Attorney General Todd Rokita’s move to insert himself into the dispute between Gov. Eric Holcomb and the Indiana General Assembly over executive power is being challenged by members of the legal profession who see the state’s top lawyer as violating his oath and overstepping his authority.
The Indiana House on Thursday morning voted to override Gov. Eric Holcomb’s veto of a bill giving legislators more authority to intervene during emergencies declared by the governor.
The Indiana House on Tuesday approved two bills giving local and county government officials more say over restrictions imposed during health emergencies and protecting churches from state or local orders more restrictive than those imposed on other essential businesses.
Gov. Eric Holcomb will now get the chance to follow through on his pledge to veto a bill that would give state lawmakers the power to call themselves into session during public emergencies. The Indiana House and Senate on Monday gave their final approval to the measure that ultimately may end up in court.
Indiana lawmakers on Thursday listened to four hours of testimony on how the governor’s powers should — or should not — be restricted during public emergencies and whether or not the approach they are taking is constitutional.
Indiana lawmakers have advanced bills that would curb a governor’s authority to impose emergency restrictions such as mask rules and business closures, although Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb and a former state Supreme Court justice, among others, question whether those proposals written by members of Holcomb’s own party are allowed under the state Constitution.
As Indiana lawmakers prepare for the second half of the session, several key issues are awaiting further review.
An Evansville man whose sentence was enhanced for gang-related activity could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that he was prosecuted twice for the same offense in violation of the Indiana Constitution.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the denial of a motion to suppress drug-related evidence found during a search of a Greene County man’s home. The appellate court ruled on an issue of first impression that probable cause for a search warrant cannot be based only on an officer’s detection of the smell of marijuana without additional information about the officer’s training.
An Indianapolis man’s conviction on six counts of possession of child pornography was affirmed Thursday when the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected his claims that the evidence was insufficient and that his convictions violated his constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
A woman convicted of disorderly conduct as police intervened in a neighbor’s domestic dispute secured a reversal Wednesday, with the Indiana Court of Appeals finding the woman’s right to free political expression under the state Constitution had been violated.
A Muncie city councilman could not persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals to determine on Friday that he is still eligible for the position after another candidate revealed that the councilman has a felony record.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the revocation of a woman’s home detention in favor of incarceration, declining to make the “profound statement” that the Indiana constitutional right to counsel extends to revocation hearings.
A divided appellate court has affirmed a man’s drug dealing and conspiracy convictions despite disagreement among the panel as to whether admitted evidence found during a warrantless arrest should have been excluded.
Indiana’s chief justice and most senior justice dissented Wednesday from a decision upholding the admission of evidence in a drug case collected from a vehicle that arrived at a Camby home at the same time police were inside the house executing a search warrant that was limited to the property. A justice who sided with the majority, however, said the split decision is evidence that key caselaw regarding law enforcement searches and seizures may need to be revisited.
After filing a lawsuit challenging Curtis Hill’s ability to remain Indiana Attorney General while he serves a license suspension, four Marion County plaintiffs filed a motion Friday for summary judgment on their claim that the office is vacant and the governor can name a replacement.
Four Marion County residents have filed a lawsuit in state court, challenging Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill’s ability to remain in office after having his law license suspended beginning May 18.
A decision from the Indiana Supreme Court on whether Attorney General Curtis Hill will “vacate” his office during his impending suspension likely will not be handed down until next week, creating uncertainty over whether the Office of the Attorney General will have a recognized leader come Monday.
Statewide political leaders, including Republican leaders, are withdrawing support of embattled Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, who next week begins a 30-day suspension for two ethics violations. But Hill so far has not indicated plans to step down from his role or leave the 2020 campaign trail once the suspension is over, even though his competition may be growing.
Just one day after the Indiana Supreme Court ordered Attorney General Curtis Hill to serve a 30-day suspension for ethical violations, Gov. Eric Holcomb is petitioning the high court for guidance on what the suspension means for Hill’s ability to remain in office and challenging Hill’s decision to appoint his chief deputy to serve in his absence. A ruling in Holcomb’s favor could permit him to appoint Hill’s replacement.