Jurist Legal News and Research
Legal news resources from the University of Pittsburgh school of law. Get law updates and prominent case results with detailed commentary and evaluation.
Canada G-20 protesters file class action suit against AG and Toronto police
[JURIST] Two individuals detained during the Group of 20 (G-20) [official website] summit in Toronto in July filed a class action suit [statement of claim, PDF] on Thursday on behalf of 1,150 individuals detained during the summit. The individuals, Miranda McQuade and Mike Barber, named three defendants in the suit, the Canadian Attorney General, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Regional Municaplity of Peel Police Services Board [official websites]. The plaintiffs claim that law enforcement committed numerous intentional torts against those detained between June 25 and June 30, including:abuse of power, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, infliction of mental suffering, invasion of privacy and abuse of public office. Alternatively, [Plaintiffs allege] that the defendants were negligent in the enactment of and execution of policies, procedures, directives and orders relating to the G20.The plaintiffs listed numerous reasons for bringing the suit, including protection of individuals in Canada from violation of their rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [materials] and deterrence of similar future actions by the police. The plaintiffs seek $100 million in damages, plus an additional $15 million in punitive damages, but some detainees do not believe that monetary damages [Toronto Sun report] will prevent the same actions from happening in the future. None of the defendants has released an official statement regarding the claims.
Backlash from the G-20 meeting in Toronto began soon after the conclusion of summit. In early July, protesters in Toronto took to the streets and demanded an investigation [JURIST report] into police conduct during the meeting. One week before that July protest, the Ontario Ombudsman announced an investigation [JURIST report] into a local regulation [O regulation 233/10 text] that expanded the scope of police powers during the summit. That investigation is currently ongoing. Soon after the conclusion of the summit, in late June, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called for an inquiry [JURIST report] into police conduct and treatment of protesters.
2010-09-03T13:19:31-05:00 DOJ brings charges in largest US human trafficking case
[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced Thursday that a Hawaii grand jury has indicted six people on human trafficking charges [press release]. The defendants allegedly enticed approximately 400 Thai nationals to come to the US by falsely promising them job opportunities and then forcing them to work at famrs in Washington and Hawaii by threatening economic harm. According to the indictment, the six people, three of whom work for Global Horizons Manpower, charged the Thai nationals high recruitment fees [Honolulu Star-Advertiser report], which the Thai nationals paid by taking out loans secured by their house or land. The defendants told the Thai nationals that if they refused to work on the farms, they would be sent back to Thailand where they would be unable to repay the loans and risk having their houses and land foreclosed on. Prosecutors also claim that some workers were forced to pay $3,750 to keep their jobs. Two defendants were arrested [AP report] Thursday, two are expected to turn themselves in soon and two remain at large, presumably in Thailand. According to the DOJ, this will be the largest human trafficking case ever prosecuted in the US. The defendants face maximum prison sentences ranging from five to 70 years.
In June, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) [official website] reported that human trafficking is a growing problem in Europe [JURIST report]. Earlier in June, the UNODC issued a report on the globalization of organized crime, which addressed, among other things, the global economic impact of human trafficking [JURIST report]. Also in June, the US State Department [official website] issued its annual report on human trafficking conditions [JURIST report] across the globe, which found the US "has a serious problem with human trafficking, both for labor and commercial sexual exploitation."
2010-09-03T13:05:08-05:00 California appeals court refuses to order state appeal of same-sex marriage ruling
[JURIST] A judge for California's 3rd District Court of Appeal [official website] ruled [case summary; San Francisco Chronicle report] Wednesday that neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown [official profiles] is required to appeal last month's federal district court decision [JURIST report] finding California's ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] unconstitutional. Supporters of Proposition 8 [text, JURIST news archive], which banned same-sex marriage in California, had hoped the state would appeal the decision since it is not clear that the supporters have standing [LAT op-ed] to the challenge the decision. Writing for the Pacific Justice Institute [advocacy website], which filed the suit attempting to force a state appeal, attorney Kevin Snider stated [blog post]:The duty to defend peacefully enacted laws is at its zenith when the voters have amended their own constitution. Should these elected members of the executive branch refuse to defend a constitutional amendment enacted in this manner, the Governor and the Attorney General will have seized an extraconstitutional power by creating what is tantamount to a constructive veto. Snider said the Pacific Justice Institute will appeal Wednesday's ruling. Schwarzenegger and Brown have both indicated that they will not cause the state to appeal the decision overturning Proposition 8 unless ordered to do so by a judge.
Last month, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] issued a stay [JURIST report] of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision overturning Proposition 8 pending appeal. Earlier last month, Walker held that the same-sex marriage ban violated the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the US Constitution, but immediately stayed the ruling. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request, which led to Walker's refusal to issue a stay pending appeal. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, and their refusal to oppose the stay request left defendant-intervenors Protect Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.
2010-09-03T12:15:50-05:00 Equatorial Guinea president says coup plotters had fair trial
[JURIST] Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang said Friday that last month's trial of four men sentenced to death for a 2009 attack on the presidential palace was fair. Obiang stated that the country's laws were respected, and procedures guaranteeing a legal, open and fair trial [AFP report], including the guarantee of defense counsel, were followed. Jose Abeso Nsue, Manuel Ndong Anseme, Alipio Ndong Asumu and Jacinto Micha Obiang, all government employees, were executed immediately after being convicted by a military court in Malabo on August 21. Both former colonial power Spain, and the US, condemned the executions.
Last week, the government of Equatorial Guinea defended [JURIST report] the execution of the four men. Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] had condemned the executions [press release], claiming that the four men were detained in Black Beach prison in Malabo where they were tortured into giving false confessions. Denouncing the government's judicial procedures, AI reported that these men were convicted after an unfair trial, sentenced to death and executed without having an opportunity to appeal their sentence. AI urged Equatorial Guinea to put an end to the abductions, torture and executions it carries out in the name of justice. The government stands by the conviction [JURIST report] of the four former government officials, stating that they received a fair and open trial before a military tribunal and were provided with counsel.
2010-09-03T10:28:08-05:00 ICTY judges warn Karadzic trial likely to continue until 2014
[JURIST] Judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] warned Friday that the genocide trial of Radovan Karadzic [case materials; JURIST news archive] may take another four years—two years longer than expected. As the UN Security Council [official website] is urging the ICTY to close its doors, Friday's hearing [AP report] was called to discuss methods to streamline what has become the tribunal's lengthiest and most complex case. To speed things up, the prosecution urged the judges to allow prosecutors to enter more evidence directly to judges in writing, while the defense called for charges relating to the ethnic cleansing of some 20 Bosnian municipalities that occurred early in the war to be dropped. No immediate decisions were made on how to increase the efficiency of the case.
In March, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that the ICTY will continue to operate [JURIST report] beyond its originally planned end date in part to apprehend the two indictees still at large—former Bosnian Serb Commander Ratko Mladic [case materials; JURIST news archive] and former Croatian Serb leader Goran Hadzic [case materials]—who both face a significant number of charges. In May, the ICTY amended the indictment of Mladic in order to help speed up the court proceedings once he is captured. In July, the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution [press release] extending the terms of office for the judges of the ICTY. Resolution 1931 [text] was welcomed by the ICTY, which has been struggling with staff retention, causing large setbacks in the tribunal's trial schedule. The latest completion strategy [JURIST report] report estimates that all first instance trials will be completed by mid-2012 with the exception of Karadzic. Most appellate work is scheduled to be completed by early 2014.
2010-09-03T09:24:28-05:00 UN-sponsored anti-corruption agency opens in Austria
[JURIST] The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA), a joint venture undertaken by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) [official websites], Austria and others, opened its doors [press release] on Thursday. Based in Laxenburg, Austria, the school is designed to educate public and private entities on the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) [materials] and train them in its applications. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] remarked [text]:Across the world, intolerance of corruption is growing. The establishment of this Academy responds not only to this increasing sense of outrage and injustice, but also to an urgent need to train the experts we need to conquer this global menace. The Academy will build a culture of integrity. It will nurture a new generation of leaders in the public and private sectors - a global network of talented, like-minded professionals. To date, anti-corruption training has lacked specialization. It will lead to more effective implementation of the Convention's measures on prevention, law enforcement, asset recovery and international cooperation.The academy will cater to a wide range of professions involved in combating corruption, including law enforcement personnel, lawyers and judges It is set to become fully operational next year, though several courses are already in progress.
A 2007 report [text, PDF] authored by the UNODC and the World Bank [official website] placed corruption-related losses to developing nations between $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion annually. The UNCAC became effective in 2005 after being adopted by the UN General Assembly [official website] two years earlier. The concept was originally recognized in the Resolution 55/61 Annex [text, PDF] as a means by which to counter corruption separate from organized crime.
2010-09-03T08:18:13-05:00 Rights group urges Bahrain to investigate torture allegations
[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] called Wednesday on Bahraini authorities to make a prompt investigation into torture allegations [press release] made by four Shia activists who have been detained for more than two weeks. On August 27, after 15 days of solitary confinement, Abd al-Jalil al-Singace, one of the detained men, was brought for formal questioning and arraignment by Attorney General Ali Fadhul al-Buainain. Al-Singace told al-Buainain he had been handcuffed and blindfolded the entire time, beaten on his fingers with a hard instrument, had his ears and nipples pulled and twisted with tongs and been subjected to general harsh treatment. The following day, the three remaining detainees intimated similar treatment. Deputy Middle East director at HRW said:Bahraini authorities should immediately investigate these allegations of torture and guarantee the physical and psychological well-being of the four men. The attorney general has a legal obligation to throw out any coerced confessions and any evidence obtained by ill-treatment, including information that led to the men's indictments.Prosecutors have charged the four men with several national security crimes and ordered another 60 days of detention.
In early 2010, HRW reported that the government of Bahrain had reverted to using torture [report text] to gain confessions from detainees, after a decade of reform banning such practices. HRW conducted interviews with 20 former detainees who claimed that they had suffered torture [JURIST report] and ill-treatment as early as 2007. The reversion appears to have coincided with the rising political tension between Shia Muslims and the Sunni-run government. The report also claimed that prosecutors have failed to respond appropriately by not launching formal investigations and administering medical examinations. The detainees' allegations were strengthened when a Bahraini court acquitted all defendants on all charges on the basis of medical reports that suggested the defendants had been physically coerced into confessing.
2010-09-02T15:23:59-05:00 Prosecutors urge continued support of international tribunals
[JURIST] Current and former international prosecutors on Tuesday signed the fourth Chautauqua Declaration [text, PDF] praising recent advances in international law and urging countries to continue supporting the international courts in order to maintain the spirit of the Nuremburg Principles [text]. The prosecutors, who have worked with the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) [official websites], as well as the International Military Tribunals, called for continued support and funding of the tribunals and courts as they continue working to maintain the rule of law. They urged countries to fulfill their obligations under international law by investigating and prosecuting, or transferring to the appropriate international court, suspects who violate international criminal law, including sitting heads of state. Countries were also encouraged to refrain from the use of military force and to settle disputes in accordance with the UN Charter [materials]. The prosecutors noted the fifteenth anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre [JURIST news archive] and the continuing need for accountability. They also recognized the first conviction of an ex-Khmer Rouge leader [JURIST report], which was announced by the ECCC in July. Additionally, the prosecutors applauded the ICC's adoption of an amendment [press release; JURIST report] to the Rome Statute [text, PDF] in June, which included a definition for the crime of aggression and created jurisdictional conditions for prosecution.
Under the ICC's new amendment, the UN Security Council [official website] will serve as the primary body in determining whether a crime of aggression has occurred. If the Security Council fails to make a determination, the ICC prosecutor is authorized to commence an investigation on his own initiative or upon a request from an ICC state party. The Security Council can halt an investigation of a crime of aggression at any time through a resolution, but this resolution must be reinstated every 12 months. Non-state parties do not fall under ICC jurisdiction when the prosecutor initiates the investigation, and state parties can exempt themselves from jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by submitting a declaration of non-acceptance to the court. These exemptions, however, do not apply when the Security Council has determined that a crime of aggression has occurred. ICC nations were initially unable to reach a consensus [JURIST report] on the adoption of the crime of aggression, but compromise was reached as the UN Review Conference of the Rome Statute [materials] came to a close in Kampala, Uganda.
2010-09-02T13:39:34-05:00 UN delays release of controversial DRC 'genocide report'
[JURIST] The UN announced Thursday that it will delay the release of a report [UN News Centre report] that accuses Rwandan forces of committing acts of genocide in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] during the years following the 1994 Rwandan genocide [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. According to a statement by the UN Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website], the report will be released on October 1 to allow time for commentary opposing the alleged findings. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] said that she is willing to include such comments in the published report. The Rwanda Defense Force (RDF) [official website] has condemned the report, a draft of which was originally leaked [Le Monde report, in French] last month, and has threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from UN operations [AP report] if the report is made public. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] on Thursday urged Rwanda to continue its peacekeeping efforts [AFP report] in Sudan in spite of its negative views of the report.
The forthcoming report claims that troops from Rwanda [JURIST news archive] and allied rebels committed crimes in the DRC that could be classified as genocide if proven by the appropriate court. Documenting the extreme violence in the DRC from 1993-2003, the report alleges that tens of thousands of Hutus were killed by Rwandan troops [JURIST report] during the Congo civil war [GlobalSecurity backgrounder]. Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which more than 800,000 primarily Tutsi people were killed in a span of 100 days, Hutu militias and civilians fled to neighboring Congo, then known as Zaire. According to the New York Times, the report documents systematic killings [NYT report] by the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan army with the assistance of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL) rebel movement, which may legally amount to genocide. While Rwanda and the DRC have continually asserted that Hutu militias were attacked following the 1994 genocide, the report alleges that civilian Congolese Hutus were also the target of violence and killings. Rwandan Justice Minister Tharcisse Karagurama [official website] has rejected the report [BBC report], saying that it had no basis.
2010-09-02T11:14:48-05:00 Thailand court convicts 'yellow shirts' of defaming ex-PM
[JURIST] A criminal court in Thailand on Thursday convicted two members of the pro-government People's Alliance for Democracy Network [party website, in Thai; BBC backgrounder], known as "yellow shirts," of defaming former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Yellow shirt movement founder and Thai media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul and his former television co-host Sarocha Pornudomsak were convicted [AFP report] of defaming Thaksin during their television show by accusing him of insulting the monarchy. The two were sentenced [Thai News Agency report] to six months in prison and ordered to pay fines of 20,000 baht (USD $640). The court suspended the sentence for two years, during which time both Sondi and Sarocha will be on probation. Thaksin filed the suit [JURIST report] against Sondhi and several others for their claims that he tried to undermine the monarchy.
Thaksin, who is currently living in exile, has faced a variety of legal issues since the 2006 coup [JURIST report] that removed him from power. Last month, the Supreme Court of Thailand [GlobaLex backgrounder] denied his appeal [JURIST report] contesting the seizure of his assets. Thaksin filed the appeal in March after the Constitutional Court ordered that 46.4 billion baht (USD $1.4 billion) of his fortune be seized [JURIST reports] in February. In July, the criminal division of Supreme Court issued a new arrest warrant [JURIST report] against him. Also in July, Thai police recommended terrorism charges [DPA report] against Thaksin and 24 others for their alleged involvement in the recent political violence [JURIST news archive] in Bangkok. Thaksin is considered the figurehead of the pro-democracy protesters known as the "red shirts," who protested against Thailand's current government and called for elections. The protests ended in May after protesters surrendered to police [JURIST report].
2010-09-02T09:10:28-05:00 Federal judge rules against drilling moratorium
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana [official website] on Wednesday denied [order, PDF] the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services [corporate website] and several other drilling companies challenging the government's latest moratorium on offshore drilling. The moratorium directive was issued on July 12 [JURIST report] by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar [official website] after the district court and US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] granted an injunction against the government's initial directive issued on May 28. The drilling companies maintain that the latest moratorium is substantially the same as the previous one and that it would cause the same financial injury to the industry as the first moratorium. The government argued that the latest lawsuit was moot because the secretary had voluntarily withdrawn the initial directive and the latest moratorium was based on additional information. The initial moratorium banned drilling below 500 feet for six months until November 30, 2010, while the latest moratorium applies to all rigs that use blowout preventers on floating facilities until the same date. Judge Martin Feldman found that there were "no substantial changes" between the initial directive and the July 12 directive, the latest directive was "litigation posturing," the new moratorium did nothing to amend or prevent the wrongs found in the first moratorium, and that the wrongful behavior alleged in the first directive could be reasonably expected to occur as a result of the July 12 moratorium.
Feldman refused to reinstate the moratorium [JURIST report] last month at the request of advocacy groups such as the Defenders of Wildlife [advocacy website], which also argued that the judge should be disqualified from the case because he owned stock in several oil and drilling companies. Feldman refused to recuse himself [JURIST report]. Earlier in July, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the original six-month drilling moratorium [JURIST report], arguing that the ban should be upheld because the government would likely win its appeal of the lower court's ruling. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] originally asked the court of appeals to stay the preliminary injunction [JURIST report] in June, on the basis that another deepwater spill could overwhelm the ongoing efforts to clean up the spill with catastrophic results. Lawyers for the DOJ also claimed that that the district judge abused his discretion in issuing the injunction. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a result of an oil well blowout that caused an explosion 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf. More than 120 million gallons of oil leaked from the rig's broken pipe causing the spill to surpass the Exxon Valdez [JURIST news archive] as the worst oil spill in US history.
2010-09-02T08:03:53-05:00 DOJ files criminal charges against Pakistan Taliban leader
[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced [press release] Wednesday that it has charged [complaint, PDF] Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimulla Mehsud [NYT profile] in connection with the December 30 attack [WP backgrounder] on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] Afghan outpost Camp Chapman that left nine people dead. Mehsud identifies himself as the head of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) [CTC Sentinel Backgrounder], a Pakistan-based terrorist cell affiliated with the Afghan Taliban. The filing in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], charges Mehsud with conspiracy to murder US citizens abroad and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against US citizens abroad. According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, Mehsud met with Jordanian physician Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi in Afghanistan shortly before al-Balawi entered Camp Chapman with explosives hidden in his clothing and detonated them, killing nine people, including seven CIA agents. Following the attack, TTP released a video of Mehsud and al-Balawi claiming responsibility for the attack and explaining their motives: "We arranged this attack to let the Americans understand that belief of Allah, the iman [faith] that we hold, the taqwa [piety] that we strive for cannot be exchanged for all the wealth in the world." The men also said that the attack was executed as revenge for the death of former TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud [BBC profile], who was killed [Guardian report] by a CIA air strike last August.
Also Wednesday, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] announced that it has declared the TTP a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) [press release] under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [materials]. "Today's actions put the TTP and its sympathizers on notice that the United States will not tolerate support of this organization," said DOS Coordinator for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin. "TTP's destabilizing effect in Pakistan's tribal areas has resulted in innumerable civilian deaths and considerable property losses." The DOS also announced a $5 million bounty for information leading to the capture of Mehsud.
The DOJ says Hakimullah Mehsud is currently "a fugitive believed to be residing in the [Federally Administered Tribal Area] (FATA)" in the southern region of Pakistan. However, reports emerged in January suggesting that he had died [NYT report] from wounds sustained during a January 14 drone attack in the tribal region. Hakimullah Mehsud reportedly assumed leadership [BBC report] of the TTP after Baitullah's death. TTP has been implicated in or claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist acts, including multiple assaults on NATO supply lines in the FATA, a 2009 attack on a police station in the Bannu province and the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [JURIST report], for which Baitullah Mehsud was charged [JURIST report] in a Pakistani anti-terrorism court. According to the DOJ, the TTP is believed to have coordinated most of their efforts with other terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda.
2010-09-01T15:31:30-05:00 Illinois ex-governor Ryan appeals conviction following honest services ruling
[JURIST] Former Illinois governor George Ryan [JURIST news archive] on Tuesday filed a motion [materials] in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [official website] asking the judge to vacate his prison sentence, following a recent US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] decision that allegedly set new precedent supporting Ryan's appeal. In June, the Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] in Skilling v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that the "honest services" doctrine [18 USC § 1346 text] is not unconstitutionally vague under a limited construction of the statute. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed and remanded the conviction of Canadian media mogul Conrad Black [JURIST news archive] after holding in Skilling that the honest service statute was limited to bribery and kickbacks. Ryan argues that under this new "honest services" precedent, he should be released from prison and his convictions for mail fraud and for violations of the Rackteer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) [18 USC § 1961 et seq.] should be thrown out. Ryan is currently serving a 6 1/2-year sentence [JURIST report] in federal prison on corruption charges and is scheduled for release in July 2013 [FBP materials].
Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich [JURIST news archive] also tried to cite Skilling in his defense against corruption charges. However, in June, the presiding judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a request [JURIST report] to delay the Blagojevich trial, holding that the Supreme Court's decision was unlikely to affect Blagojevich's case. In 2008, Ryan issued his first public apology [JURIST report] for the crimes that resulted in his imprisonment. Ryan was sentenced in 2007 and jailed [JURIST reports] on corruption charges. Ryan's trial began in 2005, and, in 2006, a jury found him guilty [JURIST reports] on multiple counts of corruption and fraud [indictment, PDF] in connection with a bribes-for-licenses scandal that occurred during Ryan's term as Illinois Secretary of State. Ryan made national headlines and won praise in some quarters in January 2003 when, just before leaving office, he commuted the executions [BBC report] of all Illinois inmates then on death row.
2010-09-01T13:24:03-05:00 Texas appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban
[JURIST] The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that the state ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] does not violate the US Constitution. The court also held that state trial courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the divorce of same-sex couples married in another state, overturning a 2009 ruling in which the 302nd Family District Court [official website] held that it had jurisdiction [JURIST report] over same-sex divorces and that the same-sex marriage ban violates the Equal Protection Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder] of the US constitution. The appeals court found that the family court did not have jurisdiction because allowing subject matter jurisdiction in the case would violate a state law preventing the state from "confer[ring] the legal status of marriage upon any relationship besides the union of one man and one woman." Addressing equal protection, the court found that the case of Baker v. Nelson [text], in which the US Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a Minnesota same-sex marriage ban "for want of a substantial federal question," was not determinative. The court found that the standard of review in the case is rational basis because homosexuals are not a suspect class in equal protection analysis:The persons singled out and favored by Texas's marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate. The state's interest in "fostering relationships that will serve children best" is a legitimate interest within the state's authority to regulate. Thus, although a person's sexual orientation does not affect his or her ability to contribute to society in general, it does bear on whether he or she will enter a relationship that is naturally open to procreation and thus trigger the state's legitimate interest in child-rearing. Accordingly, [precedent] does not support appellee's contention that homosexuals are a suspect class.We conclude that homosexuals are not a suspect class, that persons who choose to marry persons of the same sex are not a suspect class, and that the Texas law at issue in this case does not discriminate against a suspect class.In applying rational basis, the court found that the ban met this standard because of the state's "legitimate interest in promoting the raising of children in the optimal familial setting. ... The legislature could reasonably conclude that the institution of civil marriage as it has existed in this country from the beginning has successfully provided this desirable social structure and should be preserved."
The Texas ruling stands in contrast to the decision handed down last month by a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], finding that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional [JURIST report]. In the ruling, the court found that even though homosexuals should be treated as a suspect class, it was unnecessary because the ban failed to satisfy even rational basis review. Citing the Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans [text], the court held that "moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a women is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, ... is not a proper basis on which to legislate." The case is currently being appealed [JURIST report] to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage, including the District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts [JURIST reports] and the Coquille Indian Tribe [OregonLive report].
2010-09-01T13:05:27-05:00 Federal judge approves $150 million SEC-Bank of America settlement fund
[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] announced Wednesday that a judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] has approved a fund set up by Bank of America (BOA) [corporate website] in accordance with the settlement agreement [JURIST report] reached earlier this year. The SEC had charged [JURIST report] BOA with misleading investors regarding billions of dollars paid to Merrill Lynch [corporate website] executives during the acquisition of the firm. The fund will be used for payouts to shareholders [Reuters report] who owned BOA stock as of January 16, 2009. Eligible shareholders must submit their claims before November 12 to receive a payout from the fund. The district court twice rejected a proposed settlement [JURIST report] between the SEC and BOA for $33 million, which did not admit any fault or directly penalize any corporate executives, calling the settlement unfair to the shareholders.
The settlement agreement came less than a month after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo [JURIST news archive] filed civil charges [complaint; JURIST report] against BOA, former CEO Ken Lewis and former CFO Joseph Price, alleging that the bank misled investors in order to acquire Merrill Lynch. The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch had significant losses in the months leading up to a shareholder vote on the merger and that Lewis and Price violated the New York Martin Act [WLF backgrounder, PDF] because they knew of the losses but failed to disclose them to shareholders before the vote. In June, BOA subsidiary Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. reached a $108 million settlement agreement [JURIST report] with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to resolve charges that the subsidiary collected excessive fees from homeowners facing foreclosure. The agreement allows the FTC to create a fund to provide refunds to borrowers affected by Countrywide's improper fees.
2010-09-01T12:31:03-05:00 Federal judge dismisses police officer suit against Arizona immigration law
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] on Tuesday granted a motion to dismiss [order, PDF] a police officer's suit [JURIST report] challenging Arizona's controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials, JURIST news archive]. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] filed a motion to dismiss the challenge made by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar arguing that the new immigration law would force him to violate Latinos' civil rights and subject him to legal action. Judge Susan Bolton accepted Brewer's argument that Escobar lacks standing to bring the suit and that he did not sufficiently show that, under the law, he would suffer direct and immediate harm entitling him to relief. Bolton noted that, while agencies and governments would be liable for not enforcing the law, it "does not appear to impose liability on individual law enforcement officers." Escobar v. Brewer is the second SB 1070-related lawsuit to be dismissed. Last week, Bolton dismissed a lawsuit [Arizona Capitol Times report] filed by Roberto Frisancho, challenging that the law would prohibit him from traveling to Arizona to conduct research on illegal immigrants.
Also last week, Brewer filed the state's opening brief [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website], asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction blocking Arizona's immigration law from taking full effect. In the brief, Arizona argued that the preliminary injunction should be vacated because Bolton applied the wrong legal standard in issuing the preliminary injunction. Last month, the Ninth Circuit denied Arizona's request for expedited appeal [JURIST reports]. The preliminary injunction [JURIST report] came at the request of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], which filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] in July. Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional for allegedly legalizing racial profiling. The American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website].
2010-09-01T09:53:09-05:00 UN official calls for DRC militias to face war crimes for mass rapes
[JURIST] UN Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict Margot Wallstrom [EU profile] on Tuesday called for an end to impunity for leaders of militias and armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] for conducting mass rapes, saying that perpetrators would face war crimes charges [UN News Centre report]. UN representatives allege that Congolese rebel groups Mai Mai and the Democratic Liberation Force of Rwanda (FDLR) [GlobalSecurity backgrounders] raped between 150 and 200 women and children [NYT report] in a small cluster of villages in eastern DRC between July 30 and August 3 of this year. The attackers allegedly blocked all communication [BBC report] from the villages, preventing villagers from alerting UN peacekeepers stationed nearby. Wallstrom noted that stability in the DRC cannot be achieved unless the security of its women is ensured, saying [video]:So long as rapists remain at large, they hold the whole reputation of the Congo hostage...The time when sexual violence is tolerated and sidelined as a product of war is over...[Y]ou cannot have a policy of zero tolerance backed by zero consequences.Wallstrom outlined a two-pronged approach for responding to the sexual violence in the DRC; first elevating sexual violence on the agendas of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council [official websites] and then improving UN response and enhancing the joint DRC Government and UN strategy to combating sexual violence [text, PDF].
Last week, members of the Security Council expressed "outrage" [JURIST report] over the recent mass rape in the DRC calling for justice for the victims. Human rights have long been a major concern in the DRC. In June, national police chief John Numbi was suspended [JURIST report] as part of the ongoing investigation into the murder of human rights activist Floribert Chebeya. In December, HRW urged the UN Organization Mission in DR Congo (MUNOC) [official website] to stop funding military groups [JURIST report] in the country that are committing human rights abuses. In December 2008, AI reported that rape and sexual warfare have been employed [JURIST report] by both the DRC military and by rebel forces. In November 2008, MUNOC head Alan Doss [appointment release] condemned [JURIST report] the killing of civilians by militias in the country as war crimes. MONUC has been operating in DRC since 1999. The conflict in the DRC has claimed more than four million lives and has been ongoing since 1983. MONUC has overseen elections and continues to provide armed protection for civilians in certain areas, particularly the North and South Kivus provinces.
2010-09-01T09:35:32-05:00 Obama administration appeals stem cell research block
[JURIST] The Obama administration on Tuesday appealed last week's ruling by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] that granted a preliminary injunction [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research [JURIST news archive]. The administration argues that Judge Royce Lamberth's holding is overbroad, endangering an array of research across multiple programs and centers while only serving a very attenuated economic interest of the plaintiffs in the case. According to the filing, the injunction threatens 24 research projects, more than 1,300 jobs and $64 million in funding, as well as potentially millions of Americans who may benefit from medical advances in the field of stem cell research. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has asked the court to rule on the appeal by September 7. Meanwhile, in response to last week's ruling, Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) [official website] has called for new legislation [press release] to reform embryonic stem cell research restrictions.
Lamberth granted the injunction on the basis that the federal funding violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a provision at Division F, Section 509 of the annual Omnibus Appropriations Act [2009 edition materials], which prohibits appropriated funds from financing research that involves the creation or destruction of human embryos. The case was originally dismissed for lack of standing last October but was reinstated [JURIST reports] in June with only plaintiffs who claimed their their ability to obtain funding for adult stem cell research was harmed by increased competition for federal funds after they were permitted to also be used for embryonic stem cell research. Those new guidelines reversed previous rules that limited government funding of embryonic stem cells to only cell lines that were in existence as of August 2001. Despite pressure from the scientific community, the previous administration refused similar changes to funding guidelines. In 2007, then-president George W. Bush vetoed [JURIST report] the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S 5 materials], which was intended to relax funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The administration rejected the bill, saying it would compel taxpayers to support the destruction of human embryos. In 2006, Bush vetoed a previous version [JURIST report] of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Senate to remove restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying he would not provide federal funding for stem cell research because many consider the destruction of embryos to be murder.
2010-09-01T08:06:54-05:00 Europe rights court reviewing Russia freedom of assembly complaint
[JURIST] The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] has begun considering a lawsuit filed by three Russian activists alleging their right to freedom of assembly has been violated, their lawyer said Tuesday. The court is reportedly deciding whether the case merits priority consideration [RIA Novosti]. The lawsuit stems from Russian law enforcement officials' suppression of protests [FH statement] being carried out by political and human rights activists. The three plaintiffs, chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki human rights group Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Other Russia opposition party leader Eduard Limonov, and Left Front opposition movement member Konstantin Kosyakin, are seeking USD $127,000 in damages for alleged violations of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights [materials], which envisages Right to Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Association. Russian activists have been holding protests at the end of all of the months that have 31 days to call attention to Article 31 of the Russian Constitution [text], which provides for freedom of assembly. Their most recent protest [Moscow Times report], during which they were joined by members of the European Parliament, was held on Tuesday. During the protests, dozens of protesters were detained but later released [Echo Moskovsy report; in Russian].
The US State Department (DOS) [official website] criticized Russia [JURIST report] in its 2009 report on Human Rights Practices [text], writing that "[t]he government limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest." In a January 31 protest, more than 100 protesters were arrested [JURIST report]. According to statistics [chart; PDF] from the ECHR, Russia has more complaints than any other country pending before the court. The ECHR has recently issued several high-profile decisions related to Russia, including a ruling [JURIST report] in March that Russia was responsible for disappearances in Chechnya.
2010-09-01T07:50:56-05:00 DC Circuit denies rehearing for Yemeni Guantanamo detainee
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Tuesday denied [order, PDF] a request for an en banc rehearing of the case of Yemeni Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Gahleb Nassar Al-Bihani [NYT materials]. In January, the court found [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] Al-Bihani "was both part of and substantially supported enemy forces" and held that his detention was authorized by domestic law. Al-Bihani's petition asked the court to rehear the case in order to resolve another issue—its additional finding in the January decision that the president's detention authority is not constrained by international law. In a statement by Chief Judge David Sentelle, joined by a majority of the court, the panel said it denied the appeal on the grounds that the issue of international law of war was "not necessary to the disposition of the merits."
January's ruling was the DC Circuit's first Guantanamo habeas corpus ruling since the US Supreme Court decided Boumedine v. Bush [opinion text; JURIST report] in 2008. While all three members of the panel concurred in the result, one member wrote separately to question the conclusion that international laws of war have no bearing on the president's detention authority. In July, the DC Circuit ruled in Bensaya v. Obama [opinion, PDF] that the government must show by a preponderance of evidence that an enemy combatant is "part of" a terrorist group [JURIST report]. The circuit court held that the government's authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [text, PDF] only extends to the detention of individuals who are "functionally part of" a terrorist organization. Bensayah was the only one of the six petitioners from Boumediene who was not granted habeas relief after the Supreme Court remanded the case for further review of evidence.
2010-09-01T07:11:19-05:00 Rights group calls for amendment of Rwanda 'genocide ideology' laws
[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] on Tuesday urged the Rwandan government [report, PDF; press release] to review its "genocide ideology" and "sectarianism" laws, which they say are being used to stifle freedom of speech and expression in the country. The laws were first enacted following the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archives], where hate speech and propaganda played a role in inciting violence against the Tutsi minority. In the report, AI acknowledged that prohibiting hate speech is a legitimate goal for the Rwandan government, but called the laws "vague" and "sweeping" and warned that they are being used to deliberately violate human rights. AI stated that legal experts and judges have difficulty interpreting the laws and that allegations of genocide ideology have been made against opposition political candidates and news organizations, including the BBC. They also contend that the laws are being used to settle local disputes, with children as young as 12 being punished for violating the laws. AI applauded efforts by the Rwandan government to improve their judicial system and to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website], but cautioned that, without reform of the laws, concerns will remain about the judicial system. The Rwandan government announced in April that they will review the laws, although no steps have currently been taken to amend the laws.
In their report, AI cited the arrest of US lawyer and JURIST Forum [website] contributor Peter Erlinder [professional profile; JURIST news archive] under a related law as an example of the misapplication of the country's genocide laws. Rwandan police arrested Erlinder [JURIST report] in May on charges that he denied the 1994 genocide. Erlinder was in Rwanda to prepare his defense of opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza [campaign website], who was arrested in April [JURIST report] on similar charges. Erlinder pleaded not guilty [JURIST report], but was deemed a flight risk [AFP report] and initially denied bail, despite his claim that he needed to return to the US for medical treatment following what Rwandan officials say was a suicide attempt [JURIST report]. He was released from custody and returned to the US [JURIST reports] in June after being detained for more than 30 days.
2010-08-31T14:56:21-05:00 Tasmania approves law recognizing all foreign and national same-sex marriages
[JURIST] The lower house of the Tasmanian Parliament [official website] on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Relationships Act of 2003 [text], recognizing same-sex marriages [JURIST news archive] and civil unions registered in foreign countries and other Australian states. The amendment was aimed at ending discrimination against same-sex couples and was supported by all but three representatives [ABC report] of the 25-member house. Tasmanian Attorney-General Lara Giddings [official profile] praised the amendment's passage, calling it a small but important step for same-sex couples who want to transfer their foreign marriage license to Tasmania.
Several countries have recently addressed the issue of recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Mexico [official website, in Spanish] ruled 9-2 that same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognized nationwide [JURIST report]. Additionally, a US federal judge ruled that the California state ban on same-sex marriage violates the US Constitution [JURIST report]. Last month, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez [official website, in Spanish] signed a same-sex marriage bill into law after the bill was approved by the legislature [JURIST reports], making Argentina the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Same-sex marriage is currently recognized in several US jurisdictions, and nationwide in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and South Africa [JURIST reports].
2010-08-31T14:46:53-05:00 India high court to reconsider Bhopal convictions
[JURIST] The Indian Supreme Court [official website] announced [text, PDF] Tuesday that it will reconsider a 1996 ruling allowing former employees of US chemical producer Union Carbide [corporate website] accused in relation to the 1984 Bhopal chemical spill disaster [BBC backgrounder] to be charged with negligence instead of culpable homicide. Seven men were convicted [JURIST report] in June on charges of "death by negligence" and sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay USD $2,100. The convictions were the first related to the Bhopal disaster in which nearly 3,800 people were killed when toxic gas was accidentally released in the middle of the night by a chemical plant owned by a Union Carbide subsidiary company. Upwards of 15,000 others later died from exposure to the gas, and 50,000 were left permanently disabled. The sentences of the men have been criticized as being too lenient [Financial Times report] and the Indian government has faced increasing pressure to bring charges against former executives of Union Carbide. If the convictions were to be overturned and the men were to be tried on charges of culpable homicide, they could face sentences of up to 10 years in prison.
Last month, the Indian government apologized for improperly dumping waste [JURIST report] related to the Bhopal incident. The apology came one month after cabinet ministers announced the government would consider increasing compensation for victims of the disaster [JURIST report] and seek the extradition of the former chairman of Union Carbide so he could stand trial in India. A settlement was reached between Union Carbide and the Indian government in 1989 with the company paying $470 million to end its liability. The cabinet members, however, indicated the government was willing to revisit the settlement and possibly seek further compensation from Union Carbide. Dow Chemicals [corporate website], which purchased Union Carbide in 1999, contends that the settlement ended all possible claims against the company.
2010-08-31T12:47:55-05:00 Administrative law judges facing increase in violent threats: report
[JURIST] Federal judges responsible for handling Social Security disability claims and immigration hearings are petitioning for increased security measures after data released Monday shows they have been the targets of numerous threats [press release, PDF]. According to the report released by the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) and the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) [official websites], security risks for federal employees handling these "emotional" cases have increased over the past five years. Citing a backlog in the number of hearings that "cause anger and anxiety," the data cites 28 violent threats on Social Security offices and nine threats on disability claims judges between March and August 2009. According to the report, an additional 21 threats were reported between September 2009 and February 2010:Judges have reported threatening letters and emails directed at them and their families, chairs thrown at them, and their robes being grabbed while on the bench. One judge had her automobile's brake lines cut and one respondent in an immigration hearing attempted suicide in front of the judge.The report lists a number of physical changes and personnel improvements that the associationshope will improve security. The needed improvements include the addition of railings to hearing rooms, peep holes in doors so that security guards can see into the courtrooms, separate entrances for judges and claimants and increased security risk training for courtroom personnel.
Threats against judges, US attorneys and assistant US attorneys have more than doubled over the last six years, according to a report [text, PDF] released [JURIST report] in January by the US Department of Justice. The report found that judges, US attorneys and assistant US attorneys received 1,278 threats in 2008, compared to 592 in 2003. Additionally, the report found that threats are not always consistently and promptly reported. Earlier this month, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey was convicted [JURIST report] by a federal jury for death threats made on his blog against federal judges who upheld a gun control law. In December 2008, Brian Nichols was sentenced to seven life terms to be served consecutively in addition to other punishment for shooting and killing a superior court judge [JURIST reports] and other personnel in an Atlanta courthouse in an attempted escape. In April 2008, Ohio resident David Tuason was indicted for allegedly threatening to blow up the US Supreme Court building [JURIST report] and attack black men, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Other death threats [JURIST report] have been reported in recent years against Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
2010-08-31T09:02:41-05:00 Rights groups file suit over US assassination order for suspected terrorist
[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy websites] filed a lawsuit Monday challenging [complaint, PDF] the US government's authority to conduct "targeted killings" against suspected terrorists. The ACLU and CCR allege that US citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi [NYT profile], suspected of being a member of al Qaeda [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] in Yemen, was placed on "government kill lists." The groups are bringing the suit on his behalf through his father Nasser al-Awlaqi, claiming targeted killings in such instances constitute a process of illegal extrajudicial killings because "outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury." They claim that the "kill lists" violate both Fourth Amendment protection from illegal search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounders] right to not be deprived of life without due process and due process notice requirements because of the secretive nature of the process. They seek a judicial order determining that such judicial killings clearly violate the Constitution and an order requiring the government to "disclose the criteria that are used in determining whether the government will carry out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen."
Earlier this month, the ACLU and the CCR obtained a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) license that enables them to represent Anwar al-Awlaqi, but announced they are still pursuing a legal challenge [JURIST reports] to the licensing scheme. The Obama administration has defended [JURIST report] its use of targeted killings, specifically those made by unmanned predator drone strikes [JURIST news archive]. State Department Legal Adviser [official website] Harold Koh [academic profile] has said the drones "comply with all applicable law" because they target only military targets and enable minimal damage to civilians and civilian structures. Last October, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal [JURIST report]. Alston said, "[t]he onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons." Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly's human rights committee that was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.
2010-08-31T08:12:48-05:00
Get a FREE Attorney consultation with Gary the personal injury lawyer.
|
