The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended gun rights to every state and city in the nation in a ruling involving Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban.

By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative and liberal lines, the nation's highest court extended its landmark 2008 ruling that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns to all the cities and states for the first time.

The right to bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, previously applied to just federal laws and federal enclaves, like Washington D.C., where the court struck down a similar handgun ban in its 2008 ruling.

Gun rights have been one of the country's most divisive social, political and legal issues. Some 90 million people in the United States have an estimated 200 million guns.

The United States is estimated to have the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate. Gun deaths average about 80 a day, 34 of them homicides, according to U.S. government statistics.

The ruling, issued on the last day of the Supreme Court's term, was a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups and the politically powerful National Rifle Association.

It was a defeat for Chicago, which defended its law as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. The law and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Illinois, were the nation's most restrictive gun control measures.

"We hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states," Justice Samuel Alito concluded for the court majority in the 45-page ruling.

European nations do not have to allow same-sex marriage, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled, though gay rights groups claimed a partial victory Friday because the court acknowledged growing agreement that their relationships should be recognized in law.

Seven judges at the European court ruled unanimously that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention.

The judges acknowledged "an emerging European consensus" that same-sex couples should have legal recognition but said individual states may still decide what form it should take because marriage had "deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another."

The European Union's 27 member states range from socially liberal countries like Sweden and the Netherlands to religious, conservative nations such as Poland.

Vivendi on Friday hailed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting foreign shareholders' rights to seek compensation in the United States.

Vivendi is trying to exclude French shareholders from a U.S.-based class action lawsuit on whether it misled investors about its financial health.

The entertainment-to-telecoms group said it was very satisfied with a U.S. ruling on Thursday, which dismissed a suit against National Australia Bank Ltd (NAB.AX) by foreign investors seeking damages in a New York court.

The Supreme Court ruled foreign investors who bought shares of National Australia Bank on an overseas stock exchange cannot sue in a New York court over large writedowns tied to the bank's onetime U.S. mortgage unit.

The justices upheld a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that American courts did not have jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Elena Kagan as “well-qualified,” the highest mark the committee offers.

Since 1953, the ABA has had a role in reviewing the qualifications of federal court nominees, including Supreme Court nominees.  A committee of 15 members — two from the Ninth Circuit, one from each of the 12 other federal judicial circuits and one who serves as chair — measures the individual’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. 

While the standing committee insulates its work from all other activities of the association, ABA president Carolyn Lamm is familiar with the procedures used to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications.  Lamm served as chair of the committee from 1995 to 1996. 

Lamm explained, “In terms of legal competence, you’re looking at legal, analytical ability.  You’re looking at what they’ve written, how they’ve argued, whether they’ve argued — how they’ve done it.  We listen to opponents, or from those on the same side and from judges to find out, how did they do as lawyers and what is their legal ability?”

A comprehensive evaluation is conducted by interviewing a broad spectrum of the legal community, reviewing pertinent materials written by the nominee, and interviewing the nominee personally.  After the evaluation is complete, the findings are assembled into a report which is reviewed by each member of the standing committee who then individually rates the nominee as either “well-qualified,” “qualified” or “not-qualified.”  The majority vote constitutes the official rating of the ABA standing committee.

To merit a “well-qualified” rating, a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.  Kagan’s well-qualified rating was unanimous with one abstention.

Investigations of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court differ in respect to other federal nominees in that they are conducted after the president has selected a nominee; they involve all members of the standing committee; a team or teams of law professors examine the nominee’s legal writings; and a group of practicing lawyers with Supreme Court experience also examines the writings.

Kagan currently serves as solicitor general of the United States.  She was nominated to fill the seat of John Paul Stevens, who will step down at the end of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term.

When asked how the standing committee evaluates nominees who may not have had prior judicial experience, standing committee chair Kim Askew noted, “There are many, many judges who have served on courts who have never been judges and are very effective judges.  We look at what they do and we go to the three criteria — professional competence, integrity, and temperament — and we look at what they have done in their legal careers in the practice of law, which may or may not be on a bench.”

The past five U.S. Supreme Court nominees were also found well-qualified by the committee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin its confirmation hearing for Kagan on June 28.  Kim Askew, the chair of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has been invited to testify relating to the standing committee’s rating.

Defense attorneys plan to seek the release of a Kansas doctor and his wife while they appeal their convictions on charges they conspired to profit from illegally prescribing painkillers to patients who later died.

Jurors found Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife, Linda, guilty Thursday. Prosecutors linked their suburban Wichita clinic to 68 overdose deaths.

The Schneiders also were found guilty of unlawfully writing prescriptions and health care fraud.

No sentencing date has been set. Each faces up to a life sentence.

Linda Schneider's attorney, Kevin Byers, blames the guilty verdict on a national crackdown on doctors caught in the middle of a federal policy dispute over the drugs.

A lawyer for Kwame Kilpatrick said Thursday that the ex-Detroit mayor would fight Wednesday's indictment.

"Mr. Kilpatrick will vigorously defend these allegations," Farmington Hills attorney Arnold Reed said at a news conference. He said an indictment is no evidence of guilt and that Kilpatrick committed no crime.

Reed, who said he serves as Kilpatrick's appellate lawyer, scoffed at the indictment.
"A federal grand jury will indict an empty glass of water if told to do so by the prosecution," he said.

He said he talked with Kilpatrick on Thursday and that the ex-mayor wants to do everything he can to fight the charges. Reed also said that the indictment is making Kilpatrick more focused.

Reed said he plans soon to appeal the probation violation sentence of 18 months to five years that Kilpatrick received May 25 for hiding assets to avoid paying $1 million in court-ordered restitution resulting from his 2008 perjury conviction. Reed wants Kilpatrick released on bond from state prison pending appeal.

Attorneys at the law firm of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C. are advising companies considering mergers, tender offers, acquisition transactions and joint ventures of any size to carefully examine any potential antitrust risks prior to closing the business deal.  

That is because the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are increasing scrutiny of transactions that could potentially lessen competition or create a monopoly, even when those transactions do not warrant mandatory review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act’s (Hart-Scott) jurisdictional and filing-fee thresholds for transactions triggering mandatory antitrust review.  

Glenn E. Davis, chair of the Antitrust Practice Group at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, said, “Identifying potential antitrust issues prior to closing a deal could save companies considerable effort and expense in litigating against a federal antitrust agency over a relatively modest transaction, or permit proactive planning to structure deals to avoid or minimize risk.”

On January 19, 2010, the FTC announced that for the first time it was lowering the Hart-Scott jurisdictional and filing-fee thresholds for transactions that prompt mandatory antitrust review. The 2010 revisions decreased the basic notification threshold for all transactions from $65.2 million to $63.4 million.

Amy K. Mistler, attorney in the Antitrust Practice Group at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, said, “While Hart-Scott only requires federal notification for transactions exceeding $63.4 million, this year the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have significantly increased antitrust review of transactions falling below the Hart-Scott threshold as well.”  

“The FTC and DOJ are keeping an especially close watch on mergers and acquisitions that result in one company gaining a substantial share of its relevant market,” Davis noted. For example, in January of 2010 the DOJ filed suit against Dean Foods Co., the country’s largest processor and distributor of dairy products, for antitrust violations in its $35 million acquisition of two Wisconsin dairy-processing plants from a local dairy cooperative.  The DOJ alleged that the deal was likely to substantially lessen competition in milk sales to schools and convenience stores in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan.

In March of 2010, the DOJ challenged a $5 million merger between the country’s two largest providers of voting machine equipment because the deal gave one company control over more than 70 percent of the voting-machine market. After filing suit to challenge the merger, the DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Election Systems & Software, Inc.  

In May 2010, the FTC filed suit against Dun & Bradstreet Corp. because the database company’s $29 million acquisition of competitor Quality Education Data (QED) gave it more than 90 percent of the market for K-12 education data.  When the suit was filed, Richard Feinstein, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, announced: “Despite its relatively low dollar value, this transaction dramatically decreased competition in the marketplace…When Dun & Bradstreet acquired QED, it bought its closest competitor and created a monopoly. That’s going to get the FTC’s attention every time.”

For more information, contact Glenn E. Davis or Amy K. Mistler at 314.615.6000 with questions or concerns regarding federal antitrust policy or review. A complete list of the 2010 adjusted thresholds can be accessed via the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2010/january/1001218claytonact7a.pdf. 

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C., a full service law firm of 80 attorneys, has provided legal services to clients in diverse industries since 1976 and is one of the largest law firms in St. Louis. The firm serves public corporations; privately-held companies; entrepreneurs and start-up enterprises; individuals and families; trustees and trust beneficiaries; charities; and non-profit entities. 

For more information about Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, contact Lois A. LaDriere, Director of Marketing, at 314.615.6000 or see the website http://www.gjn.com.