 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, August 26, 2008 |
 |
|


ICTR begins genocide trial of former Rwanda military officer
Leslie Schulman on August 26, 2008 4:16 PM ET

[JURIST] Lieutenant-Colonel Ephrem Setako [ICTR case materials] went to trial Tuesday [ICTR press release] before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website]. Setako is the former director of the Judicial Affairs Division of the Rwandan Ministry of Defence, and served as a colonel for the Rwandan armed forces during the 1994 genocide [BBC backgrounder]. He is accused of inciting, ordering, or authorizing the mass killings of Tutsi civilians, as well as distributing weapons used in the massacre. Setako was arrested in Amsterdam on February 25, 2004, and subsequently pleaded not guilty [ICTR press release] to six counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violating the Geneva Convention. UN News Centre has more.
The ICTR was established by the UN in 1995 to try those suspected of having committed genocide during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between Hutus and Tutsis, in which approximately 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed. Earlier this month, an independent Rwandan commission issued a report [BBC report] accusing France of knowing of the genocide and providing training assistance to Hutus, as well as directly aiding in the killings. French officials have denied the allegations [NY Times report].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

States sue EPA over Clean Air Act compliance for oil refineries
Leslie Schulman on August 26, 2008 3:06 PM ET

[JURIST] New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo [official website] announced on Monday that twelve states have filed suit [press release] against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] for its alleged failure to enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act [text; EPA materials] requiring oil refineries to adopt measures curbing the pollution contributing to global warming. The lawsuit, filed in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website], alleges that the EPA is required to issue so-called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) [EPA materials] to oil refineries, power plants, and any other facility the EPA concludes emits air pollution posing a danger to public health. These standards, once issued, require the facility to install new technologies mitigating the release of such pollutants. According to the complaint, on June 24 the EPA finalized new air pollution control standards [PDF text] for oil refineries without issuing an NSPS, violating the Clean Air Act's protocols. Along with New York, the other states joining in the lawsuit are California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, and Delaware. AP has more.
The lawsuit is the latest attempt by New York and several other states to force the EPA to comply with Clean Air Act terms requiring global warming pollution regulation. Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] vacated [decision, PDF; JURIST report] a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] rule [Federal Register notice] prohibiting state and local governments from monitoring air pollution below acceptable levels set by the EPA for "stationary" sources such as power plants and factories. Earlier this year, 14 states sued the EPA over new smog regulations [JURIST report]. In 2006, a group of states sued the EPA [JURIST report] over its alleged failure to regulate smog emissions from power plants.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

District court upholds Massachusetts law mandating abortion protester 'buffer zone'
Joe Shaulis on August 26, 2008 1:22 PM ET

[JURIST] US District Judge Joseph Tauro [official profile] held [PDF text] Friday that a Massachusetts statute [text] establishing a 35-foot buffer zone outside facilities which perform abortions [JURIST news archive] does not violate protesters' constitutional rights. Tauro found that the law does not unconstitutionally burden First Amendment rights or the guarantees of equal protection or due process. In upholding the statute as a valid time, place and manner regulation of speech, Tauro wrote: [T]he law does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further these public safety goals. ... "[T]he government is not required to choose the least restrictive approach in content-neutral regulation." Here, the Legislature appears to have carefully considered and balanced the Act's effects on speech with the Commonwealth's legitimate governmental interests. The result was a 35-foot fixed buffer zone that targeted the problematic areas (areas immediately adjacent to [clinic] entrances and driveways), during the problematic times. Tauro noted that other federal courts, including the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive], have upheld similar fixed buffer zones.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed a bill amending the statute [JURIST report] last year, substituting the fixed buffer zone for a "floating" one that prohibited protesters from coming within six feet of other individuals without their consent. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley [official website] defended the law on Monday, saying it protects public safety and ensures access to medical care while preserving alternate opportunities for expression. She commented [press release; AP report], "The previous buffer zone statute was a step in the right direction, but was difficult, if not impossible, to enforce."


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Former Guantanamo detainees petition US Supreme Court to hear rights appeal
Devin Montgomery on August 26, 2008 10:33 AM ET

[JURIST] British nationals and former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith have petitioned [cert. petition, PDF] the US Supreme Court [official website] to hear a lawsuit [advocacy backgrounder] in which they seek religious rights and protection from torture for those still at the facility. In the petition, docketed [08-235 text] Monday, the men argue that a lower court's dismissal of their claims [JURIST report] should be reversed after Boumediene v. Bush [Duke Law backgrounder; JURIST report], in which the Court ruled that that detainees have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The men argue that the Court should hear the case because of the gravity of the issues addressed and the claimed error of the lower court: Guanta?namo continues to present numerous jurisprudential challenges to the judiciary. This case provides a critical opportunity for this Court to affirm strongly the guarantee to Guanta?namo detainees of an irreducible minimum of human rights. It is essential for this Court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision, which manifests indifference to religious abuse and torture and flouts the Guanta?namo jurisprudence carefully developed and expounded by this Court. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] had previously dismissed the plaintiffs' Alien Tort Statute [text] claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, along with their Religious Freedom Restoration Act [text] claim because of their status as "enemy combatants." The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to grant certiorari on or before September 24. AFP has more.
The appellants in the case are among eight former British detainees who in April sued [JURIST report] the UK's MI5 and MI6 [official websites] intelligence services over alleged complicity with the US in their abduction and subsequent treatment, which included interrogation. In that suit the appellants, who were released from Guantanamo [JURIST report] in March 2004, were joined by four other UK citizens released from the detention center in December and April [JURIST reports] of 2007.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Arkansas ballot to contain proposed ban on unmarried foster parents
Joe Shaulis on August 26, 2008 8:10 AM ET

[JURIST] Arkansas Secretary of State [official website] Charlie Daniels has certified a ballot measure [text; AR AG opinion, PDF] which could prohibit gays, lesbians and other unmarried cohabiting couples from becoming either foster or adoptive parents. Daniels announced [press release] Monday that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee [advocacy website] had submitted petitions containing the valid signatures of more than 85,000 registered voters - nearly 25,000 more than needed to place the measure on the November ballot. The proposed act provides, in part, that (a) A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state. (b) The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals. The measure further stipulates that "it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabiting outside of marriage." The group Arkansas Families First [advocacy website] has announced plans to challenge the ballot measure in court [press release] because of alleged duplications, forgeries and other irregularities in the petitions submitted to Daniels. AP has more.
The ballot measure follows a 2006 Arkansas Supreme Court decision [PDF text] that struck down an administrative regulation [JURIST report] specifically prohibiting homosexuals from rearing foster children. Reacting to that decision, then-Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested that such a ban be implemented through legislation [JURIST report]. Arkansas, like many states, has amended its constitution [PDF text] to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages [JURIST news archive]. An initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage is on the ballot in California this year despite an attempt to remove it [JURIST reports]. That measure would overcome a California Supreme Court decision [JURIST report] holding that a ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|