Human trafficking crosses cultures and continents. ... All of us have a responsibility to bring this practice to an end. Survivors must be supported and their families aided and comforted, but we cannot turn our responsibility for doing that over to nongovernmental organizations or the faith community. Traffickers must be brought to justice. And we can't just blame international organized crime and rely on law enforcement to pursue them. It is everyone's responsibility.

This is the tenth annual report on human trafficking by the DOS, following reports in 2009 [JURIST report], 2008 [materials], 2007 and 2006 [JURIST reports]. In January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] ruled that sex trafficking violates conventions [JURIST report] against slavery and forced labor. Last October, the US and the EU announced an international criminal treaty [JURIST report] that will greatly increase cooperation between the two governments in fighting the trafficking of humans and the sale of illegal drugs. In March 2009, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in North Korea [JURIST news archive] Vitit Muntarbhorn cited the country [JURIST report] for various human rights violations including human trafficking. In July 2008, Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] released a report [HRW materials; JURIST report] calling on the Saudi government to institute new laws to protect its domestic workers from becoming victims of trafficking.

Under international humanitarian law, occupation is a temporary situation. Accordingly, it is forbidden to create "facts on the ground" in the occupied territory. The occupying state holds the territory only as a "trustee," and is required to ensure the wellbeing of the local population and to refrain from exploiting the natural resources for its own population. Also, the occupying state is forbidden to transfer its citizens to the occupied territory or to encourage them to move there.

Israel has faced rising criticism over the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories. On Monday, the International Committee of the Red Cross [official website] called for an end [JURIST report] to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which it labeled a violation of international humanitarian law. International pressure to lift the blockade has increased significantly since the May 31 Israeli raid of several ships bound for Gaza. The Gaza naval blockade began in 2007 after Hamas forcibly expelled [BBC report] their chief rival, Fatah [CFR backgrounder] from Gaza. In 2006, Hamas was elected [JURIST report] as the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority after unbroken rule by Fatah. In January 2008, then-UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Louise Arbour also described the blockade as collective punishment [JURIST report]. In March, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile] called Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank "illegal" [JURIST report], and supported a plan by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad [BBC profile] to build the institutions of an independent state by 2011. Two weeks prior, Israel announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units [Haaretz report] in East Jerusalem [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], where Palestinians hope to establish the capital of their future state. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were held to be illegal [opinion, PDF] under international law by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [official website] in 2004. Shortly after construction of the separation wall began in the West Bank in 2002, the ICJ held that it also violated international law [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], amounting to a "de facto annexation."

Many jurisdictions continue to consider legislation banning the burqa. Last month, Australian state lawmakers voted to end debate [JURIST report] on a bill that would have banned the wearing of the burqa or other face veils in public. Also last month, the French Cabinet approved legislation [JURIST report] that would ban the wearing of the burqa or other face veils in public. The same week the French Cabinet voted, hearings began [CBC report] in Quebec's legislature on a bill introduced in March that would ban women from wearing full face veils from public services. Earlier last month, European Parliament [official website] Vice President Silvana Koch-Mehrin [official website, in German] expressed her support for a continent-wide burqa ban [JURIST report]. In April, the Belgian House of Representatives voted 136-0 to approve [JURIST report] a bill that would ban the burqa and other full face veils in public.

I wish to condemn in the strongest terms possible those behind the disruption of a meeting yesterday at Uhuru Park, which led to deaths and injuries of innocent Kenyans. This is a crime against the people of Kenya. It is an act of intolerance that has no place in the New Kenya that we seek to build. The government will get to the bottom of the heinous crime. The nation's security and other government agencies have launched urgent and detailed investigations to uncover those behind the crime. ... In the meantime, I urge Kenyans to remain calm and tolerant. We must shame any retrogressive forces who do not respect democracy and the rights of Kenyans to hold different views.

In April, Kenyan Attorney General Amos Wako [official profile] published [JURIST report] the country's draft constitution, which proposes more balance of power in the government. Kibaki, Odinga and Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka have all supported the proposed constitution and have urged citizens to approve it in the public referendum. Despite the government leaders' widespread calls for cooperation and support, the proposed constitution still faces criticism, particularly from Kenyan religious figures who oppose the draft's position on abortion, marriage and divorce. The president's Cabinet members have encouraged the religious leaders to support the draft constitution and then pursue their goals through the political process after the constitution is ratified. Last month, a Kenyan constitutional court ruled that inclusion of Islamic "Kadhi" courts in the nation's current constitution is illegal and discriminatory [JURIST report]. The Kadhi court system, which elevates Islam over the country's other religions, was deemed unconstitutional because it does not coincide with Kenya's secular mandate. The court also held that supporting Kadhi courts with public funds is a form of segregation as it promotes the development of one religion over another. The three-judge panel did not determine whether the Islamic courts should be included in the nation's new constitution.

Last November, the FBI [official website] reported a two-percent increase [JURIST report] in the 2008 Hate Crimes Statistics [report; press release] for the US, which marked the biggest increase since 2001. Increases were reported in crimes based on race and religion, while crimes motivated by sexual orientation remained at about the same rate as in 2007. Last October, US President Barack Obama signed [JURIST report] into law a defense appropriations bill containing a measure extending the definition of federal hate crimes to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act [S 909 text], passed the US Senate and House of Representatives [JURIST reports] as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA) [HR 2647 materials].

The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law. ... The closure is having a devastating impact on the 1.5 million people living in Gaza. That is why we are urging Israel to put an end to this closure and call upon all those who have an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza's civilian population. Israel's right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives. ... Under international humanitarian law, Israel must ensure that the basic needs of Gazans, including adequate health care, are met. ... Furthermore, all States have an obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel.

International pressure to lift the blockade has increased significantly since the May 31 Israeli raid of several ships bound for Gaza. Turkey, a longtime ally of Israel, has included lifting the blockade as a condition upon which the restoration of normal diplomatic ties rests, along with an apology and an international inquiry. Israel has so far refused an international inquiry [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council [official website] condemned [JURIST report] Israel's raid on the ships and initiated an independent investigation into possible violations of international law. Also that week, the UN Security Council [official website] called [JURIST report] for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation" into the raid. The Turkish ship on which the violence occurred was one of six organized [Guardian backgrounder] by the Free Gaza Movement [advocacy website] to carry protesters and humanitarian supplies to the isolated Palestinian enclave. The Gaza naval blockade began in 2007 after Hamas forcibly expelled [BBC report] their chief rival, Fatah [CFR backgrounder] from Gaza. In 2006, Hamas was elected [JURIST report] as the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority after unbroken rule by Fatah. In January 2008, then-UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Louise Arbour also described the blockade as collective punishment [JURIST report].

Nothing in EAJA contradicts this Court's longstanding view that the term "prevailing party" in attorney's fees statutes is a "term of art" that refers to the prevailing litigant. Congress knows how to create a direct fee requirement where it desires to do so. ... [T]he Court is reluctant to interpret [EAJA] to contain a direct fee requirement absent clear textual evidence that such a requirement applies. Such evidence is not supplied by ... EAJA. ...The fact that the Government, until 2006, frequently paid EAJA fees awards directly to attorneys in [social security] cases in which the prevailing party had assigned the attorney her rights in the award does not alter the Court's interpretation of the Act's fees provision. That some such cases involved a prevailing party with outstanding federal debts is unsurprising, given that it was not until 2005 that the Treasury Department's Offset Program was modified to require offsets against attorney's fees awards. And, ... the Government has since discontinued the direct payment practice except in cases where the plaintiff does not owe a federal debt and has assigned her right to fees to the attorney.

The case was file by Catherine Ratliff, a lawyer who represented Ruby Kills Ree in a successful suit against the US Social Security Administration for Social Security benefits. Ratliff was awarded fees by the court under EAJA, but the government did not give her the full amount of fees owed. Instead, the government reduced the award to offset debts owed by the her client to the federal government. Ratliff filed suit claiming that the reduced fee were an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment [text].

Although a federal immigration court may have the power to make a recidivist finding in the first instance, it cannot, ex post, enhance the state offense of record just because facts known to it would have authorized a greater penalty under either state or federal law. Carachuri-Rosendo was not actually "convicted" of a drug possession offense committed "after a prior conviction . . . has become final," and no subsequent development can undo that history.

The court granted certiorari in the case to resolve a split among the circuits. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that a state law conviction for simple drug possession could be an "aggravated felony" if the defendant could have been charged with a felony, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that Carachuri-Rosendo is ineligible for cancellation of removal. During oral arguments [JURIST report], counsel for the petitioner argued that, "[i]ndividuals, such as Petitioner, who have been convicted of drug possession but as to whom there has been no finding of recidivism, have been convicted of a misdemeanor punishable under the Controlled Substances Act rather than a felony." Counsel for the US government argued that, "Congress's judgment here was that all aliens who engage in the same serious conduct would be treated the same for immigration purposes."

The [Eleventh Circuit's] rule is difficult to reconcile with more general equitable principles in that it fails to recognize that, at least sometimes, professional misconduct that fails to meet the Eleventh Circuit's standard could nonetheless amount to egregious behavior and create an extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling. And, given the long history of judicial application of equitable tolling, courts can easily find precedents that can guide their judgments. Several lower courts have specifically held that unprofessional attorney conduct may, in certain circumstances, prove "egregious" and can be "extraordinary" even though the conduct in question may not satisfy the Eleventh Circuit's rule.

Even if [the AEDPA] left room for equitable tolling in some situations, tolling surely should not excuse the delay here. Where equitable tolling is available, we have held that a litigant is entitled to it only if he has diligently pursued his rights and - the requirement relevant here - if "some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way." Because the attorney is the litigant's agent, the attorney's acts (or failures to act) within the scope of the representation are treated as those of his client, and thus such acts (or failures to act) are necessarily not extraordinary circumstances.

The petitioner, Albert Holland, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in 1997, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Several years later, the court denied him post-conviction relief, but, due to a "breakdown" in communication between Holland and his state-appointed attorney, Holland did not become aware of this until several weeks after the time period under AEPDA had passed. During this time, his attorney had not filed a habeas petition despite repeated letters throughout the litigation in which Holland stated his desire to do so, and the state bar association refused Holland's numerous requests to remove the attorney from the case. The court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] in case in March and granted certiorari [cert. petition, PDF; JURIST report] in October.

After examining the language, the context, and the purposes of the statute, we conclude that the provision before us [seeks speed by creating a time-related directive that is legally enforceable but does not deprive a judge or other public official of the power to take the action to which the deadline applies if the deadline is missed]. The fact that a sentencing court misses the statute's 90-day deadline, even through its own fault or that of the Government, does not deprive the court of the power to order restitution.

With its ruling, the court upheld the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's holding [opinion, PDF] that "a tardy restitution order is not an invalid one." During oral arguments in April, counsel for Dolan argued [JURIST report] that, "[o]nce that 90-day period has run ... the district court loses the authority to impose restitution." Counsel for the US argued that the court may impose restitution after the 90-day period in certain circumstances.

Also Monday, the court granted certiorari in three other cases. In CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether a state's exemption of railroad competitors, but not railroads, from a generally applicable sales and use tax is subject to challenge as "another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier" under section 306(1)(d) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 49 USC § 11501(b)(4) [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the sales and use tax on diesel fuel does not unlawfully discriminate against railroad companies.

In Cullen v. Pinholster [docket], the court will decide whether to reinstate the death penalty against defendant Scott Pinholster. Pinholster was convicted of the 1984 killing of two men during a burglary in Los Angeles. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Pinholster's death sentence, finding that his lawyer failed to disclose evidence of mental illness to the jury.

In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether a plaintiff can state a claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 [texts] based on a pharmaceutical company's nondisclosure of adverse event reports even though the reports are not alleged to be statistically significant. The plaintiffs allege that Matrixx Initiatives [corporate website] committed securities fraud by failing to disclose "adverse event" reports during a drug trial. The US Courts of Appeals for the First, Second and Third Circuits have held that drug companies have no duty to disclose adverse event reports until the reports provide statistically significant evidence that the adverse events may be caused by, and are not simply randomly associated with, a drug's use. The Ninth Circuit, however, rejected a statistical significance standard [opinion, PDF] and allowed the case to proceed.

Arar was appealing a November 2009 ruling [JURIST report] by the Second Circuit, which held he could not sue the US government for damages. The appeals court, sitting en banc, dismissed Arar's suit, finding that a civil remedy for harms endured as a result of extraordinary rendition must be created by Congress alone. The 7-4 decision affirmed a 2006 ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York [official website], which dismissed Arar's claims. The Second Circuit agreed to rehear Arar's case en banc after a three-judge panel initially dismissed his appeal [JURIST reports] in July 2008. Arar, a Syrian-born engineer, immigrated to Canada with his family at the age of 17 and became a citizen in 1991. He was detained by US authorities in September 2002 after flying to New York from Tunisia on his way home to Canada. The US government deported him to Syria in 2002, where he was tortured despite Syrian assurances that he would not be. Canadian authorities have since cleared him of all suspicion, officially apologized and paid him damages. US lawmakers apologized [JURIST report] in 2007 for his arrest, deportation and torture at the hands of Syrian officials.

The oil spill in the Gulf is still far from most of Florida's vast coastlines, and while the FWC continues to carefully track oil spill developments and prepare for possible impacts, Florida's abundant saltwater fisheries remain in good health and the fish you buy in a commercial outlet or restaurant are safe and wholesome to eat. The FWC encourages residents and visitors to go fishing in Florida and to enjoy fresh Florida seafood.

The federal government continues examining its options for dealing with the oil spill and future drilling regulations. Last week, US President Barack Obama [official website] called for new oil pollution laws [statement; JURIST report], emphasizing the need to need to update the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [materials], a piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill [backgrounder]. Obama also called on Congress to pass energy reform legislation, several versions of which have been introduced [JURIST report] in recent months. Earlier this month, US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] announced that the Department of Justice [official website] would be reviewing whether any criminal or civil laws were violated by BP [JURIST report]. Holder cited several statutes being examined by government lawyers including the Clean Water Act [materials] and the Oil Pollution Act. Obama held a press conference in May to announce new regulations to mitigate future oil spills [JURIST report] and the current plan of action for resolving the crisis created by the ongoing spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The government suspended several offshore drilling activities including exploration of platform locations in Alaska, pending lease sales in the Gulf and Virginia, and the drilling of 33 deepwater exploratory wells in the Gulf. The government also suspended the issuance of new permits to drill deepwater wells for six months.

The violence is thought to be linked to the overthrow of former Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev [BBC profile], who was ousted from power in April [JURIST report]. Bakiyev's main support base was in southern Kyrgyzstan, whereas ethnic Uzbeks have been more likely to support the interim government. Another possible reason for the violence is that it was started to delay the June 27 elections in which the interim government will seek a popular mandate until elections in December 2011, and will seek approval of a draft constitution [text, DOC, in Russian]. In May, the interim government approved a draft constitution [JURIST report] that would shift power from the president to the prime minister, define Kyrgyzstan as a secular state, limit the president to one six-year term in office and increase the number of seats in parliament from 90 to 120. The draft was created by a constitutional committee that was made up mainly of representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and was advised by several international organizations. Several NGO activists disapproved of a last minute amendment to the draft entitled "On the Transitional Period," which extends the transition period until January 2012. The activists hold that the delay is unsubstantiated, and a government run by presidential decree risks corruption.