JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, July 31, 2010

[JURIST] US Trade Representative [official website] Ambassador Ron Kirk [official profile] announced Friday that the US will file a case against Guatemala [press release] for labor rights violations. The case, filed under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) [text], will be the first time the US has pursued a labor violations claim against a free trade partner. Addressing Guatemala's labor standards, Kirk said:

We want to see the Government of Guatemala take specific and effective action - including, if appropriate, legislative reforms - to improve the systemic failures in enforcement of Guatemalan labor law. In addition, the issue of labor-related violence is a matter of serious concern to the United States. Our request for consultations also expresses our grave concerns about this problem and indicates that we intend to take this issue up with the Government of Guatemala in the near future.

Also on Friday, US Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis [official profile] announced [press release] that the US has requested labor consultations with Guatemala and expressed concern about the "labor-related violence in Guatemala, a problem which is serious and apparently deteriorating." If within 90 days the US and Guatemala fail to resolve the issue, the dispute could go before an arbitration panel. Ultimately, if Guatemala is found guilty of violating CAFTA-DR, it could be subject to a yearly penalty of $15 million, which will fund the enforcement of its labor laws.

In April 2008 the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) [official website] filed a public submission [text, PDF] under CAFTA-DR claiming Guatemala had failed to enforce its labor laws. Following the submission, the US Department of Labor (DOL) [official website] issued a report [text, PDF] highlighting Guatemala's ineffective enforcement of those laws, alleging its failure to meet its obligation under CAFTA-DR. CAFTA-DR was signed into law [JURIST report] in 2005, making it the first official trade pact between the US and Central America. CAFTA ends tariffs against US products in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, and Honduras, and ensures those countries duty-free access to the US.

[JURIST] The Constitutional Council [official website], France's highest constitutional authority, ruled Friday that French police may no longer hold suspects for 48 hours without telling them their rights or bringing charges. Since President Nicolas Sarkozy's [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] came to power in 2007 the number of people in France taken into custody and questioned without charge has exploded [Washington Post report]. In 2001 there were 336,718; in 2009, there were about 790,000. The ruling comes four months after the constitutionality of police custody under article 63-4 [text] of French criminal procedure code was initially challenged.

French defense lawyers have been arguing for years that the practice of detaining suspects without reading them rights or bringing charges is an unethical method of forcing people to confess. The campaign for custody reform [advocacy website, in French] has gained momentum over the past few months as a result of recent decisions by the European Court of Human Rights [official website] in Salduz v. Turkey, Mooren v. Germany and Koslenik v. Ukraine [judgment], which called a lack of safeguards during police custody a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF]. French lawyers and human rights groups have demanded that all suspects in police custody be given the right to see a lawyer immediately and access to a lawyer during interrogation, as well as be informed of their right to remain silent.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] Friday denied [order, PDF] the state of Arizona's request for an expedited appeal to lift the preliminary injunction issued Wednesday against several provisions of a controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive]. The court set a briefing schedule with the opening brief due August 26 and the answering brief due September 23, and scheduled a hearing to occur the week of November 1. No extensions will be granted "absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances." The court indicated [response to motion, PDF] that Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3(b) [text], governing preliminary injunction appeals, should set the appropriate time frame for the appeal. On Thursday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] filed an expedited appeal [JURIST report] asking the court to establish a timeline for briefs, with the opening brief due August 12, the response brief due August 26, and schedule oral arguments for the week of September 13.

The preliminary injunction [JURIST report], issued Wednesday, came at the request of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], which filed its suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] earlier this month. Judge Susan Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation, and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional and allegedly legalizing racial profiling. Also in July, the American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website]. In the brief filed in support of the US, the ABA argued that the Arizona law would interfere with law enforcement officers' public safety functions and infringe on both citizens' and noncitizens' constitutional rights by placing upon them the burden of proving their citizenship.

[JURIST] The US Securities and Exchange Commission [government website] announced Thursday that it has charged Citigroup Inc. [official website] with misleading investors about the company's exposure to sub-prime mortgage-related assets and settled with the company [press release; litigation release] for $75 million. The SEC alleged [complaint, PDF] that Citigroup "repeatedly made misleading statements about the extent of its holdings of assets backed by sub-prime in earnings calls and public filings." Citigroup represented that its sub-prime exposure was $13 billion or less, when it was more than $50 billion at all times, which SEC officials say contributed to the economic crisis.

The 2007 sub-prime mortgage crisis [BBC backgrounder] was precipitated by banks switching from funding mortgage loans through customer deposits to a new model where they sold the mortgages to bond markets, resulting in the banks being having less incentive to check the mortgages they issued. Earlier this month, the US House of Representatives voted 237 to 192 to approve the final version of financial reform legislation [HR 4173 materials], which focuses on increasing regulation in the financial sector. The House and Senate reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the final version of the bill, but were forced to re-open negotiations following the death of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (WV) [official website] in order to ensure the bill's final passage in the Senate.