[JURIST] The Swedish Parliament [official website, in Swedish] on Wednesday voted in favor [press release, in Swedish] of a gender-neutral marriage law, repealing a previous law on registered partnerships. The legislation [proposal, in Swedish] would allow same-sex couples already partnered through the existing legislation to either continue their legal partnerships or to apply for marriage status. The law was opposed by the Christian Democrats [HBL report, in Swedish], but supported by the Liberal, Moderate, Center, Green, Left, and Social Democrat parties. The Swedish Parliament addressed concerns about children raised in same-sex marriages by stating that the legislation benefits everyone, including children, by changing societal attitudes on homosexuals. The legislation, which takes effect on the first of May, specifies that members of the clergy will be appointed to conduct civil marriages instead of judges.

Same-sex marriage laws were recently passed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the Vermont Senate [JURIST reports], although the Governor of Vermont warned that he would veto the legislation. In December, Hungary struck-down [JURIST report] a same-sex partnership law by alleging that it would diminish the importance of marriage. In November, the Australian Senate approved [JURIST report] a same-sex equal rights law but did not grant the right to marry.

[JURIST] Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin [official website] filed a complaint [materials] Wednesday against Fairfield Greenwich Group [corporate website] alleging fraud for their involvement in the Bernard Madoff [JURIST news archive] investment scheme. According to the complaint, Fairfield Greenwich acted as a feeder fund [Investopedia backgrounder], giving their clients access to Madoff's investments. The complaint alleges that of the approximately $7.2 billion in Fairfield's investment assets - more than half of their total assets - 95 percent was invested with Madoff Investment Securities. The charges represent the first regulatory actions [WSJ report] against a feeder fund related to the Madoff fraud case. The allegations cite a:

profound disparity between the due diligence Fairfield represented to its investors that it would conduct with respect to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC...and the due diligence it actually conducted, as well as misrepresentations to investors in its Sentry funds about Fairfield's degree of knowledge and comfort with respect to Madoff's operations...[and a] failure [by] Fairfield to disclose to investors the interconnected relationship between Fairfield and Madoff Investments.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; briefs] in Polar Tankers v. City of Valdez [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURISTreport], where the Court will consider whether a municipal tax that falls exclusively on large vessels in the city’s harbor violates the Tonnage Clause (Art. 1 § 10 cl. 3), the Commerce Clause (Art. 1 § 8 cl. 3), or the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause of the US Constitution [text]. The city of Valdez, Alaska, imposes a tax on oil tankers and other large vessels using its port to pick up and deliver crude oil. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld [opinion, PDF] the tax. Counsel for Polar Tankers argued that, because the tax effectively only targeted these ships, and neither other vessels nor other property, the city had violated constitutional restrictions:

The Valdez vessel tax violates the Constitution's Tonnage Clause because it operates as a charge on a privilege of trading in the port of Valdez, and that tax is apportioned in a way that is guaranteed to tax extraterritorial values and values that do not have a connection to the city. That violates the Due Process and Commerce Clauses.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Wednesday granted [order, PDF] a habeas corpus petition filed by Yemeni Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Yasin Muhammed Basardh, ordering his release from the prison. His detention came under exclusive review of the court after a panel for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] suspended [text, PDF; JURIST report] its consideration of his case in light of the 2008 Supreme Court [official website] decision in Boumediene v. Bush [Duke Law backgrounder; JURIST archive], which it said gave the District Court sole jurisdiction over the matter. Justifications for Basardh's release were kept classified. The US government was ordered "to take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate the release of petitioner Basardh forthwith."

The order comes after a Tuesday stay of proceedings [JURIST report] against fellow Yemeni detainee Ayman Saeed Batarfi and follows a call by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] on Sunday for the US and Yemen [JURIST news archive] to agree on a repatriation plan that provides "meaningful legal process" for the nearly 100 Yemeni detainees still at Guantanamo Bay. The repatriation plan dates back to July 2008, when Yemeni officials met with a visiting US delegation [JURIST report] to discuss the possible transfer of Yemeni detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, with the US voicing concerns that they would be freed upon their return. The stay of proceedings against Batarfi follows a January executive order [text; JURIST report] from US President Barack Obama [official profile] directing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within one year and a review and disposition of all individuals held at the facility.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a motion [text, PDF] in federal court Wednesday seeking to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment on corruption charges against former senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) [US Congress backgrounder]. Stevens was convicted [JURIST report] in October on seven counts of making false statements relating to an alleged corruption scheme and for falsifying his Financial Disclosure Forms. The DOJ later admitted that it did not turn over relevant evidence [AP report] to the defense in preparation of trial. The behavior of the prosecution led to a request in December by defense that the conviction be removed and a new trial ordered. In February, the DOJ lawyers were held in contempt by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan for their failure to turn over documents. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile] said [statement] Wednesday:

In connection with the post-trial litigation in United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, the Department of Justice has conducted a review of the case, including an examination of the extent of the disclosures provided to the defendant. After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial.

[JURIST] A lawyer for former Khmer Rouge [BBC backgrounder] leader Kaing Guek Eav [TrialWatch backgrounder; JURIST news archive] argued Wednesday that judges in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official website] should release Kaing, also known as "Duch," away from his four co-defendants into a separate "safe house. The request came a day after Kaing apologized [JURIST report] for mass torture and murder. Defense lawyer Francois Roux [JURIST news archive] said the continued detention of Kaing, who was arrested in 1999, violated Cambodia's three-year limit [AP report] on "provisional detention" and asked the judges to consider the time already served in sentencing. Roux also questioned the appropriateness of housing Kaing with defendants he is likely to implicate with his testimony. Prosecutors opposed the proposal [AFP report], citing the possibility of retaliatory attacks on Kaing by families of his victims and noting that the ECCC has held him only since 2007.

Kaing lost a similar appeal [JURIST report] of his pre-trial detention in 2007. His trial is the first of eight [JURIST report] that the ECCC hopes to hear against former members of the Khmer Rouge, which has been accused of murdering 1.7 million Cambodians [PPU backgrounder] during its nearly four-year reign. The ECCC has long been plagued with accusations of corruption and inadequate funding, with greater problems in recent years. Earlier this month, the ECCC reported that it would be unable to pay its Cambodian employees [JURIST report] for that month, one year after the court requested $114 million dollars from the UN [JURIST report]. In February, Human Rights Watch warned that the ECCC trials were in danger of being tainted for their failure to follow fair trial standards [JURIST report], and in January a Cambodian court agreed to hear a corruption case [JURIST report] involving two ECCC judges.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] issued three opinions Wednesday. The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that an employee may not bring a statutory anti-discrimination suit when the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) prohibits such suits in favor of arbitration. In 2003, the plaintiffs' employer changed their jobs to positions they described as less desirable. The plaintiffs alleged discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [text] (ADEA) and brought suit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) [official website], which rejected the age discrimination argument. The plaintiffs then filed suit with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found that the arbitration requirement in the CBA was unenforceable because it deprived the plaintiffs of the right to an appropriate judicial forum. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling [text, PDF]. Reversing the lower court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "We hold that a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law." Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion. Justice David Souter also filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined. Souter argued that the Court's 1974 decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. [opinion text] was controlling and that employees subject to a CBA providing for conclusive arbitration of all grievances, including claimed breaches of the ADEA, do not lose their statutory right to bring an ADEA claim in court.

The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-3 in favor of power companies in Entergy Corp. v. EPA [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act [text, PDF] authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] to use a cost-benefit analysis to determine what is the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact from cooling water intake structures that draw water into power plants to offset the heat created during power generation. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuitruled in favor of the various environmental advocacy groups and states that no such balancing test may be used and that companies must adopt the best technology available. Reversing this decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards and in providing for cost-benefit variances from those standards as part of the Phase II regulations. The Court of Appeals' reliance in part on the agency's use of cost-benefit analysis in invalidating the site-specific cost-benefit variance provision was therefore in error, as was its remand of the national performance standards for clarification of whether cost-benefit analysis was impermissibly used. [citations omitted]

Like the Court of Appeals, I am convinced that the EPA has misinterpreted the plain text of §316(b). Unless costs are so high that the best technology is not "available," Congress has decided that they are outweighed by the benefits of minimizing adverse environmental impact. Section 316(b) neither expressly nor implicitly authorizes the EPA to use cost-benefit analysis when setting regulatory standards; fairly read, it prohibits such use.

While purporting to adopt a "straightforward reading of the statute," the Court in fact selectively amends the statute — inserting words in some places, twisting their meaning elsewhere. Because the statute is most naturally and coherently read to provide federally funded counsel to capital defendants appearing in a federal forum, I would affirm the decision of the Sixth Circuit and hold that Harbison was not entitled to federally funded counsel to pursue state clemency.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] overruled Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] lawyers who believe the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009 [S.160, PDF; JURIST report] pending in Congress violates the Constitution, the Washington Post [media website] reported [text] Wednesday. The proposed bill would give District of Columbia (DC) residents voting rights for the House of Representatives [official website] and give Utah an additional seat in the House. According to the report, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) [official website] lawyers warned Holder, who supports the bill, that the legislation would violate language in the Constitution [Art. 1, § 2 text] stating that the House shall be "composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." After OLC lawyers advised Holder of the bill's possible unconstituionality, Holder allegedly requested an opinion from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) [official website]. Former OLC deputy M. Edward Whelan claims [National Review Online blog] that by rejecting the advice of the OLC and turning to the OSG, Holder ignored sound legal advice in order to achieve the political goal of seeing the legislation passed. The report states that OSG lawyers told Holder they could defend the bill's constitutionality before the courts.

The House previously approved a DC voting rights bill in 2007, although it was later rejected by the Senate [JURIST reports]. The Congressional Research Service [official website] found that bill was likely unconstitutional for the same reasons [JURIST report] as the current bill is being questioned. DC Vote [advocacy website] claims that DC residents have the constitutional right [DC Vote materials] to vote for representation in the house on a number of grounds.

[JURIST] The US will seek a seat on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] this year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton [official profile; JURIST news archive] and US Permanent Representative to the UN Susan Rice [official profile] announced [press release] Tuesday. Clinton explained that the decision was based on a desire to increase US involvement in ensuring UN member nations act in accordance with the UN Declaration on Human Rights [text], noting that the US "helped to found the United Nations and retains a vital stake" in advancing UNHRC values. Rice added that the US is seeking election to the Council in hopes that working within the UNHRC will "make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights." A statement [UN press release] from UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon greeted the announcement with enthusiasm:

Full United States engagement on human rights issues is an important step towards realizing the goal of an inclusive and vibrant intergovernmental process to protect human rights around the globe. The Secretary-General also welcomes the announcement as a concrete embodiment of the United States commitment to a “new era of engagement”.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] approved Tuesday a bill that would limit the government's ability to compel reporters to disclose confidential sources by delineating conditions under which it may do so. The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 [H.R. 985 materials] was approved swiftly through a voice vote, though several opponents noted law enforcement and national security concerns. Under the bill's terms, parties seeking the identity of confidential sources from reporters in federal court must show that the information relates to an act of terrorism, national security, disclosure of trade secrets, or the imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm. The court must further be convinced that the party seeking the disclosure has exhausted all other means of acquiring the information, and that "the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information." The bill also requires that the subject of a disclosure request be informed and given an opportunity to be heard before a communications service provider is compelled to disclose information about his or her activity. The act would limit the scope of protection to reporters who receive "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or ... substantial financial gain" from reporting, leaving many bloggers without an equivalent protection. Bill sponsor Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) called the vote [statement text] "a major victory for the public's right to know." A Senate counterpart [S.448 materials], sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), is currently under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website].

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill [JURIST report] last week. In 2007, the House approved a similar bill [JURIST report] by a 398-21 vote. The measure died in the Senate under threat of presidential veto, despite a 15-2 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee [JURIST report]. The bill was first proposed in May 2006, partially in response to the controversial 85-day jailing of New York Times journalist Judith Miller [JURIST news archive] after she refused to reveal a source to the federal grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame [JURIST news archive]. Other journalists have also faced contempt charges for refusing to reveal sources. In November, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated [JURIST report] a contempt order [JURIST report] against former USA Today reporter Toni Locy [JURIST news archive], who had refused to reveal government sources for a series of articles she wrote about the 2001 anthrax attacks [JURIST news archive].

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pakistan [official website] suspended its February decision [text, PDF; JURIST report] Tuesday barring former prime minister Nawaz Sharif [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and his brother from holding elected office, pending the high court's final review of the decision. Last week, the government of President Asif Ali Zardari [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] petitioned the court to review the decision after Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) [party website] and the Pakistan lawyers' movement [JURIST news archive] ended a long march and widespread anti-government protests earlier this month. The court's decision returns Shabaz Sharif [Daily Times report] to his post as chief minister of Punjab state, but Nawaz must wait until the court's final decision [Reuters report] to determine whether he can obtain a seat in the Pakistani parliament.

Last week, Zardari announced the formation of a parliamentary panel [JURIST report] to review key constitutional provisions, coming towards the end of a month of political turmoil in Pakistan which culminated in the reinstatement [JURIST report] of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry Mohammed [JURIST news archive] of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani [BBC profile] announced early last week that the government would reinstate Chaudhry in response to recent protests by members of the lawyers' movement and opposition politicians and supporters. Reports first surfaced in mid-March that President Zardari had agreed to reinstate Chaudhry and other judges ousted by Zardari's predecessor Pervez Musharraf in November 2007 after his declaration of emergency rule. Sharif and the PML-N have actively campaigned [JURIST report] for Chaudhry's reinstatement. Throughout the period of his removal Chaudhry insisted that he was still chief justice [JURIST report] under the Pakistani constitution.

[JURIST] A Russian court heard arguments Tuesday at the start of the trial of former Russian oil executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky [defense website; JURIST news archive] and his former business partner Platon Lebedev [defense website] on embezzlement and money laundering charges [JURIST report]. As the trial began, the court refused a request [AFP report] by Khodorkovsky's lawyers to call Russian prime minister and former president Vladimir Putin [JURIST news archive] as a defense witness. The court also refused an additional defense request [RIA Novosti report] to have one of the parties against Khodorkovsky in the lawsuit, the Russian oil company Rosneft [corporate website], removed from the proceedings. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are accused of illegally taking approximately $20 billion from Russian energy firm OAO Yukos Oil Co. [TIME backgrounder], but challenged the allegations, asserting that the evidence against them was insufficient [RIA Novosti report] to sustain the prosecution. If found guilty, Khodorkovsky could face 22 years in jail in addition to the eight years he is already serving for fraud and tax evasion.

Two weeks ago, the court refused a request [JURIST report] by Khodorkovsky and Lebedev to have the charges against them dropped, one day after Judge Viktor Danilkin refused to recuse himself [St. Petersburg Times report] from the case amid accusations of bias. Critics have claimed that the charges against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are politically motivated due to Khodorkovsky's opposition against Putin. The transfer of the two from prison to Moscow to stand trial on the new charges was ordered [JURIST report] last month by a judge for the District Court in Moscow. Khodorkovsky still maintains that his 2005 conviction [JURIST report] on the fraud and tax evasion was unjust, and maintains his innocence. He requested early release from that sentence last July, but his application was rejected [JURIST reports] in August because he disobeyed guards at the Krasnokamensk penal colony [Guardian backgrounder], refused to participate in a training program, and faced the possibility of additional charges. Khodorkovsky has appealed [JURIST report] that decision.