[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; briefs] Monday in two cases. In Nijhawan v. Holder [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court will consider whether convictions for mail, bank, and wire fraud qualify as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [text], where the amount of loss caused was not determined by a jury. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the convictions do qualify as an aggravated felony, but counsel for the petitioner argued that even though the petitioner stipulated that the amount of loss caused was higher than the statutory minimum, that finding would have to be arrived at by a jury to qualify their client for deportation.

In Bobby v. Bies [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court will consider whether the Double Jeopardy [LII backgrounder] clause is violated by the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before the 2002 Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia [opinion, PDF], which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that there was a Double Jeopardy violation. Counsel for the petitioner, who is seeking to hold the hearing, argued that the clause was not triggered in the case, because the respondent was not acquitted of the crime by the ruling, and the hearing was not on par with another trial for the same crime:

First, there has been no acquittal in this case. Second, there is no successive jeopardy; and, third, even if collateral estoppel analysis applies... the Atkins issue has not actually and necessarily been decided. Each of these factors shows that the Ohio court's decision to go forward with the Atkins hearing was reasonable, and this Court therefore should... give the Ohio courts their first chance to adjudicate Mr. Bies's Atkins claim.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith [official profile] announced Monday that the British government will not be establishing a central government database [press release] to keep records of phone calls, emails, and Internet activity, instead leaving that job to private communications providers. The British government abandoned the central database approach due to potential privacy implications and instead has proposed that service providers store records of internet activity and phone calls. Smith published a consultation [text, PDF] Monday seeking public input on the best way to maintain communications data in order to promote public safety. Smith said [statement]:

Any reduction in communications data capabilities will seriously impair the effectiveness of our police and other services to protect the public. Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles are often among early adopters of new technology. We must ensure that our law enforcement agencies can continue to obtain communications data in the face of great technological change.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] Afghan President Hamid Karzai [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] told reporters Monday that the controversial Shi'ite personal status law [Reuters backgrounder; JURIST news archive], which limits women's rights, is being amended by the country's Justice Ministry. Monday's statement [Reuters report] at a press conference with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown came one day after Karzai told female members of parliament and human rights advocates that he would amend the law in an effort to align its more controversial provisions with international standards of human rights. During the meeting, Karzai reportedly said that when he signed the law [JURIST report] last month, he did so without realizing the effects [Reuters report] it would have on the lives of the country's Shi'ite women because the law was 239 pages in length and was written in an esoteric theological language. The law, which has not yet been published, has received a great deal of local and international criticism for allegedly condoning marital rape, setting the minimum marital age for females at nine years old, denying rights of spousal inheritance to widows, and otherwise limiting the freedom of Shi'ite women in Afghanistan.

Key Shi’ite cleric Mohammad Asif Mohsseni defended the law [JURIST report] earlier this month, chastising Western critics for interfering with Afghan democracy. Less than a week later, approximately 300 Afghan women protested [JURIST report] the law in front of the mosque run by Mohsenni in response to his endorsement. Fierce international criticism of the law's more controversial provisions prompted Karzai's decision to suspend the law and to submit it to the Ministry of Justice [JURIST reports] for review earlier this month. His decision to sign the law was one of several actions that Karzai has been criticized for since his appointment as Afghanistan's interim president in 2002. In early March, the UN reported that the human rights situation in Afghanistan is worsening [JURIST report], one week after a similar US report rebuked Afghanistan for, among other problems, continued use of child labor [JURIST report]. In November, the UN urged Afghanistan to discontinue use of the death penalty [JURIST report], which Karzai had reinstated following a four-year moratorium [JURIST report]. In April 2008, the Taliban attempted to assassinate Karzai [Guardian report] during a military parade, the third attempt on his life since 2001.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in three cases. In NRG Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the Court will consider whether the Sierra-Mobile doctrine applies when an entity not party to an interstate electricity contract contests the contract as not being "just and reasonable" as required by Section 206 of the Federal Power Act [text]. Under the Sierra-Mobile doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) [official website] must presume a wholesale rate contract is "just and reasonable," and that presumption can be overcome only by showing that the contract "seriously harms the public interest." The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the Sierra-Mobile doctrine does not apply when challenged by an entity not party to the contract.

In Schwab v. Reilly [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the Court agreed to hear two questions:

1. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, is the exemption limited to the specific amount claimed, or do the numbers being equal operate to "fully exempt" the asset, regardless of its true value?

2. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, must a trustee who wishes to sell the asset object to the exemptions within the thirty day period of Rule 4003, even though the amount claimed as exempt and the type of property are within the exemption statute?

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] The Bangladeshi state prosecutor said Monday that he is seeking to drop two of several corruption charges pending against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina [BBC profile] because they were politically motivated. State prosecutor Abdullah Abu said the two charges, as well as charges against other officials, were filed to harass leaders [AFP report]. Abu also said petitions to drop 50 cases [Daily Star report] against other politicians were filed and that several hundred other charges would not be pursued if shown to be politically motivated.

Hasina, a member of the Bangladesh Awami League [party website], is still facing several other corruption charges. In July 2007, she was arrested [JURIST report] on suspicion of extorting more than $1 million from two businesspersons while she was prime minister from 1996-2001. She denied [JURIST report] the accusations. After an investigation by Bangladesh's Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) [governing statute, PDF], Hasina was formally charged with extortion [JURIST report] in January 2008. Five months later, she was indicted [JURIST report] after the ACC accused her of receiving about $440,000 in illegal kickbacks from a power-plant deal during her prior tenure as prime minister. In September, Berlin-based corruption watchdog Transparency International [official website] rated Bangladesh [news release, PDF] the tenth most politically and administratively corrupt country out of 180 countries studied in 2008.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] denounced on Sunday a US military raid in Iraq as violating the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) [text, PDF; JURIST news archive]. The agreement states that any military offensives by the US are to be performed in accordance with Iraqi laws and prior notice of any military operations is be given to the Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC). Al-Maliki asserted that the Sunday morning attack, which killed two people, was in violation of the SOFA and that he would like to subject the responsible US forces to judicial proceedings [Reuters report]. Under the SOFA, US military personnel may be subject to Iraqi jurisdiction for grave violations of the terms of the agreement.

The SOFA was signed [JURIST report] in December and took effect on January 1. The agreement was negotiated between Iraq and the US in anticipation of the 2009 expiration of the UN mandate [text] that allowed the presence of US military in Iraq. In addition to setting the official deadlines for troop withdrawal, the SOFA gives Iraqi courts limited jurisdiction over American military personnel and eliminates immunity [JURIST reports] for US defense contractors working within Iraq.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official profile; JURIST news archive] reiterated his calls for a non-partisan truth commission to investigate Bush administration officials responsible for authorizing certain interrogation techniques during an interview [transcript, PDF] with CBS Sunday. Leahy said [CBS report] the focus of the commission should not be vengeance, but rather to investigate the individuals in the Bush administration that authorized the tactics that he claims violated US laws. Leahy suggested that the commission should look into the involvement of members of the Office of Legal Counsel and the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official websites], and could even investigate certain members of Congress, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) [official website; JURIST news archive], who were briefed on the subject. He said:

I know some people say let’s turn the page. Frankly, I’d like to read the page before we turn it. It is not from some idea of vengeance in doing this, but we know that there’re number of people that made the decision to violate the law, a number of people who said that we don’t have to follow our constitution, others who wrote memos basically saying the President and Vice President are above the law--the laws of the United States don’t apply to them like they do to you and me. And I want to know why they did that. What kind of pressures brought them to write things that are so off the wall and to make sure it never happens again. That’s why I want it.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!

[JURIST] Wireless communications company Qualcomm Inc. [corporate website] reached a settlement [press release] in a lengthy legal battle with rival firm Broadcom [corporate website], under which it will pay Broadcom $891 million. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies agree not to assert patents against each other for their respective integrated circuit products and certain other products and services, which include integrated circuit products incorporated into cellular and non-cellular products. The agreement dismisses with prejudice all litigation between the two companies and provides that:

Broadcom customers do not receive rights to any of Qualcomm's patents used in integrated circuit products incorporated into cellular products and equipment and Qualcomm will pay Broadcom $891 million in cash over a period of four years, of which $200 million will be paid in the quarter ending June 30, 2009. The agreement does not provide for any other scheduled payments between the parties.

VOTE FOR JURIST  JURIST is nominated for a 2009 Webby Award as best Law website. Please vote for us here!