The Georgia bill was signed into law [JURIST report] last month 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 the 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].

In dismissing the count, Cacheris stated that Citizens United had dissolved the legal underpinnings for the federal ban against direct contributions from corporations to a candidate. Commentators have noted that Cacheris' opinion does not address the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont [opinion], which specifically upheld a ban on corporate contributions to election campaigns. Although Cacheris does acknowledge that another federal judge ruled on the same question but upheld the law, his opinion is silent on the Eighth Circuit's appellate ruling likewise upholding the ban. Cecheris' ruling does not follow the distinction between expenditures and contributions [AP report] upheld by the Eighth Circuit. Despite strong reactions to the ruling, the net impact is unclear because current election law limit individuals to $2,500 per candidate in each election, while corporate political action committees may contribute up to $5,000.

This case, indeed, is little more than a rerun of Chick Kam Choo. A federal court and a state court apply different law. That means they decide distinct questions. The federal court's resolution of one issue does not preclude the state court's determination of another. It then goes without saying that the federal court may not issue an injunction. The Anti-Injunction Act's re-litigation exception does not extend nearly so far.

In the case, Keith Smith filed a class action suit against Bayer [corporate website] in West Virginia state court due to claims arising out of Bayer's sale of an allegedly hazardous prescription drug called Baycol. However, George McCollins had previously sued Bayer in federal court seeking class action certification the month before. Eventually, McCollins' class did not receive certification. Due to this, Bayer argued that Smith's class claim, in state court, should also be denied certification under issue preclusion, and was granted an injunction on Smith's proceedings.

The Ouattara government needs to move beyond vague promises of accountability. While President Ouattara has notably asked for the International Criminal Court's assistance, national trials will also be needed. The Ivorian government should promptly investigate crimes by both sides and ask for donors' assistance so it can hold fair, credible trials.

Earlier this month, an official for the International Commission of Inquiry called for an investigation [JURIST report] into Ouattara and his forces' continuing attacks against supporters of Gbagbo. Last month, Ouattara asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to launch an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged crimes committed as a result of the disputed presidential elections last November. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] then submitted a request to the court [JURIST report] to begin an investigation into the Ivory Coast political conflict, but a formal investigation has yet to begin. In April, HRW urged Ouattara to conduct an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged atrocities carried out by his forces in its attempts to secure the presidency. According to the report, the pro-Ouattara forces, known as the Republican Forces of the Ivory Coast, killed more than 100 civilians, raped at least 20 supporters of Gbagbo and burned at least 10 villages in March. Also last month, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [official website] reported the deaths of at least 800 civilians [JURIST report] in the Ivory Coast town of Duekoue as a result of intercommunal violence.

to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone. That, however, is not so. ... Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.

the principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, and action that exceeds the National Government's enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States.

Last week, the Iowa House of Representatives [official website] approved a bill [HF-1736 text, PDF] that would effectively ban abortions after 18 weeks of pregnancy [JURIST report], making it the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The Obama administration took a stand earlier this month against a controversial Indiana law that prevents health care providers with abortion services from receiving Medicaid funds, saying the law violates federal law [JURIST report]. 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 challenging a South Dakota law [JURIST reports] 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, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kansas and Idaho [JURIST reports].

Under our exclusionary-rule precedents, this acknowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis's claim. Police practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are deliberate enough to yield "meaningfu[l]" deterrence, and culpable enough to be "worth the price paid by the justice system." The conduct of the officers here was neither of these things. The officers who conducted the search did not violate Davis's Fourth Amendment rights deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence. Nor does this case involve any "recurring or systemic negligence" on the part of law enforcement. The police acted in strict compliance with binding precedent, and their behavior was not wrongful. Unless the exclusionary rule is to become a strict-liability regime, it can have no application in this case. Indeed, in 27 years of practice under Leon's good-faith exception, we have "never applied" the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained as a result of nonculpable, innocent police conduct.

Relying on the standard created in New York v. Belton [text], police arrested Willie Davis and searched his vehicle while he was handcuffed at the scene, finding an unregistered revolver. In the interim between Davis' arrest and trial, Arizona v. Gant was decided, which overturned Belton and created a "rule" that police could only search the vehicle for what was in the immediate grasp of the suspect. The previous Belton standard had allowed arresting officers to search the passenger compartment. The lower court held that the search was illegal under Gant, but since Gant had not been decided, the police were acting in good faith, and thus did not exclude the evidence.

HB 89 would usurp this essential power because it would divest the executive branch entirely of its authority to decide whether it to initiate a particular civil action on the part of the State. The executive branch, not the legislative branch, is empowered to protect the interests of the people by taking care that the laws are faithfully executed.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments earlier this month in the suit New Hampshire was to join. Florida's lawsuit, filed in March and joined by 20 states [JURIST reports], most recently Kansas [JURIST report] 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 [texts] of the Constitution, committed by levying a tax without regard to census data, property or profession, and for invading the sovereignty of the states.

In some circumstances, a child's age "would have affected how a reasonable person" in the suspect's position "would perceive his or her freedom to leave." That is, a reasonable child subjected to police questioning will sometimes feel pressured to submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go. We think it clear that courts can account for that reality without doing any damage to the objective nature of the custody analysis.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing on behalf of the dissenters, expressed his discontent with the majority's holding, arguing that considering age tarnishes the clear, prophylactic rule established in Miranda. Age, Alito contends, is a subjective circumstance that forces the evaluator to speculate about the suspect's state of mind, therefore, the new rule places a heavy burden on police. Moreover, the dissent suggests that the new rule unduly expands the otherwise rigid Miranda standard and presents a slippery slope which would permit other subjective circumstances, like intelligence and cultural background, to inform the custody analysis.

We note first what we do not disapprove about Tapia’s sentencing. A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs. To the contrary, a court properly may address a person who is about to begin a prison term about these important matters. ... So the sentencing court here did nothing wrong—and probably something very right—in trying to get Tapia into an effective drug treatment program. But the record indicates that the court may have done more—that it may have selected the length of the sentence to ensure that Tapia could complete the 500 Hour Drug Program. ... the court may have calculated the length of Tapia's sentence to ensure that she receive certain rehabilitative services. And that a sentencing court may not do.

The decision overturns the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website], which held [opinion, PDF] that the trial judge made no error when basing Tapia's sentence on speculation that she could enter and complete the state's rehabilitation program. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] has similarly held that a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation is permissible, but the US Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Eleventh and DC Circuits have held that it is prohibited [issue list, PDF].

Bashir's trial began in February [JURIST report] in the District Court of South Jakarta. He was suspected of links to al Qaeda [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder], a terrorist group with links to al Qaeda that has been implicated in a number of attacks in Indonesia, including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing [JURIST news archive] that left more than 200 people dead. In 2006, the Indonesian Supreme Court overturned [JURIST report] Bashir's conviction on conspiracy charges connecting him with the bombings. He was released from prison [JURIST report] earlier in 2006 after spending 26 months in jail on different charges related to the bombings.

The President is of the view that the current US military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because US military operations are distinct from the kind of "hostilities" contemplated by the Resolution's 60 day termination provision. US forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of US ground troops, US casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

In March, US Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) [official website] announced [press release] legislation requiring an immediate halt to military action in Libya [JURIST report] until Congress authorizes its resumption. The Restoring Essential Constitutional Constraints for Libyan Action Involving the Military (RECLAIM) Act [text, PDF] cites Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution while declaring that Obama must obtain authorization before any further military action is conducted. The bill is still in committee and has yet to be voted on [bill materials]. Operation Odyssey Dawn [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], a US-led military operation, has been conducting air strikes against the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] since March. The action began after the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 [text], imposing a no-fly zone over the country. The mission, as well as US involvement absent Congressional approval, has been controversial. JURIST Contributing Editor Michael J Kelly [official profile] has argued that Obama has the constitutional authority [JURIST op-ed] to conduct the operation under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. JURIST Guest Columnist Curtis Doebbler [official profile] has argued that the operation violates international law [JURIST op-ed] by failing to comport with Article 42 of the UN Charter [text], which requires a determination that "measures not involving the use of force" have failed. JURIST Guest Columnist Jordan Paust [official profile] argues that the War Powers Resolution does not limit [JURIST op-ed] the president's options in Libya due to his constitutional authority and international obligations.

Not only have Scott Walker and his deep-pocketed corporate allies sought to silence the voices of Wisconsin workers, they have also violated those workers constitutional rights. Scott Walker has created two classes of public sector workers and that is unconstitutional. When a legislature discriminates among classes of workers, especially when doing so has more to do with political payback than with any legitimate reasoning, the law has been violated.

The Budget Repair Bill requires state employees to contribute a percentage of their salaries to their pension and health care premiums, and eliminates the ability of public employee union members to collectively negotiate anything but wage increase, which will be capped by the Consumer Price Index. The Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website] upheld [opinion, text; JURIST report] the Budget Repair Bill on Tuesday, overruling the Dane County Circuit Court [official website] finding [JURIST report] that legislators had violated the "open meetings" rule. In March, the Dane County Circuit Court judge temporarily enjoined the law from being published, and then issued an order [JURIST reports] clarifying that the temporary restraining order prohibits not only publication of the bill, but implementation of its provisions as well. The judge's temporary restraining order stemmed from a lawsuit [JURIST report] filed earlier in March by District Attorney Ismael Ozanne claiming that Republican legislators passed the bill in violation of Wisconsin's open meetings law. The bill was signed [JURIST report] into law by Walker on March 11.

Though New York has yet to legalize same-sex marriage it does recognize such marriages performed in other states and has previously considered legalizing it. Earlier this year, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department [official website] upheld a lower court decision [JURIST reports] allowing the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage legally performed in Canada to inherit the deceased spouse's estate. Former New York governor David Paterson (D) [official profile] introduced same-sex marriage legislation in April 2009, and in May 2008, issued a mandate [JURIST report], requiring that any and all out-of-state same-sex marriages be recognized as legal within the state of New York. The mandate was supported by an intermediate appellate court ruling in Martinez v. County of Monroe [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], holding that legal same-sex marriages performed outside the state are entitled to recognition in New York. In September of that year, the New York Supreme Court for the Bronx (lowest court) [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a challenge to Paterson's directive. In 2007, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer (D) [official website] also introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.