Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] The European Commission (EC) on Wednesday proposed reforms to simplify and clarify international divorce laws. Under the proposal, married couples from different European Union (EU) countries could choose the country of the divorce, and the various courts would use a common formula to decide which country’s law applies when a couple disagrees. EC Vice President Viviane Reding said the law will protect the weaker spouse and reduce the costs of litigation:
International couples can encounter arbitrary legal problems that turn the tragedy of divorce into a financial and emotional disaster, making peoples’ lives very hard. Thousands of couples find themselves in difficult personal situations because national legal systems have so far failed to provide clear answers. In many cases, children and the weaker spouse suffer. I do not want people in the EU to be left to manage complicated international divorces alone. I want them to have clear rules so that they always know where they stand. This is why we decided to move ahead today.The measure, supported by 10 countries, is expected to be passed under enhanced cooperation, which allows nine or more members to pass a law they deem important.In January, EU Justice Ministers debated whether to use enhanced cooperation for the first time to create a uniform marriage and divorce law for mixed-nationality couples. In hearings before the EU parliament, Reding said such a measure was necessary because cross-border divorces were a big problem as the law across the member countries varied significantly. For instance, in July, the UK recognized prenuptial agreements as a valid contract for the first time, bringing its law in line with other European countries. The issue is currently on appeal before the UK Supreme Court.

[JURIST] French President Nicholas Sarkozy said Wednesday that the government will introduce legislation to ban traditional Muslim face veils in public places. Sarkozy’s announcement comes weeks after a French parliamentary commission charged with investigating whether to enact laws banning the wearing of burqas or other “full veils” released its report calling for a partial ban that would apply in public facilities, including hospitals, schools, and public transportation, and to any individual attempting to receive public services. Sarkozy supported the commission’s suggestions, saying:
The full veil is contrary to the dignity of women. The answer is to ban the full veil. The government will introduce a bill to ban consistent with the general principles of our law.While many people in France approve of the proposed legislation, such measures have also faced opposition from critics who say such a law would alienate France’s Muslim minority and violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which France is a signatory. Sarkozy did not give details about when or how the proposed law would take effect. Also this week, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill that would ban women wearing full face veils from public services, such as receiving care at a hospital or going to a public university. Supporters of the bill, such as the Muslim Canadian Congress, argue that the proposed law would not violate human rights and would promote the ideals of a free and democratic society. Others say the bill only discriminates against Muslims while allowing for other types religious clothing.

[JURIST] The Russian State Duma on Wednesday approved a bill to ban pre-trial detention for suspects accused of economic crimes. The legislation would allow those charged with financial crimes to be bailed out of jail at any time during legal proceedings for a minimum bail charge of 100,000 rubles (USD $3,300), and 500,000 rubles (USD $16,600) for serious crimes. The bill was introduced earlier this month by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who said that the measure would help cut the prison population and would also prevent prison from being used to pressure businessmen. The bill’s introduction was welcomed by the lawyer for Yukos Oil founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was denied bail in 2003. The bill must now be approved by the upper house of parliament, the Federation Council.
Khodorkovsky recently criticized the Russian justice system as an “assembly line” that inevitably finds the government’s political enemies to be guilty. Both he and former business partner Platon Lebedev are serving time on tax evasion and fraud charges, but Lebedev successfully challenged the legality of his arrest and was awarded USD $14,300 in damages and legal fees by the European Court of Human Rights. The two are currently on trial on additional related charges of money laundering and embezzlement, to which they have pleaded not guilty. Some critics of the Russian government have argued that the charges against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are politically motivated due to Khodorkovsky’s opposition to former Russian president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a permanent injunction Wednesday against a Texas city ordinance prohibiting illegal immigrants from renting property in the city. Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch cannot enforce Ordinance 2952, which required prospective renters to affirm they were in the country legally, finding it to be preempted by federal law under the US Constitution’s supremacy clause. The ordinance allowed the city to revoke a potential renter’s residential occupancy license, a license required for anyone to rent a dwelling under the ordinance, if the federal government determined the immigrant was not in the country legally. Boyle wrote:
This is not a situation where the City is aiding in the enforcement of federal immigration law based on federal standards through the means set forth by federal law; rather, the City is attempting to enforce its own scheme that incorporates federal standards for purposes not contemplated by Congress. The City may take appropriate action to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, but it may not, even if it were to incorporate the proper standard, independently enforce its own immigration rules.Plaintiffs were represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas (ACLUTX), which welcomed Boyle’s ruling.Boyle issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance in 2008. In the lawsuit filed earlier in 2008, several landlords and a former City Council member challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance 2952, alleging it denied immigrants equal protection and due process rights. The city passed the ordinance after a previous law, Ordinance 2903, was struck down by a US district judge in 2007 as an infringement of federal supremacy in the area of immigration. The Farmers Branch City Council passed the latest ordinance in an attempt to cure that flaw.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama signed an executive order Wednesday continuing a prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape or incest or where a woman’s life would be endangered. Some anti-abortion congressional Democrats insisted on the order as a condition for their support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed into law Tuesday. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan called anti-abortion Democrats’ insistence on the executive order “deeply disappointing”, saying that women’s reproductive rights were being used as a bargaining chip. National Right to Life, meanwhile, called the executive order “meaningless,” saying “it changes nothing” and fails “to correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill.”
The passage of the health care reform bill has been extremely controversial. The same day that the bill was signed into law, the attorneys general (AGs) for 13 states filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the new law. Last week, Idaho Governor CL Otter signed into law a bill banning a federal mandate that citizens purchase health insurance. Earlier in March, the Virginia legislature passed a similar bill that Governor Bob McDonald has indicated he will sign. The AGs who filed suit Tuesday originally threatened the action in December, after the Senate passed its version of the health care overhaul bill.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases. In Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit Corporation, the court heard arguments on whether the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 applies to the inland rail transportation of goods in the US that originate out of the country when the shipment involved an extension of the Carriage of Good by Sea Act (COGSA). The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the district court did not consider whether the parties had properly opted out of the Carmack Act, without which the COGSA does not apply. Counsel for the petitioners argued:From its enactment in 1906 until very recently, it has been settled law for a century that the Carmack Amendment does not apply to the inland leg of an import through shipment. …he current scope of Carmack is consistent with its historic scope, which had a very limited special application to exports to Canada and Mexico. Other than that, it doesn’t apply to foreign trade at all.Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of petitioners. Counsel for the respondents argued that, “t does not take great mental gymnastics to read the plain language of this statute and resolve it the way the Ninth Circuit did in favor of Respondents.”
In Magwood v. Patterson, the court heard arguments on whether, when a person is resentenced after having obtained federal habeas relief from an earlier sentence, a claim in a federal habeas petition challenging that new sentencing judgment a “second or successive” claim under 28 USC § 2244(b) if the petitioner could have challenged his previous sentence on the same constitutional grounds. The basic issue is whether a defendant can raise a challenge that could have been but was not raised in an earlier habeas petition. The case involves defendant Billy Joe Magwood, on death row in Alabama. Magwood was sentenced to death for murdering a county sheriff. His original death sentence was overturned in 1986, but he was later sentenced to death again. He challenged the second sentence, but the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that his claim should have been raised in the first sentencing. Counsel for Magwood argued Wednesday that, “a petition, as here, that challenges a new death sentence cannot be a second or successive petition for the very simple reason that it challenges a State court judgment that has no – never been covered in a habeas petition before.” Counsel for the respondents argued:You have equitable principles that say when you have two parties, a party has a full and fair opportunity to praise a claim or to litigate. But the other party also has a finality interest. And once you take away your full and fair opportunity by not using it, the other party’s interest in finality outweighs. That’s what Congress envisioned in AEDPA. That’s what this Court envisioned with the abuse of the write doctrine. That’s why we don’t allow someone who had a claim previously available that didn’t use it to bring it again.

[JURIST] Two Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay were transferred to Switzerland on Wednesday. Switzerland granted humanitarian type B residence permits allowing the two to live in the canton of Jura. Both have agreed to respect Swiss laws, learn the local language, and secure gainful employment. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that the detainees had been cleared for release by the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force and were transferred pursuant to an agreement with the government of Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Council announced earlier this month that it would provide sanctuary, despite warnings from Chinese officials that doing so would jeopardize relations between the two countries.
Of the 22 Uighurs originally detained at Guantanamo Bay, 15 others have also accepted offers of relocation to other countries. Six Uighurs were transferred to Palau, four to Bermuda and five to Albania. This transfer comes after the US Supreme Court on Monday declined to rule in Kiyemba II, a case regarding issues surrounding the transfer of Uighur Guantanamo Bay detainees. Lawyers for four Uighurs detained at Guantanamo were appealing an April ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Columbia Circuit, which held that US courts cannot prevent the government from transferring Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries on the grounds that detainees may face prosecution or torture in the foreign country. The case is separate from a case the court remanded to the DC circuit court earlier this month, known as Kiyemba I. The Chinese government maintains that the Uighurs are members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a militant group that calls for separation from China and has been a US-designated terrorist group since 2002. The US has previously rejected China’s calls to repatriate the Uighurs, citing fear of torture upon their return.

[JURIST] Amnesty International (AI) on Tuesday urged government officials in El Salvador to repeal a 1993 amnesty law that prevents any investigation into killings committed during the country’s 12-year civil war, including the killing of respected Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero. AI also urged officials to cooperate with any investigation into the prosecution of those who committed criminal acts during the conflict. No offenders have been brought to justice for any crimes committed during the war. AI deputy director Kerrie Howard recommended the law be immediately repealed:
It is unacceptable that those responsible for thousands of disappearances, killings and torture have not been held to account for their crimes. The Amnesty law must be urgently repealed and full investigations, initiated.Wednesday marks the thirtieth anniversary of Romero’s death.In November, El Salvador government officials agreed to a state investigation into the death of Romero, nearly a decade after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights first recommended an inquiry into the murder. Romero was assassinated by a death squad while saying mass in San Salvador. An outspoken critic of the military junta, his death is viewed as one of the catalysts of the war, which left more than 70,000 people dead. In 2004, a US federal court held Alvaro Saravia liable for Romero’s murder and ordered him to pay $10 million in damages to the archbishop’s family. While other suits have been brought against former Salvadoran state agents in US courts, human rights groups contend that the amnesty laws have undermined the rule of law and led to impunity in El Salvador. Other Latin American countries have recently overturned similar amnesty laws including Uruguay and Argentina.

[JURIST] The New York Times (NYT) on Wednesday agreed to pay a total of $114,000 in damages to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, for an article that may have implied that the current prime minister attained his position as a result of their relationship. The paper also apologized to the two leaders. The offending article, written by International Herald Tribune contributor Phillip Bowring on February 15, was titled “All in the Family,” and identified several political dynasties in Asia. In its apology, the NYT wrote:
In a February 15, 2010, article, Mr. Bowring … included these two men in a list of Asian political dynasties, which may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this inference was not intended. We apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong for any distress or embarrassment caused by any breach of the undertaking and the article.Bowring’s article contained a single reference to Singapore: “The list of Asian countries with governments headed by the offspring or spouses of former leaders is striking. … Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong is Lee Kuan Yew’s son.” The newspaper removed the article, but it remains available from other sources.Singapore leaders have sought damages against media organizations for alleged defamation before. Last March, a judge for the Supreme Court of Singapore ruled that a Wall Journal Journal Asia editor was in contempt of court and personally liable for damages for publishing two editorials and a letter that criticized the impartiality of the city-state’s judiciary.

[JURIST] Former Russian police officer Alexei Dymovsky was found guilty Tuesday in a defamation lawsuit for accusing Russian law enforcement officials of corruption on YouTube. A district court in the Russian city of Novorossiisk ordered Dymovsky to pay both the chief of Novorosiisk police Vladimir Chernositov and chief of the Primorye precinct Valery Medvedev 50,000 rubles ($1,800) each. Dymovsky criticized the law enforcement officials last September. In the YouTube video addressed to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Drmovsky accused his superior officials of pressuring officers to improve their own crime statistics. He was also critical of the condition under which officers are expected to work. Dymovsky was fired following the video’s posting, and was imprisoned for six weeks earlier this year. The Ministry of the Interior has ordered a probe into Dymovsky’s accusations.
Dymovsky provides yet another example of corruption in the Russian law enforcement community. Six Russian officers disappeared on Wednesday after their names were released to the media for falsely arresting homeless people in order to improve their crime figures. In January, Putin called for a new age of human rights and safety in the Caucasus region of Russia, where the killings of journalists and activists have become increasingly common. Deaths of human rights workers are often blamed on the local police and security forces, who rarely face charges. Also in January, a Russian journalist died in prison from injuries suffered during a police beating. In December, Putin called for greater oversight of officials after a nightclub fire in Perm exposed widespread corruption among bureaucrats.

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Wednesday urged the Malaysian government to drop all charges against former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar is accused of inappropriate sexual advances toward a male aide in 2008. HRW alleges that the trial has been “plagued by serious due process problems and government interference” and that the government should therefore drop all charges against Anwar. HRW Deputy Asia Director Phil Robertson said, “he government should end this charade of justice and drop the charges against Anwar. Every step of the way, the court has blocked Anwar’s lawyers from preparing a thorough defense.” Anwar’s trial is expected to resume on March 25.
Earlier this month, the Malaysian Federal Court rejected Anwar’s claim that his 1998 removal from office was unconstitutional. Anwar went on trial in July on new allegations of sodomy, to which he has pleaded not guilty. Anwar’s attempts to have the case dismissed have been repeatedly rejected by the court. Anwar was removed from office in 1998 and banned from political life for 10 years amid accusations of corruption, abuse of office, and sexual misconduct of which he was acquitted in 2004.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Tuesday that three Guantanamo Bay detainees had been transferred to the country of Georgia. The transfer was approved by unanimous consent of the Guantanamo Review Task Force, an inter-agency group that reviewed several factors regarding the detainees, including security. The identities of the released detainees are being withheld due to security and privacy concerns. The DOJ stated that the US “is grateful to Georgia for its willingness to support US efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay facility.” More than 580 detainees have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay since 2002. With the departure of these last three detainees, 183 detainees remain in the military prison.
This latest transfer comes after the Supreme Court on Monday declined to rule in Kiyemba II, a case regarding issues surrounding the transfer of Uighur Guantanamo Bay detainees. Also on Monday, a judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Guantanamo detainee who had been accused of planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In February, four detainees were transferred to Albania and Spain. Other countries that have accepted transfers include Latvia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Afghanistan, Palau, Bermuda, Algeria, and Somaliland. The Obama administration failed to meet its deadline of closing the prison by January 2010 after running into several hurdles, including opposition from members of Congress and the suspension of detainee transfers to Yemen.

[JURIST] The European Commission (EC) released reports Tuesday that said Bulgaria and Romania must do more to combat corruption and organized crime, and conduct judicial reforms in order to enjoy their full rights as members of the EU. The reports represent the sixth assessments for the newest members of the EU under the Control and Verification Mechanism (CVM), which was setup as a way to verify progress of the two nations in meeting EU benchmarks on the issues. The EC said Romania has struggled to keep momentum on judicial reform, but commended it for making progress on corruption while warning more work is needed:Only limited results can be demonstrated in judicial reform while no effective improvement could be noted for the difficult human resourcing situation in the judiciary and the capacity of the judicial system has been put under further strain by net staff losses. Regarding the fight against corruption, the report commends the continuously convincing track record of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate in the investigation and prosecution of high-level corruption cases. … However, continued delays in high-level corruption trials, together with inconsistency and leniency in penalties applied by the courts, continue to present important challenges for Romania.The EC made similar comments on Bulgaria: Since mid-2009, Bulgaria responded to some recommendations of the Commission notably by an initiative to improve the objectivity of the annual appraisal of magistrates, the results of which however cannot be yet assessed. … With regard to the fight against corruption and organised crime, Bulgaria plans to improve the effectiveness of the forfeiture of criminal assets by applying forfeiture to a wider group of persons related to a crime unless the legal origin of assets can be proven. … Although a number of new investigations and indictments for high-level corruption and organised crime have recently been reported, delays in important cases continued and no conviction in a high-level case could be reported since mid 2009.According to the EC, it will continue support for the countries and provide its next assessment by this summer.
The current assessments echo statements made in previous CVM progress reports. In January 2007, Bulgaria and Romania officially joined the EU following six years of accession negotiations. Both countries have been required to comply with a series of benchmarks; failing to do so could result in EU intervention and the potential loss of economic aid under Articles 36-38 of the Act of Accession, which lays out safeguard mechanisms in the event of problems posing a threat to the functioning of the EU.

[JURIST] The Myanmar Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a lawsuit to repeal election laws preventing pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from participating in upcoming elections. The lawsuit was filed by Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) in response to the recently enacted laws, which have garnered criticism for prohibiting persons with criminal records or overt religious affiliations from attaining candidacy in the upcoming elections. Suu Kyi has said that she believes the NLD should not participate due to the restrictive nature of the election laws. The NLD will be required to decide whether to register for participation in the elections in the coming weeks.
Last month, Myanmar’s Supreme Court dismissed Suu Kyi’s latest appeal to the 18-month extension of her house arrest. Suu Kyi appealed to the high court in November after a lower court found her guilty of violating the terms of her house arrest when she allowed an American to stay with her after he swam across a lake to her home. Suu Kyi, who has been in prison or under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years, will be released in November, according to a government official, likely after the upcoming elections have taken place.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board on whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the authority to decide cases where only two of the five-member board are present. Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act provides that three members are enough to constitute a quorum of the NLRB. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the NLRB had acted appropriately and affirmed its decision in full. Counsel for the petitioner, New Process Steel, argued that the “National Labor Relations Act clearly states that at all times, a quorum of the board will be not less than three members.” Counsel for the NLRB argued that the plain text of the statute allows for a two-member board in certain circumstances. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has urged the Court to uphold all decisions by the two-member board.

[JURIST] The attorneys general (AGs) of 13 states filed suit in federal court in Florida on Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The suit comes the same day that President Barack Obama signed the bill into law. The suit is being led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is joined by the AGs of South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington and Colorado. Among the allegations in the suit are that the new law violates Article I, Sections Two and Nine, and the Tenth Amendment of the US constitution by levying a tax without regard to census data, property or profession, and for invading the sovereignty of the states. The plaintiffs also assert that the law should not be upheld under either the commerce clause or the spending power granted to Congress under Article I. The suit asks for a declaratory judgment that the act is unconstitutional, an injunction against its enforcement, and attorney’s fees.
The suit by the AGs is the latest chapter in the contentious issue of health care reform in the US. Last week, Idaho Governor CL Otter became the first governor to sign into state law a bill barring the federal mandate to purchase health insurance. Earlier in March, the Virginia legislature passed a similar bill, that Governor Bob McDonald has indicated he will sign. The AGs who filed suit today originally threatened this action in December, after the Senate passed its version of the health care overhaul bill. The House of Representatives originally passed its version of the bill in November.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed into law a bill to significantly alter the US health care system. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was presented to the president on Monday after being passed by the House of Representatives by a margin of 219-212 on Sunday. The new law will prohibit insurance providers from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and dropping individuals from insurance plans because of illness, and will require all insurance providers to provide a rationale for proposed increases in premiums. Prior to signing the bill, Obama made a series of remarks, paying homage to the individuals past and present who had worked for reform in the health care system.
In remarks made at the Department of the Interior after signing the bill, Obama indicated that many of the provisions will require several years before they are fully implemented, though some, such as the prohibition on excluding children for pre-existing conditions, will take effect immediately.The passage of the health care reform bill has been extremely controversial. The same day that the bill was signed into law, the attorneys general (AGs) for 13 states filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the new law. Last week, the Idaho Governor CL Otter, signed into law a bill banning a federal mandate that citizens purchase health insurance. Earlier in March, the Virginia legislature passed a similar bill, that Governor Bob McDonald has indicated he will sign. The AGs who filed suit Tuesday originally threatened the action in December, after the Senate passed its version of the health care overhaul bill.

[JURIST] The proposed amendments to Turkey’s Constitution threaten separation of power and judicial independence, the president of Turkey’s Supreme Court Hasan Gerceker declared on Monday in an interview televised on NTV. “I want to indicate very clearly that some of the proposals being made are completely contrary to the principal of separation of power which has been enshrined in the Constitution since it was first adopted,” he said. The government has declared that the proposed changes comport with European Union (EU) standards, but Gerceker said that does not mean they should be blindly applied in Turkey.
The Turkish government unveiled the controversial proposed amendments to 22 articles of the Turkish Constitution on Monday in hopes of making the government more democratic and strengthening the country’s bid to join the EU. The proposed amendments cover a wide range of issues, including the judicial system, women’s rights, and collective bargaining for civil servants. The major reforms proposed include an amendment that would make party closures more difficult and an amendment to restructure the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HYSK) and the Constitutional Court. Also included is an amendment to Article 15, which bans the prosecution of the 1980 coup leaders. The reform movement, led by Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), has been challenged by the opposition party Republican People’s Party (CHP). The bill will now go before Parliament, where it must be approved by two-thirds of the 550 members to become law.

[JURIST] Google officially stopped censoring search results to Chinese users on Tuesday after a legal impasse was reached between the Internet giant and the Chinese government. Google announced Monday that it would be rerouting the Google.cn website through the company’s Hong Kong site, which is not censored. Google explained its decision, stating:
Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on Google.cn has been hard. We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we’ve faced – it’s entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision.China quickly responded to Google’s rerouting plans and has now begun blocking results from the Hong Kong website as well. China claims that Google did not uphold agreements the firm had made when it entered the Chinese market in 2006, and that the company “violated its written promise” when it ceased censoring Internet searches. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu stated in a press conference that the dispute with Google will not affect relations between the US and China “unless someone politicizes the issue.”In February, China issued new regulations tightening restrictions on Internet use by requiring citizens operating websites to submit identity cards and meet with regulators before their sites can be registered. The new policies came amid negotiations with Google regarding the Internet company’s January threat to discontinue operations in China due to the country’s overarching Internet censorship. Google’s action was in response to a cyber attack on its Gmail service in December, which targeted the e-mail accounts of human rights activists in China and drew the ire of rights groups around the world. Google indicated that it would work with the Chinese government to find a way to allow an, “unfiltered search engine within the law as well,” but also noted that if an agreement cannot be reached, it would close its offices there and shut down its Google.cn website. China responded by reiterating its commitment to open Internet, but stressed that international Internet companies must follow Chinese law. A week later, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the threat by Google in a speech promoting Internet freedom and criticizing censorship, declaring that China “risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.” Zhaoxu criticized Clinton for her remarks stating that they were harmful to bilateral relations between the US and China.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa that a bankruptcy court can discharge a student loan debt even if the student has not filed a claim of “undue hardship” under 11 USC § 523. The ruling affirms a decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that student loans can be discharged within a Chapter 13 plan if the creditor receives notice of the plan and fails to object. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said:
Where, as here, a party is notified of a plan’s contents and fails to object to confirmation of the plan before the time for appeal expires, that party has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate, and the party’s failure to avail itself of that opportunity will not justify … relief. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that the Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation order is not void.The ruling resolves a circuit split on the issue.The Supreme Court has recently taken up several bankruptcy issues. On Monday, the court heard arguments in Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning on whether, in calculating a debtor’s “projected disposable income,” a bankruptcy court may consider evidence suggesting that the debtor’s income or expenses will differ from her prior income or expenses. Earlier this month, the court ruled in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States that attorneys are considered debt relief agencies under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) when they provide qualifying services.