Last year the US Senate [official website] defeated a resolution [materials] aimed at limiting the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions [JURIST report] under the Clean Air Act. The measure, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) [official website], was defeated by a vote of 53 to 47 with six Democratic senators joining the Republican caucus in supporting the measure. The US Supreme Court affirmed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions under the Clear Air Act in its 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report]. In its ruling, the court held that if the EPA could show a link between greenhouse gas emissions and public health and welfare then the act gives it the power to regulate emissions. The EPA announced last December [JURIST report] that it had found that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations," and that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to greenhouse gas pollution.

In Sykes v. United States [SCOTUSblog materials; argument transcript], the Court will determine whether fleeing from law enforcement in a vehicle after being ordered to stop is a violent felony within the meaning of the ACCA. The petitioner, Marcus Sykes, faced an enhanced penalty under the ACCA for his third conviction of a violent felony after the District Court denied his objection that categorizing flight as a violent felony was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Chambers v. United States [opinion, PDF], which held that failing to report for parole was separate and distinct from escaping from a penal institution, and thus outside of the category of violent felonies listed in the ACCA. Petitioner's argument relied on the same distinction made in Chambers, namely that fleeing from police is a distince category of flight under the relevant Indiana statute [Indiana Code § 35-44-3], and that category falls outside of crimes considered violent felonies for the purposes of the ACCA. The Court will revisit the ACCA later in this term when it hears argument in McNeill v. United States [JURIST report].

Because we find, as set forth below, that the agency did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have placed the appellant on administrative leave and removed her in the absence of her disclosures, and that the agency would in fact have taken no action against the appellant in the absence of her protected disclosures, we need not address whether removal is a reasonable penalty in light of the dismissal of charge two by the court.

In 2005 Chambers filed a complaint [text, PDF; JURIST report] against the DOI claiming that it illegally destroyed documents regarding her employment as Chief of Police of the US Park Police Force. Chambers claimed that the performance evaluations, which would show that the charges relating to her December 2003 forced resignation were fabricated, have been destroyed. Chambers initially filed a complaint in January 2004 with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) [official website] alleging that her placement on administrative leave constituted reprisal. The administrative judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and Chambers subsequently petitioned for judicial review with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website].

The proceedings mark the third time an immunity law protecting Berlusconi has been submitted to constitutional review. Laws submitted to the Constitutional Court in January 2004 and in October 2009 [JURIST reports] were both determined to be unconstitutional. In April 2010, Italian prosecutors sought to indict Berlusconi [JURIST report] on fraud and embezzlement charges involving his media company. The law granting Berlusconi immunity was approved [JURIST report] by the Chamber of Deputies [official website, in Italian] in February. In January, hundreds of Italy's judges walked out of their courtrooms to protest the passage of legislation that placed strict time limits [JURIST reports] on the trial and appeals process. Both laws have been criticized as being tailored for Berlusconi's benefit. He currently faces corruption and tax fraud trials, both of which have been postponed [JURIST report]. The leader has been previously acquitted of false accounting and bribery, and has had other charges against him dropped [JURIST reports].

Washington's ballot contains a prominent, unambiguous, explicit statement that a candidate's party preference does not imply a nomination, endorsement, or association with the political party. The ballot repeatedly states that candidates merely "prefer" the designated parties. Ballot inserts and the Voters' Pamphlet further explain the new system. Washington employed a widespread education campaign via various media outlets to inform voters about the new system. And Washington voters themselves, not simply their elected representatives, approved I-872.

California is considering a similar "top-two" approach for primary elections. California congressional candidates and voters filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in July 2010 seeking to enjoin enforcement [motion, PDF] of Proposition 14 [text], which alters the primary election system, creating an open primary where only the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election. Proposition 14, based largely on the system used in Washington, was approved by voters [JURIST report] in June 2010 and changes elections to create a system in which all candidates for a state or federal office except for president would run in a single primary regardless of political affiliation. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Washington's primary election system [JURIST report] as constitutional against a First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] challenge, overturning a contrary decision by the Ninth Circuit. Louisiana has a similar system, but, under that system, a candidate who garners over 50 percent of the vote in the primary will forgo the general election.

Controversy has surrounded the use of the death penalty in the US. On Tuesday, Illinois' state senate voted to abolish the death penalty [JURIST report] in that state after the Illinois House voted to do the same [JURIST report] last Friday. It is not clear, however, whether Illinois Governor Pat Quinn will sign the bill into law. Last August, the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia [official website] heard a habeas petition from Troy Davis who was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering an off-duty Savannah, Georgia, police officer. In a rare move, the federal court heard the habeas petition after Davis had exhausted his state remedies under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [text], but the court sided against Davis saying that he failed to prove his innocence. Law Offices of the Southern Center for Human Rights [advocacy website] Executive Director Sarah Totonchi argues [JURIST commentary] that "'Troy Davis' case illustrates that U.S. courts simply cannot provide the certainty necessary to impose an irreversible punishment; therefore the death penalty must be abolished."

The death penalty remains a controversial issue worldwide. According to an Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] report [text, PDF; JURIST report], the number of countries using the death penalty dropped in 2009, but more than 700 people were executed in 18 countries, with the most executions carried out in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US. Last August, US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia [official website] heard a habeas petition from Troy Davis, who was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering an off-duty Savannah, Georgia police officer. In a rare move, the federal court heard the habeas petition after Davis had exhausted his state remedies under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [text], but the court sided against Davis saying that he failed to prove his innocence. Law Offices of the Southern Center for Human Rights [official website] Executive Director Sarah Totonchi argues [JURIST commentary] said that "Troy Davis' case illustrates that US courts simply cannot provide the certainty necessary to impose an irreversible punishment; therefore the death penalty must be abolished."

Blasphemy laws were introduced in 1986 as a way of protecting Muslim beliefs from insults, however, critics argue that they have recently been used to persecute those of minority faith, an argument that has had serious consequences. Last week, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Salman Taseer, was shot and killed [JURIST report] by one of his own security guards, apparently because of his opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law. Further controversy surrounding Pakistan's blasphemy law has recently been reignited over the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad during an argument with other women in her village last year.

...[the] obvious and common-sense inference that a terrorist leader like Abu Zubaydah would not tolerate an unknown and untrusted stranger to dwell in a modest, two-story guesthouse for two weeks with himself and ten or so of his senior leadership, while they are preparing for their next operation against US and Allied forces...

The district court has ruled in favor of the government in 20 habeas corpus cases [JURIST news archive], while Guantanamo detainees have prevailed in 38. In July, the court granted the habeas petition [JURIST report] of Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif [NYT profile] and ordered his immediate release. A court of appeals a week earlier overturned a decision granting habeas relief [JURIST report] to detainee Mohammed al-Adahi, ruling that the evidence, viewed as a whole, supported the conclusion that al-Adahi was part of al Qaeda. Last month, lawyers for Abu Zubaydah asked Polish prosecutors to investigate claims that he was abused [JURIST report] in a secret CIA prison [JURIST news archive] in the country.

On Monday, federal prosecutors charged Jared Loughner [criminal complaint, PDF; JURIST report] with murder and attempted murder for his role in Saturday's attack. The Westboro Baptist church has faced ongoing legislation and litigation over its practice of picketing high-profile and military funerals. In October, the US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in Snyder v. Phelps [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] regarding the extent to which the First Amendment [text] protects picketing at funerals. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that such activity is protected speech, overturning a lower court judgment [JURIST report] awarding almost $11 million to the family of a Marine that filed suit [JURIST report] after Phelps and his church picketed the Marine's funeral. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld [JURIST report] an Ohio law [ORC 3767.30 text] substantially the same as the one passed in Arizona Tuesday.

In Goodyear v. Brown [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the Court heard arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] on whether a company is subject to a state's general personal jurisdiction in a products-liability case if it does not have any connections to the state, but where foreign subsidiaries introduced the product to the forum. The case involves the death of two North Carolina youths in France when a tire made in Turkey failed and the bus in which they were riding crashed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner argued that finding the foreign company subject to a lawsuit in North Carolina would have widespread consequences for other companies:

Under this Court's cases, the mere sale of a defendant's products in a State does not permit the State to reach out to assert judicial power over all that defendant's worldwide conduct. If that were permissible, every significant seller of products would be subject to suit everywhere on any claim arising anywhere.