[JURIST] Nepalese lawmakers pressing for wide-ranging changes to the country's constitution [text] called Saturday for King Gyanendra [Nepal monarchy website] to give up control of the army [Royal Nepalese Army website] to put out of his reach a key instrument he used to assume direct control of the country in February 2005 when he effectively deposed the civilian government of then-Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba [Wikipedia profile]. Nepal's current constitution makes the King the army's supreme commander, but many politicians wanting to restrain the monarch lest he be tempted to seize power again say that an elected Prime Minister [official OPM website] should be in that position. Nepal's Parliament [official website] is scheduled to consider a range of political and constitutional proposals in a further meeting in Kathmandu Sunday.

Nepal's House of Representatives met for the first time in four years on Friday. Parliament was reinstated by the King early last week following 18 days of intense pro-democracy agitation in which 17 people were killed and thousands injured. AP has more.

[JURIST] Lester Crawford [official profile], the embattled former head of the US Food and Drug Administration [official website] who stepped down [JURIST report] in September 2005 after only three months in office in the midst of a furor over the agency's refusal to authorize over-the-counter distribution of Plan B emergency contraceptives [product backgrounder], is under criminal investigation by a grand jury for alleged financial wrongdong and making false statements to Congress. The existence of the probe was disclosed by Crawford's lawyer Thursday during proceedings in a civil suit against him by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights prompted by the Plan B debacle. Attorney Barbara Van Gelder told the judge in that case that she would advise Crawford to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination if he were questioned this coming week on his tenure at the FDA. In October last year the New York Times reported that financial disclosure forms from Crawford and his wife revealed they had sold shares in companies regulated by the FDA in 2004, leading to lawmakers calling for an investigation [Boston Globe report].

In August 2005, a high-ranking FDA official resigned in protest [JURIST report] over the agency's continued delay in deciding whether to approve emergency contraceptive pills for over-the-counter-sale. Crawford and supporters have argued that his refusal to authorize general distribution of the drug was grounded on scientific and legal concerns rather than political ideology [JURIST report]. A GAO report released in November nonetheless characterized the FDA's review of Plan B as procedurally "unusual" [JURIST report]. Saturday's New York Times has more.

[JURIST] The British lawyer serving as chief prosecutor for the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone [official website], the West African war crimes court that will try recently-captured ex-Liberian president Charles Taylor [JURIST news archive] for war crimes and crimes against humanity, announced [press release, PDF] Friday he would step down June 30 when his contract expires after only a year in the top position, although he left open the possibility of coming back to lead the case against Taylor if asked to do so by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Desmond de Silva QC succeeded former American chief prosecutor David Crane [faculty profile], who resigned in 2005 after serving with the Freetown-based tribunal from its establishment in 2002.

De Silva said he wanted to go back to his family in England and his legal practice in London. He originally joined the court as Deputy Prosecutor in October 2002. It's as yet unclear how his departure will affect the pending Taylor trial, already complicated by the possibility of having its locus shifted [JURIST report] to the facilities of the new International Criminal Court [official website] in The Hague and by uncertainties as to where Taylor might be sent for incarceration if convicted, given that a number of European states, including Denmark [JURIST report], Austria and Sweden [JURIST report], have already said they will not take him. AP has more.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice says it will ask a federal judge to dismiss a class-action suit [EFF backgrounder] launched [JURIST report] in January by the Electronic Frontier Foundation [advocacy website], a cyberspace privacy group, against telecommunications giant AT&T alleging that it violated citizens' rights to privacy as well as several federal statutes when it allowed the National Security Agency [official website] to use its infrastructure to wiretap US citizens as part of the President's domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. The government is not a party to the suit, but without conceding that any of the allegations concerning its own activity are true, it nonetheless filed a Statement of Interest [PDF] Friday saying the case endangered military and governmental secrets.

EFF recently pressed for a preliminary injunction against AT&T, filing sealed evidence [EFF statement] by retired AT&T technician Mark Klein and an FCC telecom expert that it claims to show "both the technology and behavior involved in AT&T's illegal activities." Earlier this month, Klein issued a public statement [full text] in which he said:

Based on my understanding of the connections and equipment at issue, it appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data.

Given the public debate about the constitutionality of the Bush administration's spying on U.S. citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant, I think it is critical that this information be brought out into the open, and that the American people be told the truth about the extent of the administration's warrantless surveillance practices, particularly as it relates to the internet.

[JURIST] The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals Friday overturned [PDF opinion] a Pittsburgh municipality ordinance requiring canvassers to register with police before going door to door. The ACLU filed suit [complaint, PDF] on behalf of a local of the Service Employees International Union [union website] involved in a get-out-the-vote campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry prior to the 2004 presidential election. The plaintiffs argued that requiring individuals and groups, including political activists, to notify police before calling on their fellow-citizens was an infringement on free speech. The municipality countered that the measure was appropriate to prevent fraud and crime.

A federal court judge upheld the ordinance [PDF memorandum opinion] in 2004, but the appeals court concluded Friday:

the challenged ordinance is not tailored to serve Mt. Lebanon’s legitimate interest in preventing crime and fraud. At the same time, that ordinance substantially burdens a broad range of speech which enjoys the highest level of First Amendment protection.

[JURIST] A spokesman for the Administrative Office of the US Courts [official website] said Friday that creating an inspector general for the federal judiciary to investigate possible ethical violations by federal judges "would be a serious incursion into judicial independence" and was unnecessary, as the judicial branch was already subject to congressional oversight and had internal procedures for handling ethics problems. Dick Carelli was responding to bills introduced [press release] Thursday in the US House and Senate by two high-ranking Republicans, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) [official website] and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) [official website], aimed at stemming such occasional practices as judges' acceptances of free trips from parties who have pending cases before them or sitting on cases in which they might have a financial interest. Both versions of the legislation would direct Chief Justice John Roberts [JURIST news archive] to appoint an inspector general who would report to him and to Congress about activities of members of the judiciary.

Issues of conflicts of interest played a role in the Senate hearings earlier this year for US Supreme Court nominee (and now Justice) Samuel Alito [JURIST news archive]. While on the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals [official website], then-judge Alito heard a case [JURIST report] in which Vanguard [corporate website], a mutual fund company in which Alito owned shares, was a party. The House version of the proposed Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2006 would not extend its rules to the US Supreme Court, but the Senate version would. The idea of appointing an inspector general for the US judicial branch is not new; in 1996 the policy-making Judicial Conference of the United States [official website] formally rejected the option, but Rep. Sensenbrenner expressed concern two years ago about what he called "the Judicial Branch's lack of effort in recent years to police its Members' behavior" and said Thursday he was "troubled to read recently in a Washington Post article that a number of federal judges have continued to violate applicable ethical rules and others have failed to make proper disclosures for travel to resorts on expense-paid trips." AP has more.

[JURIST] In the latest legal assault on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [PDF text], conservative business organization the Free Enterprise Fund [official website] has asked former US solicitor general and Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr [Wikipedia profile], former US assistant attorney general Viet Dinh, and 2000 Bush legal team member Michael Carvin to challenge provisions of the law that set up the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) [official website]. The PCAOB is a four-member body tasked with overseeing accounting practices in publicly traded companies; consistent with the overall purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley, the board was created in response to the collapse of Enron [JURIST news archive] and the other corporate fraud scandals [JURIST news archive] that hit the headlines in 2002. The lawsuit argues that the PCAOB provisions violate the separation of powers doctrine by endowing the board with too much unchecked police power.

The case is set for oral argument before US District Judge James Robertson on June 29. Starr, now dean at Pepperdine University School of Law [academic website], suggests that it could wind up in the US Supreme Court [official website]. AP has more.

[JURIST] The UN Security Council Friday passed a wide-ranging resolution on duties to civilians in armed conflict that included a landmark affirmation of an international responsibility to protect [backgrounder] in the face of war crimes, genocide and ethic cleansing when their own countries refuse to take action. The Council specifically invoked two key sections of the final outcome document [text, PDF] adopted [JURIST report] at the September 2005 UN World Summit [official website] that set out the duty. The affirmation was hailed as a major breakthrough by UK Ambassador to the UN Emyr Jones Parry, who had been negotiating with other members on the issue since November. Russia and China in particular had been hesitant to adopt the statement, regarding it as a device to interfere in countries' internal affairs, but the inclusion of other provisions in the final document allowed them to support it. Humanitarian assistance groups also welcomed the measure.

Resolution 1674 [summary and text] also calls on states to uphold the principles of international humanitarian law, labels deliberate targeting of civilians a "flagrant violation," and condemns all acts of sexual exploitation, abuse and trafficking of women and children by personnel involved in United Nations operations. AP has more.