International efforts continue in order to bring those responsible for the violence in Sudan to justice. Last week, two Sudanese men suspected of committing war crimes related to the ongoing violence in the Darfur [JURIST news archive] region of Sudan surrendered [JURIST report] to the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website]. Earlier this month, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official website] called on the UN Security Council [official website] to support the arrest [statement, PDF; JURIST report] of two other Sudanese men who have been indicted for war crimes in Sudan. In March 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant [JURIST report] for Sudanese head of state Omar al-Bashir [ICC materials, PDF; JURIST news archive], charging him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity but declining to charge him with genocide. Last February, the ICC Appeals Chamber ordered the trial chamber to reconsider the charges of genocide after an appeal was filed [JURIST reports] by ICC prosecutors last July.

Honor killings, along with other forms of violence against women, have been the focus of numerous human rights groups and international organizations. Earlier this month, in a report [JURIST report] issued by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website], the organization called for the government of Iraqi Kurdistan to take greater steps against the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) [WHO backgrounder], while praising the government's efforts to punish honor killings by outlawing reduced sentencing for those convicted of committing them. In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee criticized Yemen [JURIST report] for not incorporating many of its 2002 recommendations for civil and political rights in the country, including inequality for women, honor killings and FGM, and alleging serious rights violations were used to combat terrorism. The committee, which monitors adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [text], acknowledged the creation of a Ministry of Human Rights in Yemen in May 2003, but said Yemen should work towards creating a national human rights organization and strive towards equality between men and women by reexamining certain laws, among other possible reforms.

Jackson's appeal to the Ninth Circuit confirms that he did not contest the validity of the delegation provision in particular. His brief noted the existence of the delegation provision, but his unconscionability arguments made no mention of it. He also repeated the arguments he had made before the District Court that the "entire agreement" favors Rent-A-Center and that the limitations on discovery further his "contention that the arbitration agreement as a whole is substantively unconscionable." Finally, he repeated the argument made in his District Court filings, that under state law the unconscionable clauses could not be severed from the arbitration agreement. The point oft his argument, of course, is that the Agreement as a whole is unconscionable under state law.

The case stems from a discrimination suit filed by Jackson, a former Rent-A-Center (RAC) [corporate website] employee. Jackson claims he was was repeatedly passed over for promotion until he complained to his store manager and human resources, and was subsequently promoted. Two months after obtaining the promotion, RAC fired Jackson. Jackson filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. His employment contract with RAC contained an arbitration clause requiring arbitration of all disputes and specifically providing that only an arbitrator had the authority to resolve questions concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement.

The court will hear the case of Walker v. Martin [docket; cert. petition, PDF], where it will decide whether a state law barring a prisoner from collaterally attacking his conviction is adequate to support a procedural bar to filing a habeas corpus petition. A California state law prevents prisoners from collaterally attacking their judgment when the prisoner "substantially delayed" filing his habeas petition. The court will decide whether the law is inadequate to bar the collateral attack because it is vague and because state courts failed to apply the state law consistently. The Ninth Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that the state's law was not well-established or "consistently applied" and therefore did not constitute a procedural bar to collaterally attacking the conviction.

The court also agreed to hear Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Reinhard [docket; cert. petition, PDF], in which it will decide whether the Eleventh Amendment [text] prevents an independent state agency from bringing an action in federal court against state officials to remedy a violation of federal law. The state of Virginia participates in a federal program designed to detect abuse and neglect at state-run medical facilities. The petitioner is the state agency given oversight over the medical facilities and is seeking access to records relevant to the deaths of two individuals who were residents of the state-run facilities. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the suit by the petitioner was barred under the Eleventh Amendment and did not fall within the Ex parte Young doctrine [text].

The Preamble to the Constitution proclaims that the people of the United States ordained and established that charter of government in part to "provide for the common defence." As Madison explained, "[s]ecurity against foreign danger is ... an avowed and essential object of the American Union." We hold that, in regulating the particular forms of support that plaintiffs seek to provide to foreign terrorist organizations, Congress has pursued that objective consistent with the limitations of the First and Fifth Amendments.

In my view, the Government has not made the strong showing necessary to justify under the First Amendment the criminal prosecution of those who engage in [the training of organizations to use nonviolent means to achieve their goals]. We cannot avoid the constitutional significance of these facts on the basis that some of this speech takes place outside the United States and is directed at foreign governments, for the activities also involve advocacy in this country directed to our government and its policies.

The plaintiffs in the case initially filed suit in 1998, claiming that they wanted to provide support for the humanitarian and political activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Kurdistan Workers' Party [GlobalSecurity backgrounders], two organizations that were designated as terrorist organizations by the Secretary of State pursuant to federal statute in 1997. In November, the Constitution Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU), and the Rutherford Institute [advocacy websites] filed amicus curiae briefs [JURIST report] supporting a Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) [advocacy website] argument that the law defines "material support" too broadly. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] in the case in February, and granted certiorari [JURIST report] in September.

[F]or Carmack's provisions to apply the journey must begin with a receiving railcarrier, which would have to issue a Carmack-compliant bill of lading. It follows that Carmack does not apply if the property is received at an overseas location under a through bill that covers the transport into an inland location in the United States. In such a case, there is no receiving rail carrier that receives the property for [domestic rail] transportation and thus no carrier that must issue a Carmack-compliant bill of lading.

During oral arguments, counsel for the respondent argued for a plain reading [JURIST report] of the statute to determine its meaning, while counsel for the petitioner argued that Carmack has not historically, and does not currently, apply to foreign trade. Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of petitioners. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case to resolve a split among the circuits.

The District Court ... erred in entering the nationwide injunction ... for two independent reasons. First, because it was inappropriate for the District Court to foreclose even the possibility of a partial and temporary deregulation, it follows that it was inappropriate to enjoin planting in accordance with such a deregulation decision. Second, an injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course. If, as respondents now concede, a less drastic remedy (such as partial...deregulation decision) was sufficient to redress their injury, no recourse to the additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction was warranted.

The case arose over an injunction against the planting of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready alfalfa" (RRA), pending an environmental impact statement (EIS). Conventional alfalfa growers and environmental groups filed an action against an decision by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) [official website] to deregulate RRA unconditionally and without preparing a detailed EIS. The plaintiffs claimed that the decision violated NEPA, which requires federal agencies "to the fullest extent possible" to prepare a detailed EIS for "every ... major Federal actio[n] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The district court found for the plaintiffs and vacated the agency's decision completely deregulating RRA. The court also enjoined APHIS from deregulating RRA, in whole or in part, pending completion of the EIS and entered a nationwide permanent injunction prohibiting almost all future planting of RRA during the pendency of the EIS process.

The recommendations come two weeks after the first convictions [JURIST report] related to the disaster were handed down by an Indian court. The 1984 Bhopal disaster caused an international outcry over the activities of Western chemical manufacturing in India and the developing world. A number of environmental groups, including Greenpeace [advocacy website], have called for Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals to be brought to justice [Greenpeace backgrounder] for the after-effects of the disaster. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] reinstated a water pollution lawsuit [JURIST report] brought by disaster victims against Union Carbide. In 2004, groups representing Bhopal victims appealed a $330 million award [JURIST report] issued by the Indian Supreme Court, arguing that the award should be quadrupled to provide enough compensation for each of the 572,173 people that the court ruled were eligible.

Zimbabwean human rights activist Farai Maguwu was arrested [JURIST report] earlier this month for allegedly supplying false information about Zimbabwe's controversial diamond mining practices to the KP. An investigation was launched against Maguwu after he allegedly leaked to the KP a document compiled by the police [SW Radio Africa report] for the Joint Operations Command (JOC), a military-run security agency that was thought to be defunct. The report allegedly confirms allegations recently made by human rights organizations that Zimbabwe is continuing to engage in illegal diamond mining with the use of military force and leads non-governmental organizations to believe that the JOC is being subversively employed by the government. Civil society groups such as Global Witness, Partnership Africa Canada and Green Advocates [advocacy websites], have called for the suspension of Zimbabwe's international diamond trade due to the human rights violations [Telegraph report] allegedly committed by the Zimbabwean army against civilians and illegal workers in the Marange diamond fields. During the summer of 2009, KP appointed a team to conduct a Review Mission [press release, PDF] in Zimbabwe. They suggested that Zimbabwe's membership to the organization be revoked [Times Live report] for at least six months while the KP could ascertain that minimum standards were being met. Illicit trade in rough diamonds has been closely linked to armed conflict [UN backgrounder] in Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone. Since its inception in 2003, the KP has operated [DF backgrounder] by endeavoring to require its members to follow the regulations set forth by the KPCS, and in turn certifies their shipments of rough diamonds as "conflict-free."