[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] has renewed its call [press release] for an investigation into the actions of law enforcement officials at the Republican National Convention (RNC) [convention website] in Minnesota this week. The ACLU alleges that officers in St. Paul conducted "mass arrests, police raids on private homes and [detained] several journalists" in possible violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero [ACLU profile] spoke out against the alleged actions, commenting that "[p]olitical conventions should be a showcase for free expression, not a venue for bullying and intimidation." The Minneapolis Star Tribune has local coverage. Minnesota Public Radio has additional analysis.

The ACLU of Minnesota had announced [press release] on Wednesday that it would represent several reporters and other attendees who were arrested during the RNC [Minneapolis Star Tribune report], including Amy Goodwin, host of Democracy Now! [media website]. Goodwin was charged with a misdemeanor while her producers were charged with felony intent to riot. According to the ACLU, charges against Amy Goodwin and her producers should be dropped, and the felony charges against Goodwin's producers have since been suspended pending investigation. St. Paul police have denied using excessive force [CNN report], saying they were doing their job to maintain the peace at the convention.

[JURIST] Canadian-based Teck Cominco Ltd. [corporate website] asked US District Court Judge John Sedwick Wednesday to approve a $120M settlement agreement with six Eskimo plaintiffs from the Alaskan village of Kivalino. The agreement stems from a 2002 lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Alaska [official website] by residents living near the company's Red Dog Mine, claiming the company - the world's second largest zinc producer - dumped more than the Clean Water Act's legal limit of toxic discharge into Red Dog Creek. Kivalino residents fish and draw their drinking water from the creek. The parties had initially given notice of a settlement agreement [PDF text] in May, but the plaintiffs allegedly changed their minds [Anchorage Daily News report] before filing a proposed settlement with the court. Bloomberg News has more.

Other mining companies elsewhere around the world have in recent years faced legal challenges, complaints and protests from indigenous and aboriginal groups claiming that mining activity has infringed their rights or their enjoyment of property. In July, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR) [official website] announced it would investigate Australian mining company Oceana Gold [corporate website] for possible human rights violations at the site of a planned gold and copper mine in Didipio, Philippines. Also in July, the Court of Appeal for Ontario [official website] in Canada ruled that sentences imposed on seven aboriginal protesters in March for opposing mining company operations on community land were too severe [JURIST report].

[JURIST] Pakistani lawyers demanding that the government reinstate judges ousted last year [JURIST report] by former President Pervez Musharraf [JURIST news archive] clashed with police in Islamabad on Thursday, according to media reports. Television images showed police beating the lawyers with batons outside Parliament, in a confrontation that reportedly began after an estimated 100 demonstrators tried to enter the nearby Supreme Court [Bloomberg News report]. Hundreds of lawyers and other protesters had gathered for a sit-in outside the buildings, where Aitzaz Ahsan [profile], president of Pakistan's Supreme Court Bar Association, told reporters [Daily Mail report] that an independent judiciary is essential to a stable government in Pakistan [JURIST news archive]. Protests also took place [AFP report] in the cities of Lahore, Karachi and Multan. The demonstrations came amid reports that four judges removed from the Peshawar High Court [official website], including the chief justice, would take new oaths Friday [Daily Mail report].

The Pakistani lawyers' movement [AHRC backgrounder; PBS report] renewed its protests last week after eight judges were reappointed [JURIST report] to the Sindh High Court in Karachi. Critics described that development as evidence of a "conspiracy" to undermine support for reinstatement of all the judges nationwide. Pakistan's coalition government dissolved [JURIST report] last week after former prime minister Nawaz Sharif [party profile; JURIST news archive] withdrew his Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N) [party website] party over the failure to reach an agreement with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) [party website] to reinstate the judges. Musharraf, who resigned [JURIST report] last month to avoid impeachment proceedings for firing the judges and other alleged abuses of authority, now faces the possibility of criminal charges [JURIST report].

[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website; JURIST news archive] has charged [complaint, PDF] two former brokers for Credit-Suisse [corporate website; JURIST news archive] with defrauding clients of $1 billion by selling subprime securities that they represented as being backed by government-guaranteed student loans. The SEC complaint, filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website], accuses Tzolov and Butler of increasing their commissions by selling auction-rate securities [New York Times backgrounder] that they told clients were "low risk, highly liquid alternatives" to bank deposits and money market funds. The investments were in fact secured by subprime mortgages and other risky collateral. The former brokers are charged with violating anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and SEC regulations [text]. The SEC is asking the court to order injunctive relief, civil monetary penalties and disgorgement of profits, plus interest. Butler has pleaded not guilty [Reuters report]. Andrew M. Calamari, associate director of the SEC's New York Regional Office, said [press release] that the case "demonstrates how the recent turmoil in the subprime market has affected even investors who had no intention of buying subprime securities." AFP has more. The Wall Street Journal has additional coverage.

Among other recent developments in the so-called subprime crisis [academic backgrounder], the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] last month that the federal Truth in Lending Act does not give borrowers a right to relief from lenders who fail to conspicuously disclose certain loan information. In July, the US Senate passed a bill [JURIST report] which would give municipalities grants to buy and redevelop foreclosed properties and would allow the federal government to provide additional financial backing to the publicly-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies.

[JURIST] Thai profile] refused to resign Thursday but instead proposed a national referendum on whether he should continue in office. In a radio address following an emergency Cabinet meeting, Samak encouraged the Senate to pass legislation allowing such a referendum, suggesting it could take place within a month. Samak also announced the resignation [TNA report] of Foreign Minister Tej Bunnag, who took office [Bangkok Post report] only six weeks ago. Reuters has more. AFP has additional coverage. The Bangkok Post has local coverage.

Reacting to weeks of anti-government protests, Samak imposed a state of emergency in Bangkok [press release; Bangkok Post report] on Wednesday. Members of the opposition People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) party refused to recognize the order as they demanded Samak's resignation. PAD announced plans to seek Samak's impeachment [JURIST report] in July after a series of court decisions against key officials in the government and the ruling People's Power Party (PPP). The PPP has been closely associated with former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], now on trial for corruption. Thailand's Election Commission voted Tuesday to recommended that the PPP be disbanded [JURIST report] for election fraud allegedly committed by one of its former top officers.

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website; JURIST news archive] has ruled [case materials; press release, PDF] that the EU violated the fundamental property rights of a Saudi business and a Swedish foundation linked to al-Qaeda [JURIST news archive] by freezing their assets without giving them a hearing. The EU's highest court on Wednesday reversed a 2005 Court of First Instance decision dismissing complaints [JURIST report] brought by Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Al Barakaat International Foundation, whose bank accounts were frozen in 2001. Although the ECJ agreed with the lower chamber that the European Council [official website] had the authority to adopt a regulation [PDF text] allowing such seizures, it found that EU courts had jurisdiction to review the measure and, further, that Kadi and Al Barakaat had a right to effective judicial review. According to the ECJ opinion,

the contested regulation, in so far as it concerns the appellants, was adopted without any guarantee being given as to the communication of the inculpatory evidence against them or as to their being heard in that connection, so that it must be found that that regulation was adopted according to a procedure in which the appellants' rights of defence were not observed, which has had the further consequence that the principle of effective judicial protection has been infringed.

It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the pleas in law raised by Mr Kadi and Al Barakaat in support of their actions for annulment of the contested regulation and alleging breach of their rights of defence, especially the right to be heard, and of the principle of effective judicial protection, are well founded.

[JURIST] A lawsuit filed Wednesday in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas [official website] challenges the latest version of a Farmers Branch [official website; JURIST news archive] municipal ordinance which prohibits illegal immigrants from occupying leased property. In the lawsuit [case materials] against the Dallas suburb, several landlords and a former City Council member seek to enjoin enforcement of Ordinance 2952 [DOC text], which is scheduled to take effect Sept. 13. The plaintiffs claim it is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause by regulating immigration [JURIST news archive] and denies immigrants equal protection and due process rights. Anyone wishing to rent a single-family residence would be required to obtain an occupancy license, and the city building inspector would submit information from these license applications to a federal database, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) [official website], to determine the applicants' immigration status. This ordinance is different from prior versions because it relies on the federal government, rather than on landlords, to determine applicants' status. AP has more. The Dallas Morning News has local coverage. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has additional local coverage.

In May, US District Judge Sam Lindsay [official profile] finalized a holding [JURIST report] that an earlier law, Ordinance 2903 [DOC text], was unconstitutional. The Farmers Branch City Council [official website] passed the current ordinance [JURIST report] in an attempt to cure the flaws identified by Lindsay, and the city has been defending the ordinances since an initial version was adopted [JURIST report] in late 2006. More than 50 other US municipalities have contemplated similar laws, and last year a federal judge struck down [JURIST report] two Hazleton, Pennsylvania ordinances designed to prevent illegal immigrants from living or working in the town.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] on a suit brought by several Kentucky environmental groups, including a chapter of the Sierra Club [advocacy website], against Stephen L. Johnson [EPA bio] in his official capacity as Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website]. The plaintiffs filed suit under the Clean Water Act [text], seeking to compel Johnson to fulfill his duty to implement antidegradation requirements for Kentucky. In a complex order, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the EPA on the challenge to the EPA’s approval of Kentucky’s selection of regulated waters, reversed the grant of summary judgment to the EPA on the its approval of Kentucky’s exemption of six types of pollution discharges from review, and remanded the matter to the EPA. Judge Clay authored the opinion, stating "In my view, the EPA acted contrary to law by relying on [Kentucky's] unenforceable commitments."

In recent months, the EPA has been sued by a number of states seeking either the promulgation of regulations or effective response to petitions. In August, twelve states filed suit [press release; JURIST report] against the EPA for its alleged failure to enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act [text; EPA materials] requiring oil refineries to adopt measures curbing the pollution contributing to global warming. In July, California Attorney General Jerry Brown [official website] formally notified [letter, PDF; press release] the EPA that the state had petitioned the EPA three times seeking a regulatory ruling and would file a lawsuit [JURIST report] against the agency if it refused to issue rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from various vehicles and types of machinery.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday reversed [opinion, PDF] a district court's grant of summary judgment to retailer Costco in a copyright infringement action brought by watch manufacturer Omega [corporate websites]. Omega claimed that Costco's unauthorized sale of its imported watches constituted infringing distribution and importation. The decision turned on whether the US Supreme Court's decision in Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc. [LII materials] required the Ninth Circuit to overrule its precedents that the "first sale doctrine" raised by Costco as a defense provides no protection against an infringement claim involving

(1) foreign-made, nonpiratical copies of a U.S.- copyrighted work, (2) unless those same copies have already been sold in the United States with the copyright owner’s authority.

Perhaps most compelling is the objection that [the precedent] would provide substantially greater copyright protection to foreign-made copies of U.S.-copyrighted works. A U.S. copyright owner, for example, would be unable to exercise distribution rights after one lawful, domestic sale of a watch lawfully made in South Dakota, but, without the limits imposed by [the first sale doctrine], the same owner could seemingly exercise distribution rights after even the tenth sale in the United States of a watch lawfully made in Switzerland. The difference would likely encourage U.S. copyright owners to outsource the manufacturing of copies of their work overseas. [The Court has] resolved this problem by clarifying that parties can raise [the defense] in cases involving foreign-made copies so long as a lawful domestic sale has occurred. Insofar as Costco contends that [the doctrine] should apply to foreign made copies even in the absence of a lawful domestic sale, the surviving rule...requires otherwise. [citations omitted]