A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab." By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request. The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030. Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2. The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Court to weigh cocaine cases, could alter sentencing in Ohio
Prosecutors across Ohio are concerned that a ruling under review by Ohio's top court could delay and shorten sentences for suspects caught with cocaine and force costly changes upon law enforcement.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to uphold an appeals court decision calling into question how prosecutors have handled cocaine cases for years. It all comes eastdown to weight.
A state appeals court in Toledo ruled last year prosecutors should have determined how much pure cocaine a suspect arrested in a drug sting had with him or her instead of sentencing him based on the weight of the entire amount.
The appeals court ruled that Ohio's drug laws say that what matters is the weight of the cocaine only — not filler material such as baking soda that's often added by drug dealers to stretch out their supply and increase profits.
Prosecutors along with the state Attorney General's office argue that such a narrow interpretation creates a new distinction for cocaine that isn't applied to any other illegal drugs.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to uphold an appeals court decision calling into question how prosecutors have handled cocaine cases for years. It all comes eastdown to weight.
A state appeals court in Toledo ruled last year prosecutors should have determined how much pure cocaine a suspect arrested in a drug sting had with him or her instead of sentencing him based on the weight of the entire amount.
The appeals court ruled that Ohio's drug laws say that what matters is the weight of the cocaine only — not filler material such as baking soda that's often added by drug dealers to stretch out their supply and increase profits.
Prosecutors along with the state Attorney General's office argue that such a narrow interpretation creates a new distinction for cocaine that isn't applied to any other illegal drugs.
Kansas Supreme Court invalidates school funding law
The Kansas Supreme Court struck down a stopgap law for funding the state's public schools on Thursday, saying it left poor districts $54 million short.
The justices unanimously ruled that the Republican-backed law doesn't comply with the Kansas Constitution and gave lawmakers until the end of June to write a new law. The high court has yet to decide on the larger question of whether Kansas must boost its education spending by at least $548 million a year.
Lawmakers approved the 2015 law as temporary fix to replace a per-student formula for distributing more than $4 billion a year to school in favor of stable "block grants." The law was meant to give lawmakers time to devise another system for distributing more $4 billion a year in aid to its 286 public school districts.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the temporary law, which was set to expire in July 2017, violates the Kansas Constitution's requirement that the state finance a suitable education for every student.
The justices unanimously ruled that the Republican-backed law doesn't comply with the Kansas Constitution and gave lawmakers until the end of June to write a new law. The high court has yet to decide on the larger question of whether Kansas must boost its education spending by at least $548 million a year.
Lawmakers approved the 2015 law as temporary fix to replace a per-student formula for distributing more than $4 billion a year to school in favor of stable "block grants." The law was meant to give lawmakers time to devise another system for distributing more $4 billion a year in aid to its 286 public school districts.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the temporary law, which was set to expire in July 2017, violates the Kansas Constitution's requirement that the state finance a suitable education for every student.
Apeals court tosses order blocking Mississippi executions
An appeals court Wednesday upheld Mississippi's method of lethal injection, rejecting arguments from death row inmates who opposed the state's plan to use drugs not specifically approved by state law.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate ruled incorrectly in August when he issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from executing prisoners.
The opinion by Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod rejected arguments by death row prisoners that Mississippi can't execute them because the state no longer will be using the particular class of drugs required by state law. She wrote that if inmates want to pursue such claims, they should do so in state court.
Mississippi law requires a three-drug process, with an "ultra-short-acting barbiturate" followed by a paralyzing agent and a drug that stops an inmate's heart. But Mississippi and other states had increasing difficulty obtaining such drugs after 2010, as manufacturers began refusing to sell it for executions.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate ruled incorrectly in August when he issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from executing prisoners.
The opinion by Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod rejected arguments by death row prisoners that Mississippi can't execute them because the state no longer will be using the particular class of drugs required by state law. She wrote that if inmates want to pursue such claims, they should do so in state court.
Mississippi law requires a three-drug process, with an "ultra-short-acting barbiturate" followed by a paralyzing agent and a drug that stops an inmate's heart. But Mississippi and other states had increasing difficulty obtaining such drugs after 2010, as manufacturers began refusing to sell it for executions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)