Ohio State University is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider questions about the law known as Title IX in a case that affects whether more than 230 men can proceed with lawsuits against the school over decades-old sexual abuse by a team doctor, the late Richard Strauss.
The petition filed Tuesday urges the high court to hear the case and review two aspects: When does the clock start ticking on the legal time limit for filing Title IX claims, which in this case are about the university’s alleged “deliberate indifference” toward sexual harassment? And does the right to bring such claims apply to people who aren’t students or employees there, such as fans attending football games or visitors touring campus?
The school argues the divided appeals court that revived the unsettled lawsuits against OSU reached the wrong conclusions on both elements.
“Together, these rulings arm virtually anyone who has visited Ohio State over the past 40 years with a potential Title IX claim today,” and that result wasn’t what Congress intended in establishing the law in 1972, the university’s legal team wrote in the petition to the high court.
The university has repeatedly offered apologies to those Strauss harmed and has reached over $60 million in settlements with at least 296 survivors, but eventually sought to have the remaining unsettled cases dismissed. It argued that the time limit for the claims — the applicable two-year statute of limitations in Ohio — began way back during the doctor’s tenure and had long passed.
But those remaining plaintiffs have argued that the clock didn’t start until allegations became public in 2018, because they didn’t have reason before then to believe the university had enabled or covered up the doctor’s behavior.
The appeals court’s agreement with that, combined with its finding that several plaintiffs could bring such Title IX claims even though they weren’t OSU students or employees when the alleged abuse occurred, wrongly expanded the scope of Title IX in ways that are problematic and potentially very costly for all sorts of schools under that law, Ohio State contends. Its petition also says a threat of Title IX lawsuits based on decades-old allegations might deter schools from investigating such claims.
It noted that the decision from the Cincinnati-based Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about when the clock started conflicts with conclusions from federal appeals courts elsewhere, and said that points to the need for the nation’s high court to weigh in.
Newly released video in Oregon shows a defendant escaping from courthouse seconds after sheriff’s deputies remove his shackles.
The defendant Edi Villalobos Jr. was appearing in court in the Portland suburb of Hillsboro on Feb. 27 for jury selection after he allegedly stabbed two men, and killed one, two years ago, KGW-TV reported.
Security camera footage released by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday shows the 28-year-old entering the courtroom guarded by two officers. Villalobos is wearing a blue dress shirt and dark slacks.
One officer removes removes Villalobos’ hand and leg cuffs, in line with legal requirements for the court session. Then Villalobos scoots behind two desk chairs and runs out the courtroom door. No one is blocking the path to the door.
The footage then shows Villalobos racing down multiple hallways and through two doors as the two officers chase him and passersby get out of their way. Officers found Villalobos hours later hiding in a closet in a vacant apartment.
His trial has been rescheduled for September. He faces additional charges of first-degree burglary and second-degree escape. His court-appointed attorney didn’t immediately return a voicemail message Friday seeking comment.
Sgt. Danny DiPietro, a spokesman for the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, said his agency is reviewing the incident and will use training to address the lessons learned. The two deputies who were guarding Villalobos remain on regular duty.
An Arizona judge has sanctioned former Republican secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem and his attorney over a lawsuit challenging his loss in last year’s election, saying the suit “was groundless and not brought in good faith.”
Finchem’s suit raised unsupported claims that his loss was marred by misconduct and demanded the results be set aside and the election redone. He’s refused to concede to Democrat Adrian Fontes, who took office in January.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian tossed out Finchem’s lawsuit in December. Fontes and then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who is now governor, asked her to sanction Finchem for requiring them to incur the hassle and expense of defending against a baseless lawsuit.
Julian said in a ruling dated March 1 that Finchem must pay the reasonable lawyer fees incurred by the Fontes campaign and by the secretary of state’s office, which Fontes now leads. Those costs have not been determined.
Finchem did not respond to a request for comment. His lawyer, Daniel McCauley, declined to comment.
Even if everything Finchem alleged in his lawsuit was true, Julian wrote, it would not have changed the results of the election, which Finchem lost by 120,000 votes.
Julian, who was appointed by former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, also pointed to McCauley’s comments during a hearing that more experienced election lawyers had refused to take the case but he had little to lose because he was preparing to retire. That, she wrote, is an indication he knew the lawsuit had no merit.
Finchem was a prolific proponent of the lie that former President Donald Trump lost his 2020 reelection because of widespread fraud, which has been repeatedly debunked by courts, election experts and Trump’s own attorney general.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs says corrections officials will not carry out an execution even though the state Supreme Court scheduled it over the objections of the state’s new attorney general.
The Democratic governor’s vow not to execute Aaron Gunches on April 6 for his murder conviction in a 2002 killing came a day after the state Supreme Court said it must grant an execution warrant if certain appellate proceedings have concluded — and that those requirements were met in Gunches’ case.
A week ago, Hobbs appointed retired U.S. Magistrate Judge David Duncan to examine the state’s procurement of lethal injection drugs and other death penalty protocols due to the state’s history of mismanaging executions.
“Under my Administration, an execution will not occur until the people of Arizona can have confidence that the State is not violating the law in carrying out the gravest of penalties,” Hobbs said in a statement Friday.
Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office has said the agency won’t seek court orders to carry out executions while Hobbs’ review is underway.
Mayes, a Democratic who took office in January, tried to withdraw a request by her Republican predecessor, Mark Brnovich, for a warrant to Gunches. The court declined to withdraw the request on Thursday.
An appeals court has struck down a federal fisheries management rule requiring operators of privately owned charter boats to equip their vessels with tracking devices, a victory for a group of Louisiana and Florida charter operators who challenged the rule in a 2020 lawsuit.
Thursday’s ruling by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed a lower court decision upholding the regulation, which had been developed to help regulators keep track of the amount of fish caught on recreational charter vessels.
Rejecting government arguments, the panel said that tracking devices are not the type of equipment regulators can require on recreational vessels under a federal fishing regulation law passed by Congress — the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
And it said regulators, in adopting the rule, failed to adequately consider charter operators’ concerns that the regulation may violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. While not ruling on the regulation’s constitutionality, the opinion written by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod said it “very likely violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Charter operators have complained that the requirement imposed a costly, needless burden on charter operators. Lawyers for the operators say charter operations account for a tiny percentage of fishing done in the Gulf of Mexico.
A conservative tilt on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has given Republicans victories on voting restrictions, gerrymandered legislative districts and other high-stakes cases in recent years.
Voters now have a chance to tip that balance toward the left, with implications for abortion rights and perhaps the outcome of the 2024 presidential election in one of the nation’s most closely divided political battlegrounds.
Tuesday’s primary will feature two conservatives and two liberals running for the seat of a retiring conservative justice. The top two finishers advancing to the April 4 general election.
The eventual winner will determine whether conservatives maintain the majority on the officially nonpartisan court or it flips to 4-3 liberal control for at least the next two years. The court came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in the state in 2020, and both major parties are preparing for another close margin in the 2024 contest.
The Supreme Court election campaign could break national spending records if a conservative and a liberal make it through the primary, with issues such as abortion, the fate of legislative maps, union rights and challenges to election results at stake.
Four of the past six presidential races in Wisconsin have been decided by less than a percentage point, including Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and Biden’s win in 2020. In 2024, Democrats will try to reelect Sen. Tammy Baldwin and chip into Republican’s hold on six of the state’s eight congressional seats.
A woman accused in a grisly killing and dismemberment case in Wisconsin attacked her attorney Tuesday during a court hearing, moments after a judge agreed to delay her trial.
Taylor Schabusiness, 25, was seated in a Brown County circuit court when her attorney, Quinn Jolly, asked the judge for an additional two weeks for a defense expert to review his client’s competency to stand trial.
Moments after Judge Thomas Walsh reluctantly agreed to postpone her March 6 trial, Schabusiness attacked Jolly and was wrestled to the courtroom floor by a deputy, WLUK-TV reported. The courtroom was then cleared before the hearing resumed.
Schabusiness is charged with first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse and third-degree sexual assault in the killing of Shad Thyrion, 25, in February 2022. Authorities say she strangled Thyrion at a home in Green Bay, sexually abused him and dismembered his body, leaving parts of him throughout the house and in a vehicle.
Schabusiness has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. She is being held on a $2 million cash bond.
Following her courtroom outburst, the judge moved her competency hearing from Tuesday to March 6. The judge also proposed a May 15 trial date.
At the end of the hearing, Jolly told the court he would file a motion to withdraw from the case as Schabusiness’ attorney but the judge did not immediately rule on that matter.
Court Watch - Legal News
