Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled Tuesday that current President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is eligible to run for the senate after her presidential term expires. The Supreme Court denied a petition brought by Rep. Risa Hontiveros of the Akbayan party-list, which sought to disqualify Arroyo from running for the senate, challenging the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition alleged that Arroyo’s office gives her an unfair advantage and criticized her for earmarking projects in the district in which she is running. Tuesday’s decision comes after the court ruled Monday that a law requiring appointed officials to resign when they declare their candidacy for elected office is constitutional, but that the ruling does not affect elected officials because, “by the very nature of their office, engage in partisan political activities almost all year round, even outside of the campaign period. The court overruled a December decision that held that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Philippine Constitution because it had separate rules for elected and appointed officials. A court spokesperson said Tuesday that Monday’s decision will not effect Arroyo’s candidacy because she is an elected official.
Earlier this month, the Philippine Department of Justice (PDOJ) charged 197 people with murder in connection with the November massacre in the semi-autonomous Maguindanao province that left 57 dead. Among those charged is Andal Ampatuan Sr., a former political ally to Arroyo, head of a Muslim clan, and former governor of Maguindanao province. Following the killings, Arroyo imposed martial law and suspended habeas corpus in the province. She later lifted the conditions, following international pressure and domestic legal challenges.

[JURIST] The Sri Lankas Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition to release opposition presidential candidate and former general Sarath Fonseka. The Court did, however, approve requests to ensure Fonseka’s safety and to allow him greater access to lawyers, family, and colleagues. Fonseka has been in prison since February 8, when the Sri Lankan Media Centre for National Security (MCNS) announced that he was being held “in connection with certain fraudulent acts and other military offences,” but charges have yet to be filed. Incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa says Fonseka was planning a coup. Human Rights groups have expressed concern that trying Fonseka in a military court, as the Sri Lankan government has advocated, will deprive the former general of “due process.” The next hearing on Fonseka’s case is scheduled for April 26.
Two weeks ago, Rajapaksa dissolved Parliament and called for early parliamentary elections. It is believed that Rajapaksa is trying to harness momentum from the presidential election in January, in which he was re-elected, to gain more seats in parliament for his political party, Freedom Alliance. Earlier this month, 37 people, most of them military officers, were arrested in connection to an alleged assassination attempt against Rajapaksa. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court ruled this month that Rajapaksa’s second term will begin in November. The apparent victor in January’s elections, Rajapaksa defeated Fonseka by an official margin of 18 points, winning re-election to a second term in office. Fonseka has disputed the results, saying violence and vote-counting irregularities invalidated the outcome.

[JURIST] The Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has 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 Ministry maintains that the restrictions, made public Monday, are needed to regulate pornographic websites, which are banned in China, but Internet activists believe that the measures are just another step to tighten government control over Internet use. China froze registration of new individual websites without business licenses in December, claiming that appropriate steps were not being taken to prevent the creation of pornographic sites. The ministry says that the December ban will be lifted with the enactment of the new registration policies. The increased restrictions have caused many Internet users to register their websites overseas in order to avoid government regulation.
The new policies come as the Chinese government continues 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 may 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.” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ma 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 7-2 in Florida v. Powell that the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona are satisfied by advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time … during th interview.” The trial court overruled the defense lawyer’s objection, holding that the warning was sufficient, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding the warning to be misleading enough to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he or she could only consult with an attorney before questioning. In reversing the decision below, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:
The standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are exemplary. They provide, in relevant part: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning.” This advice is admirably informative, but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda’s requirements. Different words were used in the advice Powell received, but they communicated the same essential message.Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Stephen Breyer joined in part. Stevens and Breyer both concluded that the warnings were insufficient, and Stevens asserted that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds so that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. In 1966, the court held in Miranda that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” Kevin Powell was arrested in 2004 in connection with a robbery investigation and was told, “ou have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. … You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.” Powell signed off that he understood his rights and was willing to talk to investigators. He was subsequently charged in state court with possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor, and his defense lawyer sought to suppress Powell’s statements.

[JURIST] Nigerien rights group, the United Front for the Safeguard of Democratic Assets (Fusad), called Tuesday for the prosecution of ousted president Mamadou Tandja on treason charges. Fusad, which is allied with the opposition party that led last week’s coup, claims that Tandja is guilty of corruption violating the constitution, and alleges that he gave out contracts to foreign oil and uranium firms. Late Monday, the military junta, which is calling itself the Supreme Council for Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), announced over state radio that Major Salou Djibo will act as Niger’s new head of state. As interim president, Dijbo will have the power to appoint the prime minister and remove ministers. The junta also announced the creation of a task force to draft a new constitution and electoral laws as well as a constitutional committee and a court to replace those that were dissolved following last week’s coup. The junta has given no time-frame for the transition to civilian rule, but the CSRD has promised to turn Niger into a democracy. President Seini Oumarou of the former ruling party, the National Movement for Society and Development (MNSD) has condemned the coup, as Tandja and his prime minister remain under house arrest.
Last week’s coup, which left at least three Nigerien soldiers dead, comes six months after a referendum was passed abolishing presidential term limits and allowing Tandja to remain in office for three more years and to run in any subsequent elections. Niger’s opposition parties denounced the referendum, claiming that Tandja inflated poll numbers to support the new constitution’s adoption. In September, members of the opposition parties said that police had detained 30 former opposition lawmakers, allegedly at the behest of Tandja. The 30 former members of parliament were arrested on charges of embezzlement, but were likely being targeted for their dissidence, as they refused to recognize Tandja’s expansion of powers. One week later, leader of the opposition Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism (PNDS), Mahamadou Issoufou, was charged with financial crimes. The PNDS claimed the corruption charges were politically motivated. Niger, which is known for its exportation of uranium, has gone through five constitutions and military regimes since its founding in 1960.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in Hertz Corp. v. Friend that, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation’s principal place of business shall be determined by the “nerve center” test. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had affirmed the district court’s application of the “place of operations” test, which looks to the location of the corporation’s business activities and only considers its “nerve center” if the activities do not substantially predominate in any one state. In reversing the decision below, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court:The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” We seek here to resolve different interpretations that the Circuits have given this phrase. In doing so, we place primary weight upon the need for judicial administration of a jurisdictional statute to remain as simple as possible. And we conclude that the phrase “principal place of business” refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Lower federal courts have often metaphorically called that place the corporation’s “nerve center.”The court noted that “the ‘nerve center’ will typically be found at a corporation’s headquarters.”
Tuesday’s ruling resolves a split among the circuit courts, which had been applying four different tests to determine a corporation’s principal place of business. The Ninth Circuit applied the “place of operations” test, while the Seventh Circuit has used a “nerve center” test that only looks to where the corporation has its headquarters. The Third Circuit looked to the corporation’s center of activity, while the Fifth, Sixth, Eigth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits considered the totality of the corporation’s activities.

[JURIST] The French branch of the Arab Women’s Solidarity Association (AWSA) initiated proceedings Sunday against the participation of a ‘veiled’ candidate in the upcoming French regional elections, following the dismissal of its initial legal action. The candidate, Ilham Moussaid, represents the New Anticapitalist Party, a radical left-wing party, in the southeast region of France, known as the Paca region. The administrative court of Marseilles rejected a demand to ban Moussaid last week, holding that inasmuch as the authorities had not yet come to a decision there could not be a violation of fundamental freedoms at that stage. The AWSA, along with a taxpayer of the Paca region, have demanded that the administrative court of Marseilles annul that decision on the grounds that it represents a violation of fundamental freedoms, namely the prevalent value of secularity and the freedom of conscience. A hearing was set to take place on Tuesday.
The announcement of Moussaid’s candidacy earlier this month received nationwide media attention, given the recent proposal by a parliamentary commission to ban the burqa. Since 2004, French law has prohibited the wearing of a headscarf, along with other religious symbols, in schools, a ban that the parliamentary commission proposed to extend to all public institutions. In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled that there was no human rights violation when a French school expelled two Muslim students for refusing to remove their headscarves.

[JURIST] UK rights group Reprieve on Tuesday initiated legal action against the UK government for its alleged use of torture policies overseas. Reprieve argues that the government’s refusal to make such policies public suggests that the protocol is illegal and possibly allows torture. Reprieve will challenge the legality of the government’s policies and will present information provided by an intelligence officer during cross examination that implicated high-ranking officials in the promotion of abusive interrogations. The rights group criticized the government’s silence on the issue and described the legal action:
Reprieve has therefore been forced to bring this litigation. Ten diverse examples of complicity are used to support the action: from British agents driving a prisoner around in a mobile interrogation unit in Iraq in the midst of his cycle of torture, to urging prisoners to cooperate with their abusers, to threats of rendition, to knowingly feeding questions to prisoners who were being mistreated.The group seeks an official order preventing the military and intelligence officers from participating in torture. The government has responded that it does not condone torture and has argued that Reprieve’s facts are inaccurate. Last month, Reprieve urged further inquiries relating to the investigation of three 2006 Guantanamo Bay suicides and suggested that the Obama administration had suppressed important information. In August, the group sued the UK government over the rendition of two terrorism suspects to Afghanistan. A month earlier, Reprieve announced that it was suing the British government over the rendition of Mohammed Saad Iqbal Madni from Indonesia to Egypt, where it claims he was tortured.

[JURIST] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday appointed US lawyer Brenda Hollis as the prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). Hollis was appointed in consultation with the government of Sierra Leone, and the appointment was effective as of February 16. Prior to her appointment, Hollis was leading the prosecution against former Liberian president Charles Taylor. Hollis previously worked in the office of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Hollis succeeds Stephen Rapp, who resigned last year after US President Barack Obama nominated him as the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues.
In November, the SCSL handed over its detention facility to the Sierra Leone Prison Service in a monumental step towards the court’s resolution. In October, eight men judged guilty of war crimes by the court were transferred to Rwanda to serve out their terms. Three of the men, leaders of the Revolutionary United Front, had their appeals rejected in October, and are now serving sentences between 15 and 25 years. With these final sentences, the SCSL has largely fulfilled its purpose and will continue taking steps to close down. The only remaining indictee of the SCSL is Taylor. His trial, which could take up to four years, is being held in The Hague due to security concerns. The SCSL was created in a joint endeavor by the government of Sierra Leone and the UN to provide a forum to try those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law, committed in Sierra Leone.

[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday praised the role of the civilian criminal justice system in obtaining a guilty plea from suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi. Zazi pleaded guilty on Monday to three criminal charges of conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction in the US and to commit murder in a foreign country, as well as of providing material support for al Qaeda. Holder indicated that opposition to using civilian courts to try terror suspects was based on politics rather than facts. He also said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would continue using civilian courts as a tool for trying terrorists, stating:We are at war against a dangerous, intelligent and adaptable enemy, and we must use every weapon available to win that war. In this case, as it has in so many other cases, the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with the intelligence community and our military. We will continue to use it to protect the American people from terrorism.
As I have stated on other occasions, the criminal justice system also contains powerful incentives to induce pleas that yield long sentences and gain intelligence that can be used in the fight against Al Qaeda. We will use all available tools whenever possible against suspected terrorists.Holder has been criticized for his stance on using the justice system rather than relying on military tribunals to prosecute suspected terrorists.Holder’s statement of support for the civilian criminal justice system comes one week after he indicated that the DOJ would be “flexible” when deciding where to try 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He indicated that that a military tribunal must be considered in the wake of mounting public and political pressure, but that a civilian trial would help to ensure “swift, sure justice.” Holder expressed the same sentiments in an interview conducted by the Washington Post earlier this month, stating that more important than the location or forum is that the trial be transparent and adhere to the rules. The possibility of a civilian trial, first announced in November, has received backlash from both New York City officials and members of Congress, including some who support closing Guantanamo Bay.

[JURIST] Reconciliation in Liberia hinges on the development of its national security and its legal institutions, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon emphasized in a new progress report released Monday. The UN report recognizes that the final report of the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and its recommendations have proven to be deeply divisive, with “he public debate focused on whether the leaders of the warring factions and others the Commission had found to be responsible for atrocities should be prosecuted.” The report also asserts that “he lack of public confidence in the justice system continued to fuel incidents of mob violence.” Gaps in the implementation of Liberia’s national security strategy, which includes a bill that has not yet been presented in the legislature, ” effective security and intelligence coordination and a major obstacle to the establishment of the overall security architecture,” according to the report. Limitations in human capacity and infrastructure pose challenges to the law sector as well as to the overall consolidation of state authority. Development in these areas will affect the length of the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), which was extended to September 30, 2010.
The TRC released its final consolidated report in December 2009. Among its recommendations is a 30-year ban from holding office for those who supported Liberia’s 1997-2003 civil conflict, which could affect prominent leaders such as current President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. The report also contains a list of “Most Notorious Predators” and a list of perpetrators of economic crimes, which includes the head of the legal association for the defense of former president Charles Taylor. Human rights organizations such as the Liberia Human Rights Campaign have urged that the implementation of the TRC recommendations is “imperative.” Liberia’s civil war left nearly 250,000 civilians dead and displaced more than 850,000. Taylor is currently on trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes stemming from a “campaign to terrorize the civilian population” of Sierra Leone.

[JURIST] Suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty Monday to three criminal charges of conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction in the US and to commit murder in a foreign country, as well as providing material support for al Qaeda. At Monday’s hearing in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Zazi acknowledged the three counts of superseding information for which he now faces up to life in prison for two of the counts, and 15 years in prison for the third. Zazi’s sentencing is scheduled for June.
Zazi is a native of Afghanistan who was arrested by FBI agents in Colorado last fall. He was originally charged with making false statements to the FBI. In September, Zazi was indicted and pleaded not guilty to the charge of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. At the time, prosecutors from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) said that they had significant information to use against Zazi, while his lawyer countered that the prosecution could not prove Zazi’s guilt unless they identified the other conspirators. Zazi’s father was released last week on bail, having been charged with conspiring to destroy evidence of his son’s activities. Two other men, Adis Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay, have been charged with conspiring to commit murder in a foreign country and of receiving military training from al Qaeda in connection with the plot.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases. In Astrue v. Ratliff, the court heard arguments on whether an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is payable to the prevailing party rather than to the party’s attorneys so that is can be used to satisfy a pre-existing debt owed to the government. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the fees are awarded to the attorneys, shielding them from government debt offset. Counsel for the petitioner argued:EAJA provides that in an appropriate case a court shall award to a prevailing party fees and other expenses incurred by that party. Every court of appeals to have addressed the question, including the court below, recognized that the plain meaning of EAJA’s text directs payment of EAJA fees and other expenses to the prevailing party, not her attorneys.Counsel for the respondent argued that, “the government’s position was legally erroneous and was not even substantially justified.”
In Lewis v. City of Chicago, the court heard arguments on whether a plaintiff seeking to bring a disparate impact employment discrimination suit must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days after test results are released or 300 days after hiring decisions are announced. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations began running when the allegedly disparate results were announced, not when hiring decisions were made. Counsel for the petitioners argued:On 11 separate occasions, Chicago used an unlawful cutoff score to determine which applicants it would hire as firefighters. There is no dispute that the cutoff score had an adverse impact on qualified black applicants and was not job-related.The only question presented is whether each use of the cutoff score in each of the hiring rounds was a separate violation of Title VII. An affirmative answer to that question is both the best reading of the statute and the soundest policy.Counsel for the respondent, the city of Chicago, argued that petitioners’ “position cannot be squared with the statute.” The case involves minority firefighters in Chicago and follows the court’s decision last term in Ricci v. DeStafano regarding the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII.

[JURIST] UK Justice Minister Jack Straw announced Monday that the government plans to terminate to the inmate early release program initiated in June 2007 to ease prison overcrowding. In remarks before the House of Commons, Straw indicated that inmates eligible for release under the End of Custody Licence (ECL) scheme on or before March 12 would be set free and that the program would be concluded by April 9. The Conservative Party has long called for an end to the ECL, and Monday reaffirmed its stance following Straw’s announcement.
Last month, the UK Parliament Justice Committee released a reinvestment report urging the prison populations in England and Wales to be reduced by a third. The committee found that incarceration is a relatively ineffective way of reducing crime except for serious offenders and that the amount of repeat offenders could be more efficiently reduced through rehabilitation programs such as housing, employment, education, and drug and alcohol services. The committee admits that the implementation of their proposed strategy would be complex and challenging, but that it is necessary to reduce the UK’s heavy burden of prison overcrowding and the reduction of repeat offenders.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday accepted a $150 million dollar settlement agreement between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Bank of America (BOA). In his ruling, Judge Jed Rakoff said he was “reluctantly agreeing” to the settlement, which he called “improved, but far from ideal” and “half-baked justice at best.” Rakoff further indicated:
If the Court were deciding that question solely on the merits – de novo, as the lawyers say – the Court would reject the settlement as inadequate and misguided. But as both parties never hesitate to remind the Court, the law requires the Court to give substantial deference to the SEC as the regulatory body having primary responsibility for policing the securities markets, especially with respect to matters of transparency. While such deference can never be absolute – since the Judgment ultimately entered is the Court’s and is enforced by the Court’s contempt power – the Court would fail in its duty if it did not give considerable weight to the SEC’s position.The SEC had charged BOA with misleading investors regarding billions of dollars paid to Merrill Lynch executives during the acquisition of the firm. Rakoff twice rejected a proposed settlement 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. Had an agreement not been reached, a trial was scheduled to begin next week. The settlement agreement comes less than one month after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed civil charges 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 because they knew of the losses but failed to disclose them to shareholders before the vote.

[JURIST] Two human rights groups released documents Monday confirming that planes associated with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) extraordinary rendition program landed in Poland on six occasions in 2003. The Open Society Justice Initiative and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights released flight records obtained through a freedom of information act request to the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA). Those records confirm at least six plane landings linked to the CIA at the Szczytno-Szymany airport in northern Poland between February and September 2003. The flights’ origins included Kabul, Afghanistan, and Morocco. The official records confirm for the first time Poland’s association with the CIA’s secret detainee program:
There are new and important details contained in the, which provide – at the very least – confirmation of findings made in the June 2007 report of Council of Europe. These details are especially significant because they emanate from a Polish state authority and represent the first time that any agency of the Polish Government has provided public confirmation on the official record that aircraft associated with the CIA landed, repeatedly, at Szymany Airport.In a statement, the executive director of the Justice Initiative used the report to demand accountability by the US on this issue, saying, “We are finding out the truth in Poland, and it is time for the US to come clean.”Poland has been investigating the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program since 2008. Under that program, terrorism suspects were seized and flown to secret locations outside the US for interrogation and imprisonment. Poland allegedly housed the largest CIA detention facility in Europe, but has previously denied any connection to the program. In addition to Poland, Romania and Lithuania are alleged to have housed secret CIA facilities. On his third day in office in 2009, US President Barack Obama ordered the closure of all CIA secret prisons. In February 2007, the European Parliament condemned more than a dozen European states for their roles in the program. Then-president George W. Bush acknowledged the existence of the secret facilities in September 2006 but provided no details on their locations or operation.

[JURIST] Iranian authorities have released 30 political prisoners from Evin prison, opposition website Cyrusnews reported Sunday. The release is being attributed to family members of the imprisoned, who gathered outside the prison for a week demanding their relatives be freed. It is estimated that hundreds of students, activists, and journalists have been arrested as political prisoners following the ongoing anti-government protests that were spurred by last June’s controversial presidential election that saw the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Amnesty International (AI) has called for the release of all political prisoners in Iran and condemned the nation, alleging a general contempt for human rights.
Last week, Iranian official Mohammad Javad Larijani told the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that Iran is fulfilling its human rights obligations. The UNHRC was examining Iran’s human rights record as part of its two-week Universal Periodic Review session. AI has criticized Iran’s report to the UNHRC, calling its portrayal of the state of human rights in the nation distorted. Earlier this month, former Iranian deputy foreign minister Mohsen Aminzadeh was sentenced to six years in prison for his participation in post-election protests. Aminzadeh is one of the highest-ranking opposition officials to be convicted for protesting the highly disputed presidential election. Last month, Iran’s Prosecutor-General Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei called for sedition trials against protest leaders. Earlier this month, Fars News Agency reported that Iran will soon execute nine people for their roles in the post-election protests. The nine protesters were charged with the capital crime of moharebeh, which means waging war against God. Two others were executed for the same crime in January.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled in Wilkins v. Gaddy that excessive force claims must be decided based on the nature of the force rather than the extent of the injury. The district court had dismissed a prisoner’s excessive force claim after determining that his injuries were “de minimis.” The Supreme Court found that the lower court had incorrectly applied the standard articulated in Hudson v. McMillian, which held that “the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.” The court reversed the decision below and remanded for further proceedings. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, arguing that Hudson was wrongly decided.
Also Monday, the court ruled in Thaler v. Haynes that there is no precedent requiring a judge to have personally observed a prospective juror rejected for demeanor when ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had ruled that under Baston v. Kentucky, the judge must have personally observed the prospective juror’s behavior in order to determine whether he was rejected for demeanor or because of race. The Supreme Court reversed the decision below, finding that the appeals court had read too much into Baston.

[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Monday released the administration’s health care reform proposal, four days in advance of a bipartisan summit on the issue. The proposal seeks to reconcile the versions of the bills passed last year by the House of Representatives legislation and the Senate. The administration has detailed what it considers to be the key points of the proposal, including the creation of a new state insurance exchange to expand health care coverage to Americans who are not provided health care by their employers and a Health Insurance Rate Authority to review rate increases and other unfair insurance practices. The proposal specifies initiatives to make the health care system more affordable while eliminating the Nebraska federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP) provision of the House legislation. The provision would have demanded the federal government fund new enrollees in Nebraska’s state health care system.
Obama’s proposal is the first major step taken this year in an ongoing health care reform debate. In December, 13 state attorneys general threatened legal action against the Nebraska FMAP provision included in the House bill. The attorneys general argued that the provision is unconstitutional and “antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill” that “the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens” because it exempts Nebraska from such shared cost. The Senate passed its version of the health care reform bill earlier in December in a 60-39 vote that split down party lines. Senate Republicans vowed to continue to fight to amend the bill, arguing that it is too expensive and would violate personal rights by compelling people to buy health insurance. The House of Representatives approved its version of the legislation in November. The two bills must be reconciled before legislation can go to the president for signature.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in two cases. In County of Los Angeles v. Humphries, the court will be asked to address whether a plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation by a public entity was the result of a policy, custom, or practice of that entity before declaratory relief can be granted. The case arose after two parents were unable to have their names removed from California’s Child Abuse Central Index, a database that collects reports of child abuse, after the charges against them were dismissed. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the inability to remove “factually innocent” suspects from the database violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment and subsequently awarded $652,000 in attorneys’ fees for the appeal. The county challenges the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the grounds that the couple failed to show that the county had adopted a policy or practice that resulted in the constitutional violation, as required by Monell v. Department of Social Services and that their failure to do so meant that they were not “prevailing parties” for the purposes of fee awards under 42 USC &sect 1988.
In Harrington v. Richter, the court will consider whether a defense counsel’s reliance on cross-examination in lieu of forensic evidence violates the client’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Granting federal habeas corpus review, the Ninth Circuit found in an en banc rehearing that Richter’s counsel “failed to undertake the most elementary task that a responsible defense attorney would perform” by not presenting forensic analysis of a blood pool found at the scene of a murder Richter is accused of committing. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeals, and the US District Court for the Eastern District of California had all previously rejected the application.