Weekly News Update


*On Wednesday, Lawyers for industry groups and some 20 states told the Supreme Court justices that Environmental Protection Agency regulations that set limits on emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants had failed to take account of the punishing costs they would impose. [NY Times]

*New York officials are pursuing broad changes to the city’s overwhelmed summons system, part of an effort to handle low-level offenses more efficiently and fairly, officials and advocates say. [Wall Street Journal]

*New York City’s effort to supply lawyers for every unaccompanied, undocumented minor has kept 13 children from being deported as of February. Thus far, 424 cases have been screened and 13 undocumented children have been shielded from deportation through family court or asylum proceedings according to the data. Another 22 applications for asylum are pending. [Buzzfeed]

*A Brooklyn Appellate Court judge has granted a certificate of appeal allowing a criminal defendant the opportunity to appeal his conviction after the original judge admitted a race-based bias against the defendant during his trial. [Brooklyn Eagle]

*The same 2nd Circuit panel that allowed Occupy Wall Street protesters to sue New York City police for a mass arrest on the Brooklyn Bridge four years ago suddenly had a change of heart. Reversing a prior 2-to-1 holding, the judges dismissed the lawsuit without a hearing on Monday. [Courthouse News]

*Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a controversial religious freedom bill that could allow businesses and individuals to deny services to gays, in a move that prompted protests from some business leaders. [Reuters]

*Utah has become the only state to allow firing squads for executions. Gov. Gary Herbert recently signed a law approving the method for use when no lethal injection drugs are available, even though he has called it “a little bit gruesome.” [New York Post]

*In the Second Circuit, as in other jurisdictions, only exceptional circumstances will justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment. A New York federal district court recently encountered such circumstances in connection with a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration. [JD Supra]