Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court of the United States’

PHOENIX A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona’s tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might take in the meantime.Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed a ruling blocking its most controversial sections, said Friday she would consider changes to “tweak” the law to respond to the parts U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton faulted.

“Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that’s what we would do,” Brewer told The Associated Press. Brewer said she’s talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.In her temporary injunction Wednesday, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government’s case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.Brewer has said she’ll challenge the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing on Brewer’s challenge in the first week of November. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of “significant importance” the state’s right to implement a law to address “the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration.”The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because “the only effect of the district court’s injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time.”

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor’s behalf, were not immediately returned.Democrats scoffed at Brewer’s desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable.”Why would we help her?” asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. “This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees.”

House Speaker Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law.Attorneys have begun reviewing the statute to identify possible changes, he said: “It’s embryonic.”Sen. Russell Pearce, the law’s chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law’s critics scored a huge victory with the judge’s decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren’t blocked took effect Thursday. At least 70 people have been arrested.The law’s supporters reacted too, and a fund set up to help defend the measure added $75,000 Wednesday alone, giving the state more than $1.6 million to get Bolton’s ruling overturned.Meanwhile, hundreds of emails and phone calls including some threats have poured into the courthouse.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn’t say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn’t provide specifics of the threats they were examining. But a majority of the emails and phone calls to the judge’s chambers and the court clerk’s office are from people who want to complain about her ruling, officials said.”We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this,” said David Gonzales, the U.S. marshal for Arizona. “But we want to look at the people who go over the line.”

Facebook may continue business as usual while it fights a New York man’s claim he has a contract with founder Mark Zuckerberg that entitles him to 84 percent ownership of the world’s leading social networking site, a U.S. court heard on Tuesday.Paul Ceglia of Wellsville, New York, sued Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc last month claiming a 2003 contract with Zuckerberg to develop and design a website now entitled him to a majority stake in the privately-held company.

A New York State judge in Allegany County put a temporary restraining order on company asset transfers, but that order was suspended on June 30 by Judge Richard Arcara of federal court in Buffalo, New York.Arcara decided at a hearing on Tuesday that his ruling should remain in place, Facebook and a lawyer for Ceglia said.

“We have reached an agreement with respect to the progress of the next stage of the litigation,” said Ceglia’s lawyer, Terrence Connors.In a statement, the Palo Alto, California-based company said: “We are pleased that the court’s decision to stay the temporary restraining order remains in place and will continue to fight this frivolous claim.”The purported contract was dated April 2003 and ended in February 2004, according to Ceglia’s complaint, which had a two-page “‘Work for Hire’ Contract” attached.”He has contract. The contract is clean and clear,” Connors said by telephone after the hearing.Connors said he argued in court that Zuckerberg had signed the contract.

“The judge asked the question of the defense and they said they were looking into it,” Connors said. “I suspect that, if their client did not sign it, they would have made that clear.”In court documents, lawyers for Zuckerberg and Facebook wrote that Ceglia “sat on his allowed rights for over six years” and should not be permitted “to say that now, all of a sudden, he requires immediate relief.”The company, which has nearly 500 million users and 1,000 employees, argued the “purported contract itself is wrought with irregularities, inconsistencies and undefined terms.”Zuckerberg was a freshman at Harvard University in Massachusetts at the time of the purported contract.

Facebook’s court papers noted that last December a state prosecutor accused a wood-pellet fuel company that Ceglia owned with his wife of taking $200,000 from customers and failing to deliver products or refunds.The company is also defending a claim in federal court in Delaware that the most basic functions of its website infringe a patent held by a little-known company [ID:nN16102757].

Facebook ranks among the Web’s most popular sites, alongside Google Inc, Yahoo Inc and Microsoft Corp. Facebook is also one of the most closely watched Web companies by investors eager for a blockbuster initial public offering.The cases are Paul Ceglia v Zuckerberg & Facebook, New York State Supreme Court, Allegany County, No. 038798/2010 and Ceglia v Zuckerberg et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, No. 10-00569.(Reuters)