Latest news with #7thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to consider reviving GOP challenge to Illinois mail ballot deadline
The Supreme Court will consider reviving a lawsuit challenging Illinois's ability to count mail ballots received after Election Day, the court announced in a brief order Monday. Lower courts ruled Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of President Trump's 2020 electors from the state had no legal standing to bring their lawsuit. More than a dozen states allow mail ballots to be received after Election Day so long as they were postmarked or certified by the time polls close, and Republicans have looked to demolish the practice in court. The legality of the practice is not yet before the Supreme Court, but the new case enables the justices to weigh in on who is able to bring such lawsuits. The case will be considered during the court's next annual term, which begins in October. Oral arguments are likely to be held late this year. Bost, who represents Southern Illinois and chairs the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, sued in May 2022 alongside Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, who served as some of Trump's presidential electors in the state in 2020. A Trump-appointed federal district judge ruled they can't claim legal standing by asserting they face injury as voters and political candidates. The judge ruled their case failed to state a legally viable claim, anyway. A panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had no standing. In their petition to the high court, Bost and the two electors said the decision disrupts a long line of cases enabling federal political candidates to challenge election regulations. 'In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, however, for a variety of reasons, courts have limited candidates' ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest—and an extreme—example of this trend,' their attorneys wrote. The plaintiffs are represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative group known for unearthing government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Illinois's election board, represented by the state attorney general's office, urged the justices to turn away the case, saying the lower court was merely applying settled precedent. 'The case presents no sufficiently important—or even sufficiently discrete—legal question warranting the Court's review, it does not conflict with this Court's opinions, and it does not implicate a division of authority among lower courts. The petition should be denied,' the state wrote in court filings. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court to decide if challenge to Illinois' grace period for mail-in ballots can proceed
Supreme Court to decide if challenge to Illinois' grace period for mail-in ballots can proceed Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump's federal elections executive order President Donald Trump's latest executive order is remaking federal elections. Here's five things to know. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court will decide whether a GOP congressman can challenge Illinois' decision to count mail-in ballots that are cast, but not received, before the end of Election Day. Republicans have been trying to end that practice − adopted by many states − through lawsuits and a March executive order from President Donald Trump that is being litigated. They argue states are illegally extending the election beyond the date set by federal law. But when Rep. Michael Bost, R-Ill., and two presidential electors tried to make that case, lower courts said they hadn't been sufficiently harmed by the policy so couldn't sue. The Supreme Court on June 2 said it will decide if the lawsuit can move forward. Bost's attorneys said the Supreme Court needs to stop a growing trend of courts limiting candidates' ability to challenge electoral rules. 'He has now been denied the opportunity to have this challenge heard over the course of two reelection campaigns,' they told the Supreme Court. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 dismissed Bost's argument that he has to spend campaign funds to contest any objectionable ballots that come in after Election Day. Judge John Lee called it 'speculative at best' that later ballots could cause him to lose an election, noting he won by 75% in the 2022 election. One of the three appeals court judges to rule on the lawsuit said he would have let it proceed. More: Donald Trump signs executive order requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections Illinois allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on or before the day of the election and received with two weeks. Illinois and other states with grace periods say they prevent postal delivery issues and give people who vote by mail more time to make up their mind.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court to consider reviving GOP challenge to Illinois mail ballot deadline
The Supreme Court will consider reviving a lawsuit challenging Illinois' ability to count mail ballots received after Election Day, the court announced in a brief order Monday. Lower courts ruled Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of President Trump's 2020 electors from the state had no legal standing to bring their lawsuit. More than a dozen states allow mail ballots to be received after Election Day so long as they were postmarked or certified by the time polls close, and Republicans have looked to demolish the practice in court. The legality of the practice is not yet before the Supreme Court, but the new case enables the justices to weigh in on who is able to bring such lawsuits. The case will be considered during the court's next annual term, which begins in October. Oral arguments are likely to be held late this year. Bost, who represents Southern Illinois and chairs the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, sued in May 2022 alongside Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, who served as some of Trump's presidential electors in the state in 2020. A Trump-appointed federal district judge ruled they can't claim legal standing by asserting they face injury as voters and political candidates. The judge ruled their case failed to state a legally viable claim, anyway. A panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had no standing. In their petition to the high court, Bost and the two electors said the decision disrupts a long line of cases enabling federal political candidates to challenge election regulations. 'In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, however, for a variety of reasons, courts have limited candidates' ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest—and an extreme—example of this trend,' their attorneys wrote. The plaintiffs are represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative group known for unearthing government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Illinois's election board, represented by the state attorney general's office, urged the justices to turn away the case, saying the lower court was merely applying settled precedent. 'The case presents no sufficiently important—or even sufficiently discrete—legal question warranting the Court's review, it does not conflict with this Court's opinions, and it does not implicate a division of authority among lower courts. The petition should be denied,' the state wrote in court filings.
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
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
ADA may allow back pay for worker with no disability, 7th Circuit holds
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. The Americans with Disabilities Act may allow an employee without a disability to recover back pay for certain violations of the law, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Tuesday. The appeals court reached that conclusion in response to a lawsuit, Nawara v. Cook County and Thomas J. Dart, alleging an employer required an employee to submit to a medical examination and inquiries that weren't job-related and consistent with business necessity, as the ADA requires. The plaintiff in Nawara, a former correctional officer at Cook County Jail, was required to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination after initiating several altercations with other employees, according to court documents. As part of that process, he was required to sign medical release forms. He initially refused and was placed on unpaid leave until he agreed to those requirements. The employee sued, alleging that the examination requirement and inquiries into his mental health violated the ADA. A jury agreed and a court awarded him restored seniority. It declined, however, to award him back pay, finding that the law only allows such an award for workers with disabilities. On appeal, the 7th Circuit revived the employee's request for back pay. The court — citing its own previous ruling — said the ADA's limits on medical exams and inquiries apply to all individuals, not just those with a disability, with a record of a disability or regarded as having a disability. And while back pay isn't available in all circumstances, it can be for violations of that section of the law, the 7th Circuit concluded. To prove a violation of that provision is to prove discrimination on the basis of disability, it explained. 'Congress effectuated the broad remedial purpose of the ADA by including medical examinations and inquiries into an employee's disability status within the definition of 'discrimination … on the basis of disability.'' Because back pay is available to plaintiffs who prove discrimination on the basis of a disability, it may be available to the plaintiff in Nawara, the court concluded, remanding the case to the district court. 7th Circuit rulings apply in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Recommended Reading How to address mental health issues in compliance with FMLA, ADA
