In October, lawyers representing the city of San Francisco submitted a brief [text, PDF] arguing that Proposition 8 is irrational under California state law [JURIST report]. In September, officials in Imperial County, California, also submitted a brief [JURIST report] appealing the federal court's decision finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The appeal came just days after supporters of Proposition 8 filed a brief [JURIST report] seeking standing in order to file the appeal. Earlier in the month, a judge for the California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown [official websites] is required to appeal the decision of the district court. In August, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay [JURIST report] of district court's decision, pending appeal. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit, and their refusal to oppose the stay left defendant-intervenors Project Marriage and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.

the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island on the 23 November 2010 which resulted in the killing of South Korean marines and civilians and the injury of many others; and the sinking of a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, hit by a torpedo allegedly fired from a North Korean submarine on 26 March 2010, which resulted in the death of 46 persons.

Last week, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak called North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong, which killed four, including two civilians, a crime against humanity [JURIST report]. North Korea's ongoing conflict with the South is not the only human rights issue for which the country has faced criticism. Last month, a UN committee condemned [JURIST report] what it called persistent, "grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights" of its own people. In March, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] adopted a resolution [A/HRC/13/L.13 materials] condemning [JURIST report] North Korea for grave human rights abuses. Earlier in March, UN Special Rapporteur for North Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn [UN press release] reported [text, PDF] to the UNHRC that North Korean human rights situation was continuing to deteriorate [JURIST report]. This report came after Muntarbhorn's previous criticism, in October, 2009, of North Korea's "abysmal" [JURIST report] and ongoing human rights violations, alleging that the authoritarian government was responsible for various abuses, including torture, public executions, extensive surveillance, media censorship, women's rights violations and widespread hunger.

First, the statute contains no clear indication that the deadline is jurisdictional. Rather, the text and structure points away from a jurisdictional reading. Second, the deadline that applies to disabled and largely uncounseled veterans seeking their first day in court is not the type of deadline that Congress would be expected to rank as jurisdictional. And third, a jurisdictional reading would render some of the most disabled of veterans the least likely to obtain benefits and would treat veterans worse off than almost all litigants in our federal system.

Also Monday, the court heard arguments in Pepper v. United States [oral arguments transcript, PDF] on whether a federal district judge can consider a defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation as a permissible factor supporting a downward sentencing variance under 18 USC § 3553(a) [text]. The court must also determine whether, when a sentence is vacated on appeal and a new judge is assigned on remand, the new judge must follow the prior district judge's sentencing findings. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the district court's 77-month sentence of Jason Pepper for a drug offense. At the certiorari stage, the US government agreed with Pepper that the Eighth Circuit erred and urged the justices to vacate and remand the case, but the court decided to take the case, leaving amicus curiae to argue in support of respondents.

Also Monday, the court agreed to hear American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut [docket; cert. petition, PDF], regarding whether electric utilities contributed to global warming [JURIST news archive]. The questions presented are:

1. Whether States and private parties have standing to seek judicially-fashioned emissions caps on five utilities for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources.


2. Whether a cause of action to cap carbon dioxide emissions can be implied under federal common law where no statute creates such a cause of action, and the Clean Air Act speaks directly to the same subject matter and assigns federal responsibility for regulating such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency.


3. Whether claims seeking to cap defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at "reasonable" levels, based on a court's weighing of the potential risks of climate change against the socioeconomic utility of defendants' conduct, would be governed by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" or could be resolved without "initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion."

The trial, which began [JURIST report] in February, faced criticism [Daily Mail report] for starting a decade after the accident and after victims' families received settlements in 2001 and the Concorde jet was officially retired by all airlines in 2003. More than 100 people died when Air France Concorde flight 4590 crashed into a hotel shortly after takeoff in July 2000. The French Bureau of Investigations and Analysis (BEA) [official website, in French] concluded [report, in French, PDF] in 2004 that the crash was caused by a metal strip that fell from the Continental Airlines flight and pierced the Concorde's tire.

Last month, the ICTR convicted [JURIST report] former Rwandan businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga on charges of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced the 65-year-old to 30 years in prison. The ICTR's work has recently been hampered by a lack of resources, leading the tribunal to ask the UN for assistance [JURIST report] in October. In September, the ICTR opened the trial of a former Kivumu mayor [JURIST report] charged in connection with deaths at a church in that town in April 1994. The tribunal has faced adversity since its creation, including the shooting death [JURIST report] of one of the senior defense lawyers in July. Earlier this year, Joseph Nzirorea, former president of the Rwanda National Assembly and secretary general of the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development, died while on trial [JURIST report] for conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions [text].

The blasphemy laws were introduced in 1986 as a way of protecting Muslim beliefs from insults. In response to the repeated calls for repeal, Pakistani Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti [official profile] has said the laws may be amended to prevent misuse, but they will not be repealed. Advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch [JURIST report], as well as LHC advocate Saroop Ijaz [JURIST op-ed] have called for the laws to be repealed. In February, Bhatti told the Agence France-Presse that he has been speaking to various political parties [JURIST report] in Pakistan and that his government is committed to doing away with laws [AP report] that are discriminatory to minorities. Bhatti made the comments at an interview with the AFP in Washington, DC, where he met with various lawmakers and officials during the National Prayer Breakfast. Bhatti discussed a proposed change in the law that would force judges to investigate blasphemy cases before they are docketed.