 |
|

Legal news from Monday, January 22, 2007 |
 |
|


US appeals court upholds extended copyright law protection
Caitlin Price on January 22, 2007 5:42 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] Monday dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of changes to copyright law made in the 1990s. The Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of Kahle v. Gonzales [opinion text, PDF], in which the plaintiffs argued that the move from an "opt-out" rather than an "opt-in" system of copyright law required a First Amendment review in order to be upheld as constitutional. Under the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) [PDF text] of 1998, a new "opt-out" system effectively meant that copyrighted works created from 1964 to 1977 are automatically renewed. In upholding the constitutionality of the CTEA, the Court relied on the 2003 Eldred v. Ashcroft [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report] ruling in which the Supreme Court held that the CTEA did not violate the First Amendment.
Monday's opinion faulted plaintiffs for making "no compelling reason" for the Court to depart from Eldred's holding and explained the Court's stance on copyright term duration as determined by weighing the impetus provided to authors by longer terms against the benefit provided to the public by shorter terms. That weighing is left to Congress, subject to rationality review. The CTEA also retroactively extended statutory copyright protection by another 20 years beyond the original term of the author's life plus 50 years, thus decreasing the number of works entering the public domain. Ownership of orphan works is often difficult to determine, and archives such as Google, Yahoo!, and academic libraries have lobbied for less stringent copyright laws in order to increase the amount of information open to the public domain. Reuters has more.


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

|

Bush celebrates pro-life record in Roe v. Wade anniversary remarks
James M Yoch Jr on January 22, 2007 3:49 PM ET

[JURIST] President Bush Monday celebrated his administration's anti-abortion record in a telephone address [text] to pro-life marchers demonstrating in Washington DC on the anniversary of the 1972 Roe v. Wade [opinion] US Supreme Court ruling. Bush told the gathering that "we're making progress": We promoted adoption, support parental notification laws, ended federal funding for abortions overseas, and are funding crisis pregnancy programs. I had the privilege of signing legislation that extends legal protection to children who are born, despite abortion attempts, allows prosecutors to charge those who harm or kill a pregnant woman with harming or killing her unborn child, as well. I signed into law a ban on the cruel practice of partial-birth abortions, and we will vigorously defend that law in the courts. The president also took the opportunity to speak out once more against embryonic stem cell research, citing his 2006 veto [JURIST report] of a bill that would have promoted that.
Earlier this month as part of the Democrats' "first 100 hours" initiative, the US House of Representatives passed a bill without a 2/3 majority [JURIST report] amending the Public Health Service Act [text] to allow for additional embryonic stem cell research. Bush has promised to veto that bill as well. AP has more.


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

|

Supreme Court strikes down California sentencing rules
Jeannie Shawl on January 22, 2007 10:08 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in three cases Monday, including Cunningham v. California [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report] where the Court struck down as unconstitutional California sentencing rules that allow judges to exercise discretion to tack on additional years to prison sentences beyond that determined by a jury. The Court overturned a California Court of Appeal decision [PDF text; modification, PDF], holding that California's Determinate Sentencing Law [backgrounder, PDF] allows judges to impose enhanced sentences based on a judge's, not the jury's, finding of facts and therefore violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Ginsburg, along with a dissent [text] from Justice Kennedy and a second dissent [text] from Justice Alito. AP has more.
In the consolidated cases of Jones v. Bock and Williams v. Overton [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court rejected rules established by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as to when a prisoner can file a lawsuit contesting prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) [text, see Title VIII]. According to the Court, the PLRA "requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit," but Sixth Circuit rules concerning when a prisoner has exhausted other administrative procedures go too far: The Sixth Circuit, along with some other lower courts, adopted several procedural rules designed to implement this exhaustion requirement and facilitate early judicial screening. These rules require a prisoner to allege and demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint, permit suit only against defendants who were identified by the prisoner in his grievance, and require courts to dismiss the entire action if the prisoner fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement as to any single claim in his complaint. Other lower courts declined to adopt such rules. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict and now conclude that these rules are not required by the PLRA, and that crafting and imposing them exceeds the proper limits on the judicial role. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Chief Justice Roberts. AP has more.
Finally, in Osborn v. Haley [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court held that a lawsuit filed in state court by Pat Osborn, an employee of a private contractor, against a Forest Service employee who Osborn alleged influenced the contractor's decision to fire Osborn should be heard in federal court. After the lawsuit had been filed in state court, the US attorney general certified that the government employee, Barry Haley, had acted within the scope of his employment, removed the case to federal court, and sought to have the lawsuit dismissed under the Westfall Act [text], which provides tort immunity to government employees for acts committed within the scope of their employment. The federal district court hearing the case remanded it back to state court after concluding that it must accept Osborn's allegations - that Haley acted outside the scope of employment - as true. The district court ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court. The Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Circuit's decision [PDF text] in the case and ruled that the case should not have been remanded to state court, holding that for purposes of removal, the attorney general's certification gave the federal court "exclusive competence to adjudicate the case." The Court also held that certification under the Westfall Act was proper "when a federal officer charged with misconduct asserts, and the Attorney General concludes, that the incident or episode in suit never occurred." Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Ginsburg, along with a concurrence in part and dissent in part [text] from Justice Souter, a second concurrence in part and dissent in part [text] from Justice Breyer, and a dissent [text] from Justice Scalia.


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

|

Rwanda local genocide justice in jeopardy if retaliatory killings continue: HRW
Holly Manges Jones on January 22, 2007 8:20 AM ET

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] Monday urged [HRW statement] Rwandan judges and police to investigate and stop attacks on individuals administering or testifying in local tribunals known as Gacaca courts [official website; Wikipedia backgrounder] to bring those allegedly involved in the 1994 genocide [HRW backgrounder; BBC backgrounder] to justice. In a report [text] released by the rights watchdog Monday, HRW cited the November deaths of nine individuals in retaliation for the murder of a judge's nephew and a separate murder of another judge in charge of a grassroots court. Alison Des Forges, the senior Africa advisor for HRW, said: Killings of genocide survivors cost human lives and threaten the delivery of justice. Prompt and effective law enforcement is the way to deal with this threat, not reprisal killings. Reprisal killings have been rare in the past, but if they become more frequent, they could spur a new cycle of violence. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website; JURIST news archive] has been hearing cases against suspected masterminds behind the genocide, but the Gacaca courts are trying local suspects, including over 14,000 judges charged with genocide [JURIST report] in 2005. Gacaca courts have the authority to impose sentences ranging from community service to life in prison. Des Forges also stressed the importance of accurate police investigations of those cases tried through the Gacaca system. AFP has more.


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

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