JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, August 29, 2009

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced Friday that two Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees have been transferred to Portugal [press release] under an agreement between the countries. The Syrian nationals were released from the detention facility following a comprehensive review of their cases by the Guantanamo Review Task Force. Portugal's Internal Administration Ministry [official website, in Portuguese] confirmed Saturday that the men arrived in the country and face no charges [press release, in Portuguese]. They will live in residences provided by the state and actions are underway to integrate them into Portuguese society. The DOJ stated that the US government will continue consulting with Portugal regarding the two men.

The agreement to transfer the detainees was made earlier this month at the request of the US government [JURIST report], making Portugal the third European nation to formally agree to accept Guantanamo detainees. Last month, Ireland announced [JURIST report] that it would take two detainees. In May, Algerian Guantanamo detainee Lakhdar Boumediene was released and accepted by France [JURIST report]. Last month, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said that the Netherlands would be willing to consider [JURIST report] accepting Guantanamo Bay detainees, despite earlier statements to the contrary. In June, the Council of the European Union reached an agreement [JURIST report] setting forth the terms of accepting detainees in a way that would minimize any danger posed to other member states.

[JURIST] A federal court ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that a Connecticut campaign finance law discriminated against minor party candidates in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments [text]. The state's Campaign Finance Reform Act [text], which provided public funding to candidates in elections for state offices, established a Citizens' Election Program [official website] under the supervision of the State Elections Enforcement Commission. In a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] the state's Green and Libertarian Parties, among others, sought an injunction against the program under their First Amendment right to political opportunity. Judge Stefan Underhill found that the program imposes a "severe burden on the political opportunity of minor party candidates" in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection doctrine because, among other things, it:

provides participating major party candidates public financing at windfall levels..., permits major party candidates who are as equally “hopeless” as minor party candidates in many districts to become eligible for full funding without first requiring such hopeless major party candidates to make the same threshold showing of public support required of minor party candidates..., [and sets] additional qualifying criteria for minor party candidates [that] are nearly impossible to achieve.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal [official website] said that his office would appeal the decision [press release], arguing that the court failed to weigh the state's compelling interest in increased transparency and integrity of the political process. Blumenthal also said the law was in line with current Supreme Court precedent and that striking it down could remove safeguards against campaign finance abuse by obstructing reform efforts.

Campaign reform legislation has raised First Amendment concerns in the past. In June, the US Supreme Court ordered re-argument [JURIST report] in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder] to decide whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission [Oyez backgrounders] should be overturned in deciding the case. The case originally sought to decide if the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) [text, PDF] permits the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] to regulate the release and advertising of a 90-minute documentary questioning then-Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) qualifications to serve as US president. The district court held that the movie was "electioneering communication" under the statute and the appeal was brought on broad First Amendment grounds.

[JURIST] Mexican Director General for Protection of Mexicans Abroad Daniel Hernandez [Earlham University Profile] told a Mexico City audience Friday that discrimination against Mexicans in US has increased, specifically citing [Xinhua report] the case of Cirila Baltazar Cruz, a Mexican immigrant from Oaxaca, who lost custody [Mississippi Clarion-Ledger report] of her child while in the US because of alleged child neglect. According to documents obtained by the Clarion-Ledger, Cruz lost custody [TIME report] partly because she could not speak any English and thereby placed her child in danger. Other reports have said that a misunderstanding [Washington Independent report] between her and the hospital which led authorities to believe that she was a prostitute contributed to the state intervention. According to the reports, Baltazar Cruz speaks no English and barely any Spanish and speaks Chatino [EB backgrounder], a language native to her region.

In 2005, the Tennessee Judiciary disciplined [Lebanon Democrat report] a Judge after he ordered a Mexican immigrant to learn English or lose custody [NYT report] of her child. Last year, a group of American citizens of Mexican descent filed a lawsuit [JURIST report; press release] against the US State Department [official website] alleging that they had been denied passports because they were of Mexican descent and had been delivered by midwives.