The actions, announced today, also include reducing the hours of 58 employees, and will ultimately result in a 9.3 percent reduction of workforce. The new cuts are in addition to the 10 days of court closures and unpaid leave or all judges, magistrates and count employees that were announced earlier this week.

In total, the cost-cutting measures are expected to reduce the operation budget for the judicial branch by $11.4 million, or 7.1 percent. That percentage corresponds with the state’s revenue shortfall as estimated by the State Revenue Estimating Conference last month.

“The judicial branch is concerned about the state’s financial crisis, and is doing all that it can reasonably do to reduce expenses,” said Chief Justice Marsha Ternus. “Budget cuts, however, typically have a disproportionate effect on the judicial branch because we have no reserve funds to tap and no programs to eliminate. We have people — employees and judges — who are the life-blood of the court system, directly providing the court services Iowans need. Even with a 7.1 percent cut the judicial branch will lay off more employees, cut more jobs and require more unpaid leave than most state offices and departments, including the regents.”

Although as a separate branch of government the judiciary is not subject to the 10 percent across-the-board cuts ordered by the governor for executive-branch agencies, the supreme court initially considered making cuts commensurate with it. The court decided, however, that a 7.1 percent reduction was “more prudent given the vital nature of court services,” yet would still be sufficient to meet the current revenue shortfall.

“The court thoroughly examined and earnestly consider the actions we would need to take to meet a 10 percent cut,” said Ternus. “At 10 percent, the cost in terms of public service would be enormous, decimating our workforce and crippling our ability to resolve critical cases and provide essential services. As it is, a 7.1 percent cut requires draconian measures that will result in long delays, gaps in service and reduced public access to the courts.”

She added that the court was concerned about the impact the cuts will have on work with troubled juveniles and abused and neglected children, and pledged to continue to give priority to such cases within the limits of the reduced resources.

“Despite these cuts, the judicial branch will continue to send judges to every county on a regular basis and to operate a clerk of court in each county,” she said. “However, because we have cut the staff in our clerk of court offices so deeply, we have no choice but to reduce the hours of those offices. Twenty-three clerk of court offices will operate less than 40 hours a week, and others will have reduced public hours so they have some uninterrupted time to work on backlogs.”

The Iowa Judicial Branch has had two previous rounds of budget cuts in 2009. In March, the legislature cut the appropriation to the branch’s fiscal year budget by $3.8 million, resulting in court closure days, reduction in travel and other cost-saving measures. In June, the supreme court approved a fiscal 2010 budget that reduced operating expenses by $5.4 million, which resulted in the elimination of 34 staff positions and more cuts. With the reduction announced today, there are 15 percent fewer judicial branch employees for fiscal year 2010 than there were 10 years ago.

“I have voted for 11 different people either on or previously on the Supreme Court,” Grassley said. “Only one of those 11 was not confirmed. I’m not sure yet how I’m going to vote on this nominee, but it could be the first time I vote against.”

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Of the 11 individuals he favored for the post, Grassley said he knew that some would likely make rulings he disagreed with. He voted for them, he said, because they were qualified for the job. In fact, Grassley said the only Supreme Court justice he approved that later surprised him was Justice David Souter, the man Sotomayor hopes to replace.

Grassley also compared the hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas to what is currently happening with Sotomayor. In particular, he reminded those listening that although Thomas, like Sotomayor, had a compelling American story, and the Democrats in the Senate actively scrutinized him.

“The focus of the hearing is not Sotomayor, but we are interested in what people are going to do once they get on the bench,” he said.

Nick Rhoades

An examination of the state’s HIV transmission law and related court cases by the Iowa Independent has found that certain provisions may have unintended consequences, for instance, that despite its name, actual transmission of the virus is not required for a person to be subject to prosecution under it. And some say it may be time for Iowa to make changes to the law, now more than a decade old.

The People v. Nick Clayton Rhoades

On May 1, Nick Clayton Rhoades, 34, of Plainfield, entered the courtroom of Judge Bradley J. Harris and pleaded guilty to criminal transmission of HIV, a Class B felony. Rhoades, whose only previous offense had been a 2006 operating-while-intoxicated conviction, was sentenced to 25 years in prison and a lifetime of parole.

On June 26, 2008, Rhoades met a man, unidentified in court records, while in an Internet chat room. Rhoades and the man agreed to meet that same day at the unidentified man’s Cedar Falls home. While available court records do not indicate exactly what activities occurred between the two men, a police report states that the two “did engage in intimate contact with each other.”

Three days later, according to a report filed by the Cedar Falls Police Department, an investigation into the incident was opened when the unidentified man notified law enforcement officials that he had learned from friends that Rhoades was HIV positive. The following month the man was instructed to contact Rhoades by phone and, according to the report, Rhoades provided his HIV status to the man during that phone call.

For reasons not disclosed in available court records, Rhoades was a patient at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics at the time a warrant had been issued for his arrest. Hospital officials were ordered to notify Cedar Falls law enforcement prior to his discharge, so that an arrest could be made at that time. Rhoades was arrested as requested on Sept. 28, 2008, and transported to the Black Hawk County Jail. He initially pleaded not guilty.

Rhoades was given a pre-trial evaluation shortly after his arrest by a probation/parole officer who concluded that the defendant had “possible substance abuse” problems as well as “mental and physical health issues.” The evaluating officer also determined that Rhoades was a danger to the community and posed a flight risk. The recommendation was for the court to deny Rhoades release with supervision under the Pre-Trial Services Intensive Supervision Program.

The Black Hawk County Jail remained Rhoades’ home until shortly after his sentencing date in May, when he was transferred to a state correctional facility in Johnson County that serves as both a classification center for all new inmates and a psychiatric hospital. In sentencing documents, Judge Harris indicated the 25-year sentence was appropriate due to Rhoades’ age, history, family and employment situation, nature of the offense, plea agreement and “consequences of offense, defendant’s mental health condition [and] remorse.”

The Iowa Independent asked James Metcalf, attorney representing Rhoades, to clarify references within the case file related to mental health. Metcalf stated that his client suffered from depression, but did not elaborate. Metcalf also indicated that, because the judge had provided a 12-month window for re-evaluation, he intended to ask the court to reconsider the sentence.

Mary Stegmeir, reporting for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, quoted Rhoades as saying during the sentencing hearing that living with HIV is like “carrying a concealed weapon,” and that he “always wanted to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem.” Rhoades, who participated in AIDS education efforts, said: “Clearly, I’ve fallen short in this case.”

Intimate contact between the two men was described as consensual, although enhanced by pharmaceuticals and alcohol, and the unidentified man has since tested negative for HIV. Ironically enough, in 1998 when Rhoades first learned that he was HIV positive, state lawmakers nearly unanimously passed the portion of the criminal code that led to his prosecution and prison sentence.

Iowa’s criminal transmission law: A lesson in history

The criminal transmission law was drafted and adopted in Iowa in much the same way it was in other states. That is, criminal penalties related to transmission were required if states were to receive federal monies related to AIDS care and education.

In 1987 — years after HIV and AIDS had begun to claim lives not only within the gay community, but among intravenous drug users and blood recipients — then-President Ronald Reagan ordered the creation of the President’s Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic. The commission, which issued its final report with nearly 600 recommendations the following year, was the first to encourage states to pass criminal statutes that imposed an “affirmative” duty on those who tested positive to disclose their status with intimate partners.

Iowa initially resisted this recommendation, which did not have a monetary attachment, and did not move to criminalize transmission until a decade later, eight years after the federal government passed the 1990 Ryan White Care Act. Only two years after Iowa passed its law, the Ryan White Act was reauthorized without the criminal transmission law mandate, but by that time 32 states had already passed laws specific to HIV, and all 50 certified they had laws to address such transmission.

If a person in Iowa knows that he/she is HIV positive, Iowa’s law makes it a felony if that person:

a) engages in intimate contact with another person,

b) transfers, donates or provides blood, tissue, semen, organs or other potentially infectious body fluids for transfusion, transplantation, insemination or other administration to another person, or

c) dispenses, delivers, exchanges, sells or in any other way transfers to another person any non-sterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia previously used

The law also very specifically notes, in direct contradiction to its formal title, that actual transmission is not required for a person to be prosecuted. Engaging in activity that results in intimate contact, defined as intentional exposure of body fluid, could result in prosecution.

Under this definition, activities recognized by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as holding a minuscule risk of transmission — such as kissing — could still be subject to prosecution under Iowa law.

In addition, there is only one affirmative defense that can be offered by an HIV-positive person accused of engaging in the suspect activities: Informed consent. What Iowa law doesn’t offer, however, is a specific definition or outline of what informed consent is.

Further, Iowa law not only mandates informed consent of the specific act, but for the person consenting to have knowledge “that the action of exposure could result in transmission.” While this particular phrase could have been added as a protection for individuals with mental deficiencies, could it also be used to prosecute someone who engaged in a low-risk intimate activity without realizing that the activity could potentially result in transmission?

Since state archives from more than a decade ago are limited, the only way to determine intent is to query lawmakers who took part in the now 11-year-old process.

“I wish I could remember specifics,” said Ed Fallon, who formerly served in the Iowa House and was one of the unanimous votes to pass this portion of the law. “I have a vague memory of discussion regarding this legislation being connected to federal funds, but I can’t remember any specific conversations that might have been held at that point.

“I’ve been arguing for a long time that there needs to be a better and more detailed archive of these types of records. It’s important, especially when questions like this are posed, that we have something to fall back on other than often sketchy memories from those involved.”

Senate and House journals, which do exist for the time period, offer an extremely narrow view of what happened. What is known is that the criminal transmission law was passed alongside a mandate for all convicted or alleged sexual offenders be tested for HIV. Although the original bill called for only convicted sex offenders to be tested, a bipartisan amendment broadened the scope to include alleged offenders. All lawmakers at the time save one — the late Sen. Mary Lundby, who was not present in the chamber — voted to approve the amended bill.

It was signed by Gov. Terry Bradstad on April 13, 1998.

COMING WEDNESDAY: Despite questions and apparent inconsistencies in the law, Iowa courts have held firm, upholding long prison sentences against defendants convicted under the HIV transmission law.

Judge John C. Miller, 66, plans to retire July 23. He was appointed to the Iowa Court of Appeals in 1999 by then-Gov. Tom Vilsack.

“It has been my privilege to serve the people of Iowa as a judge,” Judge Miller said in a prepared statement. “Our hard-working and dedicated judges and judicial branch employees have made what can be demanding and challenging work a pleasure. I will miss working with them on a daily basis, but look forward to having more time for family, friends, and other pursuits.”

The Culver administration has made several judicial appointments since taking office in 2007, and this will be his fourth to the nine-member Iowa Court of Appeals.

Most of Culver’s judicial appointees — all selected from three-person shortlists produced by the State Judicial Nomination Commission — have been perceived moderates, most with previous bench experience. Given past history, Iowans can look for Culver to possibly promote someone from the district court ranks.

Miller, who plans to remained involved with the judicial branch as a senior judge after retirement, has had a lengthy career. He worked for five years as a part-time judicial hospitalization referee while in private practice from 1975 to 1980 and spent more than 18 years as a district court judge, including 14 months as Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, and nearly 10 years on the Iowa Court of Appeals. He attended undergraduate and law school at the University of Iowa, receiving his bachelor’s degree in 1969 and his law degree, with distinction, in 1975.

“I will apply to serve as a senior judge, and will be happy to continue working for the courts in any way that I can,” he said. “I hope to continue to contribute to the courts, and to maintain the relationships established over the years.”

Seven manga books, intercepted and seized by federal authorities, led to a 39-year-old Iowa man being indicted on child pornography charges. Similar although non-explicit graphic novels, like the three pictured above, are available at most public libraries.

“I wrote a story about a serial killer who kidnaps and rapes children, and then murders them,” Gaiman told MTV. “We did that as a comic, not for the purposes of titillation or anything like that, but if you bought that comic, you could be arrested for it? That’s just deeply wrong. Nobody was hurt. The only thing that was hurt were ideas.”

Eric Chase, attorney for Handley, agreed that there is explicit sex drawn in yaoi comics, and that Japanese cultural differences can create a visual appearance of adolescence.

“The men are drawn in a very androgynous style, which has the effect of making them look really young,” Chase said. “There’s a real taboo in Japan about showing pubic hair, so they’re all drawn without it, which also makes them look young. So what concerned the authorities were the depictions of children in explicit sexual situations that they believed to be obscene, but there are no actual children. It was all very crude images from a comic book.”

Handley, an office worker, was first investigated in May 2006 when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials intercepted a package addressed to him that originated from Japan. Upon opening the package the officials found seven manga books with sexually explicit drawings. As the investigation continued, law enforcement searched Handley’s private manga collection and found more evidence of what was deemed to be obscene material. He was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Iowa in May 2007.

Although he originally faced five charges under the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also known as the Amber Alert Law), Judge James E. Gritzner ruled in July 2008 that several of the charges were  “constitutionally infirm.” Handley’s plea agreement includes only two charges: One count of possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and one count of mailing obscene matter. At his upcoming sentencing, which has not yet been scheduled, Handley faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, $500,000 in fines and six years of supervised release following any prison term. He also forfeits all property seized in his prosecution.

Chase told Wired Magazine that he recommended Handley make a deal because he did not believe an adequate defense could be mounted if the jury saw the drawings.

“Naturally, we are very disappointed by this result, but understand that in a criminal case, every defendant must make the decision that they believe serves their best interest,” said Charles Brownstein, executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. “Because the set of facts specific to this case were so unique, we hope that its importance as precedent will be minimal. However, we must also continue to be prepared for the possibility that other cases could arise in the future as a result.”

The organization reports that it has spent $2,400 in research preparing for a jury trial and had allocated an additional $15,000 for expert witness expenses.

“Mr. Handley now faces the loss of his freedom and his property, all for owning a handful of comic books. It’s chilling,” Brownstein said. “The Fund remains unwavering in our commitment to be prepared to manage future threats of this nature wherever they arise. This is the unfortunate conclusion of Mr. Handley’s case, but it is not the end of this sort of prosecution. For that reason, the Fund stands steadfast in our commitment to defending the First Amendment rights of the comics art form.”

According to the ruling, federal prosecutors have inappropriately used aggravated identity theft laws to prosecute undocumented workers. The decision directly impacts Iowa since of the 389 workers taken during a May 2008 raid at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville, 302 were fast-tracked with criminal charges, most related to identity theft.

The ruling, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, mandates a prosecutor be able to show immigrant detainees knowingly used identification that actually belonged to another person. In the case of the Postville detainees, their knowledge regarding the origin of fraudulent employment documents was not a factor, the very fact that they were using fake documents led to their quick conviction on identity theft-related charges.

“As a matter of ordinary English grammar, it seems natural to read the statute’s word ‘knowingly’ as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime,” wrote Breyer in the decision.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Ignacio Flores Figueroa, a Mexican citizen who gained employment at an Illinois steel plant while using false documents. Although he originally provided fake documents to his employer that contained completely falsified numbers, later documents he used contained numbers assigned to another individual.

He was eventually arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to immigration-related offenses. He fought the identity theft charges, claiming that he did not ‘knowingly’ commit the crime. The initial conviction on those charges was upheld in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but struck down today with high court’s ruling.

Many believe the government effectively coerced detainees from Postville into accepting plea deals on lesser charges by pressuring them with the more lengthy and harsh sentences that could be imposed under the aggravated identity theft charges. Although most of those sentenced in the aftermath of the Postville raid signed plea agreements and received five month prison sentences that have already ended, two individuals were sentenced to 12 months behind bars. It is unknown at this time how this ruling will impact those cases.

The court’s decision, however, should have no bearing on the numerous criminal and civil cases faced by employees and management at the Agriprocessors plant.

“I think this [situation] says a lot about how bad the Justice Department got under President [George W.] Bush,” Harkin said during a conference call with reporters today. “It became a haven for ideological right-wingers for one thing, and it also became sort of a rogue institution with no supervision, no guidance [and] no direction.”

Stevens, 85, was convicted last fall of seven counts of lying on disclosure forms to conceal $250,000 in gifts and home improvements from an oil industry executive and others. The following week he was narrowly defeated for reelection to a Senate seat he had held since 1968.

This week U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, a member of the Obama administration, dropped the corruption case against Stevens, citing previous prosecutors’ neglect to share evidence with the defense. The indictment has been dismissed and the U.S. Department of Justice will not seek a new trial.

The government’s motion to dismiss will be heard on April 7 before U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan, who has repeatedly delayed sentencing while criticizing trial prosecutors. Holder made his decision to request dismissal when the new team he assembled in February discovered additional prosecution notes that had not been turned over to Stevens’ defense team.

“You read about what some of these prosecutors did in this case… it was almost like the prosecutors were hoping that they would fail,” Harkin said.

When asked why prosecutors would behave in such a manner, Harkin replied, “Maybe they didn’t want to convict Stevens.”

“When you look at all the nonsense that was going on, it was just inviting the judge to throw the case out,” Harkin said.

“My reading of this case is that Stevens had done a lot of bad things. I think it was clear that he had done a lot of unethical things, and, as the case unfolded, probably illegal things. But I thought the case was just terribly mismanaged.”

“Of the 224 people in the United States who have been wrongfully convicted by juries of committing a crime, about 77 percent — or 172 of them — were cases of mistaken eyewitness identification,” said Gary Wells, an ISU psychology professor who was featured on CBS News this weekend.

Wells and graduate student Deah Quinlivan published a paper in a journal of the American Psychology-Law Society last month, documenting their findings that eyewitness testimony obtained by suggestive means is not reliable. The two take direct aim at the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision Manson v. Brathwaite, which permits such identifications as evidence.

“[I]t turns out that mistaken eyewitness identification accounts now for more convictions of innocent people that all other causes combined,” Wells said. “Now that’s been a surprise, I think, to the legal system. It has not been a surprise for psychologists because we’ve been doing work well before forensic DNA testing came along to prove these cases on eyewitness identification.”

The published report documents how both biological science (via DNA) and social science (via eyewitness identification experiments) have shed new light on eyewitness identification errors, which are much more prevalent than that Supreme Court could have surmised in 1977. The authors conclude that it is now time to change current eyewitness identification procedures.

“Today, police carry out very complex evidence collection procedures with physical evidence such as blood, hair and fiber that have to conform to precise protocols and careful documentation,” they wrote. “Clearly, police would be capable of carrying out careful non-suggestive protocols with eyewitness identification evidence as well, if courts were more assertive in demanding it.”

Wells, who helped develop the first set of national guidelines for police on eyewitness evidence, was featured on the CBS News show “60 Minutes” on Sunday. The camera crew for the show spent a day with him at Iowa State University.

In Varnum v. Brien, six same-sex couples from Polk County are arguing that the state’s 1998 ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional. The state is defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed by wide margins in the state Legislature a decade ago.

The Iowa Supreme Court building in Des Moines.

“Once you decide the standard, the outcome may be controlled by that standard,” Mark McCormick, a Des Moines attorney who served on the Iowa Supreme Court from 1972 to 1986, said in a telephone interview with the Iowa Independent.

McCormick says the seven justices on the court face a fundamental choice: to decide if a “rational basis” or a “strict scrutiny” test should be applied to the case.

“The Court has decided quite a number of equal protection clause cases,” said McCormick. “A good deal of what the court does in [those] cases depends on what the test or standard is.”

When a case involves a routine economic issue, the court typically applies a rational basis test, he said. That means the judges seek to decide if the Legislature could have had any reasonable basis for making the classification that it did. If the judges conclude that the state had a rational reason for the law, the court won’t interfere with it, but will defer to the Legislature.

“Strict scrutiny” is a more demanding standard, he said.

“Where you are dealing with an issue like race or citizenship or something that is considered a fundamental constitutional right, the burden is on the government to prove a compelling need for the classification,” he explained.

In the district court decision in the case last August, the judge applied this standard and ruled in the favor of the gay couples.

“You can see these [two tests] are just at opposite extremes,” he said. “A good deal of a favorable outcome will depend on what test the court thinks should be applied. If this were a race case, there wouldn’t be any question about [which standard would be used]. If this were an ordinary case involving a right based on gender, the court would likely apply the strict scrutiny standard.”

Although much has been made in the lead-up to Tuesday’s oral arguments about the court hearing this case de novo, or without consideration of any lower court’s decision, McCormick said this is not a significant distinction.

“De novo doesn’t mean anything because whenever the constitution is challenged, the review by the Supreme Court is de novo,” he said. “And where a decision like this is made under the Iowa constitution, it doesn’t matter what federal courts might do, because the Iowa court has full control over its constitution and its interpretation of the Iowa equal protection clause.”

This is not to say, however, that the Iowa Supreme Court justices will ignore other state decisions as they make their ruling, he said.

“I think our court will look at the decisions that have been made in other states,” he went on. “The three most recent states to decide the issue, as I recall, have stricken state laws of a comparable nature. So, our court will be looking at the reasoning in those cases, and will probably find something persuasive about some of that reasoning.”

The three most recent state courts to rule on gay marriage were Massachusetts, California and Connecticut. The justices in all three states ruled that laws banning same-sex marriages were unconstitutional.

McCormick said he believed the quickest ruling he could remember from the Iowa Supreme Court came in roughly three weeks. Such a quick ruling is not expected to happen in this controversial case. McCormick said it would likely be months before the court formally weighs in on the issue.

Regardless of how long it takes for the ruling to be made, McCormick said Iowans can rest assured that the Court’s decision will be based in the law.

“I think the people on the court have been involved with enough issues which have had a lot of public attention to know that [public sentiment] can’t dictate or influence how they decide the case,” he said. “In my experience and observation, the court does apply the rule of law in these cases and the judges do put personal feelings to the side. The justices on the court would not ever be influenced by the personal opinion of another judge that they didn’t think was supported by the law. So, I think they will attempt to get right to the heart or merits of the matter.”

Joseph Sarachek, a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee currently in charge of the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, is seeking to make the company more attractive to potential buyers. Sarachek told residents there that he plans to reopen the facility’s poultry production lines as early as next week. Other kosher food producers are strategically positioning themselves to buy the company’s operations.

The Postville plant, which has not been at full operation since a May 12 immigration raid, was once the nation’s largest supplier of kosher meat products. Placing the plant back in production is important to those who have an interest in selling the operation. Obviously, a plant that is up and running with a trained and loyal work force is more appealing than one that is defunct.

Sarachek outlined his plans with civic and community leaders prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. He said he would begin by opening only the poultry production line, but beef production could also be in the plant’s future. Sarachek was hopeful that the bankruptcy judge will approve the move. He indicated that First Bank, a creditor owed $35 million by Agriprocessors, was in favor of the move.

Bernard Feldman, a New York attorney who was named this September as the company’s chief executive, told the New York court hearing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case that discussions with possible buyers are under way. Feldman said he hopes the plant will have new ownership in the near future.

Sarachek told The Des Moines Register that Agriprocessors owes more than $500,000 in back pay to workers, and that he plans to begin repaying those debts to the 170 workers he will re-hire to work at the plant next week.

Former chief executive Sholom M. Rubashkin remains behind bars, awaiting trial on a litany of charges that include multimillion-dollar bank fraud, document falsification and immigration-related charges. At least seven other members of plant management, as well as the corporate entity itself, are also either facing charges or have pleaded guity to charges.

The bankruptcy filed by Agriprocessors owner Abraham Aaron Rubashkin on Nov. 4 continues to work its way through the court in New York. Several creditors, including the Iowa labor commissioner, have requested the case be moved to Iowa. A judge is expected to rule on the change of venue within the next two weeks.

Competitors have already positioned themselves into the void created during Agriprocessors’ legal woes.

Empire Kosher Poultry announced that it would “significantly expand production” of kosher chicken on Nov. 24, increasing its output by 50 percent. The company, while obviously hoping to grab the market share vacated by Agriprocessors, said in a press release that it hoped the increase would “allay any fear of a widespread kosher poultry shortage.” It was the second increase in production for Empire during 2008.

Greg Rosenbaum, chairman and chief executive of Empire, made note not only of the cooperation of kosher certifying agencies in announcing the production increase, but made a special point of praising the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The praise came on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court denial to hear a 2005 case involving Agriprocessors’ refusal to bargain with workers at its Brooklyn distribution facility who voted to join UFCW. Agriprocessors had unsuccessfully argued to the National Labor Relations Board and a U.S. Court of Appeals that since many of those who voted to unionize were undocumented workers, it didn’t have to honor the decision.