|
|
|
India's top court recognizes third gender category
Legal World News |
2014/12/11 15:10
|
India's top court on Tuesday issued a landmark verdict recognizing transgender rights as human rights, saying people can identify themselves as a third gender on official documents.
The Supreme Court directed the federal and state governments to include transgendered people in all welfare programs for the poor, including education, health care and jobs to help them overcome social and economic challenges. Previously, transgendered Indians could only identify themselves as male or female in all official documents.
The decision was praised as giving relief to the estimated 3 million Indians who are transgender.
The court noted that it was the right of every human being to choose their gender while granting rights to those who identify themselves as neither male nor female.
"All documents will now have a third category marked 'transgender.' This verdict has come as a great relief for all of us. Today I am proud to be an Indian," said Laxmi Narayan Tripathi, a transgender activist who, along with a legal agency, had petitioned the court.
The court's decision would apply to individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.
"The spirit of the (Indian) Constitution is to provide equal opportunity to every citizen to grow and attain their potential, irrespective of caste, religion or gender," the court said in its order.
The Supreme Court specified its ruling would only apply to transgender people but not to gays, lesbians or bisexuals. India's LGBT communities have been protesting the court's recent decision to reinstate a colonial-era law banning gay sex, which they say will make them vulnerable to police harassment.
The court also ordered the government to put in place public awareness campaigns to lessen the social stigma against transgender people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reaffirms BP is liable in Gulf oil spill
Law Firm Press Release |
2014/12/11 14:53
|
A federal appeals court panel has reaffirmed its ruling that BP is liable for federal Clean Water Act damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the latest loss for the oil giant as it fights court decisions that could ultimately bring $18 billion in penalties.
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that there were errors in its June 4 ruling on BP's Clean Water Act liability. The ruling released Wednesday night is not the final say from the court. BP and its minority partner in the Macondo well, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., have a request pending for the full 15-member court to reconsider the issue.
The June order and Wednesday's follow-up were issued by Judges Fortunato Benavides, Carolyn Dineen King and James Dennis. They upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling holding the well owners are liable.
BP and Anadarko had argued they were not liable because equipment failure on the leased rig Deepwater Horizon caused the April 2010 disaster. An explosion on the rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf in what became the nation's worst offshore oil disaster.
Barbier has also ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" in the disaster. BP has asked Barbier to reconsider that finding, which, if it stands, would be a factor in whether the water act penalties for the company reach an estimated $18 billion.
Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of spilled oil. The higher limit applies if the company is found grossly negligent — as BP was in Barbier's ruling. But penalties can be assessed at lower amounts.
Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf. BP has urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties.
Barbier has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much BP owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post reporter charged in Iran after day in court
Law Firm News |
2014/12/11 14:49
|
A Washington Post reporter detained in Iran for more than four months was formally charged Saturday after a day-long proceeding in a Tehran courtroom, the newspaper reported.
Jason Rezaian, the newspaper's bureau chief in Tehran since 2012, appeared in court almost five months after he was arrested July 22. The charges were the first against him since the arrest, the Post said. He is an Iranian-American who holds dual citizenship.
The newspaper, quoting a source familiar with the case, said the nature of the charges against him were not immediately clear to those not present in the courtroom. The State Department has repeatedly raised the subject of Rezaian and other Americans jailed in Iran during talks with the government about a deal to curb Iran's nuclear capacity and ease international sanctions.
The State Department tweeted early Sunday that Secretary of State John Kerry was "disappointed and concerned" with the latest developments and called on the Iranian government to drop any charges against Rezaian "and release him so he can be reunited with his family."
His detention has been extended to mid-January in recent days because the investigation is continuing, the Post said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects blood transfusion case
Law Firm Press Release |
2014/12/11 14:48
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.
The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of Gwendolyn Rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.
Rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ. She refused a blood transfusion, in keeping with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Rozier's estate accused the doctors of failing to timely recognize internal bleeding, among other allegations, which would have eliminated the need for a transfusion.
The Michigan appeals court said the transfusion was a necessary medical procedure under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
