Articles Posted in 2012

Last week, Representative Benjamin Quayle (R-AZ) introduced the Prohibiting Back-door Amnesty Act. The Act seeks to nullify President Obama’s recent immigration policy change by rescinding various memoranda and directives that call for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in not pursuing undocumented children.

A separate bill introduced by Representative Michael C. Burgess (R-TX) seeks to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting work authorizations to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Several privacy lawsuits against Google, Inc. have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). In In Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, the JPML found that “eight actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” In a footnote, the JPML also acknowledged the presence of twelve other related actions that may also be consolidated for adjudication. In total, there are at the time of writing 16 cases consolidated in this action.

InNova Patent Licensing, LLC has filed a lawsuit against Facebook in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the patent (6,018,761) is a “system for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process.”

Last week, President Obama announced a change in his administration’s immigration policy regarding undocumented children. With an appeal to fairness and financial considerations, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to focus its efforts to deport those who pose a threat to public safety or national security instead of talented young people.

Candidates for Prosecutorial Discretion

From Secretary Napolitano’s memorandum, an individual eligible for prosecutorial discretion will have met the following qualifications:

• Age. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen and is not above the age of thirty.
• Residence. Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• Education or National Service. Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
• Criminal Background. Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety.

“Juneteenth is recognized by Americans everywhere as…”

The answer.

Some noteworthy cases this week, as reported by our Daily Summary Writers.

The 10th Circuit reversed a sentencing ruling for a defendant found to be practicing law without a license. In  US v. Kieffer, the Court found that “By all appearances, Defendant Howard Kieffer had a successful nationwide criminal law practice.” What he didn’t have was a license to go with that practice. He never attended law school, sat for a bar exam, or received a license to practice law. He was convicted of mail fraud, making false statements, wire fraud, and contempt of court. On appeal, the 10th Circuit remanded for resentencing, finding errors in the trial court’s sentencing calculations.

The 5th Circuit issued a ruling involving the First Amendment and journalistic access. In United States v. Aldawsari, a journalist appealed the district court’s gag order preventing a terrorism suspect and his legal team from speaking to the media. The journalist argued that the gag order violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit concluded that the gag order affected appellant’s right to gather news and therefore, he had standing to challenge it. However, on the merits, appellant had not shown that the gag order violated the First Amendment since the gag order was not overly broad on its face. Additionally, the gag order did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the denial of his motion to intervene did not limit his right to earn a living through news gathering in violation of his due process rights.

36 U.S. Code § 110 designates June 14 as Flag Day to commemorate the anniversary of the adoption of the Stars and Stripes as the official flag of the United States by the Continental Congress on June 14, 1777.

Here are some proclamations by the President and governors in observance of Flag Day.

• Presidential Proclamation by Barack Obama in Observance of Flag Day and National Flag Week

Google and AOL were sued for patent infringement Thursday by New Jersey-based Suffolk Technologies, LLC over their Internet search summary descriptions, or ‘snippets.’

Suffolk’s lawsuit also alleges that AOL and Google are infringing a second patent for an “Internet server and method of controlling an internet server”. The second claim alleges that AOL’s Advertising.com ad platform and Google’s AdSense service each infringe this patent. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia where AOL is based.

Here are more details on the patent lawsuit, and the complaint (below).

We’ve got three picks from our writers this week – enjoy!

Don’t Even Think of Parking Here

Feloney v. Baye
Nebraska Supreme Court (6/1/12)

For several years, Michael Feloney used his neighbor Robert Baye’s driveway to turn his vehicle to enter his garage. Eventually Baye decided to build a retaining wall on his driveway, which prevented Feloney from using Baye’s driveway. Feloney sued Baye, requesting the district court to impose a prescriptive easement on Baye’s driveway for ingress and egress. The district court granted summary judgment for Baye, concluding (1) Feloney’s use of the driveway was permissive under the “unenclosed land” rule, which provides an exception to the rule presuming adverseness when the use is over unenclosed land; and (2) thus Feloney could not prove the elements required for a prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court affirmed but for different reasons, holding (1) the presumption of permissiveness arises when the land is unenclosed wilderness and does not apply in urban settings such as in this case; (2) when the owner of a property has opened or maintained a right of way for his own use and the claimant’s use appears to be in common with that use, the presumption arises that the use is permissive; and (3) Feloney’s use of Baye’s driveway was presumptively permissive under this rationale.