Connect with us

World News

US Supreme Court rules district courts can expedite international child custody disputes when children’s safety is at stake – JURIST

Published

on

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court expanded the abilities of federal courts to decide whether a child in an international custody dispute should return to his or her country of origin by saying courts need not consider “all possible measures of improvement” for the return of a child when a child is at risk of serious harm. In the case of Golan v. Saada, Narkis Golan traveled to the US, where she is a citizen, in 2018 for a wedding and brought her son with Isacco Saada. Saada abused Golan but not her son. Golan did not return to Italy and moved to a shelter for victims of domestic violence. Saada requested that her son be returned to Italy under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. A US district court ruled that Golan’s son must return to Italy. However, the court recognized that the girl would be at risk of harm due to Saada’s abusive history with Golan and ordered Saada to pay Golan $30,000 and to stay away from her. The court also ruled that she could only visit the son with Golan’s consent. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the order because it found the District Court’s measures to protect Golan’s son from harm “insufficient.” The Court of Appeals ordered the district court to conduct a nine-month review to determine how to safely return Golan’s son to Italy. under the Convention to consider measures for improvement that have not been raised by the parties”, but that “it should normally address measures for improvement raised by the parties or obviously suggested by the circumstances of the case”. as quickly as possible to reach a final decision without further unnecessary delay”, since remand “delays” the case reaching a conclusion and the case “has lasted more years than it should”. Sotomayor in the opinion stated that “The District Court determined that there was a serious risk, but never had the opportunity to participate in the discretionary investigation of whether to order or deny the return under the correct legal standard.” The Supreme Court remanded the case. to the district court for further proceedings.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

Indian court keeps journalist in police custody over tweet – JURIST

Published

on

The Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday ordered journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair to be held in police custody for four days. Zubair was arrested on Monday for the offenses of hurting religious sentiments and inciting enmity under Sections 153 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2018, Zubair posted a tweet showing a hotel whose name he changed from “Honeymoon Hotel” to “Hanuman Hotel”. Hanuman is a Hindu god. Delhi police arrested him based on a complaint about that tweet, which alleged that Zubair tweeted a “questionable image for the purpose of deliberately insulting the god of a particular religion.” accused for posting the tweet in question will be retrieved at the behest of the accused Mohammed Zubair from his residence in Bangalore, that the accused has not cooperated and (with) the disclosure statement recorded, four days PC (police custody) preventive detention of the accused will be concedes as the accused will be taken to Bangalore. Zubair’s arrest has been condemned by international organizations and national news organizations, including United Nations chief Antonio Guterres, Amnesty International, the Press Club of India and other media outlets.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022