JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Thursday, June 2, 2011




Turkmenistan adopts new law regulating presidential elections
Maureen Cosgrove on June 2, 2011 2:56 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Turkmenistan [BBC backgrounder] adopted a new law on Thursday for regulating presidential elections that changes the qualifications potential candidates must satisfy. The law says that an individual must be either backed by a political party or collect at least 50,000 signatures [AP report] to qualify as a presidential candidate. The previous law required that a potential candidate receive approval from an advisory board established by former president Saparmurat Niyazov. The Democratic Party of Turkmenistan (DPT), which was previously called the Communist Party of the Turkmen SSR, is the country's ruling and only legal political party. Current president Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov [BBC profile] is the leader of that political party and is not expected to face challengers in the upcoming election.

Turkmenistan has been undergoing a transitional phase as it attempts to emerge from its authoritarian past as part of the Soviet Union. Turkmenistan gained its independence upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The country adopted a new constitution [JURIST report] in 2008, which envisioned a new multi-party political process and provided for limits on presidential power. Political reforms in Turkmenistan came after President-for-Life Saparmurat Niyazov, who remained in office for 21 years, died in 2006 [BBC obituary]. The government has been cited by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights [advocacy website] for widespread interference in judicial affairs, as well as using torture, and suppressing political opposition, the media, and civil society.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


California governor to request more time to reduce prison population
Maureen Cosgrove on June 2, 2011 2:04 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] California Governor Jerry Brown [official website] on Thursday indicated that he would ask a federal judge for more time to construct his plan to reduce the state's prison population. The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] ruled [opinion, PDF] last week in Brown v. Plata [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] to uphold an order requiring California to release up to 46,000 prisoners to remedy the state's overcrowded prisons [JURIST news archive]. Brown said it would take more than two years to submit a plan [LAT report] to a three-judge panel, far longer than the two-week timeline offered by the high court. Brown plans to shift prisoners to county jails in an attempt to decrease state prison populations. His plans will be undermined if voters, who were recently polled as against spending more tax money on prisons, reject his recent tax proposal [LAT report].

Overcrowding has been a significant problem for California prisons for many years. In August 2009, a special panel of federal judges ordered [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] California to reduce its prison population by approximately 46,000 inmates or construct more facilities to handle the prisoners. It is apparent that California is unable to build the prisons and will have to release the prisoners. California has also considered plans to release some inmates early, in light of its budget crisis. In July 2009, state lawmakers passed a budget with $1.2 billion in cuts to the prison system, but no specific plan was formulated [AFP report]. The same panel of judges issued a tentative ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in February, reaching the same conclusion. At that time, Brown, acting as Attorney General, opposed the decision, commenting [press release], "[t]he court's tentative ruling is not constitutionally justified. Therefore, the state will appeal directly to the US Supreme Court when the final order is issued." In August 2008, California's court-appointed prison medical overseer J. Clark Kelso [official profile] asked the court to force the state to pay $8 billion [JURIST report] over the next five years to improve prison hospitals and bring inmate health care up to constitutional standards. Two months earlier, a California court ruled [JURIST report] that the state constitution permitted easing overcrowding by transferring prisoners to out-of-state facilities. The transfers had been ordered in an emergency proclamation [text; JURIST report] issued by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Tanzania judge instructs police to arrest opposition leader
Maureen Cosgrove on June 2, 2011 2:00 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A Tanzanian judge on Thursday urged police to arrest Freeman Mbowe, the chairman of the country's opposition party, Chadema [party website, in Swahili]. Judge Charles Magesa issued arrest warrants for Mbowe and six others last week when they failed to appear in court for a hearing on their case. After Mbowe failed to appear in court or send a representative to explain his absence, Magesa instructed police to arrest him [AFP report] immediately. The case against Magesa stems from an opposition rally in Arusha that occurred on January 5 when three protesters were shot and killed.

On January 5, thousands of protesters gathered [Al Jazeera report] to protest the allegedly fraudulent October re-election of Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete. When Mbowe, along with secretary general Dr. Willibrod Slaa, was arrested and detained, the protest turned violent. Tanzanian police killed two protesters [BBC report] and injured at least nine more.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


ACLU files lawsuit challenging Georgia immigration law
Zach Zagger on June 2, 2011 1:30 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) [official websites] and a coalition of other civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit [complaint, PDF] Thursday challenging a Georgia immigration law [HB 87 text] similar to Arizona law already being challenged in federal court. The groups filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia [official website] to block the law they characterized as a "show-me-your-papers" scheme since it will force citizens to prove their identity using specific documents. Omar Jadwat, staff attorney for the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said the Georgia law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing law enforcement to detain individuals without necessary papers, and it violates the Supremacy Clause because only the federal government can make such immigration regulations. The plaintiffs include Paul Edwards who, as part of a local Christian faith group, transports undocumented individuals to places of worship and places for medical services. They argue that under HB 87, Edwards would be subject to criminal liability for transporting, assisting, or harboring undocumented individuals. Linton Joaquin, general counsel for NILC, pointed out that under HB 87, law enforcement would not accept the drivers licenses of states that do not have immigration restrictions such as Washington and New Mexico. He suggested that drivers with one of these licenses could be detained for failure to prove citizenship. He said the law "creates a police state repugnant to our fundamental values." Karen Tumlin, managing attorney with NILC, said the law:
gives Georgians a reason to fear that they may be stripped of their constitutional rights simply because of the way they look or sound. Laws that promote this kind of bare-bones discrimination are out of step with history and cannot be allowed to stand. We are confident that the Court will agree that unconstitutional attempts to drive a wedge between Georgian communities should not be allowed.
The groups filing the lawsuit called on the federal government and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be consistent by taking a stand against this immigration law as it has done with the Arizona law. The groups are hopeful to win a preliminary injunction to stop the law from ever taking effect, which it is set to do on July 1.

Last month, the Georgia bill was signed into law by Governor Nathan Deal [official website]. HB 87 allows law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status when questioning suspects in criminal investigations. The law also imposes fines and prison sentences of up to one year for anyone who knowingly transports illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime, and requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify [official website] system to check the immigration status of potential employees, providing that workers convicted of using fake identification to gain employment could face up to 15 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Also last month, the ACLU filed two similar lawsuits to block immigration laws in both Indiana and Utah [JURIST reports]. A decision by US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] last month on preemption of an state immigration laws may have an impact on such lawsuits. The court held in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that a controversial Arizona employment law [materials] that imposes penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants is not preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) [text].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


International commission recommends legalizing marijuana
Julia Zebley on June 2, 2011 12:23 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Global Commission on Drug Policy [official website] released a report [text, PDF] Thursday recommending international legalization of cannabis, marijuana and other drugs. The panel also recommended expanding the variety of treatments available to drug users, as well as making them more available, and investing in programs to discourage children from using drugs, rather than enforcing harsh punishments against drug users. The report also encourages each country to develop unique, human rights-based approaches to drug regulation and violations of drug law.
The idea that the international drug control system is immutable, and that any amendment—however reasonable or slight—is a threat to the integrity of the entire system, is short-sighted. As with all multilateral agreements, the drug conventions need to be subject to constant review and modernization in light of changing and variable circumstances. Specifically, national governments must be enabled to exercise the freedom to experiment with responses more suited to their circumstances. This analysis and exchange of experiences is a crucial element of the process of learning about the relative effectiveness of different approaches, but the belief that we all need to have exactly the same laws, restrictions and programs has been an unhelpful restriction.
Most controversially, the report insisted that the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 [text, PDF] and the US's "War on Drugs" campaign had failed. Both policies recommend limiting possession and use of drugs for non-medicinal or scientific purposes, and addressing drug trafficking through minimum sentencing for any level of drug dealer. The US Office of National Drug Policy (ONDCP) [official website] released a statement in response, denouncing the report [text]: "Legalization remains a non-starter in the Obama Administration because research shows that illegal drug use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room admissions."

Members of the panel include: former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan [official profile], Colombian President Cesar Gaviria, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou [official website], Richard Branson [official profile] and former US Secretary of State George Shultz. Although the report was critical of the US, drug policy has shifted from past stricter policies in recent years. Earlier this week, Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] recommended the retroactive application of a new law [JURIST report] bringing the sentences for crack cocaine more in line for those of powder cocaine. This could reduce the sentences of some currently incarcerated on crack cocaine convictions by an average of three years. Arizona legalized medical marijuana [JURIST report] in November 2010, but Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] filed a federal lawsuit [JURIST report] seeking a declaratory judgment over the legality of the law under federal guidelines. Medical marijuana is currently legal in 14 US states. In October 2009, Holder issued guidelines for a new policy [JURIST report] for investigating and prosecuting state-sanctioned medical marijuana use. Those guidelines reflect a pledge made by Holder in March to stop federal raids [JURIST report] on medical marijuana dispensaries that comply with state laws. However, Holder has emphasized that if a state legalizes drugs for recreational use, federal law will be enforced [LAT report], as California attempted to legalize marijuana last year [JURIST report].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


US investigating Google allegations of China hacking
Maureen Cosgrove on June 2, 2011 12:18 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] US authorities announced Thursday that they are investigating claims by Google that hundreds of personal Gmail accounts were breached by hackers in China. Google disclosed [Guardian report] on Wednesday that hundreds of users, including US government and military officials and political activists, were targets of a "phishing" scam originating in Jinan, the capital of Shandong province. Google alleges that the hacking scheme may have been authorized by the Chinese government. Christopher Painter [official website], coordinator for cyber issues for the US Department of State (DOS) [official website], indicated that determining whether the act was state-sponsored is a challenge in cybersecurity [AP report]. Delegates from various governments and private sector corporations convened for a conference in London to discuss such cybersecurity issues. China has since rejected Google's hacking claims, arguing the claims are unfounded [Reuters report].

China has been involved in a number of cybersecurity issues recently. In December, the New York Times reported [text] that Chinese officials allegedly orchestrated the hacking [JURIST report] of Google, which caused the Internet company to briefly pull out of China earlier in 2010. In November, Google urged the international community to ensure the free flow of online information [white paper text; JURIST report] by establishing new rules to protect against limitations on the Internet. In September, the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China [official website, in Chinese] released a position paper [JURIST report] claiming that it has heightened Internet freedoms and describing how the Internet has become a tool for the Chinese government to promote transparency and consult the public before developing certain policies. In July, a Chinese government official said that Google had agreed to follow Chinese censorship laws [JURIST report] to gain a license renewal that would still prevent users from accessing sites that threatened national security, while not requiring Google to censor its China or Hong Kong based websites. This agreement was reached [JURIST report] in June after a dispute concerning Google's practice of redirecting mainland users to the Hong Kong-based website as a means of working around censorship laws. China responded by reiterating its commitment to open Internet [JURIST report], but stressing that international Internet companies must follow Chinese law. In February, the government announced new regulations [JURIST report] further restricting Internet use by requiring Chinese citizens to submit identity cards and meet with regulars before registering a website, prompting many to register sites overseas to avoid regulation.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Russia authorities charge suspect in 2006 shooting of journalist Anna Politkovskaya
Julia Zebley on June 2, 2011 10:58 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Russia's Federal Security Service on Thursday charged [ITAR-TASS report] Rustam Makhmudov with the 2006 murder [JURIST report] of journalist Anna Politkovskaya [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive], after his arrest [JURIST report] Tuesday. Makhmudov, an assumed assassin on an international most wanted list since 1997 [ITAR-TASS report], was charged with violating Article 105, murder; Article 126, abduction; Article 178, extortion; and Article 222, illegal acquisition of firearms, of the Russian Criminal Code [text]. If convicted, he is expected to receive life imprisonment, the highest sentence possible under those articles of the criminal code. The Federal Security Services is proceeding on the belief that Makhmudov was hired to kill Politkovskaya and did not act alone.

A human rights activist and critic of the Kremlin, Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in an elevator of her apartment building in Moscow as she was returning home. Politkovskaya investigated human rights abuses in Chechnya and high-level corruption across Russia, and her death raised concerns about the safety of journalists and other critics of the government. At the time she was working for the low-circulation independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta [official website, in Russian] where she was writing reports on Chechnya. Her death was widely believed to be a contract killing. Two of Makhmudov's brothers and a former police officer are currently awaiting trial for the murder in Moscow. A district court acquitted those three men in February 2009 due to a lack of prosecutorial evidence, but the Russian Supreme Court vacated the acquittal and ordered a reinvestigation of the case [JURIST reports].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Obama administration: Indiana ban on funds for abortion services violates federal law
Zach Zagger on June 2, 2011 10:34 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Obama administration took a stand Wednesday against a controversial Indiana law [HB 1210] that prevents health care providers with abortion [JURIST news archive] services from receiving Medicaid funds. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent a letter [text, PDF] to Patricia Casanova of the Indiana Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning [official websites] in response to a request for approval, saying the law violates federal law. Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortions under federal law, except in cases of rape or incest, and funds can only be used for health services from a "qualified provider." The Indiana law disqualifies places that provide abortion services. States have the ability to assign the qualified provider status, but the letter says the law violates § 1902(a)(23) of the Social Security Act [text] because it prevents Medicaid beneficiaries from receiving services from certain providers for reasons unrelated to the providers qualifications to provide those services. The letter stated:
Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of a provider's scope of practice. Such a restriction would have a particular effect on beneficiaries' ability to access family planning providers, who are subject to additional protections under [the Social Security Act].
Betty Cockrum of Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) [official website] praised the determination by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, saying the message was clear, "you cannot prevent Medicaid patients from choosing their family planning providers. I trust the State of Indiana will do the right thing, not only for PPIN patients, but for all Medicaid patients in the state and reverse its course."

Last month, a federal judge refused to block [JURIST report] the Indiana law signed by Governor Mitch Daniels [official profile] earlier that week. Several other states have acted recently to tighten restrictions on abortions. Last month, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy websites] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] challenging a South Dakota law requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion. Earlier that week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton [official website] vetoed a pair of bills [JURIST report] that restricted state funding for abortions and banned them altogether after 20 weeks. Also in May, Texas Governor Rick Perry [official website] signed into law a bill that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram [JURIST report]. Multiple states have acted to ban abortions after 20 weeks, when some studies suggest a fetus can begin feeling pain, including Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas and Idaho [JURIST reports].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Iraq beating, unlawfully arresting protesters: HRW
Julia Zebley on June 2, 2011 10:26 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Iraqi police forces have been beating and illegally detaining protesters over the past week, according to a report [text] released Wednesday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. Demonstrators are reported to be peacefully protesting, or simply organizing protests, when interrogated and detained. The report details several incidents of protester abuse.
Several activists in the capital told Human Rights Watch that they believed that the increased security at Baghdad's Tahrir Square and the recent arrests were an attempt to head off reinvigoration of public protests, amid efforts by various small protest groups to work together. They said that neighborhood officials had warned them that security forces had made increased inquiries into the activists' whereabouts and activities over the past two weeks.
Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] released a similar report [text] earlier this week, decrying many of the same incidents. AI calls for Iraqi authorities to end their assault on peaceful protests, and HRW asks that the government investigates the attacks and charge or release those demonstrators being held.

Numerous human rights groups have accused Iraq of detainee torture and other human rights violations. AI alleged in February that the Iraqi government is operating secret prisons [JURIST report], and suspects held in Iraqi custody have been systematically tortured since before the 2003 US invasion. In September, AI published a different report alleging that the Iraqi government is unlawfully detaining and torturing [JURIST report] thousands of detainees. In June, UN Special Representative to Iraq Ad Melkert urged the Iraqi government [JURIST report] to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [text]. Melkert stated that Iraq had made several advances in recognizing human rights violations, but the government's policy implementation still faces several obstacles. The convention was adopted by the UN in 1984 and has been ratified by 147 countries. Iraq remains one of 45 member-countries that have yet to ratify the treaty. In April 2010, HRW reported on the repeated torture [JURIST report] of Iraqi detainees in a secret prison in Baghdad. HRW reported that detainees held at the secret Muthanna facility, run by Iraqi authorities, were hung upside-down, deprived of air, kicked, whipped, beaten, given electric shocks and sodomized during torture sessions that detainees faced every three to four days.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


New York AG sues US government for failure to study fracking impact
Maureen Cosgrove on June 2, 2011 10:23 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The New York attorney general on Wednesday filed a complaint [text, PDF] against the US government for failing to investigate the risks of hydraulic fracturing [EPA backgrounder], or "fracking," a controversial technique used to release natural shale gas. The complaint seeks to compel a number of federal agencies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [EPA materials] by investigating the environmental impact of fracking and making the findings available to the public prior to adopting a proposal by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) [advocacy website] authorizing natural gas development in the Delaware River Basin. Pursuant to NEPA, the environmental impact statement (EIS) must include analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, consideration of alternatives to the action and measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [official profile] expressed concern about the safety of fracking in a statement [press release] Wednesday:
Before any decisions on drilling are made, it is our responsibility to follow the facts and understand the public health and safety effects posed by potential natural gas development. The federal government has an obligation to undertake the necessary studies, and as I made clear last month, this office will compel it to do so. The welfare of those living near the Delaware River Basin, as well as the millions of New Yorkers who rely on its pure drinking water each day, will not be ignored.
The complaint further alleges that authorization of the fracking plan would undermine an agreement between New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey promising that "no project having a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin shall hereafter be undertaken by any person, corporation or governmental authority unless it shall have been first submitted to and approved by the commission."

Fracking, has become a controversial issue as it is implemented in the US and around the world. France's lower house, the National Assembly [official website, in French], approved a bill [TA Bill No. 658, materials, in French; JURIST report] in May to prohibit the drilling of gas and oil through hydraulic fracturing and to repeal hydraulic fracturing licenses granted to companies. Fracking is a process by which water, sand and chemicals are pumped into the ground to create fractures in rocks which releases trapped gas and oil to the surface. Environmental and health concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include contamination of ground water, migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface and the potential mishandling of waste.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


New York court hears appeal on liability for 1993 World Trade Center attack
Julia Zebley on June 2, 2011 9:50 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Port Authority or New York and New Jersey [official website], owners and maintainers of the World Trade Center (WTC), argued in an appeal [summary of the case, PDF] on Wednesday before the New York Court of Appeals [official website] that they were not liable for negligence in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks [FBI Backgrounger; BBC Backgrounder]. The Port Authority seeks to overturn the 2008 decision [text] that upheld a 2005 jury verdict [JURIST report] apportioning 68 percent of the fault to the Port Authority and 32 percent to the terrorists who committed the attack. The Appellate Division (First Judicial Department) [official website] disallowed the Port Authority from arguing qualified immunity. In this appeal, the Port Authority's argued:
[I]n denying it immunity, 'the courts below disregarded the clear mandates of this Court shielding discretionary governmental decisions from liability and have allowed, even encouraged, the use of tort law to second-guess these considered policy choices.' Contending it did not breach its proprietary duty, it says, 'Earlier premises liability cases established that private landlords must take only 'minimal measures' to prevent foreseeable criminal intrusions. The Port Authority's counterterrorism measures easily surpassed that standard.' Regarding its share of liability, it says, "Holding the Port Authority more than twice as culpable as the actual terrorists is per se unreasonable and undermines confidence in our system of justice.'
Most claims that were filed against the Port Authority for the attacks were settled out of court and thus unaffected by this appeal. Six suits remain in flux: five for personal injury and one for business interruption. The court is expected to rule in a month.

The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic radicals killed six and injured 1,000 through a car bomb placed in the basement parking garage of the WTC. Five men were captured and sentenced to life in prison for the attack. After the bombing, 648 plaintiffs filed 174 negligence actions against the Port Authority for "alleged breach of its proprietary duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition." Negligence was assessed against the Port Authority after documents revealed that the WTC garage had been ignoring safety fears since 1984. The Port Authority police superintendent, at the time, stated the parking areas "[we]re accessible to the public and are highly susceptible to car bombings."




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Sixth Circuit hears arguments in challenge to health care law individual mandate
Zach Zagger on June 2, 2011 9:08 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] Wednesday heard oral arguments over a challenge to the individual mandate of the health care reform law [text; JURIST news archive]. The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) [advocacy website] is representing plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate which requires that all citizens purchase health insurance. The court divided the arguments into two parts, first addressing standing and then on the merits [oral arguments, audio]. One of the plaintiffs, Jann DeMars had complained that the individual mandate would be a financial burden on her, but she subsequently purchased health insurance through her employer when she received a new job. The government argued that the case should be dismissed for lack of standing since there is currently no injury in fact because the requirement to purchase insurance has not even taken effect. The plaintiffs argued though that there is a clear statutory burden being imposed as the plaintiffs are forced to rearrange their financial affairs in preparation for having to buy health insurance. On the merits, the court asked the parties to address whether the Anti-Injunction Act [text] applies, which prevents injunctions to tax burdens until they are enforced. Counsel representing the plaintiffs argued that the Act did not apply because the burden was a "penalty" and not a tax. The plaintiffs further argued that the individual mandate exceeded the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause because the mandate regulates "inactivity" by requiring individuals to purchase insurance. Counsel argued that it would likely be permissible for the government to provide tax incentives to encourage people to purchase health insurance, but forcing them to purchase by threat of a penalty is unconstitutional. The government argued that since DeMarrs now has insurance the case is moot. The government also argued that citizens will at some point not "choose" to participate in the health care market, citing the high costs that go unpaid because for care of the uninsured which gets passed on to insurance companies.

Before oral arguments the judges asked the parties to file briefs on whether the parties had standing [JURIST report] to bring a challenge before the effective date of the law. The individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [HR 3590 materials], passed as part of the health care law, has been controversial spurring multiple lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Earlier this month, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) [advocacy website] sought to have its challenge reinstated in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] after it was dismissed by the lower court. Last February, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) asked federal judge Roger Vinson to clarify that states must continue to enact the health care reform law as the government appeals from Vinson's January ruling finding the law unconstitutional [JURIST reports].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Civilian appeals conviction by US military court
Maureen Cosgrove on June 2, 2011 9:02 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] An Iraqi-Canadian civilian on Wednesday appealed his conviction by a US military court. Alaa "Alex" Mohammad Ali [JURIST news archive], a military contractor who was convicted by a US military court [JURIST report] in Iraq in 2008, argued that his conviction was unconstitutional [AP report]. The case was the first in which a civilian was charged and convicted by the military since a 2006 amendment [S 2766 materials] to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) [text] granted the military jurisdiction over civilians accompanying US troops in a combat zone, and the first time a civilian was charged and convicted under military law since the Vietnam war. Ali's lawyer, Army Capt. Tiffany Dewell, argued that the 2006 amendment opened the door for non-military individuals accompanying US forces in combat to be tried by court-martial. Dewell also suggested that upholding Ali's conviction would be a slippery slope leading to more trials by court-martial, the use of which the Supreme Court has narrowed in a series of rulings. Civilians have fewer protections when tried by court martial.

The US military charged [JURIST report] Ali in the stabbing death of another contractor in February 2008. Prior to the 2006 UCMJ amendment, contractors working in Iraq were exempt from prosecution in that country. The amendment, found in Section 522 of the 2007 defense authorization bill [2 2766 materials; LawReader backgrounder], significantly changed the military's jurisdiction to bring civilian contractors within the military's jurisdiction during a "contingency operation" rather than its previous requirement that Congress actually declare war. In 2007, Congress took further steps [JURIST report] to bring US contractors within the jurisdiction of the military with the 2008 defense authorization bill [HR 1585 materials]. Victor Hansen indicated that Ali's seemingly unremarkable case could have a significant impact on military law [JURIST op-ed].




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Florida ACLU challenges mandatory drug screening of state employees, applicants
Erin Bock on June 2, 2011 8:48 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLUFL) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; press release] Tuesday challenging an executive order that mandates state government agencies provide pre-employment drug screening for all prospective employees and provide for random drug testing of all current agency employees regardless of classification. Governor Rick Scott [official website] issued Executive Order 11-58 [text, PDF] in March and directed the drug testing policy to go into effect by May 21, 2011. The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida [official website] on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 79 (AFSCME) [official website], a union representing 50,000 public workers affected by the order. In the complaint, the ACLUFL argues that the order violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable governmental searches and case law stating that drug-testing without suspicion is unreasonable except under certain circumstances, such as when employees are involved in "safety-sensitive" positions. The ACLUFL points out that the governor's reasoning behind the order was not to promote safety, but to exert control over employees in order to maintain discipline and lessen absenteeism. The ACLUFL further argues that the order would not only violate employees' constitutional rights, but would also cause the AFSCME to waste personnel and monetary resources since the drug testing policy would be subject to collective bargaining. Special counsel for the AFSCME argued that the order unfairly singles out public workers:
Government employees go to work, do their jobs, pay their bills and contribute to their communities just like anyone else. There is no suggestion that government workers use drugs more than the public at large so to single them out for government searches is unnecessary, expensive and offensive.
The complaint asks the court to quash the order as violative of the Fourth Amendment and direct all agencies to cease drug testing that was implemented as a result of the order. The complaint also requests that the court enjoin all agencies affected by the order from implementing the drug-testing policy until final judgment is entered.

The US Supreme Court [official website] handed down a decision in January regarding background checks into federal contract employees' possible past drug use and their impact on Fifth Amendment rights. In NASA v. Nelson [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report], the court upheld that NASA's background investigation into whether a federal contract employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use did not violate the employee's constitutional right to informational privacy under the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit held that the background checks did violate this right, but the Supreme Court reversed [JURIST report], stating that the government has an interest in conducting basic employment background checks to ensure "the security of its facilities and in employing a competent, reliable work-force."




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


HRW: Rwanda community genocide courts fail to provide justice
Erin Bock on June 2, 2011 7:51 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Rwandan gacaca courts [official website; BBC backgrounder] have carried out flawed trials for crimes committed during the country's 1994 genocide [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive], according to a report [materials] released Tuesday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]. The gacaca courts were established by the Rwandan government in 2001 to reduce the caseload in the country's traditional justice system. The accused are taken to the villages where they allegedly committed their crimes, and the trials are carried on in a more informal manner with a goal of providing swift trials with community participation. The report cites many instances of fair trial violations, including defense witness intimidation, bribery, untrained judges, embellishment of charges and various restrictions that prevent an accused from effectively defending himself. HRW also faults the Rwandan government for preventing soldiers from the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) [HRW backgrounder], the country's current ruling party, from standing trial and for transferring rape cases to gacaca courts, which opened up the cases to the entire community and stripped victims of privacy that they would have enjoyed in the conventional court system. HRW argues that instances of fair trial violations and other miscarriages of justice should be reviewed by professional judges in the conventional court system, rather than in the gacaca courts:
If gacaca courts review alleged miscarriages of justice, there is a risk of repeating some of the same problems. Instead, the government should ensure the formal justice system reviews these cases in a professional, fair, and impartial way. This would help secure gacaca's legacy and strengthen Rwanda's justice system for generations to come.
Rwanda has more than 12,000 gacaca courts that have tried 1.2 million cases since 2005. The Rwandan government originally scheduled the gacaca courts to finish hearing trials in mid-2010, but that was postponed. The courts are officially set to close by December 2011.

Higher-level cases related to the 1994 genocide have been tried in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website], a creation of the UN Security Council. Last month, the ICTR convicted former Rwandan army chief [JURIST report] Augustin Bizimungu and three others for their involvement in the 1994 genocide. Bizimungu was found guilty of six counts of genocide and crimes against humanity for murder, extermination and rape in addition to violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions [text]. Bizimungu ordered soldiers and policemen to exterminate [HRW report] tens of thousands of Tutsi civilians who had taken refuge in churches, hospitals and schools during the genocide. In March, the ICTR sentenced [JURIST report] Jean-Baptiste Gatete, the former mayor of the Murambi Commune in Byumna prefecture, to life imprisonment after he was convicted on charges of genocide, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity of extermination, murder, and rape. Gatete was found to have murdered and carried out orders to rape and murder thousand of Tutsi citizens. An estimated total of 800,000 people were killed during the genocide that took place in the span of 100 days.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


UN Libya commission says government forces have committed war crimes
Zach Zagger on June 2, 2011 7:47 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A three-person commission for the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] appointed to investigate violence in Libya published a report [PDF] Wednesday saying that government forces have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes under orders from Libyan leader Mummar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] and other high-ranking officials. The commission's 92-page report said Libyan authorities have committed crimes against humanity such as acts constituting murder, imprisonment, and other severe deprivations of physical liberties, torture, forced disappearances, and rape "as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack." The commission also says that there is consistent evidence of war crimes being committed in violation of the Rome Statute and that "consistent pattern of violations identified creates an inference that they were carried out as a result of policy decisions by [Gaddafi] and members of his inner circle." The report said estimates show 10,000–15,000 have been killed since protests began in February [JURIST report]. The commission also determined that the Libyan authorities were making "blanket" arrests, targeting those suspected of being opposition supporters rather than in connection with alleged criminal acts. The report said:
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that Government forces used excessive force against demonstrators, at least in the early days of the protests, leading to significant deaths and injuries. Such actions represented a serious breach of a range of rights under international human rights law, including the right to life, the right to security of person, the right to freedom of assembly and the right to freedom of expression.
The commission made specific recommendations for the government of Libya, including urging it to stop the violence against civilians in violation of applicable humanitarian and human rights law, to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, and to release all the prisoners who are being held for peaceful participation in the protests or for arbitrary reasons.

Last month, International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official websites] announced he is seeking arrest warrants [JURIST report] for Gaddafi and two others in his "inner circle" on charges of crimes against humanity. Ocampo has since sent a letter to Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi, warning against diplomats covering up crimes for Gaddafi. Further, Ocampo alleged that cover-ups in Libya go so far that any trace of a crime is destroyed. Ocampo revealed in April that his office had uncovered evidence [JURIST report] that Gaddafi planned to attack civilians to forestall regime-toppling revolution. Ocampo indicated that the plans were made in response to the conflicts in Tunisia and Egypt and included shooting civilians. In March, Ocampo told the press that he was 100 percent certain his office would bring charges [JURIST report] against Gaddafi. Also in March, the ICC launched a probe into allegations of crimes against humanity [JURIST report] by the Libyan government.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST OP-ED

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org