 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, January 10, 2006 |
 |
|


Environmental brief ~ Asia-Pacific climate talks open
Tom Henry on January 10, 2006 3:09 PM ET

[JURIST] Leading Tuesday's environmental law news, the first Asia-Pacific Development and Climate Partnership Ministerial Meeting [backgrounder] has opened in Sydney, Australia. The meeting brings representatives from the US, Australia, Japan, China, South Korea and India together to set up projects to create emissions reduction technology and promote the transfer of that technology between the nations. The US and Australian governments have said that this partnership between the six nations will be better and more effective in reducing global air pollution than the Kyoto Protocol [text], which the US and Australia have not ratified and which does not obligate China or India to reduce emissions. The Australia Age has more.
In other environmental law news... - The Philippine Department of the Environment [official website] has fined the Lafayette Mining Ltd. [corporate website], an Australian company, 10.4 million pesos (US$198,000) over two cyanide spills that occurred in October. Additional daily penalties will be imposed until the company meets conditions set by the government for cleanup of the spills and improving conditions at the mine. Reuters has more.
- The US Department of Energy [official website] agreed [press release] Monday to create a new Environmental Impact Statement on shipments of nuclear and hazardous wastes to the Hanford site [official website] on the Columbia river in Washington state. The new EIS is part of a settlement between the DOE and Washington over alleged inadequacies of the original EIS [PDF text]. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Russia NGO bill gets final approval in lower house
Holly Manges Jones on January 10, 2006 1:02 PM ET

[JURIST] The lower chamber of Russia's parliament, the Russian State Duma [official website in Russian], approved a bill Tuesday mandating stricter controls on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that could dissolve many of the present NGOs that openly criticize the government. The measure passed by a margin of 357-20 in the third of three required readings [JURIST report] and is expected to be approved by the upper house of parliament early next week. The bill calls for stringent and continual accounting procedures for NGOs to follow and creates a new agency [JURIST report] that will oversee the registration of NGOs and decide whether certain NGOs should be dissolved, rather than allowing courts to make those determinations. Russian and foreign NGOs opposed the bill, including the country's leading human rights group, Memorial [advocacy website, English version], which said the new law will mean the "destruction of civil society in Russia." Lawmakers claim that the measure is necessary to stem terrorism and extremism, but critics say it is in response to NGOs which criticize the Kremlin, promote democracy, and fight for human rights. Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website] ordered revisions to the bill [JURIST report] after the protests, but rights groups said they did not go far enough. MosNews has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Alito pledges 'open mind' on abortion, says no president above the law
Chris Buell on January 10, 2006 11:33 AM ET

[JURIST] US Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito [official profile; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday told the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] that he would keep an open mind on the issue of abortion and that the president was not above the law in times of war during the first day of questioning in his confirmation hearings. As expected, senators questioned Alito [hearing excerpts] on his views on abortion, executive power and wiretaps [JURIST reports], subjects on which Alito has written and heard cases during his 15 years on the federal bench. Alito said he would approach any abortion case before the Supreme Court without an agenda, and he defended his dissent in the 1991 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, in which the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down a law requiring spousal notification before an abortion. Alito also said that his writings while in the Reagan administration [JURIST report] reflected a "different role" as an advocate. Sen. Arlen Specter [official website], chair of the Judiciary Committee, questioned Alito on his views of executive power. Alito said the Constitution applied at all times, although he refused to answer questions about the revelation that President Bush had authorized warrantless domestic wiretaps in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court rules against state immunity in ADA suits
Chris Buell on January 10, 2006 10:31 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday ruled that states have no immunity from private lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [text] if the state has violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In United States v. Georgia [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], 04-1203, the Court unanimously ruled that where lawsuits for monetary damages were permitted under the ADA, states were not immune. In the opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that the Court accepted the 11th Circuit's ruling that the plaintiff had alleged a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In the case, Tony Goodman alleged that prison officials kept him for 23 hours a day in a cell so small that he could not turn his wheelchair. The Court remanded the case to allow Goodman to pursue his Title II claims. Read the Court's opinion [text] and Justice Stevens' concurrence [text]. AP has more.
The Court also issued two other opinions, including one in Volvo Trucks v. Reeder-Simco [Duke Law case backgrounder], 04-905, in which the Court ruled that under the Robinson-Patman Act, a product manufacturer is not liable for price discrimination between dealers reselling the product unless they compete for the same retail customers. The Court decided the case in a 7-2 ruling. Read the Court's opinion [text], per Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Stevens' dissent [text], joined by Justice Thomas. In Evans v. Chavis [Duke Law case backgrounder], 04-712, the Court barred a California inmate's habeas appeal after the inmate waited three years before appealing a lower court ruling to the state supreme court. The Court unanimously held that the three years constituted unreasonable delay for a habeas petition. Read Justice Breyer's opinion [text] for the Court, and Justice Stevens' concurrence [text]. SCOTUSBlog has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|