[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] Monday in the case of Wyeth v. Levine [oral arguments transcript, PDF; merit briefs], in which the court will consider whether the drug labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [text] preempt state products liability laws. A state jury initially found in favor of a Vermont woman who brought a negligence and failure-to-warn products liability suit against pharmaceutical company Wyeth [corporate website], arguing that the company's failure to indicate the dangers of intravenously injected migraine and anti-nausea drug Phenergan eventually led to the amputation of her arm. The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the decision [opinion text], holding that states may require additional drug label warnings. Wyeth appealed, arguing that any state-requested changes to the drug label would have violated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] requirements because FDA approval is based partly on the label, and that allowing state-requested changes to drug labels would contradict legislative intent by allowing an agency other than the FDA officially to determine drug safety. Lawyers for Levine have responded that the legislature has long accepted failure-to-warn claims against drug companies and that Wyeth could comply with both the federal labeling requirements and the state court judgment. AP has more.

The Supreme Court also heard arguments in the case of Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association [oral arguments transcript, PDF; merit briefs], presenting the question of whether certain sections of the Idaho Voluntary Contributions Act [text] unconstitutionally abridge labor unions' free speech rights as related to payroll deductions for political activities. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] in October that the Idaho statute, "as applied to local government employers, violates the First Amendment because it is a content-based law for which the State officials assert no compelling justification."

Finally, the Court heard arguments Monday in the case of Carcieri v. Kempthorne [oral arguments transcript, PDF], where the Court will consider whether the US Department of the Interior can take Indian land into federal trust for Indian tribes recognized after the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 [text, PDF] took effect. The case involves the Rhode Island Narragansett Tribe, recognized by the federal government in 1983. The tribe asked the federal government to take a 31-acre parcel of land into trust for the tribe, but Rhode Island has argued that the land should be governed by state law. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Rhode Island [opinion], holding that the Department of the Interior properly gave the land "Indian country" status. In addition to Indian Reorganization Act question, the Court will consider "[w]hether an act of Congress that extinguishes aboriginal title and all claims based on Indian rights and interests in land precludes the Secretary from creating Indian country there." The Providence Journal has more.

It is civilians who suffer most in armed conflicts around the world. Today, civilians account for the overwhelming majority of war casualties. But this can change. By making international humanitarian law more easily understandable and accessible to military personnel, the ICRC hopes to give combatants the guidance they need to make the right choices. It is imperative that knowledge of the rules also results in behavior that follows the rules.

[JURIST] The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website; JURIST news archive] has rejected [court order, in French, PDF] a release request by former Khmer Rouge head of state Khieu Samphan [JURIST news archive]. Samphan is charged with crimes against humanity for his involvement in the regime's alleged genocide of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians [PPU backgrounder] who died between 1975 and 1979. He had argued that the court lacked sufficient evidence against him to continue his year-long detention [JURIST report]. In a ruling dated October 28 but only just released the court disagreed, holding that "reasonable grounds" for believing he was involved in the crimes, combined with the severity of the charges and the risk to public safety his release would pose, justify his continued custody. AFP has more.

Last July, a lawyer representing Samphan resigned [press release, PDF; JURIST report], citing health reasons. Samphan himself had been hospitalized for a stroke [JURIST report] in June. The fifth senior Khmer Rouge [JURIST news archive] leader to be detained by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website], he was initially arrested [JURIST report] in November 2007 upon release from the hospital where he was receiving treatment after having suffered an earlier stroke [NYT report].

[JURIST] Members of the Pakistan lawyers' movement [NYT backgrounder; JURIST news archive] Monday renewed their demands for the reinstatement [News report] of all superior court judges dismissed last November 3 following then-Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule [JURIST report], and threatened more anti-government protests if their demands are not met. At a mass rally of lawyers in Rawalpindi held to mark the anniversary, ousted Chief Justice Chaudhry called the declaration of emergency law last year "martial law" [Dawn report]. In a statement released Sunday, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) [party website; JURIST news archive], led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, pledged its continued support [Daily Times report] for the lawyers' movement and their protests. The PML-N split with the ruling Pakistan People's Party earlier this year, claiming the PPP government was acting too slowly on the reinstatement issue. Reuters has more.

Last week, Ali Ahmad Kurd, the newly-elected president [Daily Times report] of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), called [JURIST report] Chaudhry the "constitutional" chief justice of Pakistan, and said Chaudhry would "soon be restored" to his former post. Although Pakistani officials have now reinstated most of the over 60 judges ousted by Musharraf under the emergency, the Law Minister of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) has repeatedly insisted that Chaudhry will not be reinstated [JURIST report] because current chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar was, according to him, legitimately appointed [JURIST report] and the Pakistani Constitution [text] does not permit the appointment of two chief justices. Chaudhry was the prime mover in the Pakistan Supreme Court's pre-emergency bid to constrain the country's executive, a role which brought about his initial suspension [JURIST report] by Musharraf in March 2007. He was subsequently reinstated [JURIST report] after months of agitation by Pakistani lawyers. After the November declaration of emergency rule he was put under effective house arrest and was only freed after several months.

[JURIST] The Indonesian Supreme Court on Monday rejected last-minute appeals filed by relatives of the three men sentenced to death for their roles in the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings [BBC backgrounder], with a judge saying the men had exhausted their rights of appeal. Lawyers for the three convicted members of the southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive] filed the new appeal [BBC report] early Monday, arguing that they were never informed that the Supreme Court had rejected one of their numerous previous appeals. The execution of the three is expected at any time. AP has more.

Last month, Indonesia's Constitutional Court rejected [JURIST report] a request by Mukhlas, Imam Smudra, and Amrozi Nurhasyim [BBC profiles] that their execution be carried out by beheading rather than firing squad. The court ruled that any difference between the methods were immaterial. In August, Indonesia's attorney general postponed the execution [JURIST report] of the three men during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, saying the legal challenge alone was insufficient to stay the sentences. A lawyer for the men had promised to bring their constitutional challenge after the Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the third appeal [JURIST reports] in July. Their first appeal had been rejected late last year, prompting an unusual second appeal, which was later withdrawn [JURIST reports]. Indonesia's attorney general said [JURIST report] in October that he expected the execution to be held in early November.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in two cases Monday. In District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the Court will consider whether a defendant has the right, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 [text] or the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to obtain postconviction access to the state’s biological evidence. William Osborne was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, and physical assault, and his lawyer made a strategic decision to forgo independent DNA testing of the state’s biological evidence. He was convicted and, years later, sought access to the biological evidence for purposes of new DNA testing. The issue is whether the Supreme Court's decision in the 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland [text] created a right of access to evidence only at the trial stage or whether it can apply in a post-conviction proceeding.

In Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the Court will consider whether an injured seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure of his employer to pay a basic living allowance, wages that he otherwise would have earned, and benefits to cover medical expenses. The employer contends that the applicable statutes, the Jones Act [46 U.S.C. §§ 30104-30105, text] and the Death on the High Seas Act [46 U.S.C. §§ 30302-30303, text] do not cover such expenses.

[JURIST] A US military commission jury has convicted [DOD press release] alleged al Qaeda media director Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul [DOD materials] of conspiring with al Qaeda, soliciting murder, and providing material support for terrorism. The jury reached a verdict [JURIST report] on Friday, but it was not unsealed until Monday morning, when al Bahlul was present in the courtroom at the Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] prison. The jury, composed of nine US military officers, deliberated for only four hours Friday before reaching its decision. Sentence is pending. Al Bahlul is only the second detainee to go on trial at Guantanamo and the second to be convicted since the prison opened in 2002. Reuters has more.

Al Bahlul, a 39-year old Yemeni citizen, went on trial [JURIST report] at Guantanamo last Monday. Alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's personal assistant and media secretary, al Bahlul was charged [JURIST report] in February, accused of researching the financial impact of the 9/11 attacks and releasing the "martyr wills" of 9/11 hijackers Muhammed Atta and Ziad al Jarrah as propaganda videos. He vowed earlier this year to boycott proceedings against him, saying he would attend only when a verdict was handed down or he was sentenced. At his request, his lawyer did not offer any defense. Al Bahlul faces a sentence of up to life imprisonment.

[JURIST] The US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Friday ordered [opinion, PDF] a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney [official profile; JURIST news archive] to make herself available to be deposed in a case over preservation of vice presidential records. A Washington DC advocacy group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) [advocacy website] is suing Cheney and the executive office of the president for release of the records, which they allege the Bush administration is trying to keep from the public. The court ruling orders Cheney aide Claire O'Donnell to give testimony in the lawsuit. Cheney had previously moved to block the deposition, arguing that preservation of records should only be limited to his role as an official who presides over the senate or any tasks related to assignments given by the President. AP has more.

In September, the court issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] requiring the preservation of all of Cheney's official records, finding that his office failed to maintain records as required by law and that they incorrectly interpreted the Presidential Records Act of 1978. In another lawsuit filed by CREW in July, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website], rejected a Bush administration appeal [JURIST report] of a 2007 order requiring that White House visitor logs be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text]. Last year, the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [official website] released documents showing that Cheney had exempted his office [JURIST report] from an executive order requiring executive branch officials to submit annual reports to ensure that classified information is properly secured.