The report comes as another count against BP's practices leading up to the spill. In December, The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed suit [JURIST report] Wednesday against units of (BP) and several other companies over the April Deepwater Horizon oil spill [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. The government's lawsuit is one of hundreds filed against BP and other companies in connection with the oil spill. In August, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [official website] selected Judge Carl Barbier [FJC profile] to hear [JURIST report] more than 300 such lawsuits. Also that month, BP and the DOJ announced the completion of negotiations over the implementation of a $20 billion fund [JURIST reports] to aid victims of the oil spill. The report recommends that 80% of these funds collected go to restoration efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.

At the same time as the Chinese government has pointed to the NHRAP as evidence of its commitment to human rights, the government has systematically continued to violate many of the most basic rights the document addresses. It has taken unambiguous steps to restrict rights to expression, association, and assembly. It has sentenced high–profile dissidents to lengthy prison terms on spurious state secrets or 'subversion' charges, expanded restrictions on media and internet freedom as well as tightened controls on lawyers, human rights defenders, and nongovernmental organizations. It has broadened controls on Uighurs and Tibetans, and engaged in increasing numbers of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions, including in secret, unlawful detention facilities known as 'black jails.'

China has had a well–known struggle with international criticism of its human rights record [JURIST news archive]. In April 2009, the Information Office of the State Council [official website] published the NHRAP [JURIST report], which aimed to protect ethnic minorities, promote gender equality, guarantee suspects the right to an impartial trial, and prohibit illegal detentions and the use of torture to extract confessions from suspects. China also sought to provide basic nationwide health care, slow its greenhouse-gas emissions, and protect "normal religious activities." In February 2009, the Chinese delegation to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] defended [JURIST report] China's human rights record while presenting a report [text, PDF] in compliance with the UNHRC's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) [official website] process. Ambassador Li Baodong said that China has been taking steps to improve its legal system, promote democracy, and encourage non-governmental organizations.

We do not doubt that Mayo's residents are engaged in a valuable educational pursuit or that they are students of their craft. The question whether they are "students" for purposes of [FICA] § 3121, however, is a different matter. Because it is one to which Congress has not directly spoken, and because the Treasury Department's rule is a reasonable construction of what Congress has said, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Medical students working for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, receive stipends from the foundation and the University of Minnesota [academic website] 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 to refund FICA taxes paid during the second quarter of 2005 to both Mayo and the university. The US government appealed the district court's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. 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."

For their breach of contract claim, plaintiffs allege that MBIA Insurance breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in its insurance policies. Plaintiffs do not claim that MBIA Insurance has failed to make any payment due under the policies, but instead contend that the company has frustrated an implicit purpose of obtaining the policies, namely "to enhance the value and credit rating" of the covered structured finance products. However, since this alleged purpose is nowhere reflected in the policies, it cannot serve as the basis for a claim of breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. ... In effect, plaintiffs seek an advisory opinion premised on future events that are beyond defendants' control and thus are speculative.

Financial institutions, as well as both private and municipal issuers, have recently faced securities-related enforcement actions. In August, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] charged [order, PDF] the state of New Jersey with securities fraud for failing to disclose to municipal bond investors that it was underfunding two of the state's largest pension plans [JURIST report]. Also in August, a federal judge rejected a $75 million settlement [JURIST report] reached between Citigroup and the SEC to resolve charges of misleading investors [JURIST report] about Citigroup's exposure to sub-prime mortgage-related assets. In July, Goldman, Sachs & Co.. [official website; JURIST news archive] agreed to a $550 million settlement [text, PDF] with the SEC to resolve charges [press release] that they marketed a subprime mortgage product and made misleading statements and omissions to investors in early 2007.

The court's opinion upholds the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled [opinion, PDF] that the bankruptcy court may not allow such deductions. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] in October. Counsel for Ransom argued that, "[i]n 2005 when Congress passed the Bankruptcy Act, it made a policy decision to limit judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis in the area of reasonable and necessary expenses." Counsel for the respondent argued that, "[t]he Bankruptcy Code precludes an above-median income debtor like Petitioner from shielding from his creditors $471 a month for a car payment that he does not have." The US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondent.

The Obama administration’s continued defense of this failed and unconstitutional policy is a mystery. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ was rejected by Congress, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and most notably by the American people. It is time for the President to stand by his commitment and end this policy of discrimination, removing the threat and specter of discharge from thousands of patriotic servicemembers.

The Don't Ask, Don't Repeal Act of 2010 [HR 2965 materials] was signed into law [JURIST report] in December. However, DADT remains in effect until the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the necessary policies and procedures are in place within the military to implement the repeal. After receiving certification, the full repeal must take effect within 60 days. The Obama administration had been pushing Congress to repeal DADT as courts have also been weighing in on the issue. Earlier in December, three former service members discharged under DADT filed a complaint against the Department of Defense seeking reinstatement [JURIST report] and the declaration that their discharges under the statute, and the statute itself, are unconstitutional. Additionally, in November, US Air Force Major Margaret Witt, who was discharged under DADT, became the first openly gay person to serve in the US military after the Obama administration did not pursue a stay of a previous federal court decision ordering her reinstatement [JURIST reports]. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

In January 2009, Venezuela renewed its extradition request [JURIST report] in hopes that the Obama administration would be more open to it. Posada was convicted in Panama for the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro but was pardoned [Miami Herald report]. Citing the UN Convention Against Torture [text], the US has refused to extradite Posada in the past [JURIST report], saying that he cannot be sent to either Venezuela or Cuba because he is likely to be tortured if extradited to either country. Citing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archives], Cuba countered that claim during a November 2008 UN Security Council meeting [press release], saying that while the likelihood of torture in Cuba is speculative, the likelihood of torture in the US is not.

In August, DeLay's lawyer confirmed that a US Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal probe into DeLay's association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff [JURIST news archive] had been dismissed without charges being filed [JURIST report]. The investigation lasted six years and included grand jury testimony from former aides as well as a review of more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from DeLay's office. In August 2008, a Texas appeals court allowed the money laundering indictment [JURIST report] against DeLay's associates to stand. In 2007, a Texas appeals court ruled against reinstating a charge of conspiracy to violate the state's election law against DeLay and his two associates. After he was indicted, DeLay stepped down as House majority leader and later resigned from Congress [JURIST reports].

Closing Guantanamo is as essential today as it was when President Obama took office in 2009. But Obama can't keep hoping that a political consensus will form and Congress will make it easy - he has to act to make it happen. Obama still has the authority he needs to bring Guantanamo detainees to justice in US courts or to send them home. If he truly believes that Guantanamo is a scar on America's reputation, he should assert his authority now.

As noted by HRW, Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo have faced ongoing opposition from Congress. On Friday, Obama signed a bill barring the transfer of Guantanamo detainees [JURIST report] to the US for trial. The legislation authorized funding for defense interests abroad, military construction and national security-related energy programs and barred the use of funds to transfer detainees into the US and limited funds available for transfers to foreign countries. The administration plans to seek the repeal of these restrictions and opposes the extension or expansion of them in the future. In June 2009, the US House of Representatives denied an Obama administration request for $60 million [JURIST report] to fund the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and required the president to submit a detailed plan to Congress documenting the costs and risks of transferring a detainee to the US for trial or detention at least two months before the detainee is to be transferred. The number of detainees at Guantanamo has been significantly reduced as the administration continues to transfer detainees to a growing list of countries including Germany, Italy, Spain, Maldives, Georgia, Albania, Latvia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Somaliland, Palau, Belgium, Afghanistan and Bermuda [JURIST reports]. There are currently 178 detainees awaiting transfer from Guantanamo.