[JURIST] Russian officials on Saturday charged former Russian nuclear minister Yevgeny Adamov [Kommersant profile; JURIST news archive] with fraud and abuse of power, possibly stemming from US charges pending against him. Adamov was extradited from Switzerland to Russia [JURIST report], despite US attempts to require him to face trial in Pennsylvania on charges of embezzling $9 million [JURIST report] in US Department of Energy aid money to his personal business. The US has agreed to cooperate in Russia's investigation and has called on the country to see that "justice is done." Reuters has more. MosNews has local coverage.

[JURIST] A federal judge on Friday granted a request by John W. Hinckley, Jr. [profile], who shot President Ronald Reagan and 3 others in 1981 [PBS report], for seven overnight visits with his parents in their home in Williamsburg, Virginia, 150 miles from Washington. Hinckley, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982, has been confined to St. Elizabeths Hospital [hospital website], a psychiatric unit in Washington, but has been allowed to leave the facility for overnight visits within 50 miles of the hospital. US District Judge Paul L. Friedman, who initially denied the request [JURIST report], conditioned the three and four-night visits on Hinckley not leaving his parents custody for more than 90 minutes during the visits and checking in with the hospital daily. The US Justice Department may appeal the decision. AP has more.

[JURIST] President George W. Bush on Friday signed a $453.3 billion defense spending bill [text; JURIST report] which contains provisions banning the cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in US custody, but also eliminates the ability of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] prisoners to challenge their detention in federal court. In a signing statement [text] the President reserved the right to construe the legislation consistent with his Commander-in-Chief powers and responsibility for national security; in a supplementary statement [text] he said:

The legislation...addresses the legal framework for U.S. detention and interrogation activities. The detention and interrogation of captured terrorists are critical tools in the war on terror. It is vital that our government gather intelligence to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, including critical information that may be obtained from those terrorists we have captured. At the same time, the Administration is committed to treating all detainees held by the United States in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws, and treaty obligations, which reflect the values we hold dear. U.S. law and policy already prohibit torture. Our policy has also been not to use cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, at home or abroad. This legislation now makes that a matter of statute for practices abroad. It also requires that the Defense Department's treatment of detainees be codified in the U.S. Army Field Manual.

These provisions reaffirm the values we share as a Nation and our commitment to the rule of law. As the sponsors of this legislation have stated, however, they do not create or authorize any right for terrorists to sue anyone, including our men and women on the front lines in the war on terror. These men and women deserve our respect and thanks for doing a difficult job in the interest of our country, not a rash of lawsuits brought by our enemies in our own courts. Far from authorizing such suits, this law provides additional liability protection for those engaged in properly authorized detention or interrogation of terrorists. I am pleased that the law also makes provision for providing legal counsel to and compensating our service members and other U.S. Government personnel for legal expenses in the event a terrorist attempts to sue them, in our courts or in foreign courts. I also appreciate the legislation's elimination of the hundreds of claims brought by terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that challenge many different aspects of their detention and that are now pending in our courts.

[JURIST] Nebraska [JURIST news archive] Attorney General Jon Bruning has filed a petition seeking permission to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] a December 15 ruling [decision, PDF] that declared the state's 1982 ban on corporate farming unconstitutional. The case was brought by ranchers who argued the ban, Initiative 300 (I-300) [text], hindered their ability to form family corporations or combine efforts with neighbors. US District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp said I-300 violates the commerce clause [Wikipedia backgrounder] of the US Constitution [text] and the Americans with Disabilities Act [text] because it requires at least one member of the family who owns the farm to be involved with day-to-day physical farming activities. In his brief to the Eighth Circuit, Bruning argued that Nebraska's law does not discriminate against out-of-state individuals or businesses and that Smith-Camp's holding on the law's non-compliance with the ADA "went far beyond the language of Initiative 300, the explanatory statement, and the ballot title in reaching the conclusion of unconstitutionality." Last year, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in a similar ruling from the 8th Circuit, declaring South Dakota's corporate farming law unconstitutional. AP has more [registration required]; the Lincoln Journal Star has local coverage. The Center for Rural Affairs has in-depth coverage of I-300.