ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Supreme Court takes al-Marri detention case, employment discrimination appeal

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court granted certiorari Friday in two cases. In al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, the Court will decide whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed after the 9/11 attacks, authorizes the indefinite military detention of of a person lawfully residing in the US, without criminal charge or trial, based on government assertions that the detainee conspired with al Qaeda to engage in terrorist activities. The case involves Qatari national Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri who has been held since 2003 solely on the basis of a presidential declaration that he is an "enemy combatant." The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in July upheld the president's authority to order al-Marri's detention. The incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama will have the power to change the Bush administration's policy, potentially ending the case before a ruling by the Court by releasing or charging al-Marri. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, the Court will decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case. The case involves an executive who claims he was passed over for a promotion in favor of a younger employee in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In 2003, the Court ruled in Desert Palace v. Costa that direct evidence - evidence linking an adverse employment action to a specific motive - is not required in a mixed-motive case under Title VII, but left open the issue of whether direct evidence would be required outside the Title VII context. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in May that direct evidence is required under the ADEA.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on December 05, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0247 secs (new cache)