The court heard a similar case in June over $14 million collected by a group of private attorneys who worked on a tax related claim against MCI/WorldCom. The original case ultimately resulted in the state collecting $100 million in cash and $7 million in downtown property from the telecommunications giant. Here also the attorney general maintains that the attorney's fees were separate from the state's settlement, negotiated and paid directly by MCI to the private law firm. Again Pickering argues that relevant state law should be interpreted such that outside counsel must be paid from funds appropriated to the attorney general and not directly out of litigation awards. In February a lower court granted summary judgment [order, PDF] against Pickering, holding that his arguments had no merit and thus there was no genuine issue of material fact in the case. A decision on the appeal has yet to be issued by the state Supreme Court.

By institutionalizing the coordination of atrocity prevention, we can ensure: (1) that our national security apparatus recognizes and is responsive to early indicators of potential atrocities; (2) that departments and agencies develop and implement comprehensive atrocity prevention and response strategies in a manner that allows "red flags" and dissent to be raised to decision makers; (3) that we increase the capacity and develop doctrine for our foreign service, armed services, development professionals, and other actors to engage in the full spectrum of smart prevention activities; and (4) that we are optimally positioned to work with our allies in order to ensure that the burdens of atrocity prevention and response are appropriately shared.

Barring war criminals and rights violators may signal the Obama administration's commitment to international justice. In July, the administration issued [JURIST report] an executive order [text] imposing economic sanctions to combat international organized crime [JURIST news archive] operations, freezing their US assets, preventing the transfer of property to the organizations and criminalizing providing aid to the organizations. Earlier in July, Obama brought [JURIST report] Somali terror suspect Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame to the US to face a civil trial in New York. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] lauded the decision but questioned the long detainment overseas. Conversely, Obama was urged to stop deportations [JURIST report] to Haiti on humanitarian grounds by 3,000 Americans who signed a petition in June. And last year, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp [official profile] said Thursday that no US president is likely [JURIST report] to present the Rome Statute [text] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] to the US Senate for ratification in the "foreseeable future."

Illegal immigration has become the focus of much legislative and judicial activity recently. Earlier this week, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a complaint [text, PDF] in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama [official website] challenging [JURIST report] an Alabama law [HB 56 text] designed to restrict the actions of illegal immigrants. In addition to authorizing detention of individuals on reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants, the law provides harsh restrictions on employment for illegal immigrants. Businesses cited multiple times for hiring undocumented workers could lose their business licenses. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants are prohibited from applying for a job, and anyone transporting or harboring undocumented immigrants will be punished by a fine or jail time. The DOJ contended that various provisions of the Alabama immigration legislation are preempted by federal law and violate the Supremacy Clause [text] of the Constitution.

Various courts have issued opinions on claims filed by detainees against the government in relation to the post-9/11 detentions. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in December 2009 that post-arrest detention is legal in cases where the detainees are reasonably detained. In November 2009, five men who claim they were illegally detained after 9/11 reached a settlement agreement [CCR release; JURIST report] with the US government for $1.26 million. In 2007, a district court judge granted the government's motion to dismiss [text, PDF] a number of those claims against Bush administration officials and law enforcement organizations in Turkmen v. Ashcroft [CCR backgrounder], but refused to dismiss the abuse claims. Also in 2007, the government criminally charged [JURIST report] several guards at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn [official website], the location in which men were detained, with abusing prisoners.

This case presents difficult questions for me. The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining, and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law. The principle behind the rule of law is to provide a mechanism and process to guide and constrain the government's exercise of power. Political decisions derive their legitimacy from the proper function of the political process within the constraints of limited government, guided by a constitutional structure that acknowledges the importance of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. That legitimacy is enhanced by a meaningful, predictable, and transparent process.

Controversy began over the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf in 2009, when US Fish and Wildlife Services [official website] removed [federal registrar notice, PDF] them from the ESA, after a controversial Interior Department memo was published that several animals should be taken off the list despite their numbers not being at a sustainable level. However, Fish and Wildlife Services only gave control of the wolf population to state governments in Montana and Idaho, restricting the wolves in Wyoming under Federal guidelines. In August 2010, Judge Malloy ruled that it was improper to remove restrictions in one jurisdiction and not another, and put the wolves back on the ESA entirely. In response, the "wolf rider" was attached to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act of 2011 [materials] bill, which became law in April. This reissued the previous rule, including the restrictions for hunting in Wyoming.

... [there is] no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously-declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad....In light of law declaring unconstitutional conduct or conditions of confinement that shock the conscience, as well as clearly established law recognizing constitutional protections against certain government action for United States citizens abroad, the Court finds that Doe has set forth facts that if true could show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

The last several years has seen a rise in the number of suits brought against Bush Administration officials. Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] upheld the dismissal [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] of a torture suit against Rumsfeld brought by four Afghan and five Iraqi citizens alleging they were illegally detained and tortured. Also earlier this year, the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd [Cornell LII Backgrounder] that a witness in a terror investigation cannot challenge the constitutionality of an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a validly obtained warrant even if the government did not call or had no intention of calling the witness for trial. Several human rights groups have urged investigations into alleged detainee abuses authorized by the Bush administration. In February, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the European Center for Human Rights [advocacy websites] urged [JURIST report] the signatory states of the UN Convention Against Torture [text] to pursue criminal charges [press release] against Bush. Other calls to investigate the criminal culpability of Bush and officials in his administration have been consistently rejected by US officials [JURIST report].

Lagarde is not the only French official to be subjected to investigations. The Court of Cassation ruled [JURIST report] in May that the corruption trial against former French president Jacques Chirac [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] could continue. Chirac is being tried for allegedly misusing funds during his time as Paris mayor in 1990. The trial began despite the fact that the main plaintiff dropped out of the suit. Last September, the Paris city council accepted a settlement deal [JURIST report] in which the former president agreed to pay USD $741,000 in compensation for the money paid out for false jobs. In exchange, the city agreed to drop out of the corruption suit. Chirac stated that the settlement was not an admission of guilt. A French judge placed Chirac under preliminary investigation [JURIST report] in December 2009. Chirac's trial on corruption charges marks the first time [JURIST comment] a former president will have to answer to charges against him in a court of law. The trial is a combination of two separate corruption-related cases, in which Chirac allegedly financed the Rally for the Republic (RPR), now renamed as the Union for a Popular Movement [party website, in French], by illegally establishing fake city positions between 1977 and 1995 for party members to collect salaries totaling several million dollars.

As cell phones become more prevalent in society, they have become a tool for law enforcement officers to track or identify suspects. In January, the Supreme Court of California [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that law enforcement officers can legally search text messages [JURIST report] on a suspect's cell phone without a warrant incident to a lawful custodial arrest. The court held 5-2 that a search of the defendant's cell phone text messages in the police station 90 minutes after the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment [text] prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure without exigent circumstances. However, the California decision represents a split from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] 2010 ruling and a 2009 decision [JURST reports] by the Ohio Supreme Court [official website] that both held that police must obtain a warrant before searching data stored on a cell phone. In June 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] unanimously in City of Ontario v. Quon [Cornell LII backgrounder] that an employer's search of private text messages on a work-issued device does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and is not excessive in scope.

[T]he only solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process, with the aim of effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations of and concerns of the population which will allow the full exercise of fundamental freedoms for its entire population, including that of expression and peaceful assembly.

This is not the first time that the UN has called upon Syria to address allegations of violence and human rights violations in connection with mass protests. In April, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] held an emergency special session and condemned the violence [JURIST report] used by Syrian authorities against peaceful protesters. The UNHRC called for a complete investigation of alleged human rights violations. Earlier in April, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] called for Syria to immediately halt the killings [JURIST report] and violence against civilian protesters in response to the fatal shootings of peaceful anti-government protesters. In March, Pillay urged the Syrian government [JURIST report] to ensure protesters' rights to peaceful expression and to work toward addressing their concerns instead of responding with violence.

We are particularly disappointed that the issue of what material may be disclosed to the public will not be determined independently of Government and, further, that there will be no meaningful participation of the former and current detainees and other interested third parties. As you know, we were keen to assist the Inquiry in the vital work of establishing the truth about allegations that UK authorities were involved in the mistreatment of detainees held abroad. Our strong view, however, is that the process currently proposed does not have the credibility or transparency to achieve this. If the Inquiry proceeds on this basis, therefore, and in light of indications from the lawyers acting for former detainees that they will not be participating, we do not intend to submit any evidence or attend any further meetings with the Inquiry team.

HRW urged [JURIST report] the new UK government, in May 2010, to set up the inquiry on torture allegations and reaffirm its support for human rights. The rights group claimed that allegations of complicity in the torture of terrorism suspects have badly damaged the nation's reputation and that steps need to be taken to restore the nation's reputation as "a nation that respects human rights." The group cited reports from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee [materials], which point out specific instances of torture and kidnapping in counterterrorism efforts. Among the many issues the HRW wanted the government to reconsider include the power of the government to detain terrorism suspects for 28 days without a trial and the government's ability to deport detainees to countries where they may be tortured.