Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] A Haitian judge on Monday dismissed charges of kidnapping and criminal association against all 10 members of a US missionary group arrested in January but ordered one to stand trial for making “irregular travel” arrangements involving 30 Haitian children. Laura Silsby, the only missionary who has not been released by Haitian authorities, will remain in custody until her trial. According to a 1980 decree in the Haitian Criminal Code, irregular travel is the term for traveling or organizing travel originating in Haiti with a foreign destination in a manner that does not comply with established laws. If convicted, Silsby could face six months to three years of incarceration.
Last month, a Haitian judge ordered the release of one of the last two US missionaries out of a group of 10 who were arrested following the January 12 earthquake in connection with their attempt to take 33 children across the Haitian border into the Dominican Republic. The judge had announced in February that the two remaining missionaries would also be released after the other eight members of the missionary group affiliated with the Central Valley Baptist Church of Idaho and the New Life Children’s Refuge Charity were released earlier that month. Haitian authorities originally charged each of the 10 missionaries in February with one count of kidnapping and one count of criminal association, asserting that many of the children were not orphans.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases. In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., the court heard arguments on whether whether § 502(g)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides a district court discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees only to a prevailing party, and whether a party is entitled to attorney’s fees when she persuades a district court that a violation of ERISA has occurred, successfully secures a judicially-ordered remand requiring a redetermination of entitlement to benefits, and subsequently receives the benefits sought on remand. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that § 502(g)(1) provides a district court discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees only to a prevailing party. Counsel for petitioner argued that she “is eligible for a fee award under section 502(g)(1) of ERISA by proper application of this Court’s established fee standards under any test this Court has previously established.” Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of petitioner. Counsel for the respondent argued that “the Petitioner must demonstrate some success on the merits, and under Rule 54 she must specify the judgment entitling her to an award.”
In Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, the court heard arguments on whether a district court is required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision. The Ninth Circuit held that that the district court was required to determine whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Counsel for the petitioner argued:The agreement between Antonio Jackson and Rent-A-Center should be enforced as written. There is no statutory impediment to the enforcement of the clear and unmistakable agreement that gives the arbitrator exclusive authority to decide Jackson’s challenge to enforceability, nor is there any language in the Federal Arbitration Act that would prohibit the court from making the determination – prohibit the arbitrator from making the determination of Jackson’s challenge to unconscionability.Counsel for the respondent argued that “Petitioner would have the Court adopt a rule whereby agreements to arbitrate are presumed enforceable before their validity has been determined by a court under section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act.”

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday affirmed certification of the largest class action lawsuit in US history against Wal-Mart for allegedly discriminating against female employees. The 6-5 en banc ruling upholds a previous decision by the Ninth Circuit that the lawsuit could go to trial despite the large size of the class. The case was filed in 2001 by female Wal-Mart employees who contend that Wal-Mart’s nationwide policies violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that women employed by Wal-Mart are paid less than men in comparable positions and wait longer for management promotions than men, despite their higher performance ratings and seniority. In a statement, Wal-Mart said that they are going to proceed by reviewing their options:
We disagree with the decision of the sharply divided 6-5 court to uphold portions of the certification order, and are considering our options, including seeking review from the Supreme Court. It is important to remember the court did not address the merits of this case. The court reiterated, “our findings relate only to class action procedural questions; we neither analyze nor reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations of gender discrimination.” The court further noted that the trial court “has the discretion to modify or decertify the class.”The certified class, which in 2001 was estimated to encompass more than 1.5 million women, includes all women employed by Wal-Mart nationwide at any time after December 26, 1998. The Ninth Circuit granted an en banc rehearing to Wal-Mart last year. According to the order, a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges, excluding the three judges who heard an earlier appeal in which class certification was upheld, voted in favor of an en banc hearing. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit originally ruled against Wal-Mart’s appeal of the class certification in February 2007, then issued a new opinion in conjunction with its decision in December 2007. Wal-Mart appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2005, arguing that the six lead plaintiffs were not typical or common of the class. Wal-Mart also objected to the size of the class certified, which it says would violate its due process rights. Wal-Mart argued that its stores operate independently and should be sued individually, while plaintiffs’ lawyers countered that individual lawsuits would be impractical. The district court also rejected Wal-Mart’s claim that the class size was “impractical on its face” and approved a statistical formula for paying damages if discrimination is proven.

[JURIST] Chinese authorities have arrested a prominent Tibetan writer after he signed a letter critical of the Chinese government’s relief efforts following the recent earthquake in the western Qinghai province, a family friend said Monday. Tra Gyal, who writes under the pseudonym Zhogs Dung, was reportedly arrested while working at the Nationalities Publishing House in the provincial capital Xining. Tra Gyal helped organize private donations for those left homeless in the remote Yushu county, a Tibet Autonomous Prefecture, by asking Tibetans not to send donations through official channels but rather to travel to the county themselves to guarantee their donations reached those in need. It is unclear whether Tra Gyal’s detention is related to his criticism of the earthquake relief efforts.
In February, a Chinese court sentenced human rights activist Tan Zuoren to five years in prison on subversion charges after he documented the lethal consequences of substandard construction in the Sichuan province’s 2008 earthquake, which left some 90,000 dead. A Chinese court sentenced another earthquake activist, Huang Qi, to three years in prison in November on the charge of illegally holding state secrets. Huang was a critic of the Chinese government’s handling of the 2008 disaster. After the quake, he posted articles online criticizing the government’s response and talked to foreign media outlets about how some children’s deaths were the result of poorly-built schools. Amnesty International issued a statement in July urging China to drop the charges against Huang and release him from custody.

[JURIST] Lawyers for victims of the July 7, 2005 London transit bombings argued on Monday in the Royal Courts of Justice that UK authorities possessed information that could have helped them prevent the attacks. The theory for the case is built on intelligence that British security service MI5 and the London police had uncovered about the four suicide bombers prior to the attacks. Counsel for bereaved families argued that the UK government breached obligations to its citizens under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right to life. MI5 and the Home Secretary argued in response to the prosecution’s arguments that the matter has already been investigated in the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) and that the intelligence could undermine law enforcement efforts if made public. The hearing is scheduled to last for three days.
In January, the UK government introduced a scheme for compensating victims of overseas terrorism, using a plan that closely mirrors that used to compensate families of the July 2005 bombings. In November, London police reached a settlement with the family of a man mistaken for one of the terrorist suspects involved in the bomb plot. In April 2008, the UK Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of four men found guilty of plotting the London attacks. The 2005 bombings targeted three trains and one bus, killing 52 people and injuring at least 770.

[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected the prosecutor’s petition to appeal the court’s February decision declining to confirm the charges against Darfur rebel chief Bahr Idriss Abu Garda. In a decision released Friday, the chamber recalled its earlier determination that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not of the appropriate severity to continue the proceedings against Abu Garda and found that the prosecution’s petition did not meet the requirements for an appeal. The prosecutor argued in the appeal that the court had applied a stricter evidentiary standard in the Pre-Trial Chamber than it should have employed. In denying the appeal, the ICC said:either the Statute nor the Rules, contrary to the Prosecution’s assertion, draws a distinction as to the way evidence shall be assessed before a Trial Chamber and a Pre-Trial Chamber. The free assessment of the evidence presented by a party is, pursuant to the Statute, a core component of the judicial activity both at the pre-trial stage of a case and at trial. … In light of the above, the proposition put forward by the Prosecution, namely that the Chamber should have applied a different standard to the assessment of the evidence at the confirmation of the charges stage, is without any legal basis.In the event that the prosecution provides additional evidence, it may still seek the confirmation of the charges or petition the chamber to appeal the decision.The ICC declined to confirm charges against Abu Garda in February, a ruling that came after a preliminary hearing in October, during which the prosecution alleged that Abu Garda controlled the Justice and Equality Movement. The charges against Abu Garda stem from a series of attacks in 2007 that resulted in the death of 12 African Union Mission in Sudan soldiers. Abu Garda first appeared before the ICC on the charges in May 2009, and is the first individual involved in the situation in Darfur to appear before the court.

[JURIST] French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie and Jordan’s King Abdullah II met Sunday to discuss increasing cooperation between France and Jordan’s judicial and legislative branches and strengthening the ties between the two countries. Alliot-Marie told reporters that France would send legal experts to Jordan to help strengthen its court system. Sunday’s talks follow the protocol signed by France and Jordan last April to enhance the countries’ legal cooperation. The protocol provides for the exchange of current legal and judicial releases and research highlighting the countries’ judiciary, and underscores revisions of Jordan’s current civil and criminal laws.
Jordan has employed a series of legal reforms to address the concerns of many human rights groups. Last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Jordan to restore its rule of law by ending extrajudicial detentions of crime victims, personal enemies, and persons freed by the courts. Per the 1954 Crime Prevention Law, which is currently in effect, government officials have the power to order administrative detentions on mere suspicions of improper behavior rather than on the showing of evidence that a crime has been committed. HRW asserted that the formulation and application of Jordan’s Crime Prevention Law violates international standards as well as Articles 7 and 8 of the Jordan Constitution, which states that “Personal freedom shall be guaranteed,” and that “No person may be detained or imprisoned except in accordance with the provisions of the law.” The HRW report alleges that Jordan officials frequently circumvent the judicial system under which potential defendants are afforded due process and also that the subjects of such extrajudicial detentions are often the victims of crimes rather than the perpetrators themselves.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in two cases. In Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the court will decide whether the First Amendment permits any limits on offensive content in violent video games sold to minors, and whether a state regulation for displaying offensive, harmful images to children is invalid if it fails to satisfy the exacting “strict scrutiny” standard of review. California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment permanently enjoining enforcement of the prohibition.
In Ortiz v. Jordan, the court will decide whether a party may appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits if the party chose not to appeal the order before trial. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that, “although courts normally do not review the denial of a summary judgment motion after a trial on the merits, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is an exception to this rule.” There is a circuit split on this issue.Also Monday, the court decided not to allow Michigan to reopen a longstanding controversy with the state of Illinois seeking to close two waterways that allow invasive Asian carp to reach the Great Lakes. The court also refused to allow Michigan to open a new case on the issue.

[JURIST] The recount of votes cast in Baghdad province during the March 7 parliamentary elections will be delayed a week, according to an official on Monday. The Independent High Election Commission (IHEC) will not begin the recount until the review panel ordering the recount defines more precisely what a recount entails. Iyad Allawi, whose Iraqiya coalition garnered a slim two-seat lead over the State of Law coalition of incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, threatened to reject the recount if it only includes Baghdad. Also on Monday, an IHEC review panel nullified the votes of 52 candidates for alleged ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, including two candidates that had won seats in the Iraqi Council of Representatives, at least one of which coming from Iraqiya. The uncertainty over the election results has jeopardized the US plan for withdrawal of combat troops by August, and has prompted the Obama administration to propose a coalition government between Maliki and Allawi, where each would hold the premiership for two years.
The IHEC ordered a manual recount of the ballots in Baghdad last week, following fraud allegations. The election commissioner for the IHEC informed the public that the Baghdad recount would begin immediately, citing manipulation in voting stations. The State of Law coalition alleged fraud after a preliminary count showed the Iraqiya coalition held a slight lead. In February, an Iraqi appeals panel ruled that 28 of the 500 candidates previously banned due to allegations of ties to the Baath Party could stand in the election. The initial ban was characterized by the Iraqi government as illegal and was reversed when the panel acknowledged that it did not have to rule on all 500 candidates at once. This came as a reversal of a previous decision, where it held that the candidates could stand in the coming elections, but would have to be cleared of the allegations against them before taking office.

[JURIST] Thailand’s pro-government People’s Alliance for Democracy Network, known as “yellow shirts,” called Monday for a declaration of martial law to quell the anti-government movement spearheaded by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, or “red shirts.” The statement comes after over a month of conflict in Bangkok that has left more than 25 dead and nearly 1,000 injured in connection with increasingly violent anti-government protests. After an attack Sunday on a former premier’s home left 11 people injured, the reds dug into their fortified bunker in Bangkok in anticipation of government retaliation. Yellow shirt representatives have said that if the government will not crack down on the reds, the group is prepared to take action itself.
Last week, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva announced that he is prepared to negotiate with red shirt protesters once they cease their illegal conduct. Thai courts have recently issued arrest warrants for several high-profile protesters, including high-ranking officials of the red shirt opposition, in connection with violent protests and an alleged break-in at Parliament. Internal divisions have been mounting steadily in Thailand since the 2006 ouster of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose progressive policies engendered the support of the poor rural class that largely constitutes the reds today. The yellows, primarily consisting of the urban middle-class, considered Shinawatra, and as well as the reds, disloyal to the monarchy. Because of the mounting violence, Abhisit has imposed a state of emergency in Bangkok and neighboring provinces.

[JURIST] Liberian Justice Minister Christiana Tah has said that a report issued by the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) will be reviewed by Liberian officials in order to determine if prosecutions for possible war crimes should proceed. The TRC report, issued last December, detailed crimes committed during Liberia’s civil war, including the recruitment of child soldiers, the rape of women, as well as the death of more than 250,000 citizens. According to Tah, the committee reviewing the TRC report will be trying to determine who committed the most serious atrocities so that prosecutions can proceed as quickly as possible. Some in Liberia are skeptical that the government will proceed with prosecutions based on the TRC report. One of the report’s most controversial recommendations is a proposed 30-year ban from holding office for those who supported the civil conflict, which could affect prominent leaders such as current President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Skeptics contend it is unlikely that Sirleaf would support some of the recommendations while ignoring those that would have a direct impact on her political future. Supporters of the TRC report contend that prosecutions are necessary to achieving justice but warn that the process would be drawn out and that it could take up to 10 years before the trials could be held.
The TRC report also contained 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. Taylor is currently on trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone sitting at The Hague. Taylor faces 11 counts of crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva Conventions, and other violations of international humanitarian law stemming from a “campaign to terrorize the civilian population” of Sierra Leone.

[JURIST] Lawyers representing Omar Khadr, a Canadian currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay, say they will seek to suppress statements he made during interrogation at a preliminary hearing to begin Wednesday. The hearing is to be the last before his US military commission trial in July, the first to commence under the Obama administration, which suspended the military commissions after his inauguration in January 2009. Khadr’s defense team plans to bring forward as many as thirty guards, interrogators, and witnesses to testify that incriminating statements made by Khadr were the product of torture. Khadr’s defense lawyers claim that Khadr was subject to 142 interrogations at both Bagram Air Base and Guantanamo Bay. Prosecutors have described these claims as baseless, and have countered that Khadr’s treatment at the hands of interrogators was humane. The Obama administration has also been seeking the extradition of Khadr’s brother Abdullah Khadr, currently detained by Canadian authorities in Toronto, for trial in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Abdullah is suspected of supplying weapons to al Qaeda.
Khadr’s lawyers filed an emergency motion in February in the Federal Court of Canada challenging the decision of the Canadian government not to seek his repatriation from the United States. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in January that the government was not obligated to seek Khadr’s return to Canada despite having violated his rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Khadr has allegedly admitted to throwing a hand grenade that killed a US soldier in Afghanistan, and was charged in April 2007 with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying.

[JURIST] US Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) withdrew support for a comprehensive climate change bill on Saturday, delaying the unveiling of the legislation and casting its prospects for passage into doubt. The bill represents a major part of President Barack Obama’s legislative agenda and had been under negotiation between Graham and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) for six months. The proposed legislation was to be unveiled Monday, but was postponed by Kerry after learning of Graham’s decision. In a letter, Graham, the only Republican Senator that has agreed to work with the Obama administration on the bill, criticized the Democratic leadership for the reported plan to move forward with immigration reform legislation before the climate bill. Graham described the move as motivated by partisan politics, saying: I was greatly looking forward to the opportunity to address on the floor of the U.S. Senate as we pushed legislation forward into law. But it appears President Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership have other more partisan, political objectives in mind. Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy. I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress. In 2007, we spent hundreds of hours over many months … searching for a way to address our nation’s immigration problems. Expecting these major issues to be addressed in three weeks — which appears to be their current plan based upon media reports — is ridiculous. It also demonstrates the raw political calculations at work here. In responding to Graham’s announcement, Kerry said that he would be willing to return to negotiations whenever Graham was, but was unsure of when that would be. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated his commitment to passage of both the climate bill and immigration reform legislation before the November midterm elections and the end of the current session of Congress.
The US House of Representatives passed their version of the climate bill in June on a narrow 219-212 vote. The bill calls for a reduction in greenhouse emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and by 80 percent by 2050 by establishing a cap-and-trade system. The bill establishes first-time limits on greenhouse gases that will become progressively stricter. Immigration reform constitutes another plank of Obama’s legislative agenda. Graham and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) unveiled their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform in March. The plan entails improving border security, creating a system through which temporary workers would be admitted, introducing biometric identification cards, and instituting a process to legalize illegal immigrants currently residing within the US. The proposed bill is also the first attempt at immigration reform since the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill in 2007. At that time, detractors called the bill too lenient on illegal immigrants and said that by granting legal status to illegal aliens, the US was granting “amnesty.”

[JURIST] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday strongly criticized new attempts to impose UN sanctions on his country’s nuclear program. Ahmadinejad was in Uganda meeting with President Yoweri Museveni when he made the comments. The Iranian leader said that actions being taken by the United States and its allies in the UN Security Council are illegal and that his country will not accept any pressure. He also said that any evidence submitted by the United States and Britain for new UN sanctions amounted to “lies” similar to the claims made over nuclear weapons in Iraq which served as an impetus to the 2003 war. The UN Security Council has resumed meetings over a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, but the United States has indicated it will impose unilateral sanctions if UN sanctions are not finalized by May.
In September, Ahmadinejad denied that Iran had broken nuclear development regulations in respect to a newly-disclosed nuclear facility. The statement followed a press conference where US, British, French, and German leaders gathered for the G-20 summit said in a joint statement that Iran had violated the terms of agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by failing to disclose in a timely manner the existence of a nuclear facility. Under the terms of a 2003 protocol to Iran’s original IAEA Safeguards Agreement, Iran was obligated to disclose the existence of the plant prior to construction. In December 2006 the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran for continuing to enrich uranium and broadened them three months later. The UN had previously ordered Iran to stop expanding its nuclear program by August 31, 2006. Iran has said it will completely withdraw from the IAEA if its “nuclear rights” are taken away.

[JURIST] Thousands gathered in cities across Spain Saturday to protest the impending trial of crusading National Court judge Baltasar Garzon on charges he exceeded his jurisdictional authority with his investigation into alleged war crimes committed during and after the Spanish Civil War under the hardline regime of General Francisco Franco. Protesters rallied in Madrid and many other cities, chanting in support of Garzon and holding up flags of the pre-war Republican government ousted by Franco. Late last week Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a statement that sanctions against Garzon “risk undermining the EU’s collective credibility and effectiveness in seeking justice for current human rights crimes.” Garzon is also facing charges of bribery over money he received for seminars conducted in the United States.
In March, the Spanish Supreme Court charged Garzon with abuse of power based on Garzon’s 2008 ordered exhumation of 19 mass graves in Spain. The purpose of the order was to assemble a definitive national registry of Civil War victims, despite a 1977 law granting amnesty for political crimes committed under Franco. Earlier this month, Garzon appealed the charges, alleging that the indictment issued by Spanish Supreme Court judge Luciano Varela was politically motivated, compromised judicial independence and sought to impose a specific interpretation of the 1977 law. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

[JURIST] A Navy judge in Iraq acquitted US Navy SEAL Jonathan Keefe Friday of a charge of dereliction of duty in relation to the alleged assault of a high-profile Iraqi detainee implicated in the killing of four American contractors in Fallujah in 2004, citing insufficient evidence. Testimony at the hearing included that of recently acquitted fellow Navy SEAL Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, which directly conflicted with testimony from Iraqi prisoner Ahmed Hashim Abed. Petty Officer 2nd Class Keefe and Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe had been charged with dereliction for allegedly failing to take action while Huertas beat Abed. McCabe is awaiting his military trial, scheduled for May 3 in Norfolk, Virginia.
A US military panel in Iraq on Thursday acquitted Huertas of any wrongdoing in connection with the alleged assault of Abed, an Iraqi detainee suspected of organizing an incident that resulted in the deaths of four military contractors in Fallujah. A US military judge ruled in January that Huertas’s court-martial would be held at Camp Victory in Baghdad, Iraq, so that Abed could testify against him. Detainee abuse has been a major issue during the Iraq war, and the case against the three Navy SEALS has been seen as an attempt to compensate for other abuses like those at Abu Ghraib.

[JURIST] An Oregon jury Friday found the Boy Scouts of America negligent for failing to take actions that would have prevented further sexual abuse by an assistant scoutmaster during the 1980s and ordered the organization to pay $18.5 million in punitive damages to plaintiff Kerry Lewis. Multnomah County Circuit Court jurors concluded that awarding punitive damages was appropriate considering that the Boy Scouts acted in a recklessly indifferent manner in failing to protect child scouts from suspected pedophiles, particularly when the alleged molester had already confessed to molesting 17 children. Jurors were allowed access to highly restricted files known as “perversion files” that the Boy Scouts keep on suspected pedophiles after a judge ordered their release in March. The Lewis case is only the second instance in which a court has ordered the release of the files. The Boy Scouts say they will appeal the verdict.
Last week, the Oregon jury awarded $1.4 million to Lewis in damages for pain and suffering, finding that Boy Scouts of America National Council was 60 percent responsible for the abuse and allocating 15 percent of the liability to the local Cascade Pacific Council and 25 percent to the local sponsoring congregation Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Mormon congregation reached a settlement with Lewis prior to the verdict. Most sexual abuse claims against the Boy Scouts of America are settled out of court.

[JURIST] Two Latino advocacy groups say they plan to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona’s new immigration law, alleging it permits racial profiling. SB 1070, signed into law Friday by Governor Jan Brewer, permits police to question the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. Officials from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Coalition of Latino Christian Clergy contend the law will let police single out minorities for immigration inspections. Under the law, it is designated a crime to be in the country illegally and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500. MALDEF said the law creates a separate state scheme to enforce immigration violations:One significant measure of SB 1070’s patent illegality is that it seeks to implement Arizona’s own scheme of immigration regulation – separate and in conflict with federal government policy – when our Constitution envisions a unified nation under one federal set of immigration regulations to be adopted by Congress and implemented by the President. By rejecting that constitutional plan, Arizona’s enactment of SB 1070 is tantamount to a declaration of secession. In response, the federal government must act to preserve our united nation by clearly stating that it will not cooperate in any way with the implementation of SB 1070 – that it will not adjust or alter its immigration enforcement priorities to the detriment of other states simply to accommodate Arizona’s most recent exercise in racial demagoguery.Brewer says she will instruct the state’s police departments to implement the law without violating civil rights.
The Arizona law is one of the strictest illegal immigration regimes in the nation. Proponents of the bill claim the new law will decrease illegal immigration from Mexico. After the Arizona House approved the bill, US senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) announced their support for the measure and outlined a proposal for additional federal controls on illegal immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border. In 2008, Arizona voters narrowly defeated a ballot measure that would have revoked the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

[JURIST] A New York man pled guilty Friday for plotting to bomb the New York City subway system in 2009. Zarein Ahmedzay appeared before US magistrate judge Steven M. Gold on charges of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass of destruction (explosive bombs) against persons or property in the United States, conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The plot was never carried out after Ahmedzay and co-conspirator Najibullah Zazi realized that law enforcement was investigating their activities. He faces up to life in prison.
In February, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a five-count superseding indictment against Ahmedzay and another man, Adis Medunjanin. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors dropped two charges against Ahmedzay. Zazi also pled guilty to terrorism charges, and faces up to life in prison in connection with those. Medunjanin has pled not guilty. All three men are alleged to have traveled to Afghanistan and received training from Al Qaeda.

[JURIST] Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) on Friday signed into law a controversial bill that would require individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants to present valid identification to law enforcement officials. The bill gives police officers permission to determine the immigration status of any individual who arouses reasonable suspicion, criminalizes the hiring of illegal immigrants for day labor, and allows citizens to sue the local government if they believe the policy is not being used properly. Brewer signed the bill despite criticism from US President Barack Obama earlier in the day that the measure, “threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness.” The bill will take effect in 90 days.
The bill was approved earlier this month by the Arizona Senate and the House of Representatives. Earlier this week, Brewer announced a new Arizona border security plan, and declared her support for a 10-point plan supported by US Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). In 2008, Arizona voters defeated a ballot measure dealing with illegal immigrants. The initiative would have revoked the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Arizona is the most active border crossing point in the US.