JURIST, the 501(c)(3) legal news and research non-profit headquartered at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, invites candidates to apply for the position of JURIST Executive Director. The Executive Director is responsible for managing JURIST's corporate and external operations and reports to JURIST's Board of Directors. The Executive Director works closely and creatively in an innovative and rapidly-developing institutional environment with JURIST's Publisher & Editor-in-Chief, Research Director, and a staff of approximately 50 law student news researchers and reporters. The Executive Director supervises general corporate operations and legal affairs, plans and helps carry out external fundraising strategy, and coordinates budget. The position also entails planning, supervising and/or executing outreach activities bringing JURIST to the attention of legal and community groups locally and nationally. For more information and to apply, click here [PDF].

In the case before us, the Court of Appeals, although purporting to review the District Court's denial of the prison officials' pretrial summary-judgment motion, several times pointed to evidence presented only at the trial stage of the proceedings. The appeals court erred, but not fatally, by incorrectly placing its ruling under a summary judgment headline. Its judgment was infirm, however, because Jordan's and Bright's failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) [Cornell, text] left the appellate forum with no warrant to reject the appraisal of the evidence by the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and had the feel of the case which no appellate printed transcript can impart.

The Court's decision reverses and remands the earlier ruling [text] of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website], which held in March 2009 that, "although courts normally do not review the denial of a summary judgment motion after a trial on the merits, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is an exception to this rule." There was previously a circuit split on this issue.

[A]ccepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation - collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer's unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer's intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII.

The Supreme Court currently has other Title VII cases on its docket. Last month, the court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a massive gender discrimination class action lawsuit. The court will determine whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) [text] and whether the class certification ordered under this rule was consistent with FRCP 23(a). The case concerns an action filed in 2001 by female Wal-Mart employees alleging that the company's nationwide policies result in lower pay for women than men in comparable positions and longer waits for management promotions than men. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld class certification [JURIST report] in April. he class is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women employed by Wal-Mart since December 26, 1998, which makes it the largest class action lawsuit in US history.

This is a particularly inopportune time for proponents of human rights to lose their public voice, because various governments that want to prevent the vigorous enforcement of human rights have had no qualms about raising theirs. ... Dialogues would have a far greater impact if they were tied to concrete and publicly articulated benchmarks. ... UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been notably reluctant to put pressure on abusive governments. ... Whatever the rationalization, the quest for dialogue and cooperation is simply not a universal substitute for public pressure as a tool to promote human rights. Defending human rights is rarely convenient. It may sometimes interfere with other governmental interests. But if governments want to pursue those interest instead of human rights, they should at least have the courage to admit it, instead of hiding behind meaningless dialogues and fruitless quests for cooperation.

A report earlier this month by Freedom House [advocacy website] revealed that the number of free countries and electoral democracies dropped [JURIST report] and the overall freedom in the Middle East and North Africa suffered for the fifth year. According to the report, the democratic world showed little resistance to the continuing repressive authoritarian regimes of the world, including China, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela [JURIST news archives]. Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti [JURIST news archives], and Sri Lanka were removed from the list of electoral democracies. The nine states rated the most repressive in respect to political rights and civil liberties were Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Tibet [JURIST news archives], Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan .

In Reynolds v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will examine a circuit split over the retroactive application of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) [final guidelines, PDF], which requires sex offenders to register. The attorney general determined in 2007 that all states would have to follow the federal rule to keep registration current. Billy Joe Reynolds pleaded guilty for failure to register his new address but attempted to challenge the application of SORNA against him because his sex offender conviction in 2001 predated the attorney general's rule change. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that this did not give him "standing" to challenge the rule's application.

In Swarthout v. Cooke [opinion, PDF], the court, in a per curiam opinion, summarily reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit to grant prisoners' release who were denied parole. In reversing the decision, the court held that prisoners have no right to parole and that states are under no duty to offer parole. Both prisoners had attempted to seek habeas relief in California state courts but were denied. Prisoner Elijah Clay was convicted of first-degree murder in 1978 and was found suitable for parole in 2003 by the parole board, but the governor stepped in under his discretion and found him unsuitable for parole. Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg wrote a short concurring opinion saying that the court does have the right to review the constitutionality of the application of parole procedures. The court has overturned [LAT report] three Ninth Circuit opinions in the past week, all written by liberal judge Stephen Reinhardt.

We recognize that McCoy's argument has some force; read in isolation, the language quoted above certainly suggests that credit card issuers must provide notice of an interest-rate increase imposed pursuant to cardholder delinquency or default. But McCoy's analysis begs the key question: whether the increase actually changed a "term" of the Agreement that was "required to be disclosed under § 226.6." If not, § 226.9(c)'s subsequent notice requirement with respect to a "change in terms" does not apply. Chase argues precisely this: The increase did not change a term in the Agreement, but merely implemented one that had been initially disclosed, as required. This interpretation, though not commanded by the text of the regulation, is reasonable.

The interpretation of the Supreme Court is in contrast to that of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which previously found [opinion, PDF] that Regulation Z does require the creditor to provide the cardholder with a change-in-terms notice where the cardholder has defaulted, triggering an increase in the interest rate. However, it is in line with that of the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website], which originally dismissed McCoy's complaint on the grounds that the increased interest rate was not a "change in terms" and did not require Chase to provide prior notice.

It is incredible that senior Indonesian government officials have called this abuse - which included one of the men having his genitals burned - a 'minor violation.' While we welcome government efforts to provide justice for the two Papuan men, the fact that the victims were too frightened to testify in person due to the lack of adequate safety guarantees, raises serious questions about the trial process.

Indonesia has recently faced criticism over a variety of recent human rights issues. In December, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged the Indonesian government to repeal [JURIST report] two Sharia laws [report materials; press release] that the group says violate human rights and international treaties. The laws, local to the Aceh province, require strict Islamic dress in public and prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone together. In June, HRW released a report [report materials; JURIST report] criticizing the Indonesian government for its treatment of Papuan [Economist backgrounder] and Moluccan [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] secessionists who, according to the report, face imprisonment, torture and denial of medical treatment for their beliefs. In April, the Constitutional Court voted 8-1 to uphold [JURIST report] a controversial anti-blasphemy law enacted in 1965 by the first Indonesian president. In 2008, HRW called for Indonesia to protect freedom of religion [JURIST report] and reverse a decree that provides for the prosecution of members of a controversial Islamic sect and to uphold its commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [text].