one of the greatest triumphs in the legal history of the United States.  On September 17th, 1787, after many heated and lengthy debates, delegates in Philadelphia signed the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution has become a sacred document in the hearts of all Americans, and it was no less so when it was written.  The document saved the fledgling country from imminent crisis and dissolution by replacing the inept and divisive Articles of Confederation.  Negotiated at the close of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation gave Congress broad powers but deprived the federal government of the enforcement mechanisms needed to levy taxes or raise troops.  To prevent a breakup of the union, all of the states, except Rhode Island, sent delegates to Philadelphia to negotiate a new governing document in May of 1787.
While compromising on the language of the Consitution and the new, stronger federal government was hard enough, the work of the delegates was just beginning on September 17th.  In order for the Constitution to go into effect, nine out of the 13 state legislatures had to vote on ratification.  Some states, such as Massachusetts, refused to ratify unless the document outlined the rights of citizens more specifically, which eventually led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.  Others demanded language indicating that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government would be the province of states.  And Rhode Island, the most stubborn of all, opposed federal control over currency and slavery, and would not ratify until threatened with economic sanctions.  But, in 1790 it finally approved the Constitution, as the last of the 13 colonies to officially do so.  
Happy Birthday Constitution!

US Court of Appeals to Decide Standing to Cable Programmers

Yesterday afternoon, cable programmers such as C-SPAN, the Weather Channel, and A&E Television argued that they have standing to challenge the FCC order that cable operators must go completely digital or provide both a digital and analog version of the same channel before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Bruce Sokler, partner at the D.C. communications firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, argued that the programmers do have standing to challenge this order because it limits each channel’s ability to reach customers.  Joseph Palmore, the FCC’s deputy general counsel, responded in the brief for respondents as well as in his oral argument that the digital television switch will create more bandwidth space for all cable operators and that, for this reason, the programmers’ fear is unfounded.  The National Association of Broadcasters filed an amicus brief in favor of the FCC’s position.
Judges suggested that it is not clear that programmers have standing to challenge an order that affects cable operators, not programmers.  Injury to cable channels is arguably speculative and any concrete injury may not be redressable. Additionally, the boxes created to allow analog customers to receive digital signals are designed provide further protection for programmers’ First Amendment rights.
Source: The Blog of Legal Times

CAN-SPAM Indeed…

Dedicated Fastcase Blog readers may remember a decision we wrote about back in February, which upheld a conviction in the state of Virginia for the world’s eighth worst spammer.  This winter, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the conviction should stand, finding that Jaynes’ First Amendment rights had not been violated, and rejecting his interpretation of the Inter-State Commerce Clause.  However, shortly after the decision was handed down, the court agreed to re-consider Jaynes’ the question of free speech without explanation.  Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Virginia Supreme Court has reversed that decision.

Jaynes’ prolific spamming campaign would be considered illegal under both the federal CAN-SPAM Act and Virginia’s anti-spamming legislation.  However, the federal law was not yet in effect when the spamming in question took place, and the court now finds Virginia’s law to be unconstitutionally overbroad.  Jaynes argues, and the court agrees, that because Virginia’s law outlaws all types of spam, including religious and political speech, it is in violation of the First Amendment.

Judge G. Steven Agee wrote:

the law ”is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails, including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
While Jaynes sent out strictly commercial emails, the law, and his conviction, have been struck down.  So for now, Jaynes is off the hook.  For all of our sakes, lets hope he finds a new profession.

Pro-Borat Decision Catapults Judge to 2nd Circuit

Apparently, the cultural learnings of America make benefit the glorious United States District Court Judge Loretta Preska.  Judge Preska, who recently presided over a suit against the makers of the faux-documentary Borat, was rewarded for all of her hard work on the case with an appointment by President Bush to sit on the Federal 2nd Circuit.  Preska took a careful interpretation of contract law to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, earning her some well-deserved kudos from the legal community.
Many of the unsuspecting subjects in the Borat movie have attempted to sue the film’s producers and star, Sacha Baron Cohen, for misrepresentation.  In this particular suit, the plaintiffs include a drivers education teacher, several guests from a dinner attended by Borat, and an etiquette instructor.  Preska’s opinion contains an  analysis of the controversial film’s intentions, explaining that Borat’s offensive and somewhat disgusting behavior does, in a way, serve a higher purpose:
“At its core… Borat attempts an ironic commentary of ‘modern’ American culture, contrasting the backwardness of its protagonist with the social ills [that] afflict supposedly sophisticated society.”
Borat’s behavior prods his American hosts into words or deeds that do not necessarily reflect their best nature, and many of the individuals who appeared in the film were horrified to find out they would be appearing in a blockbuster satire.
All participants, however, did sign a contract explaining that they would be filming a documentary-style movie, and acknowledged that each ”… Participant is not relying upon any promises or statements made by anyone about the nature of the Film or the identity of any other Participants or persons involved in the film.”  Effectively, the characters that encountered Borat along his journey had signed away their rights to challenge the validity of who he was or what he was doing.  Judge Preska concluded that each plaintiff had signed a valid agreement and granted the film’s motion to dismiss.
Page 140 of 215« First...110120130«138139140141142»150160170...Last »