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...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.