Latest news with #CourtofAppeals
Arab Times
a day ago
- Arab Times
Kuwaiti man acquitted in drug use, DUI after appeal
KUWAIT CITY, June 19: The Court of Appeals overturned the two-year prison sentence imposed on a Kuwaiti citizen with a criminal record, and then acquitted him of drug use and driving under the influence due to invalid procedures. Earlier, the Public Prosecution charged the defendant with the possession of psychotropic substances for personal consumption, as he allegedly failed to prove that he obtained a permit to do so. He was found to be a repeat offender and was sentenced to three years and four months in prison with hard labor for another felony. He also drove under the influence of amphetamine -- a psychotropic substance -- despite being a repeat offender, as described in the charge sheet. Attorney Mohammad Jaber Baqer, the lawyer of the defendant, appeared before the Court of Appeals, where he argued that the search of his client was invalid because it was conducted outside the legally prescribed circumstances, and that the defendant had denied the incident from the beginning of the investigation. The court accepted the arguments of Baqer and based its ruling on the legality of the initial arrest and the limits of the subsequent search, which were intended to strip the arrested person of any weapons or tools that might aid him in escaping or harming himself or others under Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the search of a small box in the defendant's possession exceeded the limits; as such a box could not contain a weapon or a means of escape or harm. It then ruled that this search is invalid due to exceeding the legal purpose and the invalidity of the evidence derived from it. The court declared that all the narcotics seized from the defendant, which were purportedly inside the small box, are considered inconclusive. It added that such evidence cannot be used as basis for a conviction ruling as it was a direct result of an invalid procedure. It added that the case documents lacked any other legitimate evidence that could prove the first and second charges after excluding the invalid evidence.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sotomayor voices ‘sadness' in reading gender-affirming care dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court's most senior liberal justice, read her dissent aloud from the bench Wednesday to stress her forceful disagreement with the court effectively greenlighting gender-affirming care bans across the country. The justices reserve reading their dissents aloud for only a handful of cases, and Sotomayor was the first this term to do so. She spoke for nearly 15 minutes. 'The majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review,' Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. The Supreme Court's six conservative justices all voted Wednesday to uphold Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, rejecting the Biden administration's challenge that it amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination. The decision stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country, which have also come under legal challenges. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices all said the law's sex-based lines compelled a more exacting standard, known as heightened scrutiny, to determine whether the statute can survive. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, applied a more lenient test that only asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 'That marks the first time in 50 years that this Court has applied such deferential review, normally employed to assess run-of-the-mill economic regulations, to legislation that explicitly differentiates on the basis of sex,' Sotomayor wrote. 'As a result, the Court never even asks whether Tennessee's sex-based classification imposes the sort of invidious discrimination that The Equal Protection Clause prohibits.' The three justices also agreed the law must face the heightened test because it discriminates against transgender people. Sotomayor wrote that transgender Americans lack the political power to vindicate their interests before the legislatures passing the care bans. 'In refusing to say as much, the Court today renders transgender Americans doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote. But while Sotomayor and Jackson went on to question whether Tennessee's law would survive under their standard, Kagan didn't join that part of the dissent. She said she would've left it for the lower courts to figure out. 'The record evidence here is extensive, complex, and disputed, and the Court of Appeals (because it applied only rational-basis review) never addressed the relevant issues,' Kagan wrote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
2 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
Eric Adams gets big win from court in retired NYC worker health care battle — but most of his rivals vow to kill it anyway
Mayor Eric Adams scored a massive legal win in the controversial battle to move retired city workers to higher cost health-care plans — but nearly all the candidates running to replace him as mayor are already planning to stop the move in its tracks. The Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the city could shift retirees to Medicare Advantage plans – a private healthcare program that utilizes Medicare subsidies in lieu of traditional Medicare and supplements – after years of fighting by retiree advocacy groups. The ruling found that retirees who sued over the change had insufficiently argued that adopting the advantage plans would lead to worsened care and that assurances that the city would keep them on Medicare plans wasn't legally enforceable. Advertisement 3 Mayoral candidates running against Adams, who is running for re-election as an independent, don't want to see the health care proposal get passed. Getty Images Adams' term is up at year's end and he dropped out of a Democratic Party primary that is set for next week. Adams is now running as an independent in a longshot bid, though the Democratic Party torchbearer would be far and away the favorite to win election in the deeply blue city. Advertisement Mayoral hopefuls Comptroller Brad Lander and frontrunner Andrew Cuomo have both publicly opposed the switch and have specifically called for 30-to-60 day grace periods for families to seek other insurance after the death of a retiree and expediting the reimbursements process, as part of their pledge to retiree groups. Every other candidate – with the exception of independent Jim Walden – also oppose the switch, according to a Citizen Budget Commission questionnaire. 3 The Court of Appeals granted Mayor Eric Adams a major victory as the city can shift retired city workers to Medicare Advantage plans. C Davids/ – While surging socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani recently opposed the plan on his campaign website, a source with knowledge told The Post that he didn't sign a pledge to support the retirees nor did he go to the debate hosted by the advocacy group New York City Public Service Retirees. Advertisement The source continued to say that this was in order to prevent losing an endorsement from the public service union DC37, which supports the switch to Medicare advantage plans. The Mamdani campaign pointed to a prior 2022 statement where the Assemblyman opposed switching to Medicare Advantage but declined to comment about allegedly staying tightlipped in an effort to lose support. The ruling even raised the ire of comptroller candidate Justin Brannan. 'Our city should never, ever be screwing retirees. And neither should the courts. No one will ever want to work for New York City again. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam. Enough!' Brannan said. Advertisement 3 Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo and mayoral hopeful Brad Lander both oppose the plan. Paul Martinka Comptroller candidate and current Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine didn't respond to a request for comment but said in a recent debate that he would make a decision on 'the details of the plan in consultation with retirees, with current workers, with labor leaders.' The plan was first introduced by former Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2021, who argued the program would lead to over $600 million in annual savings by utilizing federal subsidies. The mayor's office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Sotomayor voices ‘sadness' in reading gender-affirming care dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court's most senior liberal justice, read her dissent aloud from the bench on Wednesday to stress her forceful disagreement with the court effectively greenlighting gender-affirming care bans across the country. The justices reserve reading their dissents aloud for only a handful of cases, and Sotomayor was the first this term to do so. She spoke for nearly 15 minutes. 'The majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review,' Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. The Supreme Court's six conservative justices on Wednesday all voted to uphold Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, rejecting the Biden administration's challenge that it amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination. The decision stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country, which have also come under legal challenges. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices all said the law's sex-based lines compelled a more exacting standard, known as heightened scrutiny, to determine whether the statute can survive. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, applied a more lenient test that only asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 'That marks the first time in 50 years that this Court has applied such deferential review, normally employed to assess run-of-the-mill economic regulations, to legislation that explicitly differentiates on the basis of sex,' Sotomayor wrote. 'As a result, the Court never even asks whether Tennessee's sex-based classification imposes the sort of invidious discrimination that The Equal Protection Clause prohibits.' The three justices also agreed the law must face the heightened test because it discriminates against transgender people. Sotomayor wrote that transgender Americans lack the political power to vindicate their interests before the legislatures passing the care bans. 'In refusing to say as much, the Court today renders transgender Americans doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote. But while Sotomayor and Jackson went on to question whether Tennessee's law would survive under their standard, Kagan didn't join that part of the dissent. She said she would've left it for the lower courts to figure out. 'The record evidence here is extensive, complex, and disputed, and the Court of Appeals (because it applied only rational-basis review) never addressed the relevant issues,' Kagan wrote.
Arab Times
5 days ago
- Arab Times
Major Legal Victory for Kuwaiti Women in Property Rights Case
KUWAIT CITY, June 15: In a ruling considered a major victory for women, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling declaring a Kuwaiti woman entitled to take the necessary measures to obtain a residential plot ownership document -- shared equally between her and her husband, without requiring the latter's signature. The court also upheld the ruling that she could sign a loan agreement with a full mortgage on the property as security for the debt. The plaintiff's lawyer, Attorney Ali Al-Ali, presented facts related to the case. He challenged the director general of the Public Authority for Housing Welfare, assistant undersecretary for Real Estate Registration and Documentation at the Ministry of Justice, and the Kuwait Credit Bank director. He requested a ruling in favor of his client, stating that she has the right to take the necessary measures to obtain a plot ownership document -- shared equally between her and her husband, without requiring his signature. Ali Al-Ali pointed out that Housing Care Law grants the wife the right to the document and does not require the husband's approval to obtain it. He explained that his client was the wife of the first defendant with a valid legal contract, and they had earlier submitted a request for housing care to the justice agent, and the plot was received, and that she and her husband completed all the procedures, conditions and controls necessary to obtain the ownership document. However, the husband stopped completing those procedures without any legal basis or justification in order to deprive her of her right to the plot, despite her need to secure housing. The court said in its reasoning that it did not see any justification for what the husband did, so his refusal reveals intent to harm the plaintiff, and that he abused his right. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff's request. Al-Seyassah/Arab Times Staff
