May 2009 Archives

1. The court needs balance.

2. Roberts, Scalia and Thomas think they are the holy trinity.

3. Appellate courts make policy. Everyone knows that.

4. She is smart.

5. She is 55. She will be on the bench as long as Roberts.

6. She can see Yankees stadium from her house.

7. She will give Jeff Sessions a heart attack.

8. She can teach everyone to salsa.

9. Republicans think she's a racist.

10. Karl Rove thinks she isn't very smart. Harriet Myers, anyone?

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis today issued the following statement on President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"I applaud President Obama's choice to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. Today's announcement demonstrates the president's commitment to bring greater diversity of thought, perspective and experience to the nation's legal system. The daughter of working-class Puerto Rican parents, Judge Sotomayor grew up in public housing reading Nancy Drew books, which sparked her interest in the law profession.

"Driven by her mother's belief in the power of education and her own unrelenting work ethic, Sotomayor excelled in school, winning a scholarship to Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She then entered Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

"She embodies the characteristics that President Obama has said he is looking for -- a qualified nominee with legal and real-world experience, as well as an appreciation for the impact of court decisions on everyday life. Her journey in life has truly been extraordinary and should serve as an inspiration to all Americans. I trust that her nomination will move as swiftly as possible and she will be seated as the first Hispanic to the highest court in our nation."

Source: U.S. Department of Labor

The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

"If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court," Gottlieb wondered, "would Justice Sotomayor - provided she is confirmed - recuse herself from deliberations?"

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the "unwarranted invasion of privacy" for individuals whose names would be released under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

"Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information?" Gottlieb asked. "We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated."

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

Settlement Is Believed to Mark First Time the National Gallery of Art Returns a Non-Holocaust Painting

A unique and unusual settlement regarding Chaim Soutine's iconic painting entitled Piece de Boeuf (Piece of Beef c. 1923) was approved last week by Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York. Pursuant to the settlement, the painting is being returned to the Shefner Family in resolution of litigation commenced against the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., Maurice Tuchman and Esti Dunow, the authors of the Soutine Catalogue Raisonne.

The settlement is believed to be the first time that the National Gallery of Art has deaccessioned a non-Holocaust work of art from its permanent collection. The stated policy of the National Gallery of Art is not to deaccession any of its permanent collection. In consideration of the unique nature of the settlement agreement and the circumstances surrounding the painting's return, the parties have agreed that the painting shall remain on loan to the National Gallery of Art for the benefit of the American public for the near future.

"The Shefner Family is pleased to be welcoming this iconic Soutine back to their family," said Karl Geercken, of Alston & Bird LLP, lead attorney for the plaintiff. "We believe this is a positive outcome for all parties involved."

Chaim Soutine, a Russian-born French expressionist painter, lived from 1893 until 1943. His series of ten beef carcass paintings are considered to be among his most notorious and controversial works. The majority of the beef paintings are currently in prominent museums. This painting is one of the last in the series to be privately owned.

As noted by the National Gallery of Art, Piece of Beef (accession 2004.126.1) is an outstanding example of 20th century expressionist art that makes "deliberate reference to a long tradition of the subjects of butchers, market-stalls, and game in paintings by Rembrandt, Chardin, and Goya, whose works Soutine studied in his visits to the Louvre." Soutine's work has also been described as being especially significant during the 1950s to painters such as Willem de Kooning.

SOURCE The Shefner Family

Alaska Gold Co. (Alaska Gold), and NovaGold Resources Inc. (NovaGold), the owners and operators of the Rock Creek Mine near Nome, Alaska, have agreed to pay a $883,628 civil penalty to resolve violations of a stormwater discharge permit, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today.

According to the court documents, in 2006, Alaska Gold, an Alaskan corporation and its parent company, NovaGold, a Canadian corporation, applied for and received a permit for the construction of a mine near Nome. Construction began in October 2006.

Subsequently, from April 2007 until September 2008, Alaska Gold and NovaGold violated their permit on multiple occasions by discharging stormwater into Rock Creek, Lindblom Creek and Glacier Creek in violation of state water quality standards. The companies also failed to adequately prepare and update a stormwater pollution prevention plan and failed to implement and maintain best management practices to control the discharges.

"Today's settlement shows that the government will hold accountable any company that does not fully comply with stormwater requirements," said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "We expect all companies to take the necessary steps to control stormwater discharge from their operations."

"Whether it's in a far corner of Alaska or in a crowded urban area, stormwater rules protect our waterways from polluted runoff," said Michelle Pirzadeh, EPA's Acting Regional Administrator in Seattle. "The construction at Rock Creek Mine resulted in virtually unchecked runoff of silt and sediment to important fish habitat. Companies taking on construction projects of this scale need to do so responsibly and in accordance with the law."

As of fall 2008, the mine was in compliance. EPA will be monitoring the site for future violations beginning in spring 2009.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

Chris Bosh, Toronto Raptors forward, his digital marketing firm Max Deal Technologies, his agent, Henry Thomas, and his law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, announced the recovery of the domain "chrisbosh.com". The return of the domain follows an April decision in federal court for the Southern District of California.

The court ordered that Luis Zavala, and his company Hoopology.com, which registered the domain "chrisbosh.com", turn over the domain to Bosh and cease all infringing conduct. The infringing website displayed ads using Chris Bosh's name to generate revenue for Zavala and Hoopology.com, and had no actual association to Bosh. Zavala and Hoopology.com currently own nearly 800 other domains incorporating the names of various professional athletes, college and high school athletes as well as well-known entertainers, product names and other entertainment properties.

"I am very happy with this ruling," said Chris Bosh, a four-time NBA all star, and Olympic gold medalist. "My intent was to make sure that consumers find me when they are looking for me on the Internet, rather than a website that is confusing and tries make money off my name and my intellectual property."

The court ordered the transfer of the domain and $120,000, which includes statutory damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs.

"Chris is the last person who would try to confuse his fans on the web, especially given how Internet savvy he is," said Brian Heidelberger, Winston & Strawn partner who represented Bosh in this matter. "It was rewarding for us, his agent and his web design firm that the court ordered the transfer so that they can use the domain to further establish Chris' web presence via his popular viral videos and other entertainment properties."

Winston & Strawn noted that the firm has extensive experience in Internet law and has successfully represented many other major corporations and individuals in cybersquatting cases.

SOURCE Winston & Strawn LLP