Latest news with #7thCircuit
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court agrees to hear absentee ballot appeal from Illinois congressman
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear an appeal from Illinois Rep. Mike Bost who wants to challenge the state's decision to count absentee ballots after Election Day. At issue is a lower court ruling that found the Republican and two presidential elector nominees did not have standing to sue. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the case in the fall. Bost sued in 2022, claiming that an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day ran afoul federal law that sets a uniform day for federal elections. As in other states, the mail-in ballots at issue must be postmarked on or before the election. President Donald Trump has attacked the practice with an executive order that pressures states to abandon their post-election deadlines for mail-in ballots to arrive at election offices. His directives are subject to litigation as well. Roughly 20 other states and jurisdictions count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Republicans are pursuing litigation in multiple courts attempting to roll back the expansion of mail-in voting. A federal appeals court in Louisiana last year ruled that Mississippi was violating federal law by counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, but stopped short of blocking the policy before the November election. Lower courts never considered Bost's underlying claim. A federal district court ruled that Bost and the other plaintiffs were not injured by the state ballot law and so they did not have standing to sue. A divided 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and Bost appealed the technical question of standing to the high court. Bost, first elected in 2014, tried to argue that his campaign was required to pay for an additional two weeks of staff to monitor ballot counting. But the 7th Circuit noted that Bost won reelection in his Southern Illinois district by a healthy margin and that he chose to spend resources to avoid a hypothetical future harm. 'Plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by choosing to spend money to mitigate such conjectural risks,' the court wrote. The three-judge panel included one judge nominated by Trump and another named by President Joe Biden. US Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, who was also nominated by Trump, dissented. 'As a sitting member of Congress in the midst of an ongoing reelection campaign, he is nothing close to a 'mere bystander' to the upcoming election or the allegation at the heart of this lawsuit,' Scudder wrote.
CNN
6 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear absentee ballot appeal from Illinois congressman
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear an appeal from Illinois Rep. Mike Bost who wants to challenge the state's decision to count absentee ballots after Election Day. At issue is a lower court ruling that found the Republican and two presidential elector nominees did not have standing to sue. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the case in the fall. Bost sued in 2022, claiming that an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day ran afoul federal law that sets a uniform day for federal elections. As in other states, the mail-in ballots at issue must be postmarked on or before the election. President Donald Trump has attacked the practice with an executive order that pressures states to abandon their post-election deadlines for mail-in ballots to arrive at election offices. His directives are subject to litigation as well. Roughly 20 other states and jurisdictions count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Republicans are pursuing litigation in multiple courts attempting to roll back the expansion of mail-in voting. A federal appeals court in Louisiana last year ruled that Mississippi was violating federal law by counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, but stopped short of blocking the policy before the November election. Lower courts never considered Bost's underlying claim. A federal district court ruled that Bost and the other plaintiffs were not injured by the state ballot law and so they did not have standing to sue. A divided 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and Bost appealed the technical question of standing to the high court. Bost, first elected in 2014, tried to argue that his campaign was required to pay for an additional two weeks of staff to monitor ballot counting. But the 7th Circuit noted that Bost won reelection in his Southern Illinois district by a healthy margin and that he chose to spend resources to avoid a hypothetical future harm. 'Plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by choosing to spend money to mitigate such conjectural risks,' the court wrote. The three-judge panel included one judge nominated by Trump and another named by President Joe Biden. US Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, who was also nominated by Trump, dissented. 'As a sitting member of Congress in the midst of an ongoing reelection campaign, he is nothing close to a 'mere bystander' to the upcoming election or the allegation at the heart of this lawsuit,' Scudder wrote.
CNN
6 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear absentee ballot appeal from Illinois congressman
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear an appeal from Illinois Rep. Mike Bost who wants to challenge the state's decision to count absentee ballots after Election Day. At issue is a lower court ruling that found the Republican and two presidential elector nominees did not have standing to sue. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the case in the fall. Bost sued in 2022, claiming that an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day ran afoul federal law that sets a uniform day for federal elections. As in other states, the mail-in ballots at issue must be postmarked on or before the election. President Donald Trump has attacked the practice with an executive order that pressures states to abandon their post-election deadlines for mail-in ballots to arrive at election offices. His directives are subject to litigation as well. Roughly 20 other states and jurisdictions count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Republicans are pursuing litigation in multiple courts attempting to roll back the expansion of mail-in voting. A federal appeals court in Louisiana last year ruled that Mississippi was violating federal law by counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, but stopped short of blocking the policy before the November election. Lower courts never considered Bost's underlying claim. A federal district court ruled that Bost and the other plaintiffs were not injured by the state ballot law and so they did not have standing to sue. A divided 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and Bost appealed the technical question of standing to the high court. Bost, first elected in 2014, tried to argue that his campaign was required to pay for an additional two weeks of staff to monitor ballot counting. But the 7th Circuit noted that Bost won reelection in his Southern Illinois district by a healthy margin and that he chose to spend resources to avoid a hypothetical future harm. 'Plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by choosing to spend money to mitigate such conjectural risks,' the court wrote. The three-judge panel included one judge nominated by Trump and another named by President Joe Biden. US Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, who was also nominated by Trump, dissented. 'As a sitting member of Congress in the midst of an ongoing reelection campaign, he is nothing close to a 'mere bystander' to the upcoming election or the allegation at the heart of this lawsuit,' Scudder wrote.
Reuters
20-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Former judge Richard Posner defeats $170,000 wage case
May 19 (Reuters) - Former U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner has defeated a lawsuit by an Indiana man who alleged he was owed $170,000 for working at a short-lived center for self-represented litigants founded by the prominent jurist. U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann in Hammond, Indiana, on Monday concluded that Brian Vukadinovich's alleged oral employment agreement with the ex-judge was unenforceable and that he waited too long to sue Posner for unjust enrichment. The ruling marked a victory for the retired 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. "I will definitely appeal this corrupt ruling," Vukadinovich said in a statement. He said any appeal should be heard by a court other than the 7th Circuit, saying judges on it have a "major conflict of interest" precluding them from hearing it. Posner, who was appointed to the appeals court in 1981 by Republican President Ronald Reagan, abruptly announced his retirement from the bench in September 2017 at age 78. In a lawsuit filed in 2022, Vukadinovich said he was recruited by Posner to help run his Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's after representing himself without a lawyer in a lawsuit. Posner founded the center in mid-2018. Vukadinovich, a former high school shop teacher, said he came to know the judge by successfully taking his employer to trial for firing him and winning a $204,000 verdict. Vukadinovich said Posner agreed in 2018 to pay him $120,000 annually for serving as the center's co-executive director and personally guaranteed his salary regardless of the center's financial condition, yet ultimately failed to pay him $170,000. Posner's lawyers have previously said the judge has a confirmed Alzheimer's diagnosis and had no legal capacity to enter an agreement to pay Vukadinovich. They moved to dismiss the case on other grounds, though. In Monday's ruling, Springman said that Vukadinovich's claim for breach of contract was barred by Indiana law, under which an oral agreement could only be enforced if its terms could be fully performed within a year. "Here, the Plaintiff does not dispute that because the payment for the Plaintiff's salary was due in a lump sum after the first year of employment, it could not be performed in a year," she said. The judge said Vukadinovich also waited past a two-year statute of limitations period to sue Posner in 2022 for unjust enrichment based on services rendered through July 2019. The case is Vukadinovich v. Posner, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, No. 2:22-cv-00118. For Vukadinovich: Pro se For Posner: Steven Molo and Justin Ellis of MoloLamken; and David Beach of Eichhorn & Eichhorn Read more; Court says former judge Posner should face some claims in wage case Retired 7th Circuit judge Posner sued for wages at short-lived pro bono center After Posner retired from 7th Circuit, a grim diagnosis and a brewing battle
Chicago Tribune
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Gerry Regep: Court's revival of UIC law professor's claim is good news for constitutional rights
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has important implications for academic freedom and free speech in college classrooms. At the heart of the case is Jason Kilborn, a tenured law school professor who has taught at University of Illinois Chicago School of Law for more than a decade. Kilborn sued the school after UIC put him on administrative leave and conducted a full investigation into a question he posed to students on an exam. On his final exams, Kilborn used to include a fictional case involving workplace discrimination. To reflect the real-world experiences that soon-to-be lawyers may encounter, his exam asked students to evaluate a fictional scenario in which an employee was called various slurs by her managers. The exam censored the full slurs, and Kilborn had used the same question for years. That is until 2020, when some students got upset at the question and reported him to the dean. Despite his attempts to resolve the situation, a university investigation ensued. Kilborn was placed on administrative leave, drug-tested, barred from campus, denied a raise and required to complete an eight-week diversity training program before he was allowed to return to the classroom. In response, Kilborn filed state and federal claims against the university for violating his constitutionally protected academic speech. University officials filed a motion to dismiss Kilborn's case, arguing he failed to state a claim for relief, and the district court agreed, dismissing the federal parts of the lawsuit. Once granted, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Kilborn's remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The district court held that Kilborn's speech was not constitutionally protected because it did not address a matter of public concern. In March, in Kilborn v. Amiridis, the 7th Circuit reversed the lower court's decision with respect to Kilborn's First Amendment claim. It held that Kilborn had adequately stated a claim and sent the case back to the district court, signaling that public university professors have remedies for legal relief when their First Amendment rights are violated in the classroom setting. The decision reaches far beyond one professor's law school exam. The question remains: Can a university truly be a marketplace of ideas if a professor risks being sanctioned for using hypothetical scenarios that reflect the messy, uncomfortable realities their students may face? Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos held that public employees have no First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official duties — but it expressly declined to address whether that rule applies to a professor's academic scholarship or teaching. The 7th Circuit declined to apply Garcetti in this case because 'expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests.' By issuing its decision, the 7th Circuit joins several other circuits in holding that Garcetti's rule does not extend to a professor's scholarship and teaching. Although Kilborn's claim may still fail on the merits, this decision is a win for academic freedom and free speech supporters alike, and may have implications for other pending cases involving university faculty. At a time when professors walk a tightrope between fostering robust debate and fostering inclusion in their classrooms, the Kilborn decision sends the message that professors should not have to choose between their careers and their constitutional rights.
