SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Justices reject appeal in Mich. cross dispute GRAND HAVEN, Mich. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal in a dispute over a pole that can be turned into a cross on public land in western Michigan. The city of Grand Haven stopped the cross display in 2015 after critics said it was an illegal endorsement of religion. Michigan courts have said the city has the power to manage the property along the Grand River. The Supreme Court on Monday declined an appeal by cross supporters, who said their free speech rights are being violated by Grand Haven. The Dewey Hill monument was donated to Grand Haven as a memorial for soldiers who served in the Vietnam War. The pole was turned into a cross during summer concerts sponsored by First Reformed Church. Middle East attack victims' appeal turned down WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is rejecting an appeal from American victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East more than a decade ago. The justices are not commenting Monday in ending a lawsuit against the PLO and Palestinian Authority in connection with attacks in Israel in 2002 and 2004 that killed 33 people. A lower court tossed out a $654 million verdict against the Palestinians. The Trump administration sided with the Palestinians in calling on the high court to leave the lower court ruling in place. The federal appeals court in New York said U.S. courts can't consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States. The victims sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, passed to open U.S. courts to American victims of international terrorism. Justices rule for car dealerships in overtime case By Jessica Gresko Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that car dealerships' service advisers, like car salesmen and mechanics, are exempt under federal law from overtime pay requirements. The court ruled 5-4 that service advisers, who greet customers and propose various repair services, are salespeople. The case affects the more than 18,000 dealerships nationwide. Together, they employ more than 100,000 service advisers. The case the high court made its decision in involves a Mercedes Benz dealership in Encino, California, and several current and former service advisers. Each side had a different interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says that "any salesman ... primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles" doesn't have to be paid overtime. The dealership argued that the definition of salesman clearly includes service advisers, who have a range of job responsibilities from helping to diagnose mechanical problems to preparing price estimates for repairs. Service advisers had argued that they weren't covered by the definition. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that the "ordinary meaning of 'salesman' is someone who sells goods or services" and that service advisers "do precisely that." In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that because service advisers "neither sell nor repair automobiles" they should not be exempt from overtime payments. The issue came to the high court after the Department of Labor changed its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2011. For the three decades up to then, the department operated under the view that service advisers didn't have to be paid overtime. Monday's decision was the second time the court has ruled in the case. In an earlier round of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that service advisers were entitled to overtime. But in 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, an eight-member Supreme Court sidestepped the overtime question and told the appeals court to take another look at the case. After that, the appeals court once again ruled in favor of the service advisers. Court sides with officer in Arizona police shooting By Jessica Gresko Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court took sides in a police shooting case Monday, ruling that an Arizona police officer who shot a knife-wielding woman four times was immune from being sued. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that the court's decision "sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public." "It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished," wrote Sotomayor in a dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court's decision comes amid recent demonstrations related to the fatal March 18 shooting by police in Sacramento, California, of Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old unarmed black man. Demonstrations in Sacramento related to the shooting have been taking place almost daily. The shooting at issue in the Supreme Court case decided Monday happened in May 2010 in Tucson, Arizona. Officers were called to a home following a report that a woman was hacking at a tree with a knife. When they arrived, they saw Amy Hughes come out of the home's front door holding a kitchen knife. Officers drew their weapons, and Hughes was told to drop the knife at least twice. She didn't and Officer Andrew Kisela shot her four times, hitting her in the stomach, hip, arm and knee. Hughes survived and sued Kisela, arguing he had used excessive force. A trial court initially sided with the officer, ruling that the force he used was reasonable and ending the case. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in 2016, allowing the case to move forward. In ruling for the officer Monday, the Supreme Court said excessive force is an area of the law where the result depends heavily on the specific facts of each case. Therefore, officers are entitled to immunity unless previous cases clearly tell them a specific use of force is unlawful. In an unsigned decision, the court noted that Kisela said he shot Hughes because he believed she was a threat to her roommate, who was standing a few feet away. The court also noted that the officer was separated from the two by a chain-link fence and that Hughes failed to acknowledge two commands to drop the knife. Sotomayor, in contrast, noted that Hughes was holding the knife down at her side, didn't raise it in the direction of her roommate or anyone else, didn't appear agitated and didn't verbally threaten to harm anyone. She called Kisela's conduct "unreasonable" and pointed out that two other officers didn't fire. Sotomayor said that rather than letting the case go to a jury, her colleagues decided to "intervene prematurely." She called their decision that Kisela was immune from being sued "unwarranted" and "symptomatic" of a disturbing trend. She said the court "routinely displays an unflinching willingness" to reverse court decisions for wrongly denying officers immunity but rarely intervenes when courts wrongly grant officers immunity. An attorney for Hughes, Northwestern University professor David M. Shapiro, called the ruling a "disappointing outcome with troubling implications for police accountability." Another of her attorneys, Vince Rabago, said Hughes continues to have pain as a result of the shooting. -------- Associated Press writer Kathleen Ronayne contributed to this report from Sacramento, California. Published: Wed, Apr 04, 2018