Virgina Tech failed to comply with the requirements relating to a timely warning ... in response to the shootings on campus on April 16, 2007. There are two aspects to this violation. First, the warnings that were issued by the University were not prepared or disseminated in a manner to give clear and timely notice of the threat to the health and safety of campus community members. Second, Virginia Tech did not follow its own policy for the issuance of timely warnings as published in its annual campus security reports.

Virginia Tech has faced several lawsuits over the shooting incident. Last month, a Virginia circuit court judge ruled that a lawsuit by two families whose children were killed in shooting can proceed against school administrators, despite their claims of sovereign immunity. The lawsuit [JURIST report], seeking $10 million in damages, accuses the administrators of gross negligence for failing to warn students of the shootings immediately after the first shooting at 7:15 AM. It is being brought by two families who opted out of an $11 million dollar settlement [JURIST report] to which 24 of the 32 victims' families agreed in June 2008. The settlement gave each family $100,000 plus medical expenses and provided for meetings with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Tech administration and police officials. Many of the families had considered wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits against the state of Virginia after an independent state panel reported that different school policies could have avoided some of the deaths, but the settlement terms required the families to release their claims. In December 2007, Congress passed by voice vote an act that closes a loophole [JURIST report] that allowed Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho to purchase firearms despite a court order mandating psychiatric treatment. The Virginia Tech shootings left 33 people dead and 25 wounded in the deadliest shooting incident in US history [WP backgrounder].

The Constitutional Court began hearing the first case [JURIST report], which centered around the misuse of an EC electoral grant where the EC alleged funds from the grant had been transferred to senior party officials in violation of the Political Party Act [LoC Backgrounder]. The EC called for the dissolution of the ruling party [JURIST report] in April for failing to report donations from the business community and alleged misuse of the funds. The commission's decision came amid some of the deadliest political clashes Thailand has experienced in nearly two decades, as Thai protesters, known as red shirts [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], called for new elections and Vejjajiva's resignation.

Proposition 209 was upheld [JURIST report] by the Supreme Court of California [official website] in August. In addition to California, five states have adopted affirmative actions bans. Last month, Arizona voters [JURIST report] approved [results] Proposition 107, amending the state constitution [HCR 2019 text] to ban affirmative action programs in state government agencies. In November 2008, ballot measures banning affirmative action failed in Colorado and passed in Nebraska [JURIST reports]. In 2006, Michigan voters approved a similar state constitutional amendment, which was upheld [JURIST reports] in March 2008 by a federal district judge in a lawsuit alleging that such an affirmative action ban violated the US Constitution.

The recently enacted health care reform law has faced numerous lawsuits over the last few months. Last week, a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a health care lawsuit filed by Liberty University [academic website]. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] 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 [complaint, PDF], filed in March and joined by 20 states [JURIST reports] and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [association website; JURIST report], 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. A week earlier, a federal judge in Michigan ruled [JURIST report] that the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions, and that it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax.

Illegal immigration continues to be a concern for local governments, as the federal government has failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on whether an Arizona statute imposing sanctions on employers that hire illegal immigrants is preempted by federal law. Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on another controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070 [materials, JURIST news archive]. Also in November, the Nebraska Supreme Court declined to rule [JURIST report] on a local ordinance banning the hiring, harboring or renting of property to illegal immigrants. In September, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled [JURIST report] that two ordinances passed by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to live or work in the town, are unconstitutional.

The settlements arose from two cases. Eloise Cobell [plaintiff website] originally filed litigation in 1996 related to DOI's alleged mismanagement of the Indian Trust, which was established by Congress in 1887 to hold proceeds from government-arranged leases to Indian lands. Although it was determined that the US government had not engaged in fraud, it was held that DOI unreasonably delayed accounting of the trust. A settlement was reached [JURIST report] last December. In 1999, black farmers alleged in Pigford v. Glickman [BFAA backgrounder] that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. The USDA and Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced a $1.2 billion settlement [JURIST report] in February.

In the first civilian trial of an ex-Guantanamo detainee, a federal jury convicted [JURIST report] Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani [GlobalSecurity profile; JURIST news archive] last month on only one of 285 counts of conspiracy, murder and attempted murder for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of US embassies [PBS backgrounder; JURIST news archive] in Tanzania and Kenya. While the Obama administration viewed the conviction and 20-year minimum sentence as a victory, opponents have cited the acquittals as evidence that civilian courts are inadequate venues for trying terror suspects. Several scholars have nevertheless maintained that federal courts are capable of serving justice [JURIST op-ed; JURIST op-ed]. Upon taking office, President Barack Obama pledged to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report] by January 2010, but he has been met with strong opposition to transferring detainees to US soil