JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Friday, October 15, 2010




Egypt cancels private permits to broadcast live television
Zach Zagger on October 15, 2010 3:37 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Egypt issued new media restrictions Wednesday that critics say effectively put all live television media, including talk shows and news shows, under government control. The telecommunications regulator cancelled the broadcast permits [Washington Post report] of all private media companies forcing them to apply for new licenses through the state television agency. The measure is part of a series of events that critics argue are meant to stifle the media in the run-up to the November parliamentary and the 2011 presidential elections. State media officials said the restrictions are meant as part of a broader reform on independent media [Reuters report] and not meant to stop free speech.

Earlier this month, Ibrahim Eissa, editor-in-chief and creator of the private daily paper Al-Dustour [official website, in Arabic], was fired [BBC report] after he published an op-ed piece by opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei. In 2008, Eissa was convicted for spreading "rumors" [JURIST report] about the health of Egyptian President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak in an August 2007 report. Egypt's Abbaseyya Appeals Court upheld the conviction [JURIST report] in 2008. In September, it was reported that independent journalist Hamdi Qandeel is expected to go on trial [JURIST report] for allegedly libeling Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abult Gheit [official website]. In 2009, Egypt's Agouza Appeals Court overturned the editors' prison sentences [JURIST report] but upheld their fines. Prior to 2004, Egypt was limited to only state-run media but has since seen a rise in private media.




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


CVS to pay $75 million for failure to control sale of Methamphetamine ingredient
Brian Jackson on October 15, 2010 2:01 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) [official website] announced [press release] Thursday that CVS Pharmacy [corporate website] has agreed to pay a $75 million fine for sales of pseudoephedrine to individuals who used that compound to produce methamphetamine [NIDA backgrounder, PDF]. In addition to the $75 million fine, CVS will also forfeit the profits from those sales, an additional $2.6 million. Under the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005 [materials; summary, PDF], individuals are limited to purchases of 3.6 grams of ephedrine-based compounds per day. According to the DEA, CVS allowed violations of this limit on "thousands" of occasions throughout the Southwestern US. In a statement, CVS said that the lapses that allowed the violations to occur were serious, but that because of improved "handling and monitoring of pseudoephedrine," such lapses would not happen again [press release]. Under the agreement with the DEA, CVS will not face criminal liability for the violations.

The production and use of methamphetamine has become one of the most significant public health issues in the US over the past 40 years. Originally a problem localized to the Western US, an epidemic of use has spread eastward [MSNBC report] over the past decade, bringing with it the associated dangers of production [EPA report, PDF]. As the popularity of methamphetamine has grown, Congress has sought to control proliferation with a number of pieces of legislation, including the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000 [materials], and the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005. With the passage of the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005, pseudoephedrine-containing compounds, such as many cold medications, must be placed behind the counter, where customers cannot access the medications without assistance.




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


DOJ to continue to prosecute drug crimes regardless of California vote: AP
Brian Jackson on October 15, 2010 1:07 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] has said the Department of Justice will continue to enforce the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) [materials] in California even if a state ballot measure legalizing marijuana passes in November, according to a Friday report [text] by the AP. The measure, Proposition 19 [text, PDF], would legalize the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana for those over the age of 21. Holder reportedly made the comments in a letter to former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) [official website]. Proposition 19 initially received strong support, however recent polling indicates that a majority of Californians would vote against its passage [Ipsos poll summary]. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug [DEA drug schedule], meaning it has no medically accepted use, it has a high potential for abuse and it is not considered safe for use, even under supervision. Under federal law, it cannot legally be prescribed by a doctor.

If Proposition 19 is approved by California voters on November 2, California would become the first state to legalize the possession and growth of marijuana. California had previously decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of marijuana under State Senate Bill 1449 [text]. Decriminalization is the process of reducing the punishment for possession of marijuana from a misdemeanor with the possibility of jail time to civil fines and/or mandatory drug education programs. In addition to California, Massachusetts, Oregon, and 10 other states [Boston Globe reports] have decriminalized possession, as has the city of Denver, Colorado.




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


Prosecutors launch tax inquiry against Italy PM Berlusconi
Drew Singer on October 15, 2010 12:25 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Italian prosecutors on Friday launched a tax inquiry against Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] for tax declarations he made in 2003 and 2004 relating to the commercial broadcast company Mediaset [corporate website, in Italian], which Berlusconi founded. Berlusconi is accused of artificially inflating the price of film rights sold to companies that belonged to him, and then selling them back to Mediaset for less money, allowing the company to reduce its revenues and pay less in taxes [AFP report]. Mediaset has denied the allegations.

This is the fourth time Berlusconi has faced allegations of fraud in relation to his Mediaset company. In January, Berlusconi, who was already facing two separate trials on charges of corruption and bribery, was accused of embezzlement and tax fraud [JURIST report]. In March, the Italian Senate [official website, in Italian] gave final approval to a bill [materials, in Italian] that would allow cabinet ministers, including Berlusconi, to postpone criminal proceedings against them on the grounds that they would interfere with official duties. The legislation, passed by a vote of 169-126 [JURIST report] with three members abstaining, allows officials to suspend trials against them for up to 18 months by claiming a "legitimate impediment" to appearing in court.




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


Judge approves settlement of health claims from 9/11 cleanup
Matt Glenn on October 15, 2010 12:15 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on Thursday approved a $47.5 million settlement [order text] between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [official website], which owns the World Trade Center site, and over 9,000 people who claim they became ill from helping with 9/11 [JURIST news archive] rescue and cleanup efforts. The settlement calls for four tiers of claims based on severity of related illnesses with those in the lowest tier receiving $2,000 and those in the highest tier receiving funds "according to their injury classification with adjustment factors." The Port Authority Board of Commissioners and a certain weighted percentage of plaintiffs still must approve the settlement. Lawyers for the Port Authority do not expect the settlement to be finalized [NYT report] this month.

In June, Hellerstein approved a $712.5 million settlement agreement reached earlier that month [JURIST reports] between the city and rescue workers who brought health claims against the city. In 2007, Hellerstein ruled [JURIST report] that the class action lawsuit filed by cleanup workers against the city and the Port Authority could proceed. The lawsuit was filed [JURIST report] in 2004.




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


Obama administration moves to reinstate 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'
Megan McKee on October 15, 2010 10:24 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Obama administration on Thursday asked [stay application, PDF] for a federal judge to stay her order [order, PDF] requiring the US military to end enforcement of its controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy [10 USC § 654; JURIST news archive]. In reaction to the order [JURIST report] by Judge Virginia Phillips of the US District Court of the Central District of California [official website] to halt DADT, which came a little more than a month after the court declared the policy unconstitutional [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], the federal government filled an emergency stay application, a legal memo [text, PDF] in support of it, sworn statements by a pentagon official and a government lawyer [statements, PDF], a proposed stay order [order, PDF], and a formal notice of appeal [appeal notice, PDF] to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The government has given Phillips until Monday to comply, and if she does not, it will ask the Ninth Circuit to delay the order. The legal memo stated that the administration favors the repeal of DADT, and that key military officials share the same position, but that it was the Pentagon's "considered judgment that a precipitous change in policy will immediately and significantly impair the Department's current efforts to devise an orderly end to DADT."

Since its enactment in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of DADT. Last month, a federal judge for the US District for the Western District of Washington [official website] ordered [JURIST report] that a US Air Force officer be reinstated after being previous discharged under DADT. Also in September, the Senate [official website] rejected a cloture motion [JURIST report] on a defense appropriations bill that would have repealed the policy. In May, the House of Representatives [official website] and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.




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


US military judge postpones Khadr trial while lawyers seek deal
Megan McKee on October 15, 2010 9:02 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A US military judge postponed the trial of Canadian Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainee Omar Khadr [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] Thursday while his lawyers attempted to reach a deal exchanging a guilty plea for leniency. The military proceeding was to resume Monday after being suspended [JURIST report] in August, but the judge delayed [Reuters report] the proceedings furthe,r and the tribunal will now resume October 25. Khadr is on trial for allegedly killing a US soldier in Afghanistan with a hand grenade in 2002 when he was 15. If a deal is reached, it will bring an end to the first trial in which an individual was prosecuted in a war crimes tribunal for acts allegedly committed as a juvenile since WWII. If found guilty, Khadr could face a life sentence.

In a ruling [ruling, PDF] released August 21, US military judge Army Colonel Patrick Parrish rejected [JURIST report] claims by Khadr that his confession was a byproduct of torture. Khadr's lawyers had argued [motion, PDF] that his statements were illegally obtained through threats of rape and death by interrogators. The military trial of Khadr was suspended on August 13 following the collapse of his lawyer during opening testimony. The lawyer, Lt.-Colonel Jon Jackson, was airlifted to mainland medical facilities following the collapse, which is attributed to complications from gall bladder surgery. Jackson is Khadr's only lawyer, and is the only member of his defense team authorized to address the court. The collapse occurred during the previous day's opening arguments, in which prosecutors argued that Khadr was a willing al Qaeda operative who had adopted their ideology as his own. Prosecutors introduced video allegedly depicting Khadr making an explosive in Afghanistan and argued that he had proudly confessed to being a member of al Qaeda and to killing a US soldier during his interrogation by US forces. Jackson countered that Khadr was a victim of his father, alleged al Qaeda financier Ahmed Said Khadr, who had taken his son with him to Afghanistan shortly after the US-led invasion. Jackson stated that Khadr's confession was not reliable because it came only after Khadr was told a story of an uncooperative detainee that was imprisoned and raped during incarceration. The trial was conducted with a seven member jury made up of US military officers.




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


Rights group releases inaugural rule of law report
Daniel Makosky on October 15, 2010 8:21 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The World Justice Project (WJP) [advocacy website] released its inaugural report [text, PDF] on Thursday, ranking countries by their adherence to the rule of law. The three-year study categorizes governments based on nine factors, including their level of corruption, rights, clarity of laws and access to judicial remedies. Of the nations with the highest income levels, Sweden ranked first in a majority of the indices, while most US rankings were consistently toward the bottom of both the country's economic and regional classes. The WJP found the rule of law lacking in poorer countries including Pakistan, Kenya and Liberia. The American Bar Association (ABA) [organization website], a co-sponsor of the WJP, emphasized that the report's significance derives in part from its analysis of individual categories [report] based on the real world experiences of those living in the country.

A survey released by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation [advocacy website] earlier this month detailed a decline in the rule of law [JURIST report] and democratic rights amongst African nations. In November, Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, in Spanish] called for greater adherence to the rule of law, stressing [JURIST report] its importance for a flourishing economy and orderly social life. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official profile; JURIST news archive], in an October 2009 speech, reiterated [JURIST report] the need for authorities to abide by the rule of law when conducting investigations into potential terrorist activities as a means of "leading by example."




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


Federal judge allows Florida health care suit to proceed
Daniel Makosky on October 15, 2010 7:15 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss [opinion, PDF] a lawsuit brought by a group of attorneys general challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted health care reform law [HR 3590 text; JURIST news archive]. The lawsuit [complaint, PDF], filed in March and joined by 20 states [JURIST reports] and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) [association website; JURIST report], seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against what it alleges are violations of Article I and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution [text], committed by levying a tax without regard to census data, property or profession, and for invading the sovereignty of the states. The plaintiffs also assert that the law should not be upheld under the Commerce Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder]. In rejecting the motion to dismiss, Judge Roger Vinson described the use of the individual mandate as "unprecedented" and warranting further review. The court also rejected the government's assertion that the suit is improper until the legislation's 2014 effective date, saying that the law's impact is already being felt. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum [official website] called [press release] the ruling "a victory for the States, small businesses and the American people," while the Obama administration reiterated [WH blog] its belief in the legislation's constitutionality.

A federal judge in Michigan ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] last week that the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions, and that it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax. In August, a federal judge allowed a similar lawsuit filed in Virginia to proceed on narrow grounds [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], addressing only subject matter jurisdiction [Cornell LII backgrounder] and the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Several days later, McCollum cited the ruling in his response [JURIST report] to the Obama administration's motion to dismiss [text, PDF] the Florida challenge, filed in June.




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

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


LATEST OP-ED

In Alabama, "Back Door" Restrictions on Abortion and Roe
DOMESTIC
LaJuana Davis
Cumberland School of Law

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org