Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenting opinion, argued that the court's decision does not serve the original purpose of the double jeopardy clause. Alito stated that the original purpose of the double jeopardy clause was to prevent the state, with its superior resources and power, from getting multiple attempts to convict an individual for the same crime. Alito argued that in this situation the state never received a fair opportunity to prosecute the defendant in the first place. Alito further argued that there was no actual acquittal because acquittals are decisions based on resolution of elements of the charged offense, whereas in this case the decision was based on element that was not part of the charged offense.

The petitioner in Chaidez was indicted in 2003 on three counts of mail fraud and pleaded guilty on the advice of counsel. The government initiated removal proceedings in 2009, and Chaidez appealed, claiming she would not have pleaded guilty if she had been aware that such a plea could result in deportation. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case last April. The case was then heard [JURIST report] in November. Padilla was decided in March 2010 while Chaidez's motion was pending with the district court.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [transcript; audio] in the case last month. The suit arose out of computer programmer Vernon Minton's claim of patent infringement against the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. [corporate websites] in 2000, where he was represented by attorney Jerry Gunn. There, Minton's case was dismissed on summary judgment by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas [official website] on grounds that Minton's patent was invalid under the "on sale bar" of 35 USC § 102 [text]. On appeal for reconsideration, Minton unsuccessfully argued for the first time that his patent fell within the "experimental use" exception of the federal law. On further appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] affirmed [opinion], ruling that the "experimental use" argument was waived because it was not raised initially in the district court. Minton subsequently sued Gunn for legal malpractice in Texas state court, but was similarly defeated on summary judgment. On appeal, Minton argued for the first time that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim against Gunn, and he should therefore be allowed to begin anew in federal court. Although the Supreme Court of Texas [official website] agreed with Gunn [opinion], the US Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday effectively reverses that judgment and remands for further proceedings.

Reproductive rights [JURIST backgrounder] are a controversial topic, with numerous states changing their abortion laws recently, resulting in several legal challenges. In Arkansas earlier this month, the House of Representatives [official website] approved a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and a week prior the Arkansas Senate passed a ban on abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected [JURIST reports]. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] in January upheld [JURIST report] a Massachusetts law that established "buffer zones" [Planned Parenthood backgrounder], creating a protected area outside of the abortion clinic where people are not allowed to protest. Also in January, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Kansas [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a challenge to a 2011 Kansas law [HB 2075 materials] prohibiting insurance companies from covering abortions will go to trial. In December a state judge in Georgia enjoined a law [JURIST report] banning doctors from providing abortions for women more than 20 weeks into gestation. In November Montana voters passed a referendum [JURIST report] requiring facilities and doctors to inform parents of minors 16 to 48 hours before a planned abortion procedure.

Tuesday's ruling was the most recent development in a long series of legal battles that have arisen from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Earlier this month the owner of the drilling rig which caused the spill, Transocean Deepwater Inc. [corporate website] pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to "negligently discharging oil into the Gulf of Mexico," in violation of the CWA and will pay $1 billion in civil penalties and $400 million in criminal penalties for its role in the Deepwater Horizon spill. Last month a federal judge approved [JURIST report] a final class settlement between BP and those who experienced economic and property loss stemming from the spill. In November BP executives pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to criminal charges stemming from the oil spill. Earlier that month BP agreed to pay [JURIST report] $4.5 billion in penalties for felony misconduct for its role in the spill. A federal judge ordered [JURIST report] BP to share partial liability with Transocean in oil spill claims in January 2012.

Egypt has been plagued by continuing protests and violence since the beginning of the revolution. The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court [official website] announced Monday that it had rejected parts of the draft election law [JURIST report] that will govern the country's upcoming parliamentary elections. Earlier this month the Supreme Constitutional Court postponed ruling [JURIST report] on whether the legislative constitutional assembly that recently drafted a new charter was legitimate. The judges claimed a crowd of Islamists outside the courthouse of had intimidated the judges and blocked the entrance to the courthouse. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] in late January voiced concern [JURIST report] over the growing violence and rising death toll in Egypt stemming from ongoing protests throughout the country. Earlier in January Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi declared a state of emergency in an attempt to quell growing unrest and violent political protests in cities a day after nationwide unrest compounded following an Egyptian court ruling handing down 21 death sentences [JURIST reports] for a 2012 soccer riot that resulted in 74 deaths and thousands of injuries.

Over the past year the Sri Lankan government has alternated between threatening activists who seek justice and making small, cynical gestures to keep the international community at bay. The Human Rights Council should dismiss these tactics, end the delays and authorize an independent, international investigation into the estimated 40,000 civilian deaths at the conflict's end.

The Sri Lankan government has faced various allegations of human rights violations and war crimes by civil rights organizations and the UN since the end of its civil war. Earlier this month UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] criticized [JURIST report] Sri Lanka's failure to investigate abuses adequately. Last July HRW urged Sri Lanka to stop arresting journalists who criticized the government [JURIST report]. In November 2011 the Sri Lankan government was subjected to criticism for its failure to investigate [JURIST report] issues of torture for past human rights violations and to enforce laws against continued torture and ill-treatment by government officials against civilians. In April 2011 a UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka found credible allegations of war crimes [JURIST report] committed during the country's war with the LTTE, warranting further investigation. In June 2010 Pillay called for an international inquiry [JURIST report] into the conduct of the Sri Lankan government during its civil war.

Controversy surrounds efforts to expand the adoption rights of same-sex couples. Earlier this week the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany [official website, in German] ruled [judgment, in German] that same-sex couples in a civil union can legally adopt [JURIST report] the non-biological children of their partners. In October the Northern Ireland High Court [official website] held [JURIST report] that a law permitting adoption only by heterosexual married couples or single individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, is unlawful. That same month the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals [official website] ruled that an Alabama law defining marriage as between one man and one woman bars a woman from adopting her female partner's child [JURIST report]. Just last March the ECHR ruled [JURIST report] that the right of a person in a same-sex partnership to adopt his or her partner's child is not protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

[N]one applies with the same or similar force to the detention of recent occupants beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. Any of the individual interests is also insufficient, on its own, to justify an expansion of the rule in Summers to permit the detention of a former occupant, wherever he may be found away from the scene of the search. This would give officers too much discretion. The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, concurred in the decision but disagreed with the majority's use of interest balancing. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Breyer's dissent argued that the incident was almost indistinguishable from Summers and the court had invited confusion by not explaining what "in the vicinity of the premises" means. "A bright line will sometimes help police more easily administer Fourth Amendment rules, while also helping to ensure that the police do not go beyond the bounds of the reasonable. The majority, however, offers no easily administered bright line. It describes its line as one drawn at 'the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched,' to be determined by 'a number of factors ... including [but not limited to] the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of his dwelling, the ease of reentry from the occupant's location, and other relevant factors.' The majority's line invites case-by-case litigation although, divorced as it is from interests that directly motivate the Fourth Amendment, it offers no clear case-by-case guidance."

Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has played a crucial role in providing guidance to state and local level governments, and in facilitating their adequate responses to violence against women. It has steadily expanded funding to address domestic violence and, with each reauthorization, it has included historically underserved groups.

In 2011 a UN report [text, PDF] by Manjoo said that there is a continued prevalence of violence [JURIST report] and discriminatory treatment of women in the US, with a heightened impact on poor, minority and immigrant women. The report said the US has taken some positive steps with the passage of the VAWA and the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) [text, PDF], but concluded that a lack of substantive protective legislation at both the federal and state levels combined with the poor implementation of current laws was resulting in the continued prevalence of violence against women and a discrimination against victims, particularly affecting women in the military, women in detention, Native American women and other women in poor and/or immigrant communities. The report further said that rates of abuse against women are higher among the African American, Native American and immigrant communities. Last year JURIST Senior Editor Brandon Gatto argued that the VAWA should be reauthorized to better protect immigrant partners and spouses from abuse [JURIST report].

Patent exhaustion provides that once a patented article is sold, it passes outside the protection of the Patent Act. It is available to be used by the purchaser to practice the invention. Now, what's the invention here? The invention is a bit of DNA that, when asserted into a soy bean seed, makes that seed and all the plants that grow from that seed resistant to the active ingredient in Roundup. Now, the only way to practice that invention is to plant the seed and to grow more seeds.

The court also heard arguments in Millbrook v. US [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] on if 28 USC § 1346 [text] waives the immunity of prison guards who commit intentional torts, within the scope of their authority but not while committing a search, seizure or arrest. Millbrook's attorney argued that the alleged sexual assault on Millbrook occurred within the scope of the prison guards' employment, and suggested that the legislature did not mean to exclude extreme acts of misconduct.

And even in Pennsylvania, you see cases where people do outrageous things, like a private detective shooting a picketing protester, where the Pennsylvania courts have held that that's within the scope of employment. It's a complicated issue. It's an issue of State law and it will be different in every State, which is why I would suggest it's more appropriate for this to be handled on remand rather than have a ruling by this Court on a narrow issue of Pennsylvania State law. But I think it is hardly implausible that Pennsylvania courts would find this within the scope of employment.

The court granted certiorari in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation [cert. petition, PDF] on the limited question: What constitutes "changing clothes" within the meaning of Section 203(o) [text] of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [materials]? The law, under the definition for "hours worked," states that employers should "exclude any time spent in changing clothes." A class action of 800 employees from US Steel argue that they should be compensated for the time they spend changing in and out of safety equipment, because that is not what was intended by "clothes" under the act. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled [opinion] that changing into work clothes is not excluded by the act: "From a worker's standpoint any time spent on the factory grounds is time 'at work' in the sense of time away from home or some other place where he might prefer to be if he weren't at work. But it is not time during which he is making steel, and so it is not time for which the company will willingly pay."

Also Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied stays in two cases. The full court denied a temporary stay in Hedges v. Obama [JURIST news archive], which sought to temporarily block enforcement of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) [text, PDF]. Justice Clarence Thomas denied a stay of execution [order, PDF] for Warren Lee Hill [JURIST news archive] and rejected his petition for certiorari. Hill has an IQ of 70 and his execution has been stayed several times due to courts disagreeing on the nature of his mental disability. Despite Thomas' denial, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stayed the execution to consider the issue minutes [Huffington Post report] before Hill was to be executed.

Enforcement of the order may be uncertain if Ms. Chafin chooses to defy it, but such uncertainty does not typically render cases moot. Courts often adjudicate disputes where the practical impact of any decision is not assured. ... Courts also decide cases against foreign nations, whose choices to respect final rulings are not guaranteed. ... The Hague Convention mandates the prompt return of children to their countries of habitual residence. But such return does not render this case moot; there is a live dispute between the parties over where their child will be raised, and there is a possibility of effectual relief for the prevailing parent. The courts below therefore continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the parties’ respective claims.