Last week, Nigerian voters approved a constitution [JURIST report] limiting presidential powers that military leaders say will aid the transition back to civilian rule. The February coup, which left at least three Nigerien soldiers dead, was in response to a referendum abolishing presidential term limits [JURIST report], allowing Tandja to remain in office for three more years and to run in any subsequent elections. Niger's opposition parties denounced the referendum, claiming that Tandja inflated poll numbers to support the new constitution's adoption. After the coup, Nigerien rights group United Front for the Safeguard of Democratic Assets (Fusad), called for the prosecution of Tandja [JURIST report] on treason charges. Allied with the opposition party, Fusad claims that Tandja is guilty of corruption violating the constitution [AFP report], and alleges that he gave out contracts to foreign oil and uranium firms. Niger [CIA World Factbook profile], which is known for its exportation of uranium, has gone through five constitutions and military regimes since it's founding in 1960.

In September, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] criticized South Korea [press release] for using the National Security Act to restrict speech that does not pose a threat to national security. HRW claims that the law "clearly violates South Korea's international human-rights obligations." In 2004, an estimated 100,000 protesters gathered in support [JURIST report] of the National Security Act. The Constitutional Court upheld the law [JURIST report] earlier that year.

In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether medical students working as full-time residents are eligible for the student exception to Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) [text] taxes imposed on employers and employees. Medical students working for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, receive stipends from the foundation and the University of Minnesota [academic websites] for the medical and patient care services they provide. The district court ruled that residents qualify for the exemption and ordered the US Treasury Department [official website] to refund FICA taxes paid during the second quarter of 2005 to both Mayo and the university. The US government appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reviewed the case de novo. The circuit court reversed [opinion, PDF] the lower court's holding, concluding that the judiciary must "defer to the regulation limiting this exception to students who are not full-time employees because it is a permissible interpretation of the statute." Counsel for the Mayo Clinic argued that the "services are performed for the purpose of receiving an education," which should qualify the students for the student exception to FICA taxes. Counsel for the US argued that "the Treasury Department has reasonably concluded that an employee's paid work does not make him an exempt student, even if he also learns from his job."

Squatting in the Netherlands has been a tolerated practice for many decades. After Parliament passed legislation banning squatting, squatters in Amsterdam and Nijmegen held protests and riots before the law took effect in October. Previous attempts to ban squatting in 2006 were unsuccessful. In the 1970s, a Dutch court ruled that entering an unused building was not trespassing. In 2009, the Eastern High Court of Denmark [official website, in Danish] ruled that the Copenhagen counterculture group Christiana [community website, in Danish] had not acquired permanent property rights [JURIST report] and no squatters' rights were accrued by the community to the abandoned Copenhagen navy base and that the Danish government [official website] was within its rights to cancel the group's use of the property. In 2005, 46,000 people were arrested in Zimbabwe's squatting sweep [JURIST report] "Operation Restore Order," a highly controversial government initiative to reduce crime and illegal buildings in Harare and other towns. According to the UN and the opposition, the exercise left between 200,000 and 1.5 million people homeless, respectively.

One party and candidate excluded from the elections was Myanmar's largest opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) [party website] and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Suu Kyi was prevented from participating in the elections under Myanmar's current election laws [JURIST report], which include a provision prohibiting political prisoners from seeking public office. In October, Myanmar's Supreme Court heard [JURIST report] Suu Kyi's final appeal of her extended sentence for violation of the terms of her house arrest [JURIST report]. In that appeal, filed in May, lawyers for Suu Kyi argued that she is innocent, and that the election law passed by the ruling junta should be annulled [JURIST report].

Recognition will demonstrate that we are a country that is united in acknowledging the unique and special place of our first peoples. The Government is pursuing an ambitious agenda to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage, including undertaking major reform and delivering unprecedented investment in early education, health, jobs, housing and services, and infrastructure. Formal recognition in our foundation document will build on this work by publicly acknowledging our history and the significant contribution that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to make to this nation.

In recent years, the Australian government has recognized the long history of discrimination and disadvantage among its native citizens, although its efforts have not always resulted in better conditions. In August, Amnesty International Australia (AIA) criticized the racial discrimination [JURIST report] that exists in Australia, which, according to AIA, violates the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [texts]. In June, the Australian government reinstated its previously suspended Racial Discrimination Act [JURIST report] in the Northern Territory, which allows governmental authorities to regulate how welfare money is spent by the indigenous people of the country. In March, UN special rapporteur James Anaya condemned the law [press release], calling it problematic from a human rights point of view. Last year, Australia endorsed [JURIST report] the aforementioned Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which reversed the position held by previous Australian governments. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd championed the cause of improved living conditions for and relations with Australia's indigenous population during his term in office, and offered and official apology on behalf of the federal government in February 2008 for past mistreatment to the nation's indigenous population.

But it is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a State's criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts. The habeas statute unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue the writ to a state prisoner "only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." And we have repeatedly held that "federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law."

In 1997, an Indiana trial court found Corcoran guilty of four counts of murder. The trial judge sentenced him to death, relying on non-statutory aggravating factors. In 2000, the Indiana Supreme Court [official website] vacated the sentence because the trial court may have weighed factors of the innocence of the victims, heinousness of the offense and future dangerousness as aggravating circumstances, and later accepted a revised sentencing order issued in 2002. Corcoran applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana [official website], arguing that the trial court relied on impermissible aggravating factors. In 2007, the district court granted habeas relief on the grounds that the prosecutor violated the Sixth Amendment [text] when offering to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a waiver of a jury trial. In 2008, the appeals court denied the district court's habeas relief, but later granted the petition on remand from the Supreme Court in 2010, arguing that, in order to comply with Indiana law, the trial court needed to reconsider its sentencing determination.

Although it was seen as unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari on a district court issue, commentators predict that the health care bill will eventually become an issue for the court. Last week, voters in Arizona and Oklahoma approved measures to amend their state constitutions to make the individual insurance mandate unenforceable [JURIST report] in their states. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit brought by a group of attorneys general challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. The lawsuit, filed in March and joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [JURIST reports], seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against what it alleges are violations of Article I and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, committed by levying a tax without regard to census data, property or profession, and for invading the sovereignty of the states. Also last month, a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled [JURIST report] that the individual insurance mandate was constitutional. In August, a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a suit brought against the bill for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, conceding that Virginia had standing in alleging the federal bill conflicted with state law.

In August, the Taipei Prosecutors Office [official website] conducted raids [JURIST report] on the homes of several High Court judges and 18 other locations searching for evidence related to the bribery deals. The three High Court judges were arrested [JURIST report] on corruption charges in July and were suspended from duty following their arrests. The judges' indictments follows the Taipei High Court's acquittal [CNA report] last week of former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] on charges of embezzling USD $20 million from banks [JURIST report] that sought to protect themselves during Chen's financial reform program. Chen is also appealing a 20-year sentence for corruption and embezzlement. He was originally sentenced to life imprisonment, but the court reduced his sentence [JURIST reports] in June after finding that he had not embezzled as much money as previously thought. Chen was originally found guilty on corruption charges and sentenced to life in prison in September. His wife was also given a life sentence after the pair were convicted on charges of embezzlement, receiving bribes, forgery and money laundering. Chen has maintained his innocence against all charges, claiming that the current president is using Chen's trial to distance himself from Chen's anti-China views.