In an Oct 11 IB post titled, “SCOTUS cases granted cert“, IB outlined a number of environmental cases the US Supreme Court will consider that touch on the extent of the federal government’s power to regulate the development of wetlands. However I failed to mention that the Associated Press article – titled “Court Takes Up Landmark Wetlands Case” – consults Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis professor Robin Kundis Craig, “an expert on the Clean Water Act.” In a story titled, “Supreme Court may surprise on assisted suicide,” Fox News quoted IU School of Law – Bloomington dean Lauren Robel.

In other IU-Indy news, Thomas C. Schelling, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics, published his most recent article, “What Makes Greenhouse Sense?,” in The Indiana Law Review‘s symposium edition entitled “The Law and Economics of Development and Environment” (Vol. 38, No. 3).

“The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed the final document Tuesday in the discipline case against former judge Benjamin Pfaff, criticizing the timing of his apology and recent resignation,” reports the Elkhart Truth. You can access the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications online. Pfaff pointed a handgun at an 18-year-old while searching for his runaway teenage daughter two years ago. For background on the Pfaff case read this Associated Press article.

Following up on an Oct. 8 entry titled, “Judge: Take infant off life support,” Judge Marilyn Moores talked with WISH-TV of Indianapolis about the decision.

“This was maybe the hardest thing that I have ever done and I know how hard it has been for the other individuals in that courtroom. The doctor had tears in his eyes. The attorney for the Department of Child Services had tears in her eyes. No one takes this lightly.”

Meanwhile the Indianapolis Star carries two pieces on the subject. The first is headlined, “Infant off ventilator breathing on his own” and the second, an editorial, is titled “No need to rush life-death decision.” Indiana’s medical consent law can be found at Ind. Code 16-36-1-5.

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to several cases today that may impact Hoosier citizens and businesses. In some the Court will consider the extent of the federal government’s power to regulate the development of wetlands. The Court agreed to hear three separate cases, all of which involve issues of whether federal laws that protect the environment impermissibly intrude upon the law-making powers of the states or the property rights of private individuals. Property developers and environmentalists alike have been worried about how the newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts will vote in such cases. During his brief stint as a judge on the federal appeals court in 2003, Roberts suggested that the federal government’s power to protect the environment is limited. In S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (04-1527) the Court will consider whether a company that draws water out of a river and returns it without pollution must obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act. In Rapanos v. United States (04-1034) and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers (04-1384), the Court will clarify the role of the federal government to regulate the filling or pollution of wetlands not closely linked to waterways. AP has more.

Also Tuesday, the Court granted certiorari in the case of Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chatham County, where the court will consider an 11th Circuit decision that ruled that the county acted as an “arm of the state” in operating a drawbridge and was therefore entitled to “residual sovereign immunity” under common law. SCOTUSblog has more. Read the Court’s full Order List (pdf).

The Indianapolis Star has an article titled, “Keeping secrets: Hoosiers are wrongly denied access to meetings and information in half of their requests to governments.”

State and local government agencies in Indiana wrongly withheld records or blocked access to meetings in more than half the cases investigated by the public access ombudsman in the last year.

The Office of Public Access Counselor issued a record number of opinions last year as more Hoosiers, increasingly aware of their rights to government information under the law, filed formal complaints with the agency.

About half the requests for help are from regular citizens trying to find out what their government is up to — seeking such routine records as cell phone bills, accurate meeting agendas and police reports.

But state law still lacks what many consider a critical tool: penalties for public officials who flout the rules.
In some cases, agencies simply ignore the access counselor’s formal opinions, which lack the authority to compel officials to obey the law.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, the office issued a record 219 opinions, an increase of nearly 16 percent from 2004 and more than double the number issued in 2003.

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia commented Monday that the Supreme Court confirmation process was too politicized and that he would not want to experience it again. Scalia, when asked during an interview on NBC’s “Today” program if he thought he could again be confirmed by the Senate, said “I don’t know. I wouldn’t want to go through it today, I’ll tell you that much.” Scalia spoke favorably of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, calling her the “social glue of the court.” Scalia also expressed opposition to proposals that Supreme Court proceedings be televised, saying that this could lead to people’s legal problems becoming entertainment. Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation last month that would permit Supreme Court sessions to be televised. AP has more. You can read more on Sen. Specter’s bill here in an IB post from 9/27/05.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports, “Bankruptcy law overhaul generating ad blitz locally.” The story reads:

Recently, ads from area attorneys and law firms highlighting the upcoming changes in bankruptcy law seem to dominate the local advertising mix. Advertising by attorneys and law firms isn’t new, but most ads do not focus on such a specific topic.

In a related article the same paper reports, “New law prompts flood of bankruptcies.” You can read some of Indiana Barrister‘s past coverage of the bankruptcy reforms here. In July the Better Business Bureau published an article of mine on the subject titled, “Changes in Bankruptcy Law.” You can read the Bankrupcty Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act online (pdf).

Brian Corbin of the Evansville Courier & Press reports, “Online court records hit snag: Indiana Supreme Court cancels contract to link all documents.”

Need to look up court records from your divorce? How about checking into the criminal background of a possible tenant before you lease to him? Think you might log onto your computer and search for court records online? Think again. To view Indiana court records, people still must visit the courthouse. If your case was filed in another county, then you must drive to the courthouse in that county’s seat. Though appellate and federal cases are posted online, Indiana trial court records remain stuck in the pre-Internet era.

The Indiana Supreme Court has tried to link the different record-keeping systems of nearly 400 courts in all 92 counties, so judges could access court records from other counties and the public could see them online. But the ambitious plan hit a snag recently: Computer software tested for the statewide project could not perform a critical function: tracking money from fines, child support payments and bail bonds. The Supreme Court canceled its contract with the software firm, which agreed to refund the state $7 million.

Meanwhile, an unrelated effort to post Vanderburgh County’s court records online also is on hold. Officials have a plan, a software vendor and a cost estimate: up to $280,000. But they don’t have the funding. The online court records project was not budgeted by the Vanderburgh County Council, and it remains on the back burner until financing materializes.

The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals Friday rejected (pdf) a Bush administration interpretation of EPA requirements that weakened the EPA’s ability to monitor air pollution from industrial sources. The appeals court held that a 2004 EPA settlement with several utility and industry groups ran afoul of previous EPA interpretations of the 2002 Clean Air Act. The current lawsuit, brought by several environmental protection organizations, asserts that the regulations as interpreted by the settlement violate the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by limiting public discussion of monitoring requirements before they are implemented by the EPA and state authorities. AP has more.

So reads the headline in this article in the Indianapolis Star.

A judge ordered life support removed Friday from a 5-month-old Indianapolis boy with a severe head injury that investigators say was caused by abuse.

The Marion County Department of Child Services requested the removal of the ventilator that is keeping Hamad Elijah Sanda alive. The agency took custody of the baby Sept. 26, four days after he was brought to the Methodist Hospital emergency room with a skull fracture and brain injury.

Citing the boy’s grave condition and testimony from medical experts who said there was nothing more they could do, Superior Court Judge Marilyn Moores issued the order over the objections of Hamad’s mother, Tiwanna Sanda. The judge also issued a “do not resuscitate” order.

Although whether a court has the authority to order the discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment under the proper circumstances has almost always been answered in the affirmative, the courts which have expressly discussed this issue have put forth a number of theories as to the basis of the authority. The state’s parens patriae power has been identified as one foundation for such power. Another has been predicated upon the proposition that the patient himself or herself has a right to such discontinuance and that the action of the court serves to exercise or protect that right. Courts have also considered the effect of a patient’s incompetency on his or her right to discontinue treatment, and something similar to this appears to have entered the equation in this case in that the “true” parent lacked credibility. In evaluating particular situations, a number of courts have been influenced by a distinction between treatment considered to be “ordinary” and treatment considered to be “extraordinary.” Based solely upon the article, the necessary treatment in this case also appears to be “extraordinary.”