 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, September 9, 2010 |
 |
|


California high court refuses to order state appeal of same-sex marriage ruling
Zach Zagger on September 9, 2010 3:08 PM ET

[JURIST] The California Supreme Court [official website] on Wednesday denied a request from a conservative group to order Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown [official profiles] to appeal the federal court ruling that struck down the controversial ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive]. The request was brought by the Pacific Justice Institute [advocacy website] in an attempt to force a state government appeal [San Francisco Chronicle report] of last month's federal court ruling [JURIST report] that found Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, unconstitutional. The supreme court denied the request without a hearing and offered no explanation for its decision. A judge for the 3rd District Court of Appeal [official website] declined [JURIST report] a similar request last week. The requests have raised questions of whether anyone has standing to defend Proposition 8 in court. PCJ argues [press release] that the governor and attorney general have a state constitutional duty to defend Prop 8 because it was a "voter-approved affirmation of traditional marriage." The deadline for the governor and the attorney general to appeal the reversal of Proposition 8 is September 11.
Last month, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] issued a stay [JURIST report] of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision overturning Proposition 8 pending appeal. Earlier last month, Walker held that the same-sex marriage ban violated the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the US Constitution, but immediately stayed the ruling. Schwarzenegger, Brown and others filed motions [JURIST report] opposing the stay request, which led to Walker's refusal to issue a stay pending appeal. Schwarzenegger and Brown were originally defendants in the lawsuit against Proposition 8, and their refusal to oppose the stay request left defendant-intervenors Protect Marriage [advocacy website] and other groups to defend the law. The remaining defendant-intervenors have indicated they will, if necessary, appeal the case to the US Supreme Court.


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

|

Federal appeals court temporarily lifts stem cell research ban
Zach Zagger on September 9, 2010 2:03 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Obama administration's request for an emergency stay [order, PDF] Thursday, lifting the ban on stem cell research [JURIST news archive]. The Obama administration sought the stay Wednesday after Judge Royce Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] on Tuesday denied [order, PDF; JURIST report] a motion to stay his preliminary injunction [order, PDF; JURIST report] issued in August. The appeals court granted the temporary stay so it could have "sufficient opportunity to consider the merits" of the Obama's administration's emergency motion for stay. The court ordered the appellees to respond to the emergency motion by September 14, and the Obama administration has until September 20 to reply.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration appealed [JURIST report] the injunction, arguing that Lamberth's ruling was overbroad, endangering an array of research across multiple programs and centers while only serving a very attenuated economic interest of the plaintiffs in the case. According to the filing, the injunction threatens 24 research projects, more than 1,300 jobs and $64 million in funding, as well as potentially millions of Americans who may benefit from medical advances in the field of stem cell research. Last year, President Barack Obama signed an executive order [JURIST report] permitting federal funding for some forms of embryonic stem cell research. Despite the executive order, Lambert held that evidence showed that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prevail based on existing law.


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

|

Guatemala judge orders soldiers to stand trial for peasant massacre
Andrea Bottorff on September 9, 2010 10:51 AM ET

[JURIST] A Guatemalan judge ruled Wednesday that three soldiers charged in connection with a 1982 peasant massacre [JURIST news archive] that left more than 260 dead will face trial. Of the 17 soldiers accused of committing crimes against humanity during the 1960-1996 Guatemalan civil war [GlobalSecurity backgrounder], three were captured in Guatemala [Reuters report] and four others have been detained in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website] for illegally concealing [JURIST report] their past military service and involvement in the killings on US immigration forms. The charges against the soldiers are based on the findings of a Truth Commission investigation [materials] monitored by the UN and completed in the late 1990s, which uncovered vast human rights abuses [report text]. The trials are the first for massacre crimes committed during the civil war years.
Other officials have faced judicial proceedings for crimes committed during the war years. Last December, a retired Guatemalan colonel was sentenced to 53 years in prison [JURIST report] for his role in the disappearance of eight indigenous Guatemalans during the 36-year civil war. In 2005, Guatemala formally apologized [JURIST report] for the government-ordered peasant massacre that occurred in July 1982, where special forces soldiers are accused of killing 268 men, women and children of mostly Mayan descent in the village Dos Erres. Vice President Eduardo Stein made the acknowledgment in a small town north of Guatemala City, expressing remorse for the army's action that "wipe[d] out an entire community." The apology came in response to an order [press release] from the Inter-American Human Rights Court, part of the Organization of American States [official website], requiring an apology and payments to survivors totaling almost $8 million.


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

|

Prominent Iran human rights lawyer detained
Jay Carmella on September 9, 2010 10:01 AM ET

[JURIST] A prominent Iranian human rights lawyer has been detained for allegedly spreading propaganda and colluding against national security, her family said Wednesday. Nasrin Sotoudeh, who is most widely known for representing political activists following the controversial 2009 presidential election [JURIST news archive], was summoned to an Iranian prison [BBC report] last week and has not returned home. Her home and office were raided [RFE/RL report] by Iranian officials in August. Several international groups strongly oppose the Iranian government's decision to detain Sotoudeh, including Reporters Without Borders (RSF) [advocacy website], which issued a statement condemning [text] the government's action and praising Sotoudeh for her work defending political prisoners.
Sotoudeh has worked on several high-profile cases. She was the lawyer for Arash Rahmanipour, who was arrested for his role in the post-election protests on charges of mohareb, which means being enemies of God. Rahmanipour was executed [JURIST report] in January. Sotoudeh also represented Isa Saharkhiz [Iran Press profile], a well-known press activist who was sentenced [JURIST report] to four years in prison in 2006 for publishing articles against the constitution and offending the state media. Iran continues to be scrutinized internationally for human rights violations. In March, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] criticized [JURIST report] the state of human rights in Iran while presenting her annual report. Pillay condemned Iran for the "arbitrary arrest" of, and "harsh sentences, including capital punishment" given to, individuals involved in protests following the presidential elections.


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

|

Somali piracy suspect pleads guilty in DC federal court
Erin Bock on September 9, 2010 8:25 AM ET

[JURIST] A Somali man pleaded guilty [press release, PDF] on Wednesday to piracy [JURIST news archive] charges stemming from an attack on a Danish ship carrying cargo from a Texas-based company. Jama Idle Ibrahim pleaded guilty in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] to "conspiracy to commit piracy under the law of nations and conspiracy to use a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence." Ibrahim and other Somalis attacked the MV/CEC Future in the Gulf of Aden in November 2008. The group, armed with handguns, rocket propelled grenades and AK 47s, seized the ship and held the crew for ransom off of the Somalia coast for a total of 71 days until the ship's owner paid the ransom amount. The plea agreement states that the parties agree a 25-year prison sentence is appropriate, which is the maximum total penalty for the offensesfive years for conspiracy and 20 for firearm conspiracy. US Attorney Ronald Machen, Jr. said the charges should be viewed as a deterrent to others considering piracy attacks. "Violent acts of piracy on the high seas disrupt international trade and put human life at risk. These charges should serve as an unmistakable warning to others thinking of launching pirate attacks. Crimes on open waters in faraway oceans will be punished in an American courtroom." No sentencing date has been scheduled at this time. Ibrahim's plea marks the first plea for a piracy-related offense in the District of Columbia.
Ibrahim was charged with the offenses related to the MV/CEC Future last month, the same day he pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] to charges relating to his role in the April 2010 attack on the USS Ashland. Earlier last month, a judge for that court dismissed piracy charges [JURIST report] against Ibrahim and five other Somali men, determining that the men did not satisfy the definition of piracy under the law of nations because they fired on the ship and did not board or take control of the vessel. Several other suspected Somali pirates have faced charges in federal court this year. A Somali man charged with piracy pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in May to charges related to an April 2009 attack on the US container ship Maersk Alabama. Piracy remains an issue of international concern, as few countries have been willing to prosecute suspected pirates. The few that have attempted to do so include Kenya, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia and Spain [JURIST reports]. According to a report issued earlier this year, 2009 marked the worst year for maritime piracy [JURIST report] with 406 reported incidents.


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

|

Pakistan police arrest 3 in connection with Times Square bomb plot
Daniel Richey on September 9, 2010 7:44 AM ET

[JURIST] Pakistani police announced Wednesday the arrest of three men suspected of helping Faisal Shahzad [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] plan and fund his failed May attempt to detonate a bomb in New York City's Times Square. Officials said that the young Pakistani citizens, Shahid Hussain, Shoaib Mughal and Humba Akhtar, who were arrested following a long-running investigation, confessed their involvement to police and are being charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. The men reportedly provided Shahzad with more than USD $13,000 and arranged for him to meet and train with Hakimullah Mehsud [NYT profile], the head of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) [CTC Sentinel backgrounder], the Pakistani arm of the Taliban terrorist group. The suspects are reputed to have close ties to Mehsud.
Shahzad pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to 10 counts of terrorism and weapons charges [indictment, PDF] in June, telling the US court that he was a Muslim soldier [Al Jazeera report] and that his actions were an act of war. Earlier this month, the US State Department (DOS) [official website] declared TTP a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) [press release, PDF] as the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] announced it was bringing charges [JURIST report] against Mehsud in connection to a December 2009 attack on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] outpost Camp Chapman in Afghanistan. The TTP has been implicated in or claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist acts, including multiple assaults on NATO supply lines in Pakistan's tribal region, a 2009 attack on a police station in the Bannu province and the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto [JURIST report]. Despite rumors of his death [NYT report], the DOJ considers Mehsud a fugitive at large.


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

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