On Monday, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] said that the court will not grant immunity [JURIST report] to any person perpetrating crimes against humanity in Libya. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] spoke to the UNHRC [JURIST report] last week, calling for the Libyan government to stop the violence directed at protesters [transcript] and for the Council to rise to action. The protests began last month following those that have occurred throughout the Middle East and North Africa [BBC backgrounder], resulting in the resignations of Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak [JURIST reports]. Protesters have demanded Gaddafi's resignation and government reform.

Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always. Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. ... We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them. ... We reject the argument that because "person" is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase "personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in January. Under exemption 7(C), an agency can withhold information pursuant to an FOIA request if that information can reasonably be believed to be a violation of "personal privacy." The issue of whether a corporation can be considered an individual for FOIA purposes has brought the court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC [JURIST report] to the fore in the minds of commentators [NLJ report]. In that case, the court eased restrictions on political campaign spending by corporations, a decision that has been strongly opposed by the Obama administration.

In Schindler Elevator Corp. v. US ex rel. Kirk [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court heard arguments on whether a federal agency's response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text; JURIST news archive] request is a "report ... or investigation" within the meaning of the False Claims Act public disclosure bar [31 USC § 3730(e)(4)]. The case involves a former Schindler employee who filed a lawsuit against the company based on information made public under FOIA. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the FOIA information was not a report or investigation under the statute and was not barred from litigation. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the circuit court decision opens the door to "a host of lawsuits by relators with no meaningful information to contribute," which is a situation that the public disclosure bar was created to prevent. In response, counsel for the respondent argued that Schindler's overly broad application of the public disclosure bar harms the policy goal of "encourag[ing] whistleblowers specifically to use government records in their investigations" under the False Claims Act.

Amnesty International calls on the Tunisian authorities to ensure that the investigation into the unrest is independent, transparent, thorough and impartial—and that the Commission's final report is promptly made public. Those identified as responsible for human rights abuses must be brought to justice in fair trials. Families of those unlawfully killed, as well as other victims of excessive use of force or torture and other ill-treatment at the hands of security forces, must be provided with adequate reparation including, but not limited to, financial compensation.

In January, then-president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali [official website] declared a state of emergency [JURIST report] amid nationwide protests, banning public gatherings and allowing police to fire on anyone refusing to obey orders. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] urged [press release] the Tunisian government to investigate the recent deaths of public protesters [JURIST report] and called on government security forces to admit use of excessive force against them. Tunisia has been accused of numerous human rights violations [JURIST report] over the past few years. In 2009, AI released a report alleging Tunisia was continuing to commit hundreds of human rights abuses [JURIST report] despite previous vows to cease. The report detailed the arrest, torture and detention of prisoners in the name of national security, and even the kidnapping and forced return of Tunisians living abroad. In June 2008, AI released a report [text] accusing Tunisia of committing widespread human rights abuses under overly-broad anti-terrorism legislation. AI also criticized the US, as well as European and other Arab countries, for turning over terror suspects to Tunisian authorities [JURIST report] despite allegations of torture and other abuses.

So long as the agent intends, for discriminatory reasons, that the adverse action occur, he has the scienter required to be liable under USERRA. And it is axiomatic under tort law that the exercise of judgment by the decisionmaker does not prevent the earlier agent's action (and hence the earlier agent's discriminatory animus) from being the proximate cause of the harm.

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the language of USERRA is similar to Title VII [text], which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, so the ruling will likely have implications in that context. Both statutes state that discrimination is established when one of those factors "was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." The Supreme Court has recently ruled on several other Title VII cases. Last month, the court ruled [JURIST report] in Thompson v. North American Stainless [Cornell LII backgrounder] that a third party can sue his employer for retaliation. In June, the court ruled [JURIST report] in Gross v. FBL Financial Services [Cornell LII backgrounder] that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that age was the determining factor in an age discrimination in employment suit and that a mixed-motive jury instruction is never appropriate in such a case.

Because the time for taking an appeal from a district court to a court of appeals in a civil case has long been understood to be jurisdictional, this language clearly signals an intent to impose the same restrictions on appeals from the Veterans Court to the Federal Circuit. But the 120-day limit at issue in this case is not framed in comparable terms. It is true that § 7266 is cast in mandatory language, but we have rejected the notion that "all mandatory prescriptions, however emphatic, are ... properly typed jurisdictional."

David Henderson was a veteran of the Korean War who received a 100 percent disability rating for paranoid schizophrenia from the VA in 1992. In 2001, he filed a claim for supplemental benefits based on his need for in-home care, which both the VA regional office and the Board of Appeals denied. Thereafter, he filed a notice of appeal with the Veteran's Court, but did so 15 days after the 120-day filing period. As a result of the late filing and his inability to attribute it to his illness, Henderson's appeal was dismissed. However, the Veteran's Court later granted Henderson's motion for reconsideration, but during this time, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bowles, which the court found to be controlling, thereby dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Henderson then appealed to the Federal Circuit, where a divided en banc court affirmed the previous decision of the Veteran's Court.

In May 2009, the Supreme Court of India [official website] ordered the formation [JURIST report] of five special courts to hear cases stemming from the riots. The court did not move the cases outside of Gujarat however, as the National Human Rights Commission [advocacy website] had requested [press release], instead ordering [Times of India report] that the courts be set up in the Ahmedabad, Anand, Sabarkanta, Gulbarga and Mehsana districts. In 2003, 12 Hindus were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for connection with murders occurring during religious riots in Gujarat. Violence between Muslims and Hindus in India has not subsided. Last week, the Bombay High Court [official website] upheld the conviction and death sentence [JURIST report] of Pakistani national Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab [NDTV profile], the only surviving gunman of the three-day siege of Mumbai [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] that killed 166 in November 2008.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate conduct that substantially affects interstate commerce. As Congress found, the means of payment for services in the interstate health care market is economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The requirement that participants in the health care market have insurance to pay for the services they consume is thus a quintessential exercise of the commerce power. The regulation furthers two principal economic goals. First, it prevents the substantial cost-shifting in the interstate health care services market that results from the practice of consuming health care without insurance. Second, it is key to the viability of the Act's regulatory requirement that insurers not deny coverage or charge higher premiums because of an individual's medical condition or history.

In February, Cuccinelli filed a writ of certiorari [JURIST report] with the US Supreme Court [official website] seeking an expedited appeal. Cuccinelli announced his intention to appeal directly to the Supreme Court [JURIST report] earlier in the month, citing the exceptionally far-reaching policy implications of the PPACA. There are currently 28 cases challenging the constitutionality of the PPACA. Federal courts in Washington, DC, Virginia and Michigan have upheld the law, while a federal court in Florida [JURIST reports] has also ruled the the individual mandate in unconstitutional, striking down the law in its entirety.

Argentina continues to prosecute those accused of committing human rights abuses during the Dirty War. In December, Videla was sentenced to life in prison [JURIST report] for crimes against humanity. In June, trial proceedings were commenced for five ex-military officials allegedly responsible for the death of 65 left-wing activists [JURIST report]. In May, Argentine authorities arrested [JURIST report] former secret service agent Miguel Angel Furci on charges of human rights abuses. Furci, a former agent of the Secretariat of State Intelligence (SIDE), was charged with 70 kidnappings and the torture of detainees at Orletti. Also in May, the Spanish government extradited [JURIST report] pilot Julio Alberto Poch to Argentina to face trial for his alleged role. Poch was a navy officer at Argentina's Naval Mechanics School, one of the most notorious detention centers of the military dictatorship, and is believed to have piloted flights known as "death flights," which were used to dump the military junta's political opponents into the Plata River and the Atlantic Ocean. In April, a federal court in Argentina sentenced [JURIST report] former president and military general Bignone to 25 years in prison for human rights abuses during his 1982 to 1983 presidency. During the Dirty War, an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people were forcibly kidnapped or "disappeared" in a government-sponsored campaign against suspected dissidents.

Earlier this month, Karroubi called for his own trial to be set up in a public court in an open letter to the head of the Supreme Judicial System of Iran [GlobaLex backgrounder], Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani [official website, in Farsi]. Also in February, Iranian lawmakers called for Karroubi and two other opposition leaders, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former reformist president Mohammad Khatami [BBC profile] to face trial and death [JURIST report] after the February 14 clash with security forces. Thousands of Iranians protested on February 14 in solidarity with Egypt's revolt against ousted president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile]. Pro-government legislators demanded [AP report] the men be held responsible for the protests, which resulted in one death and numerous injuries. Karroubi was placed under house arrest [JURIST report] prior to the protests, according to his website Saham News [website, in Persian].