|
|
|
Court blocks 'millionaire tax' question from state ballot
Court and Trial |
2018/06/18 10:58
|
Massachusetts' highest court on Monday struck down a proposed "millionaire tax" ballot question, blocking it from going before state voters in November and ending advocates' hopes for generating some $2 billion in additional revenue for education and transportation.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in a 5-2 ruling, said the initiative petition should not have been certified by Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey because it violated the "relatedness" clause of the state constitution that prohibits ballot questions from mingling unrelated subjects — in this case, taxing and spending.
The proposed constitutional amendment — referred to by its proponents as the "Fair Share Amendment," would have imposed a surtax of 4 percent on any portion of an individual's annual income that exceeds $1 million. The measure called for revenues from the tax to be earmarked for transportation and education.
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Frank Gaziano said a voter who supported the surtax but opposed earmarking the funds for a specific purpose would be left "in the untenable position of choosing which issue to support and which must be disregarded."
The justices offered hypothetical examples of voters who might support spending on one priority but not the other, such as a subway commuter with no school-age children.
The measure had been poised to reach voters in November after receiving sufficient support from the Legislature in successive two-year sessions. But several business groups, including the Massachusetts High Technology Council and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, sued to block it.
The court's ruling was a devastating blow for Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of labor unions, community and religious organizations that collected more than 150,000 signatures in support of the millionaire tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USCIS Redesigns Citizenship and Naturalization Certificates
Recent Court Cases |
2018/06/16 10:58
|
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began issuing redesigned Certificates of Citizenship and Naturalization today, following a successful pilot in four USCIS field offices and one service center. The redesign of these eight certificates is one of the many ways USCIS is working to combat fraud and safeguard the legal immigration system.
We piloted the new certificate design at the Norfolk, Tampa, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Sacramento Field Offices, as well as at the Nebraska Service Center.
The certificates of naturalization are:
- N-550, issued to an individual who obtains U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process;
- N-578, issued to a naturalized U.S. citizen to obtain recognition as a United States citizen by a foreign state; and
- N-570, issued when the original Certificate of Naturalization is lost, mutilated, or contains errors.
A Certificate of Citizenship is issued to an individual who obtains U.S. citizenship other than through birth in the United States or through naturalization. The various types of Certificates of Citizenship are:
- N-560A, issued to an applicant who derived citizenship after birth;
- N-560AB, issued to an applicant who acquired citizenship at birth;
- N-645 and N-645A, issued to the family of an individual who served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during a designated period of hostility and died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by that service. Form N-645 is issued if the decedent was a male, and the N-645A if the decedent was a female.
- Form N-561, issued to replace a Certificate of Citizenship when the original certificate is lost, mutilated, or contains errors.
The redesigned certificates of citizenship and naturalization feature a large, central image against a complex patterned background, which helps deter the alteration of personal data. Each certificate possesses a unique image only visible under ultraviolet light and attempts to alter it will be evident. Posthumous Certificates of Naturalization and the Special Certificate of Citizenship each bear a different image, yet feature the same fraud-deterrent security features. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
State appeals court reinstates California's right-to-die law
Court and Trial |
2018/06/15 10:59
|
A state appeals court has reinstated — at least for now — California's law allowing terminally ill people to end their lives.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Riverside issued an immediate stay Friday putting the End of Life Option back into effect. The court also gave opponents of its decision until July 2 to file objections.
The law allows adults to obtain a prescription for life-ending drugs if a doctor has determined that they have six months or less to live.
Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia declared the law unconstitutional last month, stating that it had been adopted illegally because lawmakers passed it during a special Legislative session called to address other matters.
Ottolia didn't address the issue of whether it's proper for people to end their lives. Right-to-die advocates hailed Friday's action.
"This stay is a huge win for many terminally ill Californians with six months or less to live because it could take years for the courts to resolve this case," Kevin Díaz, national director of legal advocacy for Compassion & Choices, said in a statement.
"Thankfully, this ruling settles the issue for the time being, but we know we have a long fight ahead before we prevail."
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who had asked the appeals court to stay Ottolia's ruling, also praised the decision.
"This ruling provides some relief to California patients, their families, and doctors who have been living in uncertainty while facing difficult health decisions," Becerra said. "Today's court ruling is an important step to protect and defend the End of Life Option Act for our families across the state."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court makes no ruling in resolving partisan redistricting cases
Recent Court Cases |
2018/06/14 10:59
|
The Supreme Court will consider whether the purchasers of iPhone apps can sue Apple over allegations it has an illegal monopoly on the sale of the apps.
The court said Monday that it will take a case from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled in January that the purchasers of iPhone apps could sue Apple. Their lawsuit says that when a customer buys an app the price includes a 30 percent markup that goes to Apple.
Apple had argued that it did not sell apps, but instead acted as an intermediary used by the app developers. Apple won initially in a lower court which dismissed the lawsuit.
In Wisconsin, the Democrats prevailed after a trial in which the court ruled that partisan redistricting could go too far and indeed, did in Wisconsin, where Republicans hold a huge edge in the legislature even though the state otherwise is closely divided between Democrats and Republicans.
The Supreme Court said that the plaintiffs in Wisconsin had failed to prove that they have the right to sue on a statewide basis, rather than challenge individual districts.
The Democrats will have a chance to prove their case district by district.
Waiting in the wings is a case from North Carolina that seemingly addresses some of the high court's concerns. The lawsuit filed by North Carolina Democrats has plaintiffs in each of the state's 13 congressional districts. Like Wisconsin, North Carolina is generally closely divided in politics, but Republicans hold a 10-3 edge in congressional seats.
The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the Wisconsin case cast doubt on the broadest theory about the redistricting issue known as partisan gerrymandering.
Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court's role "is to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it," not generalized partisan preferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to rule on whether voters can decide 'millionaire tax'
Trending Legal Issues |
2018/06/13 10:59
|
Massachusetts' highest court is expected to rule on whether a proposed "millionaire tax" can go before state voters in November.
The Supreme Judicial Court is poised to issue its decision Monday after weighing the case for several months. The proposed constitutional amendment would impose a surtax of 4 percent on any portion of an individual's annual income that exceeds $1 million. The measure calls for revenues from the tax to be used for transportation and education.
Several business groups sued to stop the proposed surtax from appearing on the ballot, claiming it violates constitutional restrictions on ballot questions.
The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition collected more than 150,000 signatures in support of the measure and estimates it would raise nearly $2 billion in additional taxes annually for the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
