[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Wednesday in two cases. In American Needle Inc. v. NFL [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court heard arguments on whether the National Football League (NFL) [league website] and its member teams are a single entity that is exempt from rule of reason claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act [text]. The NFL teams reached an agreement with Reebok to license and sell consumer headwear and clothing with the respective teams' logos and not to grant licenses to Reebok's competitors for 10 years. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the NFL and its member teams are a single entity under the Sherman Act. Counsel for the petitioner, American Needle, cited the Court's 1984 decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents [opinion text], arguing that:

The 32 teams of the National Football League are separately owned and controlled profit-making enterprises. Under this Court's decision in NCAA, as well as the Court's more general joint venture jurisprudence, those clubs are entities whose distinct agreements are, indeed, subject to Section 1 scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is there is a longstanding consensus, judicial and legislative, that agreements among sports teams about whether and how they will participate in the marketplace is subject to scrutiny under the Sherman Act, Section 1.

There is no dispute that the NFL, including its licensing arm, NFL Properties, is a lawful venture. If venture formation is not an issue, then decisions by the venture about the venture's product are unilateral venture decisions, unilateral venture actions. They are not concerted actions of the -- of the venture's members.

Congress rarely makes ignorance of the law a defense to civil liability, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is no exception to that rule. While it may seem unfair to hold defendants in some sense strictly liable for legal mistakes in the civil context, the accumulated wisdoms of generations of legal practice has been that attempting to fix that unfairness through a mistake of law defense causes more harm than it prevents.

And as a consequence, in light of that subtle understanding, courts should not read a Federal statute to establish a mistake of law defense, unless Congress quite plainly makes that intent to do so clear. And in this case, nothing in the text, structure, or the history of the bona fide error provision of the FDCPA indicates such an intent.

[JURIST] Lawyers for convicted terrorism conspirator Jose Padilla [JURIST news archive] argued Tuesday before the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] that their client's conviction [JURIST report] should be overturned. Padilla's appeal centers on a number of purported judicial errors [Miami Herald report], most prominently the lack of an evidentiary hearing to determine if Padilla was being tortured while in custody, as well as the decision by trial judge Marcia Cooke to allow the government to show a videotape of an interview with Osama bin Laden as evidence of a link between Padilla and his two co-defendants. Prosecutors countered that Padilla's 17-year sentence [JURIST report] for a crime that is punishable by life imprisonment is too lenient [Philadelphia Inquirer report. It is not known how soon the appellate judges will reach a decision.

Padilla was sent to a Colorado "supermax" prison [JURIST report] in April 2008 to serve his sentence. He was convicted, along with Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifadh Wael Jayyousi, of conspiracy to commit illegal violent acts outside the US, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and providing material support to terrorists. Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and subsequently detained as an "enemy combatant" [JURIST news archive] at a Navy military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Initially alleged to have planned the explosion of a "dirty bomb" in the US, Padilla went from enemy combatant to criminal defendant when he was finally charged with other offenses in November 2005.

[JURIST] One month after hackers attempted to access Chinese human rights activists' e-mail accounts through the Google [corporate website] Gmail service, the company announced [press release] on Tuesday that it would rethink its involvement in the Internet market in China, possibly pulling out of the country. Among the possible changes in policy being considered are a cessation of search result censoring. Google indicated that it would work with the Chinese government to find a way to allow an, "unfiltered search engine within the law as well," but also noted that if an agreement cannot be reached, it may close its offices there and shut down its Google.cn website. Human rights groups applauded Google's announcement, with Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] calling the move [press release] "unprecedented."

The attack on activists' accounts is the latest in a long string of purported human rights abuses in China. Last month, China was criticized for executing a British national [JURIST report] for drug smuggling, after refusing to conduct an investigation into the man's mental health. Also in December, human rights activist Liu Xiabo was sentenced to 11 years in prison on subversion charges, following a two-hour trial [JURIST reports] that was closed to outsiders. In November, HRW released a report [JURIST report] that accused China of holding citizens in "black jails," where they were subject to numerous human rights abuses.

[JURIST] A panel of three federal judges on Tuesday approved [order, PDF] a revised plan [text, PDF] filed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) [official website] for reducing prison overcrowding [JURIST news archive] in the state. The new plan includes revisions made possible because of legislative enactments, including summary parole for lower-level offenses to reduce the amount of inmates re-entering the prison system for parole violations and credit earning enhancements to reduce time served. Action on the order will be delayed because the Schwarzennger administration [official website] has appealed the prison population reduction order to the US Supreme Court, which is expected to decide whether to take the case later this month [San Francisco Chronicle report].

The CDCR filed the plan in November after the panel rejected the first plan because it did not comply with a federal court order to reduce the prison population [JURIST reports]. The original plan did not include the legislative enactments but provided various ways of reducing overcrowding, including transferring more prisoners to out-of-state prisons, GPS monitoring of inmates who violate parole, commuting sentences of inmates who are eligible for deportation, and building new facilities or converting unused space. In September, the US Supreme Court [official website] refused to grant a request [JURIST report] by the state of California to temporarily stay the court order to reduce the prison population, pending appeal.

[JURIST] A Virginia judge ruled Tuesday that lawsuits filed by two families whose children were killed in the 2007 Virginia Tech school shooting [Washington Post backgrounder; JURIST news archive] may proceed. Judge William Alexander of the Franklin County Circuit Court [official website] ruled [Roanoke Times Report] that the defendants, university President Charles Steger [university profile], Executive Vice President James Hyatt, and employees of the university's Cook Counseling Center [center website], are not immune from suit. Claims against the other defendants named in the lawsuit, including the New River Community Services Board [website], top university administrators, and the university itself, were dismissed. Alexander's ruling permits the suits to move forward with pre-trial discovery and possibly a trial.

The suit was filed [JURIST report] in April by the parents of Julie Pryde and Erin Peterson [Virginia Tech profiles], who were shot and killed by fellow student Seung-Hoi Cho [BBC profile]. In June 2008, a Virginia judge approved [JURIST report] an $11 million settlement with the families of 24 people who had been killed in the shooting. The settlement awarded each family $100,000 plus medical expenses and provides for meetings with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and university and police officials. The Pryde and Peterson families did not participate in the settlement agreement. The Virginia Tech shooting left 33 people dead and wounded 25 in the deadliest school shooting in US history.

[JURIST] A federal judge on Tuesday denied the request by former Qwest Communications [corporate website] CEO Joseph Nacchio [JURIST news archive] for a new trial on insider trading charges. Nacchio had requested a new trial on the basis that the company's CFO, a key witness in the trial, had changed her testimony, but Judge Marcia Krieger of the US District Court for the District of Colorado [official website] found [Reuters report] that the change in testimony was not substantial enough to alter the conviction. Nacchio was convicted [JURIST report] in 2007 on 19 counts of insider trading for selling $52 million worth of stock in 2001 with knowledge that Qwest could miss its sales targets.

In October, the US Supreme Court [official website] declined to review [JURIST report] Nacchio's conviction without comment, ending his lengthy appeals process, which stretched over two years. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that Nacchio was incorrectly sentenced and remanded the case for resentencing. In April, Nacchio reported to the minimum security prison camp [JURIST report] at FCI Schuylkill [official website]. Nacchio was initially indicted on 42 counts [JURIST report] in 2005. He and other former Qwest executives still face civil fraud charges [JURIST report] brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission [official website] on allegations that Qwest improperly reported approximately $3 billion in revenue that eased its 2000 merger with US West.

[JURIST] The US military referred charges Monday against Army Capt. Carl Bjork, accused by several Iraqi detainees of ordering the killings of two Iraqi civilians in 2006. The charges against Bjork include one count of reckless endangerment and two counts of premeditated murder. The accusers are three Iraqi police officers and a former Iraqi Intel officer currently being detained in Iraq. Bjork's attorney Victor Kelly, who practices with the National Military Justice Group [organization website], has said that the case against his client is weak [9News report]. Bjork's case is set to go before a court-martial in Baghdad before March 1.

Detainee and civilian abuse has been a major issue during the occupation of Iraq. Earlier this week, a US military judge ruled [JURIST report] that the trials for two Navy SEALs [official website] accused in the alleged assault of an Iraqi prisoner will be held on a US military base in Iraq in order for the alleged victim to be questioned in court. Last week, US security firm Blackwater [JURIST news archive] reached a settlement agreement in seven federal lawsuits filed by Iraqi citizens. The suits claimed that Blackwater, now known as Xe, created a reckless culture that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians [JURIST reports] in September 2007 and the 2006 killing of an Iraqi guard. The settlement was reached after a US judge dismissed charges [JURIST report] against five guards indicted for their involvement in the 2007 killings. Last year, the US Army [official website] court-martialed soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 18th infantry [unit website] for their alleged roles in the 2007 killings of four Iraqi citizens [JURIST report]. The crime was an alleged retributive act for casualties suffered by the unit.

[JURIST] The trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] on Tuesday resumed [press briefing] the trial of Serbian nationalist Volislav Seselj [ICTY materials; JURIST news archive] after it had been delayed [JURIST report] for nearly a year over fears that witnesses were being intimidated. In order to protect their identities, the chamber will examine [press release, PDF] the remaining witnesses behind closed doors. Seselj, leader of the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party (SRS), is on trial in the ICTY, charged [indictment, PDF] with three counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes. He is accused of establishing rogue paramilitary units affiliated with the SRS, which are believed to have massacred and otherwise persecuted Croats and other non-Serbs during the Balkan conflict.

In July, the ICTY convicted [JURIST report] Seselj of contempt and sentenced him to 15 months in prison for authoring a book revealing pertinent information about several key witnesses. Seselj was charged with contempt [JURIST report] last January. The ICTY had previously stripped Seselj of his right to defend himself after he failed to appear in court, despite an earlier appeals court ruling that he could represent himself [JURIST reports] provided he did not engage in courtroom behavior that "substantially obstruct[ed] the proper and expeditious proceedings in his case."

[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] filed new charges [complaint, PDF] Tuesday against Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website], alleging that the company failure to disclose [press release] to its shareholders "extraordinary losses" at Merrill Lynch [corporate website] prior to the merger of the two companies. The SEC's complaint charges BOA with violating Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 [texts], which require disclosure "necessary or appropriate ... for the protection of investors." BOA shareholders voted to approve the proposed merger with Merrill Lynch at a meeting in December 2008. The SEC alleges that BOA learned that Merrill Lynch had incurred billions of dollars in losses for October and November before the vote, but failed to disclose the losses to shareholders. Merrill Lynch's full fourth quarter 2008 losses, totaling more than $15 billion, were announced more than a month later, in January 2009. BOA stock dropped nearly 30 percent the next day, according to the SEC.

The SEC originally sought to add this charge to its previous case against BOA, which charged it with misleading investors [JURIST report] regarding billions of dollars paid to Merrill Lynch executives during the acquisition of the firm. A federal judge twice rejected a proposed settlement [JURIST report] between the SEC and BOA for $33 million, which did not admit any fault or directly penalize any corporate executives, calling the settlement unfair to the shareholders. The original complaint, filed in August, alleges that during the merger of the companies, BOA allowed Merrill Lynch to pay more than $3.6 billion in bonuses to its executives, despite record losses at that time, and withheld such information from its shareholders.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 8-1 in NRG Power Marketing v. Maine Public Utilities [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the Mobile-Sierra 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 Mobile-Sierra 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 Mobile-Sierra doctrine does not apply when challenged by an entity not party to the contract. In reversing the appeals court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg relied on the Court's 2008 decision in Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County [opinion text; JURIST report]:

We reverse the D. C. Circuit's judgment to the extent that it rejects the application of Mobile-Sierra to noncontracting parties. Our decision in Morgan Stanley, announced three months after the D. C. Circuit's disposition, made clear that the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard is not an exception to the statutory just-and-reasonable standard; it is an application of that standard in the context of rates set by contract. The "venerable Mobile-Sierra doctrine" rests on "the stabilizing force of contracts." To retain vitality, the doctrine must control FERC itself, and, we hold, challenges to contract rates brought by noncontracting as well as contracting parties.

[JURIST] The leader of France's conservative party introduced legislation [press release, in French] Tuesday to the National Assembly [official website, in French] that would ban wearing of the burqa [JURIST news archive] in public and make it punishable by 750 euros. Jean-Francois Cope [official profile, in French], leader of the Union for Popular Movement (UMP) [party website, in French] in the National Assembly, is leading the movement in the legislature [Le Monde report, in French], spurred on by French President Nicholas Sarkozy's announcement in June that those who wore the burqa were not welcome in France. The bill also has the support of some French socialists [Le Monde report, in French] from the other side of the political spectrum, as well as that of French Prime Minister Francois Fillon. The official commission into the issue is expected to report by the end of January [Reuters report].

Cope has been pursuing legislation since December, in direct opposition to the National Assembly's November decision not to push for specific legislation [JURIST reports] banning the burqa. The commission began its hearings in July after being established [JURIST report] a month earlier to address the issue. The controversy between the Muslim community and the secular French government has gone on for several years. In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] unanimously ruled [JURIST report] that there was no human rights violation when a French school expelled two Muslim students for refusing to remove their headscarves. In July of that year, a Muslim woman's citizenship application was denied [JURIST report] because she failed to assimilate to French culture and practiced a type of Islam found incompatible with French values.

4:30 PM ET - French President Nicolas Sarkozy told lawmakers Wednesday that he favors a ban on the burqa but that he would await conclusions from the parliamentary commission.

[JURIST] Spanish Judge Fernando Grande-Marlaska ruled on Tuesday that Basque separatist group ETA [JURIST news archive] had tried three times to assassinate former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar in 2001 but had failed. Grande-Marlaska detailed the three assassination attempts [El Pais report, in Spanish] as part of a description of the alleged crimes of ETA leader Pedro Maria Olano Zabala, who was arrested in the Basque region last Thursday. The group had allegedly tried three times to use a rocket launcher to fire a missile at Aznar's plane in retribution for Aznar's refusal to accept a compromise with the group [ABC report, in Spanish], but the launcher failed three times and was finally sent to ETA operatives in France for repair [Barcelona Reporter report]. Rocket launchers belonging to ETA have been seized in France.

In September, accused ETA leader Mikel Garikoitz Aspiazu Rubina refused to make any statement [JURIST report] during hearings before the Spanish National Court. In June, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] upheld [JURIST report] Spain's ban of Basque political groups Batasuna [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and Herri Batasuna for their alleged ties to ETA. In April, alleged ETA leader Jurdan Martitegi Lizaso [El Pais backgrounder, in Spanish] was arrested in France, and a Spanish judge charged [JURIST reports] him with murder for a May 2008 car bombing that killed a Spanish policeman. In February, Spain's Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] unanimously banned [JURIST report] the Basque separatist political groups Democracy 3 Million (D3M) and Askatasuna [orders, PDF; in Spanish] from participation in the coming March elections.

[JURIST] The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a superseding indictment [press release, PDF] Tuesday against alleged Somali pirate Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, claiming that he led the takeover of two additional ships. Muse pleaded not guilty to the charges Tuesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website]. The 10-count indictment does not provide the identity of the ships involved in the alleged hijackings or details about the events, but prosecutors stated [NYT report] that hostages from one of the ships remain in captivity. Muse, who was captured by US forces following an attempted attack on the container ship Maersk Alabama [corporate backgrounder], was charged [JURIST report] with five counts in April, including committing an act of piracy as defined by the law of nations, conspiracy to seize a ship by force, conspiracy to take hostages, and two counts relating to the use of a firearm during commission of a crime. The government believes that Muse coordinated the attack in the original indictment and presented himself as the leader of the gang. Despite difficulty in determining Muse's exact age, the SDNY has decided to try Muse as an adult.

In July, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) [official website] reported [JURIST report] that pirate attacks around the globe doubled in the first half of 2009. The bulk of the upsurge came from increased activity in the Gulf of Aden and Somali coastal waters, where 130 incidents occurred since January. In May, five suspected Somali pirates went on trial [JURIST report] in Holland, accused of attempting to hijack a Dutch Antilles freighter in the Gulf of Aden. Earlier in 2009, a US Coast Guard chief called for [JURIST report] the enforcement of international piracy laws, citing the importance of entering Somali waters to combat the problem. In October 2008, the UN Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1838 [text, PDF; press release], condemning all acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia, and calling on states to "deploy naval vessels and military aircraft to actively fight piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia."

[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled [judgment text; press release] Tuesday that searches performed by police without legitimate suspicion are illegal. The ECHR found that British police had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF] when they stopped and searched two individuals in 2003 under the Terrorism Act 2000 [text]. Under Article 8, everyone is entitled to the right of respect for private and family life. The court found:

[T]he use of the coercive powers conferred by the legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings amounts to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life. Although the search is undertaken in a public place, this does not mean that Article 8 is inapplicable. Indeed, in the Court's view, the public nature of the search may, in certain cases, compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment. Items such as bags, wallets, notebooks and diaries may, moreover, contain personal information which the owner may feel uncomfortable about having exposed to the view of his companions or the wider public.