JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Friday, September 10, 2010




Guinea officials convicted of election fraud
Zach Zagger on September 10, 2010 3:12 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Two Guinea election officials were convicted Friday of election fraud and sentenced to a year in jail for irregularities with June's presidential primary election. The convictions of Ben Sekou Sylla, president of the election commission, and his top aide, El Hadj Boubacar Diallo, have raised further tensions [AfricaNews report] before the presidential run-off election scheduled for September 19. The verdict was handed down without the presence [AP report] of either official, and Diallo said he did not find out until being contacted by a radio journalist for a comment. In the June presidential election [JURIST report], no candidate received a majority of votes, forcing a run-off election. The fraud complaint was lodged by the opposition leader Alpha Conde who came in second in the primary election with 18 percent of the vote. Former prime minister Cellou Diallo received 44 percent of the vote and is seen as the favorite [BBC report] in the upcoming run-off.

The runoff election has already been postponed after first being scheduled for July 18 [Reuters report] due to allegations of misconduct during balloting. The votes have divided primarily along ethnic lines, with all candidates running on a similar platform of economic expansion and the rule of law. The presidential election is seen as the first free election in Guinea since attaining independence in 1958. In May, the International Criminal Court (ICC) sent a delegation from the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) [official websites] to Guinea to further investigate the killing [JURIST report] of more than 150 pro-democracy protesters in Conakry [BBC backgrounder] in September 2009. The protesters had rallied against Guinean military leader Moussa Dadis Camara [BBC profile], who announced in October that he intended to push elections forward three months and stand for election, breaking a promise not to run made shortly after he took power. An assassination attempt on Camara two months later eventually drove him into exile.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Ninth Circuit rules tattoo parlors protected by First Amendment
Brian Jackson on September 10, 2010 1:14 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday invalidated [opinion, PDF] a municipal ban on tattoo parlors by Hermosa Beach, California, calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The controversy initially arose when Johnny Anderson was denied a permit to open a tattoo parlor by the city, located in southern California. The city does not list tattoo parlors in its zoning code [materials], and, as tattoo parlors must be registered under California law [California Health and Safety Code, text], the city's code in effect outlawed those establishments. The US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] granted summary judgment to the city when Anderson filed his original suit. In arriving at its decision, the Ninth Circuit first held that tattooing is an expressive activity, not merely conduct with an expressive component. Based on that holding, the court further held that tattooing was subject to only reasonable time, place or manner restrictions, and the city's ban was not narrowly tailored to the city's interest in protecting public health and did not leave open alternative channels of communication. The court concluded:
[T]he City's total ban on tattoo parlors in Hermosa Beach is not a reasonable "time, place, or manner" restriction because it is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the City's significant health and safety interests and because it entirely forecloses a unique and important method of expression. Moreover, no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the constitutionality of the regulation. Thus, we hold that Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.06.070 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes tattoo parlors.
The city is currently deliberating as to whether it will appeal the decision [LAT report] to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, or perhaps even to the Supreme Court.

First Amendment rights have been the focus of numerous court challenges in recent history, often by unpopular groups seeking to have their rights enforced. Also Thursday, the US District Court for the Central District of California, which granted summary judgment against Anderson, ruled that the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy violates the First Amendment [JURIST report]. In August, the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that Missouri laws banning protests at funerals [JURIST report] are unconstitutional. That case involved the controversial Westboro Baptist Church, and another case involving the same organization will be heard by the Supreme Court [JURIST report] this term.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


France prosecutors seek to drop police charges over 2005 riot deaths
Matt Glenn on September 10, 2010 1:02 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] French judges may drop charges against two police officers who chased three teen boys into a power substation where two of the teens died after being electrocuted, according to Friday reports [AP report]. The two officers were charged in 2007 [JURIST report] with "non-assistance to a person in danger" under Article 223-6 of the French penal code [text] for failing to alert anyone that the teens had entered the substation. If convicted, the officers could face up to five years in prison and fines close to $100,000. The teens' deaths set off riots in France [JURIST news archive] that lasted three weeks. According to reports, French prosecutors have submitted a request to drop the case due to lack of evidence. Lawyers for the teens' families, Jean-Pierre Mignard and Emmanuel Tordjman [Lysias Partners profiles, in French], said dropping the case would send a message to police that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Investigating judges will make the final decision on whether to proceed with the case.

In 2006, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin [JURIST news archive] promised to strengthen anti-vandalism laws [JURIST report] in France after a man was injured in violence marking the one-year anniversary of the 2005 riots. In 2006, France began to deport [JURIST report] some of the foreign rioters. In early 2006, France lifted its state of emergency [JURIST report] implemented during the riots. The riots began in late October 2005 and continued into November [JURIST report] of that year.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Federal judge strikes down 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'
Megan McKee on September 10, 2010 9:39 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] on Thursday struck down [opinion, PDF] the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) [10 USC § 654; JURIST news archive] policy, which bans openly gay individuals from the armed services. The suit [case materials; LCR backgrounder] was initiated in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans [advocacy website], who argued that the policy violates individuals' First Amendment and Due Process rights. Judge Virginia Phillips agreed, holding that the less deferential standard identified by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of the Air Force [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] applied to the instant case, rather than the more permissive rational basis standard. Effectively, the government faced the burden of demonstrating that DADT is necessary to further the government's important interests of military readiness and unit cohesion, a burden Phillips held it failed to meet. Phillips is set to draft an injunction against the policy within a week, giving the government a chance to respond. This case presented the biggest legal test for DADT in recent years, and was unique in that it attacked the policy in general rather than on the basis of individual complaints.

Phillips began the trial [JURIST report] in July. Last month, a US military officer filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] seeking to enjoin the military from discharging him under DADT. In May, the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee [official websites] voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Federal appeals court rejects Pennsylvania city illegal immigration laws
Daniel Makosky on September 10, 2010 8:04 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that two ordinances passed by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania [official website; legal defense website] making it more difficult for illegal immigrants [JURIST news archive] to live or work in the town are unconstitutional. The court found that the Illegal Immigration Relief Act (IIRAO) and Landlord Tenant Ordinance (RO) [texts, PDF] improperly infringe on the federal government's exclusive domain over immigration law, saying that it is "required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress." The employment provisions of the IIRAO conflict with the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 [text] and the "careful balance" it strikes between deterring the employment of illegal aliens, minimizing the burden on employers and discouraging discrimination against individuals "perceived as 'foreign.'" The court also ruled that the city exceeded its authority by attempting to "regulate residence based solely on immigration status." Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta stated [press release] that the city will appeal the decision, while the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] called the ruling [press release] "a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country."

The ordinances were originally struck down [JURIST report] in 2007 by the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania [official website]. Barletta previously testified [JURIST report] that the laws were an appropriate response to illegal immigration and attributed a 70 percent increase in violent crime in the city since 2001 to rising illegal immigration. A federal judge ruled [JURIST report] last month that the Nebraska Supreme Court [official website] should be the first forum to hear challenges to a similar ordinance adopted by the city of Fremont. Also in August, Arizona filed its opening brief [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction blocking the state's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive] from taking full effect.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Ontario court upholds ban on gay blood donors
Megan McKee on September 10, 2010 7:50 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] An Ontario Superior Court [official website] judge ruled Thursday that the Canadian Blood Services (CBS) is justified in prohibiting sexually active gay males from donating blood. In 2002, Kyle Freeman falsely denied having had sex with other men and subsequently donated blood that tested positive for syphilis. CBS initiated a negligent misrepresentation suit against Freeman after spending $10,000 to remove blood traceable to him from the system. The ruling held that Freeman did not have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text] defense against the claim of negligence, as CBS is not a government entity. The court found the CBS ban to discriminate on the basis of health and safety considerations rather than on sexual orientation. Freeman's counterclaim was dismissed, and he was held liable for $10,000 in damages to CBS.

In July, a US government health committee recommended against lifting the US ban on homosexual blood donors. In March 2009, a Tasmanian court upheld [decision text; JURIST report] an Australian Red Cross [organization website] policy [text] to refuse blood donations from sexually active homosexual males. Petitioner Michael Cain tried to donate blood in 2004, but his offer was refused after he affirmatively answered an inquiry into whether he "had male-to-male sex" in the past 12 months. The tribunal held that Cain's complaint was unsubstantiated and that the conduct of the Red Cross did not amount to direct or indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1998 [text].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST OP-ED

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org