Appeals Court Upholds Patriot Act Ruling
Lawyer Blogs
A federal appeals court ruled that some portions of the U.S. Patriot Act dealing with foreign terrorist organizations are unconstitutional because the language is too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence.
The ruling released Monday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirms a 2005 decision by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins, who ruled on a petition seeking to clear the way for U.S. groups and individuals to assist political organizations in Turkey and Sri Lanka.
Collins said language in the Patriot Act was vague on matters involving training, expert advice or assistance, personnel and service to foreign terrorist organizations. Her ruling prevented the federal government from enforcing those provisions as they apply to the terrorist groups named in the lawsuit.
Without clear language, the plaintiffs argued, those who provide assistance to foreign terrorist organizations could be subject to prison terms of up to 15 years.
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said his agency was reviewing the ruling to determine a response.
In its 27-page decision, the appeals court said that to survive a vagueness challenge, a statute "must be sufficiently clear to put a person of ordinary intelligence on notice that his or her contemplated conduct is unlawful."
The language covered by the ruling remained unconstitutionally vague despite Congressional amendments to the Patriot Act meant to remedy the problems, the appeals court ruled.
Related listings
-
Wineries Fight State Shipping Laws
Lawyer Blogs 12/10/2007Unionville Vineyards plans to expand by planting more pinot noir and adding Rhone varietals next year, but winemaker Cameron Stark knows he's fighting an uphill battle. He recognizes New Jersey's reputation as a wine producer isn't exactly that of Ca...
-
Court Battle Looms over Nina Wang's Estate
Lawyer Blogs 12/10/2007A High Court judge in Hong Kong Monday appointed an administrator to oversee the estate of Asia's richest woman, the late Nina Wang, ahead of an anticipated court battle over her fortune estimated to be at least 4.2 billion dollars. Wang, 69, the for...
-
Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases
Lawyer Blogs 12/05/2007An atheist pleaded with a federal appeals court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs."I want to be treated equally," said Michae...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.