[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Monday in two cases. In Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether, in calculating a debtor's "projected disposable income," a bankruptcy court may consider evidence suggesting that the debtor's income or expenses will differ from her prior income or expenses. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that a debtor's current monthly income is the appropriate income to use in this analysis. Counsel for the petitioner, the bankruptcy trustee, argued:

The Tenth Circuit and Stephanie Lanning were wrong in ignoring the new Chapter 13 means test contained in the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. The amendments to the 2005 Bankruptcy Code were intended to reduce judicial discretion by inserting a formula rather than the judicial discretion that had previously been accorded to judges and to the litigants.

Respondents are natural gas suppliers who object to the way Ohio taxes them. Their suit belongs in State court rather than Federal court for two independent reasons. First, principles of comity and federalism dictate that the State court should resolve challenges to the validity of their own tax laws. And second, the Tax Injunction Act squarely prohibits Federal courts from issuing declaratory judgments holding State tax laws unconstitutional.

[JURIST] Attorneys general from several states said Monday that they plan to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill [text, PDF] passed [JURIST report] Sunday by the US House of Representatives [official website]. Attorneys general from at least 12 states - Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia - plan to file challenges after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law. Virginia plans to file a separate lawsuit from the single lawsuit to be brought by the other states. At issue in the lawsuits is the power of Congress to require individuals to purchase insurance. Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8 [text] of the US Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, and the states have decided to challenge this power's application to health care legislation. Obama is scheduled to sign the bill on Tuesday.

Last week, Idaho Governor CL "Butch" Otter (R) [official website] became the first governor to sign [JURIST report] a bill [H 391 text] into state law banning any federal mandate for individuals to have health insurance. The Idaho Health Freedom Act orders the state attorney general to file a lawsuit against the national government over any law making health insurance mandatory. Two weeks ago, the Virginia General Assembly [official website] passed [JURIST report] a similar bill [text, PDF]. The bill, called the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, says that no individual shall be held liable if they refuse to sign up for health care. Governor Robert McDonnell (R) [official website] has said that he will sign [WTVR report] the bill into law. About 30 other states are working on similar measures to negate [ALEC report] the federal mandate for health insurance.

[JURIST]] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday declined to reconsider [order list, PDF] a petition filed by former Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega [BBC backgrounder, JURIST news archive] to stop his extradition to France on money laundering charges. Noriega's lawyers filed the petition last month after the Supreme Court denied certiorari [JURIST reports] on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention [ICRC backgrounder] that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented from the original denial of certiorari, arguing that the court should use the opportunity to resolve confusion over its decision in Boumediene v. Bush [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] granting federal courts the power to review habeas petitions brought by "enemy combatants."

Last April, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that Noriega's claim was precluded by § 5 of the Military Commission Act of 2006 [text, PDF], which the government argued "codifie[d] the principle that the Geneva Conventions [a]re not judicially enforceable by private parties." Noriega was challenging a district court's August 2007 ruling [JURIST report] that allows him to be extradited to France. He is wanted in France 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.

[JURIST] The Bangladesh Cabinet [official website] on Monday ratified the Rome Statute [text] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. The ratification [BDnews24 report] will not aid in the nation's pending war crimes trials for the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] against Pakistan [JURIST news archive], as the ICC can only prosecute crimes that took place on or after the date the statute took effect in 2002. However, ratification of the statute requires countries to update their own laws to reflect the provisions of the statute. Bangladesh's 1971 war crimes trials will take place under the recently amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 [text].

Last month, the Bangladeshi government announced [JURIST report] that the prosecutors and investigators for the country's war crimes tribunal should be appointed in March. The tribunal will be used to conduct fair and transparent trials for those accused of war crimes during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. In July, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina [BBC profile] to improve war crimes laws [JURIST report] to bring justice to victims of the 1971 war. Last April, the UN agreed to advise [JURIST report] the Bangladeshi government on the organization and operation of the tribunal.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday declined to review [order list; PDF] a case involving a Massachusetts law [text] prohibiting people from protesting directly outside of abortion [JURIST news archive] clinics. Lawyers for the petitioners, parties "who regularly engage in pro-life counseling" outside clinics, were appealing a July ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website], which held that the law, which creates a 35-foot buffer zone around entrances and exits of reproductive health clinics, was a reasonable response to a significant threat to public safety. Opponents of the law say that it violates freedom of speech [AP report] while supporters say that it is necessary to ensure public safety and access to abortion clinics. The justices did not comment on the reason for denying certiorari, but the court may have found it unnecessary to review the law, as the Court upheld a lower court injunction that included several similar restrictions in 1994 in Madsen v. Women's Health Center [Oyez backgrounder].

Threats against abortion clinics and employees have been a longstanding concern, and the US courts of appeal have come to differing conclusions on the constitutionality of "buffer zone" laws meant to protect clinic patients and employees. In November, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a City of Pittsburgh ordinance [text, PDF] that created a layered zone structure to prevent protesters from gathering outside abortion facilities. US Attorney General Eric Holder enlisted the US Marshall Service [official websites] last June to increase protection [JURIST report] for at-risk people and facilities following the shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller [BBC profile]. Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that the First Amendment protected an anti-abortion group's right to display graphic pictures of early-term aborted fetuses outside of a California middle school.

[JURIST] The Turkish government on Monday unveiled a controversial new reform bill proposing amendments [text, PDF; in Turkish] to 22 articles of the Turkish Constitution in hopes of making the government more democratic and strengthening the country's bid to join the European Union (EU) [admission criteria]. The proposed amendments cover a wide range of issues [Hurriyet report], including the judicial system, women's rights, and collective bargaining for civil servants. The major reforms proposed include an amendment that would make party closures more difficult and an amendment to restructure the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HYSK) and the Constitutional Court [official websites, in Turkish]. Also included is an amendment to Article 15, which bans the prosecution of the 1980 coup leaders. The reform movement, led by Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) [party website, in Turkish], has been challenged by the opposition party Republican People's Party (CHP). The bill will now go before Parliament, where it must be approved by two-thirds of the 550 members to become law.

Earlier this month, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan [official profile, in Turkish] announced [JURIST report] that the reform package with proposed constitutional changes would be submitted the EU by the end of March, following a meeting of the EU Reform Watch Group. The Watch Group, overseen by Minister and Chief EU Negotiator Egemen Bagis [official profile], was created to guide Turkey's accession to the EU. Turkey has faced several obstacles as it works toward membership in the EU, including its human rights record, its stance towards political parties, and tension [JURIST news archive] between the AKP and the military. Last year, the Constitutional Court of Turkey voted to ban [JURIST report] the Democratic Society Party (DTP) after finding the party had contacts with the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], a separatist, designated terrorist group. Erdogan has sought to end Turkey's 25-year conflict [BBC report] with the PKK, which has been a major impediment to Turkey's bid to join the EU.

[JURIST] Kazakhstan's government is failing to curb torture [press release] by law enforcement officers, according a report [text, PDF] released Monday by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website]. The report, which tracks Kazakhstan's progress in the area of human rights from the period of its adoption of the Convention Against Torture [text], is critical of several practices that seem to run counter to the goals of that convention. Under Kazakh law [AI report], all detentions must be registered within a three-hour time period in order to keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. AI claims that this law is rarely enforced, and most torture allegations arise from the practice of unacknowledged detentions. AI also expressed concern about the scorecard nature of assessing judges, which places pressure on judges to maintain a high conviction rate and makes them less likely to acquit or order greater investigation of allegations of torture. According to the report:

despite the good intentions shown by the measures noted above and the extensive education, reform and training programmes for law enforcement forces and the judiciary often run in conjunction and in cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international governmental organizations (IGOs), it has become evident that torture or other ill-treatment of individuals deprived of their liberty, whether formally detained or in de facto unacknowledged detention, continue to be routinely used.

[JURIST] Nepalese rights groups on Sunday praised [press release, PDF] two recent judgments by the District Court in Baitadi against caste-based discrimination. Earlier this month, the court sentenced a man accused of assaulting the father of the groom during a July 2009 wedding for practicing "rituals reserved for high-caste communities" to one year in prison and a fine of 5,000 rupees. In a similar decision upheld by the Kanchanpur Appellate Court in August, the Baitadi District Court sentenced the main defendant accused of physically assaulting 12 Dalits during a festival to two years imprisonment and a fine of 25,000 rupees. Article 14 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal [text, PDF] prohibits racial discrimination on the basis of caste and sets grounds for punishment, entitling victims to compensation. The court cited the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination [text] and stated that caste supremacy discrimination is "morally unacceptable, socially unjust and dangerous." The UN human rights office in Nepal called the judgments an important step [UN News Centre report] in Nepal's fight against discrimination. The National Dalit Commission (NDC), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal) [official websites], urged authorities to enforce both sentences and promote awareness of caste-based discrimination.

In addition to caste-based discrimination, Nepal has a history of human rights abuses stemming from the country's internal conflict. Last year, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile; JURIST news archive] said the peace process in Nepal could be hampered [JURIST report] by "impunity for human rights abuses," citing the failure of Nepal's commissions on disappearances and truth and reconciliation to ensure justice for victims of abuse committed during the country's civil war. The decade-long Maoist guerrilla insurgency that left more than 13,000 people dead ended [JURIST report] in late 2006 when the Nepalese government signed a peace agreement that established the Nepalese Constituent Assembly (CA) [official website]. The CA was elected in April of 2008 and voted to abolish the monarchy [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday declined to rule [order list, PDF] in the case known as Kiyemba II, in which the court was asked to consider issues surrounding the transfer of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees. Lawyers for four Chinese Muslim Uighurs [JURIST news archive] detained at Guantanamo were appealing [JURIST report] an April ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, which held that US courts cannot prevent the government from transferring Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries on the grounds that detainees may face prosecution or torture in the foreign country. The case is separate from a case the court remanded [JURIST report] to the DC circuit court earlier this month, known as Kiyemba I.

Also Monday, the court granted certiorari in four cases. In Connick v. Thompson [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether imposing failure-to-train liability on a district attorney's office for a single Brady violation contravenes the rigorous culpability and causation standards or undermines prosecutors' absolute immunity. Prosecutors hid exculpatory evidence in violation of defendant John Thompson's rights under Brady v. Maryland [opinion text]. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered a judgment [text, PDF] in favor of Thompson, and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied [opinion, PDF] the motion for a new trial.

In Belleque v. Moore [docket, cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether the standard set forth in Arizona v. Fulminante [opinion text] - that the erroneous admission of a coerced confession at the trial is not harmless - applies if a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney's decision not to move to suppress a confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea. If the standard applies, the court will then have to consider whether the application is "clearly established" under federal law. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the Fulminante standard should apply.

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act [text, PDF] is protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision [29 USC § 215(a)(3) text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an oral complaint is not protect and later denied [opinions, PDF] a motion for a rehearing by the full court.

In Flores-Villar v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether its decision in Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service [opinion text] permits gender discrimination that has no biological basis. Ruben Flores-Villar raised a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge challenge to two former sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1401(a)(7) and 8 USC § 1409 [texts], which impose a five-year residence requirement, after the age of 14, on US citizen fathers, but not on US citizen mothers, before they may transmit citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad to a non-citizen. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the provisions survive intermediate scrutiny.

[JURIST] Human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty, and Reprieve [advocacy websites] on Monday joined with members of British parliament in calling for an inquiry into the UK role in torture [JURIST news archive] and rendition during the war on terror. In an open letter [text, PDF], the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition [official website] demanded British officials conduct a public hearing on the role played by UK intelligence agencies and armed forces in the alleged torture and rendition of terror suspects. In the letter, the group suggests a lack of governmental transparency on the issue, saying "[t]he public should not have to rely on occasional speeches and lengthy judicial cases to discover the truth about such a serious issue."

The letter comes days after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown [official profile] failed to deliver a promised public revision of guidelines [JURIST report] given to UK intelligence officers for the treatment of detainees. Brown faces growing scrutiny of UK detainee procedures amid allegations from former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Binyam Mohammed [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] that British intelligence officials were involved in his torture in Morocco. In February, Reprieve initiated a lawsuit [JURIST report] against the UK government over its alleged torture of detainees, claiming that its unwillingness to disclose detainee policies suggests that they permit illegal torture.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives [official website] on Sunday voted 219 - 212 [roll call] to approve a health care reform bill passed by the Senate in December, sending it to President Barack Obama for final approval. The bill, HR 3590 [text, PDF; materials] was passed after two hours of debate Sunday evening, gaining no Republican support. The bill's passage was quickly followed by the passage of a second bill [HR 4872 text, PDF; materials] by a margin of 220 - 211 [roll call], which is aimed at reconciling the Senate bill with that passed by the House in November and the proposal released by the White House [JURIST reports] earlier this month. The reconciliation bill is expected to be passed [CNN report] by Senate Democrats using the budget reconciliation [Senate backgrounder] process to bypass a Republican filibuster. Obama said [transcript] that the bill represents a "victory for the American people":

[T]oday's vote answers the prayers of every American who has hoped deeply for something to be done about a health care system that works for insurance companies, but not for ordinary people. For most Americans, this debate has never been about abstractions, the fight between right and left, Republican and Democrat - it's always been about something far more personal. ... They are why we committed ourselves to this cause. ... [The vote is] a victory for common sense.

Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. ... We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. ... In this economy, with this unemployment, with our desperate need for jobs and economic growth, is this really the time to raise taxes, to create bureaucracies, and burden every job creator in our land.