[JURIST] Cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA [corporate website] on Friday asked [cert. petition, PDF] the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] to overturn a 2006 district court ruling [JURIST report] that held the tobacco industry [JURIST news archive] liable under civil racketeering laws for deceiving American consumers as to the health effects of their products. Philip Morris argued that the trial court's decision did not properly consider issues involving the First Amendment [text] and that the government's application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) [18 USC § 1961–1968] was overbroad. The company gave its reasoning for the appeal:

The government's use of injunctive litigation to obtain regulatory authority that it had been unable to secure through the legislative and administrative processes upended the First Amendment, distorted RICO beyond recognition, and vastly exceeded the remedial authority of Article III courts. Absent further review, the government will henceforth be free to pervert RICO into a device for evading the legislative process, penalizing and chilling public debate on scientific matters, and constraining constitutionally protected speech through vague and sweeping injunctions. And, the government will be able to do so without significant procedural protections beyond the findings of a single judge.

[JURIST] Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley [official profile] moved for summary judgment [text, PDF] Thursday in a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text, JURIST news archive]. The case will be decided in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [court website]. If the motion for summary judgment is granted, the DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman, would be declared unconstitutional without a trial. Excerpts from Coakley's memorandum supporting the motion for summary judgment outline the commonwealth's argument:

First, DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from intruding on areas of exclusive State authority, of which the definition and regulation of marriage is perhaps the clearest example. ... Second, DOMA - which Defendants admit is "discriminatory" - violates the Spending Clause by forcing the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.

[JURIST] Lawyers for former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder, JURIST news archive] filed a petition [text, PDF] with the US Supreme Court [official website] Friday seeking to block his extradition to France. Noriega is relying on the dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the court's January decision to deny certiorari in Noriega's appeal of a lower court's decision allowing extradition [JURIST reports]. Noriega argues that hearing his case would enable the Supreme Court to clarify the law after Boumediene v. Bush [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], which granted federal courts the power to review habeas petitions brought by "enemy combatants." He also contends that a ruling in this case could resolve confusion as to whether § 5 of the Military Commission Act of 2006 (MCA) [text, PDF] constitutes a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and whether it precludes prisoners such as Noriega from bringing claims under the Geneva Conventions [materials]. The petition argues that without clarification, "district courts considering as many as 200 habeas petitions will be forced to determine factual questions under a fog of uncertain constitutional jurisprudence," and that, unless the Court resolves the confusion, "the innocent and the guilty alike will continue to be denied meaningful review of both the conditions of their confinement and the length of their detention."

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF] Noriega's extradition in April, ruling he could not bring a claim to enforce rights under the Geneva Conventions because he was precluded by the MCA. Noriega was challenging a district court's August 2007 ruling that allowed his extradition [JURIST report] to France, where he is wanted on charges of money laundering through French banks. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia [Reuters report] to 10 years in jail in 1999, but France has agreed to hold a new trial if he is extradited. Noriega has made multiple attempts to block his extradition. In addition to a January 2008 ruling [JURIST report] by US District Court Judge Paul Huck, another federal judge rejected [JURIST report] Noriega's arguments to block extradition in September 2007. The US State Department has indicated that it is satisfied that France will treat Noriega as a POW [JURIST report] if Noriega is extradited to that country.

[JURIST] The US Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Justice (DOJ) [official websites] on Thursday announced [press release] a $1.25 billion settlement for African American farmers claiming they suffered racial discrimination in USDA loan programs. The settlement arises from the Pigford Case [CRS backgrounder, PDF], a class-action suit that was re-opened with the passage [JURIST report] of a 2008 Farm Bill [HR 6124 materials] to farmers left out of a 1999 settlement after missing a filing deadline and to thousands more who argued that the terms of the settlement were inadequate. Under the terms of the new settlement, individual farmers may demonstrate their entitlement to relief through a non-judicial claims process, and:

claimants who establish their credit-related claims will be entitled to receive up to $50,000 and debt relief. A separate track may provide actual damages of up to $250,000 through a more rigorous process. The actual value of awards may be reduced based on the total amount of funds made available and the number of successful claims.

[JURIST] Niger's military leaders on Thursday suspended the country's constitution [text, DOC] and dissolved all state institutions after the coup [JURIST report] that took place the same day. A spokesperson for the military junta, which is calling itself the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), made the announcement [Reuters report] on state TV. The African Union (AU) [official website] condemned the coup in a statement [text, PDF] issued Friday by AU Chairperson of the Commission Jean Ping:

The Chairperson of the Commission stresses that the relevant AU instruments systematically condemn any unconstitutional change and, accordingly, he condemns the seizure of power by force that took place in Niger. He calls for the speedy return to constitutional order and affirms the readiness of the AU, in close collaboration with ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), to facilitate such a process.

[JURIST] Judges from the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Pre-Trial Chamber II requested Friday that chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] provide additional information [press release] regarding his request to open a formal investigation [JURIST report] into allegations of crimes against humanity committed during the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya [JURIST news archive]. The judges stated that clarification and additional information was necessary to properly exercise their review function authorized under Article 15 of the Rome Statute [text]. Moreno-Ocampo's submission to investigate the Kenyan situation is historic, in that it is the first time he has used his proprio motu power, which allows him to initiate formal investigations upon authorization by the Pre-Trial Chamber. All other investigations conducted by the prosecutor have been at the behest of state parties [materials] or the UN Security Council [official website].

The ICC assigned three judges [JURIST report] to the Kenyan situation in November after receiving a letter from Moreno-Ocampo in which he said that he intended to request formal authorization to initiate an investigation. The investigation may only proceed if Kenya does not conduct its own investigation into the matter, which it has thus far failed to do [JURIST report]. Earlier in November, Moreno-Ocampo met with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki [official profile] and opposition leader Raila Odinga [campaign website] to inform them of his plans to seek an investigation. Moreno-Ocampo first stated his intentions [JURIST report] to pursue the matter in October, citing Kenya's ratification of the Rome Statute as grounds for jurisdiction. In August, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called for an independent tribunal [JURIST report] with international support and participation because "the Kenyan judiciary lacks independence," and the necessary reforms announced [transcript] by the Kenyan Cabinet [official website] in late July would be insufficient. Earlier in July, Moreno-Ocampo received and reviewed a sealed envelope sent to the ICC [JURIST reports] by former UN secretary-general and current chairman of the African Union Panel of Eminent African Personalities Kofi Annan [UN profile] that contained a list of suspects believed to be responsible for the violence. More than 1,000 people were killed and 500,000 displaced following allegations of fraud [JURIST report] in the country's presidential election.

[JURIST] Bolivian President Evo Morales [official website, in Spanish; BBC profile] on Thursday appointed [press release, in Spanish] 18 judges ahead of the country's judicial elections, calling the move "the beginning of the decolonization of the judiciary." The appointees will fill five vacancies on the country's Supreme Court, five on the Constitutional Court, and three on the Judiciary Council, while five others were named alternates. All will serve until judicial elections are held on December 5. Though roughly 20 of 26 high-level judicial posts were unoccupied prior to the announcement, the move has drawn criticism [BBC report] from Morales's opponents who fear it jeopardizes the judiciary's independence. The Bolivian National Congress [official website, in Spanish] passed legislation [Reuters report] last week authorizing Morales to appoint judicial officials on an interim basis until the election.

Popular election of high-level judicial officials is required under the country's new constitution, which went into effect last February after being approved [JURIST reports] via referendum in January 2009. In October 2008, the Bolivian National Congress ratified [JURIST report] the proposed reforms [JURIST news archive] after Morales agreed not to run for re-election in 2014. In August 2008, Morales won a confidence referendum, which he personally proposed [JURIST reports] in a bid to legitimize his campaign for the constitutional changes.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that the state of Louisiana must issue a revised birth certificate for the adopted child of a same-sex couple showing both fathers' names. In 2006, Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith adopted their child in New York, where unmarried couples can legally adopt. The child was born in Louisiana, and the state refused to issue a birth certificate naming both fathers. The appeals court held that Louisiana is required to give full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree, upholding the judgment [opinion, PDF] of the district court. The appeals court described the weight of precedent in favor of the parents:

[T]here is virtually universal acknowledgment that Louisiana owes full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree and must recognize that the Adoptive Parents are [the] legal parents. Numerous authorities hold that a state must afford out-of-state adoption decrees full faith and credit. The parental rights and status of the Adoptive Parents, as adjudicated by the New York court, are not confined within that state's borders and do not cease to exist at Louisiana's borders.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] announced at a hearing Thursday he is not ready to rule on a proposed class action settlement [Authors Guild backgrounder] in a copyright suit [case materials] over Google's book-scanning initiative [corporate website; JURIST news archive]. Judge Denny Chin heard arguments [AP report] from both sides on whether the settlement adequately protects the rights of publishers and authors and whether it violates antitrust law. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] argued that the proposed settlement fails to adequately protect the privacy interests [press release] of readers, stating:

Because the settlement does not contain any privacy protections for users, Google's system will be able to monitor which books users search for, which pages of the books they read and how long they spend on each page. Google could then combine information about readers' habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive "digital dossier" that would be highly tempting and possibly vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants.