#Maryland Litigation Law

[sarikurlandbankruptcylaw]

Business or civil disputes in Rockville, MD? Get legal help from an experienced Rockville litigation attorney from Kurland Law Group. For more information contact us at 301-321-8394.

[dc-probate-attorney]

Proving Undue Influence

The Gormley Law Office is pleased to present this estate litigation series. We represent people every day in Washington DC and in Maryland in probate matters and estate litigation. Contact us today! We are frequently asked to represent heirs to an estate that believe they have been shortchanged in a family member’s estate because of interference by another family member or an outsider. Often,…

[mariacallous]

Eleven abortion referendums will be in front of voters in 10 states this Election Day — the largest number of pro-choice amendments the country has ever seen during a single election cycle.

From red states like Missouri and South Dakota to blue states like New York, the abortion rights ballot measures could have a monumental impact on access throughout the country. Over 20 states have enacted abortion bans since the Supreme Court repealed federal abortion protections in 2022. Citizen-led initiatives, like most of this year’s abortion rights measures, have become the response to many of the near-total abortion bans passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures.

“This is a public health crisis that we have right now,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, who has worked with campaigns in all 10 states where an abortion rights amendment is in play. “The citizens, in the absence of their local elected officials, are addressing it. They’re taking power into their own hands.”

In 2022, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion, which at the time was the most in a single year. Voters protected abortion care in every state it was on the ballot during that election cycle, including in deeply Republican states like Kentucky. Ohio, a state with a long and extreme anti-abortion history, also voted to codify abortion rights into its state constitution just last year.

This year’s ballot measures range in their approaches to and levels of abortion protections. Nebraska will have two competing abortion measures, one to restrict access and one to expand. Maryland, New York and Colorado are all seeking to codify abortion protections throughout pregnancy — exceptions to the rest of the measures, which would primarily enshrine access until viability or around 24 weeks. Colorado’s Amendment 79 would also allow the use of public funds for abortion care. Missouri’s Amendment 3 would restore abortion access until viability and protect women from being prosecuted for pregnancy outcomes like miscarriage and stillbirth — a particularly progressive measure in a notoriously anti-abortion state.

If passed, most amendments would generally go into effect shortly after Election Day or at the start of 2025. Measures in Montana and South Dakota would tentatively go into effect in July 2025, while Nevada’s may not until 2026. There will be litigation in any state that passes a pro-choice measure; this is likely the time when states will bring legal challenges against successful ballot initiatives and fight to keep other abortion regulations like waiting periods and other long-standing targeted restrictions on abortion providers.

The historic number of abortion rights measures is emblematic of just how politically prominent abortion care has become. And despite conservatives who claim to want to “leave abortion to the states” since Roe fell, many did everything in their power to stop voters from weighing in on abortion rights measures.

“This is not just a reproductive freedom issue, it’s also a democracy issue,” Fields Figueredo said. “It’s about who has power and who has the determination to control what happens to their body.”

Arizona

Arizona’s Proposition 139 seeks to enshrine access to abortion up until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, into the state constitution. If passed, the state of Arizona will not be able to limit access to abortion before viability unless the government “has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible,” according to the measure. Under the amendment, also known as the Right to Abortion Initiative, abortions would be allowed after fetal viability only when the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk. The measure also bars future laws from punishing anyone who assists someone getting an abortion.

The state currently has a 15-week abortion ban in effect with no exceptions for rape or incest. Earlier this year, the Arizona state Supreme Court greenlit a near-total abortion ban that the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal.

The measure needs a simple majority to pass.

Colorado

Colorado’s pro-choice amendment would create a constitutional right to abortion care throughout pregnancy and mandate that Medicaid and private insurance companies cover abortion care. Amendment 79, also known as the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative, would repeal a 1984 addition in the Colorado constitution which barred the use of public funds for abortion care.

The measure is distinct for two reasons. Nearly every other state where abortion is on the ballot is trying to enshrine access until fetal viability, not throughout pregnancy. Additionally, requiring that abortion care be a covered service under all health insurance plans is a step pro-choice groups have been pushing for for decades.

The state does not currently restrict abortion at any point in pregnancy, making it a refuge for those who need abortion care later in pregnancy. The measure needs at least 55% of the vote to pass.

Florida

Amendment 4 would restore abortion access until viability by adding language to the Florida constitution that states “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The ballot measure, also titled Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion, does not change the state’s current law that requires parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion.

Since the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade in 2022, the state passed a 15-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and then a six-week ban with exceptions for rape or incest. Under the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), Florida has become one of the most extreme anti-abortion states in the country. If voters restore abortion access until viability, it would reestablish Florida as a critical safe haven in the Southeast, where most states have near-total abortion bans.

Florida has a supermajority requirement for citizen-led ballot initiatives, meaning the amendment needs to get at least 60% of the vote to pass.

Maryland

Maryland’s Question 1 guarantees the right to reproductive freedom, defined in the measure as “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.” The amendment specifies that the government cannot “directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

The Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment would codify Maryland’s current law, which allows access to abortion care at any point in pregnancy and has made the state a safe haven for abortion access. It’s an exception to most other pro-choice measures on the ballot this year because it enshrines abortion access throughout pregnancy without limits. Colorado and New York are the only two other states where pro-choice groups are hoping to codify abortion access throughout pregnancy.

The amendment would pass with a simple majority.

Missouri

Amendment 3 would codify the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion access until fetal viability, into the Missouri constitution. The measure would protect the right to make decisions about other reproductive health issues including birth control, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, miscarriage care and “respectful birthing conditions.” The Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative states plainly that, if passed, Missourians cannot be prosecuted for their pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, stillbirth and abortion.

The initiative is extremely progressive for a deep-red state that has such a long anti-abortion history. The state only had three abortion clinics in 2017, and the last clinic closed shortly after Roe fell. Missouri currently has a near-total abortion ban with an exception to save the life of a pregnant person.

If the amendment passes, it would be a huge win for reproductive rights groups, and Missouri could become one of the few Midwest states with abortion access. But the state would still have a lot of work to do since many of the prior abortion regulations, such as Missouri’s 72-hour waiting period and ban on telemedicine, would need to be challenged in court.

The measure needs a simple majority to pass.

Montana

Montana’s Right to Abortion Initiative would enshrine the “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion” until fetal viability. The government could regulate abortion after viability except in cases where abortion care is needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. The measure also protects Montanans from being prosecuted for “actual, potential, perceived or alleged pregnancy outcomes,” as well as protecting anyone who helps someone seeking abortion care.

The amendment would codify the state’s current abortion law, which restricts abortion care after 24 weeks. Montana voters need a simple majority to pass the amendment.

Nebraska

Nebraska will have two ballot measures addressing abortion, one in favor of abortion rights and one against. It’s the first time competing abortion measures will be on a state ballot since the Supreme Court repealed Roe.

The pro-choice amendment, also known as the Right to Abortion Initiative, would enshrine abortion access until fetal viability into the state constitution. The measure opposed to abortion rights seeks to codify the state’s current 12-week abortion ban, or a ban on abortion after the first trimester. The anti-choice initiative does have exceptions for rape, incest and in cases of a medical emergency.

Both amendments need a simple majority to pass.

Nevada

Nevada’s Question 6 would enshrine the right to abortion access until viability and when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant person throughout pregnancy. The amendment states that the right to abortion until viability “shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.”

The measure, which needs a simple majority to pass, would enshrine Nevada’s current abortion law into the state constitution.

New York

Proposal 1 would amend New York’s Equal Rights Amendment to include protections for “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” which would codify abortion protections throughout pregnancy. While it does not explicitly state abortion protections, including protections for pregnancy outcomes and reproductive decisions in the state constitution would safeguard abortion access in the state.

The state’s Equal Rights Amendment currently criminalizes the denial of rights to people based on “race, color, creed or religion.” Proposal 1 would add ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, as well as reproductive health outcomes.

The initiative is noteworthy because, if passed, it will be the first equal rights amendment to include protections for pregnant people and pregnancy outcomes. Abortion is currently legal in New York until viability. Expanding the equal rights amendment to include pregnant people would codify the current law.

South Dakota

South Dakota’s Amendment G breaks down abortion protections by trimesters, similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The initiative would codify abortion protections until 13 weeks or through the first trimester, and then allow the government to regulate abortion in the second trimester “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” In the third trimester, the state could regulate or ban abortions except in instances when the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk.

If the measure passes it would be a huge win for abortion rights groups because the state currently has a near-total abortion ban with no exceptions other than to save the life of a pregnant person. Pro-choice groups would still have a long way to go in restoring abortion access in the state, however. Even before Roe fell, South Dakota only had one abortion clinic left and zero in-state providers, and some regulations — like the state’s 72-hour waiting period before being able to access care — would likely need to be challenged in court.

The initiative needs a simple majority to pass.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lois Beckett at The Guardian:

California became the fifth state in the US to ban universities from admitting students based on their family connections, and the second state, after Maryland, to extend the ban to private, non-profit universities. “Hard work, good grades and a well-rounded background should earn you a spot in the incoming class – not the size of the check your family can write or who you’re related to,” Phil Ting, the Democratic state assembly member, who authored the legislation, said in a statement. Private non-profit colleges popular with wealthy Americans, including Stanford and the University of Southern California, will be affected by the new legislation, which goes into effect in September 2025. Illinois, Colorado and Virginia have previously passed legislation banning public university admission based on “legacy status”, or connections to donors, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.

The wave of new state laws comes in response to the decision last year by the supreme court’s conservative majority to bar both private and public universities from considering race as a factor in college admissions. The litigation over racially-based “affirmative action” put a spotlight on all the ways that white students benefit from non-racially-coded admissions practices, particularly “legacy” admissions, which media outlets dubbed “affirmative action for rich kids”. The California law will ban admissions offices from “favoring applicants whose family members are graduates of or are significant donors to the school”, which Ting’s office called an “unfair practice often results in a wealthier, less racially diverse student body”.

With the signing of AB1780 into law, California becomes the 5th state to bar legacy admissions in public colleges and the 2nd to do so for all colleges.

[rjzimmerman]

Climate Lawsuits Are Exploding. Are Homicide Charges Next? (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over climate change are piling up. Legislators and activists are pushing prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. Children are suing governments, arguing that their right to a healthy environment is being trampled on.

Welcome to the new universe of climate litigation, where the courts have become one of the most important battlegrounds in the fight over the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet.

Around the world, both innovative and old-school legal arguments are being used to go after companies and governments to seek redress or forestall future harms. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry and its allies have powerful new legal grounds at their disposal to challenge climate rules. A number of cases could be taken up by the highest courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and The Hague.

There are myriad lawsuits, which fit into several important categories. Here’s what to watch in the coming months.

Lawsuits against oil giants are spreading.

At least 86 lawsuits have been filed globally against the world’s biggest oil, gas and coal producers, according to a report published Thursday by the advocacy and research groups Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics. The vast majority of those were filed in just the past nine years since the signing of the 2015 Paris accord, the landmark agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Cities and states are among the plaintiffs.

In the United States, more than two dozen of the lawsuits against oil companies have been filed by state and local governments.

Many argue that the oil companies knew about the dangers of climate change for years, but concealed that information. The approach is similar to those of past lawsuits that led to landmark settlements with tobacco and opioid companies.

Should there be criminal charges?

There are growing calls for prosecutors to consider criminal charges related to climate change. This year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, both Democrats, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate oil companies for what they called a “decades-long disinformation campaign” about the effects of fossil fuels. In a recent paper in The Harvard Environmental Law Review, David Arkush, of the advocacy group Public Citizen, and Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University, argued that in the United States, fossil fuel companies could be charged with types of homicide short of first-degree murder based on claims of deception about climate change.

Young people push for ‘climate rights.’

The nonprofit law center Our Children’s Trust says it has filed climate lawsuits and legal actions in all 50 states. Its most well-known case is Juliana v. United States, in which 21 young people argue that the government violated their constitutional rights by failing to protect the environment. It’s become a model for similar cases abroad, including a recent victory for environmentalists in South Korea. The Juliana case has been wending its way through the courts for nearly a decade. In 2020, an appeals court threw it out entirely, concluding that the courts were not the right venue for the grievances. But on Thursday, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court to send the case back to trial.

[beardedmrbean]

Maryland’s largest school district does not have to allow parents to opt their K-5 children out of classes and books that discuss LGBTQ topics like sexuality and gender, at least for now, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The 2-1 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision denying a preliminary injunction on the basis that the parents had not shown how the policy – initiated by the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) board – would violate their children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

The parents had argued that refusal to provide an opt-out from their children’s exposure to LGBT-themed books and related discussions violates federal and state law.

Some of the book titles include "The Pride Puppy," "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," and "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope." 

The parents argued that the books contradict their religious duty to train their children in accordance with their faith on "what it means to be male and female; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes."

The litigants - three sets of parents who are Muslim, Jewish and Christian, along with a parental rights organization -- argue that the responsibility for what their children learn should fall to them, instead of the schools.

However, the court ruled that the mere exposure to ideas contrary to one’s faith is not enough of a burden to implicate the First Amendment and that exposure to issues that one disagrees with, even for religious reasons, is "part of the compromise parents make when choosing to send their children to public schools," the ruling states.

"We take no view on whether the Parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools," U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, President George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority in the opinion.

"At this early stage, however, given the Parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction."

U.S. Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., who was appointed by former President Trump, dissented, writing that he disagreed with the district court motion finding the parents failed to establish that the board burdened their First Amendment rights. 

"The parents have shown the board’s decision to deny religious opt-outs burdened these parents’ right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children," Quattlebaum wrote.

"I also find that the board’s actions, at least under this record, were neither neutral nor generally applicable. Finally, I find the parents have established the other requirements for a preliminary injunction. So, I would reverse the district court and enjoin the Montgomery County School Board of Education from denying religious opt-outs for instruction to K-5 children involving the texts."

Eric Baxter, a senior counsel and vice president at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing the parents, tells Fox 5 DC that the group is disappointed with the decision and says the themes are inappropriate for students.  

"They involve issues around sexuality that are simply too mature for such young children," Baxter said. 

Baxter tells The Hill they plan to appeal the ruling.

"The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools," Baxter tells the publication. "That runs contrary to the First Amendment, Maryland law, the School Board’s own policies, and basic human decency."

MCPS, which is the wealthiest district in Maryland, announced in 2022 efforts to include an LGBTQ-inclusive reading list as part of its English language arts curriculum. The decision sparked several rallies pushing for the school district to put the opt-out policy back in place.

Bethany Mandel, a mother and contributing writer for Deseret News, told "Fox & Friends First" last year that she believed it's a parent's right to tackle controversial topics, including sexuality and gender ideology, with their children on their own terms.

"Some of the books were first, second, third-grade read-aloud books about transgender ideology, about sexuality," Mandel told Carley Shimkus. "Some of the parents who spoke in favor of banning the opt-out said… 'I'm gay, and a book didn't make me gay and... There's no way that your child, if you shield them in this manner, can sort of operate in the outside world,' and that's not what anyone is asserting."

"No one thinks that our kids can turn gay by reading a book. What we're asserting is that children are best learning about these sort of tricky, sticky subjects from their parents, and their parents should have a right to determine how their kids are first introduced to this," she continued. 

[partisan-by-default]

Tyson, other poultry processors to pay $180 million to settle workers’ wage claims

Tyson Foods and eight other poultry processors have agreed to pay $180 million to resolve a lawsuit in U.S. court claiming they conspired to suppress poultry workers' wages, in an agreement that pushes total settlements in the case to nearly $400 million.

The workers’ attorneys on Monday in a court filing asked U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland to preliminarily approve the nine new settlements.

Other settling defendants include Foster Farms, Koch Foods and Butterball. Major meat processors including Perdue and Sanderson earlier agreed to settle the workers’ claims.

Tyson, Koch, Foster and Butterball denied any wrongdoing, but settled to avoid the uncertainty, burden and cost of further litigation, settlement papers show. The other settling companies also denied the workers’ claims.

Representatives from Tyson, Koch, Foster and Butterball did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The workers alleged the meat processors violated U.S. antitrust law by agreeing to fix compensation at poultry processing plants, hatcheries and other workplaces since 2009.

Tyson and subsidiary Keystone said they will pay $115.5 million, and Koch is paying $18.5 million, the settlement papers show. Foster will pay $13.3 million, and Butterball agreed to pay $8.5 million.

[reasoningdaily]

2022 - Enterprise giant Oracle is facing a fresh privacy class action claim in the U.S.

The suit, which was filed Friday as a 66-page complaint in the Northern District of California, alleges the tech giant’s “worldwide surveillance machine” has amassed detailed dossiers on some five billion people, accusing the company and its adtech and advertising subsidiaries of violating the privacy of the majority of the people on Earth.

The suit has three class representatives: Dr Johnny Ryan, senior fellow of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL); Michael Katz-Lacabe, director of research at The Center for Human Rights and Privacy; and Dr Jennifer Golbeck, a professor of computer science at the University of Maryland — who say they are “acting on behalf of worldwide Internet users who have been subject to Oracle’s privacy violations”.

The litigants are represented by the San Francisco-headquartered law firm, Lieff Cabraser, which they note has run significant privacy cases against Big Tech.

The key point here is there is no comprehensive federal privacy law in the U.S. — so the litigation is certainly facing a hostile environment to make a privacy case — hence the complaint references multiple federal, constitutional, tort and state laws, alleging violations of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Constitution of the State of California, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as competition law, and the common law.

It remains to be seen whether this “patchwork” approach to a tricky legal environment will prevail — for an expert snap analysis of the complaint and some key challenges this whole thread is highly recommended. But the substance of the complaint hinges on allegations that Oracle collects vast amounts of data from unwitting Internet users, i.e. without their consent, and uses this surveillance intelligence to profile individuals, further enriching profiles via its data marketplace and threatening people’s privacy on a vast scale — including, per the allegations, by the use of proxies for sensitive data to circumvent privacy controls.

Commenting on the suit in a statement, Ryan said: “Oracle has violated the privacy of billions of people across the globe. This is a Fortune 500 company on a dangerous mission to track where every person in the world goes, and what they do. We are taking this action to stop Oracle’s surveillance machine.”

A spokesman for Oracle declined to comment on the litigation.

A couple of years ago the firm was facing class action suits, along with Salesforce, via a legal challenge to its tracking in Europe — which intended to focus on the legality of their consent to track web users, citing the region’s (contrastingly) comprehensive data protection/privacy laws.

However the European legal challenges, which were filed in the Netherlands and the U.K., have faced tough going — with a Dutch court ruling the suit inadmissible last year, because (per reports) it judged that the not-for-profit pursing the class action had failed to demonstrate it represented the alleged injured parties and so did not have legal standing. (Although earlier this year the organization behind the suit, the Privacy Collective, said it would appeal.)

The U.K. branch of the legal action, meanwhile, was stayed pending the outcome of an earlier class-action style privacy suit against Google — but last year the U.K. Supreme Court sided with the tech giant, blocking that representative action and dealing a blow to the prospects of other similar suits.

In the Lloyd v Google case, the court found that damage/loss must be suffered in order to claim compensation — and therefore that the need to prove damage/loss on an individual basis cannot be skipped — derailing the litigation’s push for a uniform “loss of control” of personal data for each member of the claimed representative class to stand in its stead.

The ruling was considered a hammer blow to opt-out class actions for privacy claims at the time — clearly throwing another spanner in the works of the Oracle-Salesforce class action’s ability to proceed in the U.K.

The challenges of litigating privacy class actions in Europe likely explain the push by digital rights experts to test similar claims in the U.S.

Oracle’s BlueKai tracks you across the web. That data spilled online

Oracle and Salesforce hit with GDPR class action lawsuits over cookie tracking consent

[uboat53]

New laws coming into effect as of the New Year!

In Idaho and Louisiana, bans on gender affirming care for minors will come into effect. West Virginia also has a ban, but it allows access with parental consent and a medical diagnosis. Meanwhile, in Maryland, gender affirming care will be covered by Medicaid and Hawaii is requiring that new marriage certificates be issued on request to people who change their gender and is replacing "mother" and "father" with "birthing parent" and "non-birthing parent" in state law. In Colorado, buildings that are at least partly owned by government entities will be required to have at least one gender-neutral bathroom on any floor that has public restrooms.

Washington state will make new or renewing insurance plans will no longer be allowed to charge deductibles or copays for abortions. California will protect both abortion and gender affirming care from out-of-state litigation.

Indiana will make it easier for parents to challenge books in school libraries while Illinois will block state funding to public libraries that ban or restrict books.

In Illinois, police will no longer be able to pull over drivers because of something hanging from their rear-view mirrors (this is jokingly being referred to as the "fuzzy dice" law). Also, Illinois will be banning high-powered rifles and high-capacity magazines. It is also allowing victims of deepfake pornography to sue.

Minnesota has a new Red Flag law that will allow police to take guns away from people deemed to be an imminent threat. Colorado is banning ghost guns. Connecticut is requiring online dating operators to adopt policies to prevent harassment. North Carolina is requiring porn sites to confirm that users are 18 years old by using commercial databases and allows parents to sue if their kids access porn.

Twenty-two states will increase their minimum wage. If you live in AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, ML, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NY, OH, RI, SD, VT, WA, or DC, minimum wage will be going up. In addition to these, NV and OR will increase the minimum wage in July and FL will see an increase at the end of September.

In federal news, as of the New Year, your employer may be able to make a matching contribution into your 401(k) retirement account when you make student loan payments.

Finally, the FAFSA is getting shorter and easier to fill out. This should mean a lot more low-income borrowers getting federal assistance.

Here's my sources which have more details on all of these if you're interested in checking them out:

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

If you were in that brother's situation with the activist sister and her friend. What do you think you can do to reverse it. Clear your name or anything

So it seems like contacting a lawyer right away is your best bet.

From the article:

It is an ugly reality, but it is known to happen: petty people misusing the very serious charge of rape as a way to gain an upper hand, get revenge, or otherwise harm another person. The results of such a false accusation can be devastating, even if the person wrongfully accused is ultimately acquitted. So, what can the innocent person do in such a case? What are the consequences to the false accuser? Unfortunately, the topic of rape is so touchy that many are unwilling to do anything about a false claim. Some prosecutors side with the false-accuser even after the evidence clearly reveals that the claim is false, believing it could be an honest mistake, a difference of opinion regarding consent, or a cry for help from someone suffering in other ways at the hands of the one they wrongfully accused. Moreover, prosecutors and law enforcement do not want actual rape victims to fear possible criminal sanctions for reporting legitimate rapes if it later becomes impossible to prove the case. As a result, very few false claims are ever prosecuted criminally.

Still, the consequences of a false report of rape can be devastating to the life of the one accused. Often, the mere suggestion that a person has done something is enough to convict them in the court of public opinion. With websites that feature arrest mug shots and identify charges, there is no way for a wrongfully accused person to protect their reputation. This can have life changing effects, lead to loss of employment opportunities, public ridicule, and emotional harm.

As a result, it is usually possible for one wrongfully accused of rape to fight back. Typically, one will have to wait until they are exonerated, but once proved innocent of the false accusation, some jurisdictions allow them to bring a civil suit against the accuser. Notably, this action cannot relate directly to anything that was said or done in the criminal prosecution, as that is generally protected by the litigation privilege. But, false statements to police, to the media, or to family and friends may give rise to civil liability. Additionally, in jurisdictions that recognize a civil cause of action for perjury, if the accuser provided false testimony, either in person or via affidavit (such as a police report) this may also form the basis for additional relief.

In 2011 in Maryland, a man was awarded $852,000 and full custody of his children after he was able to prove that his ex-wife had falsely accused him of sexually assaulting their daughters. The ex-wife had accused the man of sexually assaulting the children in order to gain an advantage in a custody dispute. This led him to lose his job and find it almost impossible to obtain another for 5 years while he fought the legal battle to clear his name. While much of the damage done by the false accusation can never be undone for the wrongfully accused man, the verdict does send a clear message that such conduct cannot be tolerated in the American legal system.

If you have been wrongfully accused of rape or another sexually based crime, you should immediately contact an attorney. Not only will you need assistance in clearing your name in the criminal matter, you may need help pursuing remedies against the wrongful accuser. However, given the nature of laws protecting victims of rape, it will be a very difficult and highly technical legal battle to show that the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm the reputation of the accused and subject him to possible criminal sanctions.

[ausetkmt]

As of June 2023, the District of Columbia and municipalities in three states allowed noncitizens to vote in some or all local elections: California, Maryland, and Vermont.

Joshua A. Douglas, associate professor of law at the University of Kentucky College of Law, published an article in 2017 stating, "Municipalities can expand voting rights in local elections if there are no explicit state constitutional or legislative impediments and so long as local jurisdictions have the power of home rule." Some states, for example, require that changes to local charters get approval from state legislatures, thereby limiting municipal authority over voter eligibility laws, whereas other states do not.[7]

Douglas identified 14 states—including California and Maryland—as posing no clear impediments to municipalities passing their own voter qualification laws:

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Illinois

Maryland

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

Ohio

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Washington

Wisconsin

California

Oakland

See also: Oakland, California, Measure S, Noncitizen Residents Voting Measure (November 2022)

In 2022, voters in Oakland approved a charter amendment that read, "Shall the measure to amend the City Charter to allow the City Council by adopting an ordinance, to authorize voting by noncitizen residents, who are the parents, legal guardians, or legally recognized caregivers of a child, for the Office of Oakland School Board Director if they are otherwise eligible to vote under state and local law be adopted?"

The amendment was approved with 67% support. Click here to learn more. The law took effect in 2023.

San Francisco

See also: San Francisco, California, Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections Amendment, Proposition N (November 2016)

In 2016, voters in San Francisco approved a charter amendment that read, "Shall the City allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?"

The amendment was approved with 54% support. Click here to learn more. The law took effect in 2018.

In July 2022, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. ruled that the law violated the California Constitution. Ulmer ruled that "[t]ranscendent law of California, the Constitution ... reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance."[8] To read the full ruling, click here.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia Council passed the D.C. Noncitizen Vote Act in October 2022, allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. Due to the District's non-state status, all of its legislation must be reviewed by Congress prior to adoption. The D.C. Noncitizen Vote Act overcame bipartisan opposition in the U.S. House of Representatives and passed its congressional review in March 2023.[9]

Advocates of the law argued that noncitizens have an interest in schools, public safety and other issues, and should therefore be allowed to weigh in on public policy decisions. Opponents argue that noncitizens do not have a fundamental right to vote or hold public office in the U.S. and that the legislation dilutes the voting power of U.S. citizens.[10]

In March 2023, a group of seven D.C. voters filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court seeking an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced. The case has been moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the litigation is ongoing as of June 2023.[9][10]

Maryland

Maryland's state constitution specifies that "every citizen of the United States, of the age of 18 years or upwards, who is a resident of the State as of the time for the closing of registration next preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote in the ward or election district in which the citizen resides at all elections to be held in this State."[11] The state constitution gives municipalities the authority to allow people outside those qualifications to vote without requiring state approval of such changes.[12]

The following Maryland municipalities allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of June 2023.

Barnesville

The Barnesville town charter defines qualified voters as "having resided therein for six months previous to any town election and being eighteen years of age."[13]

Cheverly

Any person over the age of 18 who has been a resident of Cheverly for at least 30 days at the time of the election and has not been convicted of a crime is eligible to register to vote in town elections.[14]

Chevy Chase Section 3

The charter of Chevy Chase Section 3 reads, "'Qualified Voter' shall mean any person who is a resident of Chevy Chase Section 3, without regard to citizenship, and is at least eighteen (18) years of age."[15]

Garrett Park

The Garrett Park town charter reads, "The town manager shall provide for the registration of voters in a flexible and available manner in order to encourage registration and voting, consistent with the policies adopted by ordinance and the rules and procedures specified by the election judges. Qualified persons may register by universal registration with either Montgomery County or the town, or may register only with the town, including residents who are not citizens of the United States, up to and including election day."[16]

Glen Echo

Glen Echo's town charter says the following: "Any person who is not a United States citizen, and (a) is a resident of the Town of Glen Echo, (b) is a lawful resident of the United States, and (c) except for the United States citizenship requirement, meets the voter qualifications provided in Section 501(a) may register to vote in Town elections."[17]

Hyattsville

The Hyattsville town website states, "Hyattsville residents who are not U.S. citizens, or do not wish to register with the State, may use the Hyattsville City Voter Registration Form."[18]

Martin’s Additions

The Martin's Additions town charter says, "'Qualified Voter' is any person who owns property or any resident of Martin's Additions who is eighteen (18) years of age or over."[19]

Mount Rainier

Mount Rainier's city charter states that any person who has been a city resident for 30 days or more at the time of a local election, is at least 18 years old, has not been convicted of a felony offense or of buying and selling votes, and is not under mental guardianship may register to vote.[20]

Riverdale Park

Riverdale Park's town charter states, "(a) Every resident of the town who (1) has the Town of Riverdale Park as his or her primary residence, (2) is at least sixteen (16) years of age, (3) has resided within the corporate limits of the town for at least forty-five (45) days immediately preceding any nonrunoff town election, (4) does not claim the right to vote elsewhere in the United States, (5) has not been found by a court to be unable to communicate a desire to vote, and (6) is registered to vote in accordance with the provisions of § 503 of this charter shall be a qualified voter of the Town."[21]

Somerset

The Somerset town charter says, "Every person who (1) is at least eighteen years of age, (2) has resided within the corporate limits of the town for fourteen days next preceding any election, and (3) is registered in accordance with the provisions of this Charter, shall be a qualified voter of the town. Every qualified voter of the town shall be entitled to vote at any or all town elections."[22]

Takoma Park

The Takoma Park city website states, "City residents who are not citizens of the United States can register to vote in Takoma Park elections by completing the Takoma Park Voter Registration Application."[23]

Vermont

The following Vermont municipalities allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of June 2023.

Montpelier

On June 24, 2021, H177 was enacted into law, approving a Montpelier city charter amendment authorizing legal residents to vote in city elections. Although Governor Phil Scott vetoed the legislation, both chambers of the state legislature voted to override that veto. The law took immediate effect.[24][25]

Winooski

On June 24, 2021, H 227 was enacted into law, approving a Winooski city charter amendment authorizing legal residents to vote in city and school district elections. Although Governor Phil Scott vetoed the legislation, both chambers of the state legislature voted to override that veto. The law took immediate effect

Noncitizen voting declared unconstitutional in New York (2022)

On December 9, 2021, the New York City Council approved Int. 1867-2020, which extended the right to vote in municipal elections to lawful permanent residents and other non-citizens authorized to work in the United States. The council voted 33-14 in favor of the legislation, making New York City the largest city in the nation at the time to authorize voting by non-citizens.[27]

Mayor Eric Adams (D) allowed the legislation to become law without his signature on January 9, 2022, saying, “I believe that New Yorkers should have a say in their government, which is why I have and will continue to support this important legislation. ... I look forward to bringing millions more into the democratic process."[28][29]

A group of Republican voters and officials representing the New York Republican State Committee and Republican National Committee, as well as a Democratic city council member, filed a lawsuit on January 10, 2023, challenging the new law. The plaintiffs alleged that allowing over 800,000 eligible noncitizens to vote in municipal elections when New York City has approximately five million registered voters would dilute the power of the votes of legitimate U.S. citizens.[30]

On June 27, 2022, the New York State Supreme Court for Staten Island overturned the law, ruling that it violated the state's constitution. According to Judge Ralph Porzio, “by not expressly including non-citizens in the New York State Constitution, it was the intent of the framers for non-citizens to be omitted.” The judge quoted Article 2.1 and Article 2.5 of the state's constitution in his judgment:[31][32]

The Supreme Court of the State of New York includes 62 separate courts—one for each county. These courts are the highest trial courts in the state but they are not New York's courts of last resort. The Court of Appeals is the highest court and court of last resort in New York

[dc-probate-attorney]

How Personal Representatives Can Avoid Hot Water in Estate Administration

The Gormley Law Office is pleased to present this information! We are a probate and estate litigation firm in Kensington, Maryland. We handle cases in Washington, DC and across Maryland. If you need help with a probate matter, call us today or send us a message through our website below. We’re here to help, and there’s no cost for the initial consultation. We typically represent heirs who have…

[mariacallous]

More US workers will soon be free to leave their employers to work for rivals, thanks to a new federal rule that will block the long-standing practice of locking in workers with noncompete agreements.

The US Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday issued a final rule that bans most noncompetes nationwide. The agency estimated that by allowing people more freedom, the change would lead to the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade.

The FTC says about one in five US workers are bound by contract clauses that prevent them from taking new jobs from a competitor, or starting their own competing businesses, for some period of time. The agreements can trap workers and slow career advancement and wage increases—two things workers often achieve by hopping jobs.

The agreements also disproportionately affect workers in tech and certain other roles: 36 percent of engineers and architects work under noncompetes, as do 35 percent of workers in computer and math fields, according to research from the Universities of Maryland and Michigan.

Under the FTC’s new rule, “tech workers will probably experience a rise in the outside opportunities that they face,” says Evan Starr, an associate professor of business at the University of Maryland who worked on the research. “They’ll have more freedom to work where they want; they will be more likely to be paid higher wages.”

Opponents of noncompetes say they hurt workers by keeping them in lower-waged jobs and also stifle innovation, preventing people from starting their own businesses or putting innovative ideas into practice. Noncompete supporters argue that the arrangements encourage investment in staff and protect trade secrets. But recent research from Starr indicates that banning noncompetes hasn’t led to an increase in trade secret litigation.

The new FTC rule has a carve-out to keep existing noncompetes for senior executives in place. But it blocks companies from creating new noncompetes for these high-level workers. The rule is due to take effect in about four months, but it’s expected to face challenges. Two commissioners who voted against the rule saw it as overstepping the FTC’s power. The US Chamber of Commerce quickly announced after the rule passed that it will sue to try to block it.

Several states, including tech hub California, have already banned enforcement of noncompetes. But a recent tidal shift has seen the issue resonate in dozens of states. In the 2023 legislative session, 38 states introduced 81 bills that sought to ban or restrict enforcement of noncompetes. California’s long-established law is seen as part of the reason Silicon Valley became a hub for innovation, while Massachusetts’s once-similar tech corridor didn’t soar in the same way.

Tech executive Daniel Powers has battled noncompetes twice in his career. In 2010, IBM tried to delay his move from New York to Seattle to work for Amazon Web Services, the online retailer’s cloud division, by a year. The parties settled on Powers taking six months off. Fortunately for Powers, Amazon agreed to pay him even while he couldn’t work.

Two years later, the tables turned. When Powers attempted to take a job with Google Cloud, Amazon sued him, saying he had agreed not to work for one of its competitors within 18 months of leaving. The incident drew headlines as the first noncompete case Amazon had brought against someone inside fast-growing AWS, Powers recalls.

Powers had to move to California—where noncompetes aren’t legal—for the new gig, and his attorney told him to get there as soon as possible. By living in a different state, the lawsuit could be tried in federal court, where his attorney felt Amazon had less of an advantage compared to Washington state court. A federal judge ended up siding with Powers, and he lost only about three months of work at Google while the case played out.

Amazon, IBM, and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Had Powers not received discounted legal help over the years, he says, he could have easily spent over $100,000 battling noncompetes. “It’s just not fair to the employees,” says Powers, who now runs cloud advisory firm What's Next Consulting. “When I won, I got hundreds of emails and texts from Amazon employees thanking me for beating them.”

People in Washington state who want to leave one of the tech giants often must have difficult conversations with their families, advisers, and potential new employer about the risks of litigation and potentially being without a paycheck for a long stretch. Powers estimates that he has aided over 200 former Amazon and IBM colleagues in the process. California workers have no such concerns. “It’s just, ‘OK, goodbye,’” Powers says. “There’s nothing companies can do about it.”

If the new FTC rule ends up in front of the US Supreme Court, he says, his message to the justices will be simple. “Taking away a person’s ability to work in an industry they are trained in, have skills in, and have been in is a massive disservice to the employee,” Powers says. “It’s not the right thing to do to have these agreements.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

Less than a week before the Biden administration’s new sex discrimination rule is set to go into effect on August 1, the far-right group Moms for Liberty told a federal judge in Kansas that his order blocking enforcement of the rule should apply to more than 2,000 schools across the nation — including in several states where no litigation is pending. The rule, enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, has largely faced opposition due to its provision of transgender protections under the extensive rule. The Justice Department currently has two requests before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to enforce most of the rule while litigation proceeds. (More on that below.) A July 2 preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee in Kansas, has been covered extensively at Law Dork but, due to the vague nature of his injunction, the full scope of its coverage wasn’t clear until Friday evening. Although it blocked enforcement in four states that sued, it also covered — nationwide — the members of two groups that sued and the children of the members of Moms for Liberty.

Lawyers for Moms for Liberty, after some back and forth, finally submitted the list of what they claim are “the K-12 schools attended by the children of its members” on Friday evening. The list includes schools in 46 states. What’s more, 22 of the states with schools listed are not even challenging the rule. They are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. The list of schools includes more than 100 schools in California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; more than 200 schools in North Carolina; and more than 300 schools in Wisconsin. Schools from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina are listed as well. Those states are plaintiffs in a challenge to the rule, but U.S. District Judge Annemarie Axon, a Trump appointee, is yet to rule on injunctive relief requests.

Right-wing “parental rights” extremist group Moms For Liberty seeks to block LGBTQ+ rights protections in the revised Title IX from taking effect in over 2,000+ schools in Kansas v. Department of Education.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland has tossed a flawed environmental assessment that grossly underestimated harms to endangered and threatened marine species from oil and gas drilling and exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.  

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the assessment known as a biological opinion—BiOp for short— in 2020 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS is a federal agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

The biological opinion is required to ensure that drilling and exploration for fossil fuels in the Gulf does not jeopardize endangered and threatened species, and is a prerequisite for oil and gas drilling permits auctioned by the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

That same year, Earthjustice, a national nonprofit, filed a suit challenging the biological opinion on behalf of Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the Turtle Island Restoration Network. The American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and several other groups representing the oil and gas industry intervened as defendants in the case. 

The environmental groups argued the biological opinion underestimated the potential for future oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and did not require sufficient safeguards for imperiled whales, sea turtles and other endangered and threatened marine species from industrial offshore drilling operations.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to a range of threatened marine species protected under the ESA, including the endangered Rice’s whale, which exists nowhere else on the planet. 

It also caters to much of the nation’s oil and gas extraction under federal waters known as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This includes a region known as the Gulf OCS that experiences a high volume of ship traffic to production platforms, tens of thousands of active wells and thousands of miles of underwater pipelines. 

In its Aug. 19 ruling, the district court agreed with the environmental groups that the biological opinion violated the law in multiple ways. Among other deficiencies, it found the opinion wrongly assumed that a catastrophic oil spill like the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon will not occur despite NMFS’ own finding that such a spill can be expected. 

The court declared the 2020 BiOp unlawful and ordered NFMS to produce a new biological opinion by December 2024.

“The new opinion should come along with more protections for the Gulf’s threatened and endangered species that are already struggling to survive in the face of an onslaught of threats, including existing oil and gas activity, climate change and others,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans program litigation director for the Center for Biological Diversity. 

[lawyerlawfirm]

Law Offices Of Fogam & Associates LLC, Maryland

The Law Offices of Fogam & Associates LLC is a distinguished legal firm renowned for its comprehensive and client-focused services. Specializing in a diverse range of legal areas, including family law, immigration, personal injury, and business litigation, the firm prides itself on delivering personalized solutions tailored to each client's unique circumstances.