A federal judge in November sentenced Jama Idle Ibrahim, a Somali citizen, to 30 years in prison after he pleaded guilty [JURIST reports] for his role in an April attach on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. Ibrahim still faces additional sentencing after pleading guilty [JURIST report] in the District of Columbia to charges relating to a 2008 attack on the M/V CEC Future. A week earlier, a federal jury in Virginia convicted [JURIST report] five Somali men on charges of piracy for their roles in an April attack on the USS Nichols. In August, piracy charges against Ibrahim and five other defendants were dismissed [JURIST report] when federal Judge Raymond Jackson ruled that piracy, as defined by the law of nations, does not include violence or aggression committed on the high seas, and rejected the government's argument for an expanded reading of the statute. 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 Germany, Kenya, Seychelles, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Yemen, Somalia and Spain [JURIST reports].

Kennedy also authored Wednesday's opinion [text, PDF] in Premo v. Moore [Cornell LII backgrounder], which reversed a Ninth Circuit grant of habeas relief [opinion, PDF] for ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent Randy Moore filed the petition for relief on the basis that defense counsel failed to move to suppress a confession that may have been obtained illegally prior to advising him to accept a plea agreement. In an 8-0 decision, the court again applied the Strickland standard, holding that the defense counsel's representation was objectively reasonable. The court stated that it was reasonable for the state court to accept the defense counsel's explanation that a motion to suppress would have been pointless in light of additional admissible statements of guilt by Moore. The court also rejected the Ninth Circuit's application of Arizona v. Fulminante [opinion text] to the instant case, stating that Fulminante cannot be read as applying to the Strickland standard of effectiveness of counsel. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion in the case. Kagan took no part in the decision.

The September parliamentary elections irregularities have raised doubts over the ability of the Afghan government to lead. In November, the Afghanistan Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) [official website] disqualified 21 candidates [JURST report] for electoral fraud after finding widespread voting irregularities in 12 provinces. Of the disqualified candidates, 19 had either won or were leading in their districts, seven of which were incumbents, and two were second place finishers in districts where the first place finisher was also disqualified. In October, the Independent Elections Commission (IEC) [official website] invalidated 1.3 million votes [JURIST report], nearly a quarter of the 5.6 million votes cast nationwide, due to findings of fraud. The IEC found that the 2,543 polling stations where the votes had been cast did not follow IEC procedures. The 2009 presidential election [JURIST news archive] of Karzai was also marred by fraud allegations, leading to attempts by the government [JURIST report] to reform the ECC.

Their [universities'] holistic approach is part of a forward-looking effort to obtain the educational benefits of diversity. The look to race as but one element of this further goal, coupled with individualized consideration, steers university admissions away from a quota system. Grutter teaches that so long as a university considers race in a holistic and individualized manner, and not as part of a quota or fixed-point system, courts must afford a measure of deference to the university's good faith determination that certain race-conscious measures are necessary to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, including attaining critical mass in minority enrollment.

Affirmative action continues to be a controversial issue. In August, the Supreme Court of California [official website] held that a state ban on preferential hiring practices for minorities and women does not violate [JURIST report] the federal Constitution [text]. In April 2009, California Attorney General Jerry Brown [official website] said [opinion letter, PDF] that portions of Proposition 209 [text], an amendment to the California Constitution [text] banning the use of affirmative action for state hiring, contracting, or university admission, may violate the US Constitution [JURIST report]. In November 2008, Colorado voters narrowly rejected [JURIST report] a ballot measure [Amendment 46 text and materials] to prohibit governmental agencies from discriminating or granting preferences on the basis of race and sex. A nearly identical measure passed [JURIST report] in Nebraska. In 2006, Michigan voters approved [JURIST report] a similar state constitutional amendment, which was upheld [JURIST report] in March 2008 by a federal district judge in a lawsuit alleging that such an affirmative action ban violated the US Constitution.

The case arose in 2007 when NASA [official website] began requiring background checks for all contract employees, including low-risk employees at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) [official website]. A group of 28 employees filed suit seeking an injunction, but their claims were rejected by the District Court. Counsel for NASA argued, "the background checks' mere collection of information with accompanying safeguards vitiates no constitutional privacy interest. These checks have been going on for millions of employees for dozens of years. They are part of the employment process. They are manifestly not roving checks on random individuals." Counsel for the respondents argued that the background checks violate their rights under the Fifth Amendment.

"Personal," yes, can indeed apply to corporations sometimes; but there are certain phrases where it certainly does not. For example, you talk about personal characteristics. That doesn't mean the characteristics of General Motors. You talk about personal qualities. It doesn't mean the qualities of General Motors. You talk about a point of personal privilege. It's not a privilege of a corporation. And I think personal privacy is the same thing.

In Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether a federal court can utilize common law to provide a private cause of action under a federal statute that provides no such right. Under the Public Health Service Act [42 USC § 256b], drug manufacturers must enter into contracts with the federal government that restrict the price that those manufacturers can charge to providers through the Medicaid system. The statute is silent on the topic of a private cause of action, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal common law does in fact provide a cause of action under contract law where a third party beneficiary is injured by the drug manufacturer's breach. Astra argues [brief, PDF] that only Congress can provide a cause of action under a federal statute, and that this circumvention of Congressional intent will disrupt the statutory scheme and the Medicaid system. The county argues [brief, PDF] that as third-party beneficiaries, health care providers are entitled to enforce contracts and that such enforcement is necessary given the lack of oversight by the Federal government. During the course of the argument, counsel for Astra engaged in an exchange with Justice Stephen Breyer, which seemingly advanced the county's argument that private enforcement is needed,

JUSTICE BREYER: So what is Santa Clara County supposed do? They think they're being overcharged. And in your opinion -- the company doesn't, but they do. So what are they supposed to do if they're right? How do they get the money ... I'm interested in procedurally what are they supposed to do?
MS. BLATT: Oh, pick up the phone and either call the manufacturer, the prime vendor -
JUSTICE BREYER: The manufacturer says: Okay, you're wrong; I'm not; I'm undercharging you. Now what happens?
MS. BLATT: Ultimately, if they can't get the Secretary to -
JUSTICE BREYER: He's busy.
MS. BLATT: If she's busy and won't return the calls, Congress said: You can't enforce it.

Hudson's ruling marked the first time a court struck down part of the health care legislation despite numerous legal challenges. Also in December, a judge for the US District Court for the District of New Jersey [official website] granted a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit [case materials] brought by a physician organization challenging the law, and a similar challenge filed by Liberty University [academic website] was dismissed [JURIST report] by a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia [official website]. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] denied a motion to dismiss [JURIST report] a lawsuit brought by a group of attorneys general challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. The lawsuit [complaint, PDF], filed in March and joined by more than 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, committed by levying a tax without regard to census data, property or profession, and for invading the sovereignty of the states. A week earlier, a federal judge in Michigan ruled [JURIST report] 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.

This report reveals extraordinary levels of state and military violence against civilian populations, and many of the violations that we surveyed may constitute crimes against humanity. . .These findings demand not only attention, but action by all who are concerned with Burma's peoples, their well-being, and Burma's future.

PHR's report comes after heavy criticism of Myanmar by both international organizations and human rights groups. In December 2010, a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] expert urged [JURIST report] Myanmar's military government to release 2,202 political prisoners. The UN official called for the release of the "prisoners of conscience," claiming many of them suffered from health problems as a result of the harsh detention conditions. In September 2010, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the government of Myanmar to release all political prisoners ahead of the nation's November elections. Prior to the country's elections, opposition party leader Aung San Suu Kyi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] was placed under house arrest. Her detention and previous exclusion from the election drew criticism from the UN and various rights groups.

Nizeyimana is alleged to have planned, incited to commit, ordered, committed, or in some other way aided and abetted the planning, preparation of executions he is charged with. He is also alleged to have known, or had reason to know, that his subordinates were preparing to commit or had committed one or more of the crimes and failed to take the necessary and reasonable measurers (sic) to prevent the said acts from being committed or to punish those who were responsible.

Nizeyimana was one of four top accused sought by the ICTR in order to complete its mission. The UN Security Council [official website] has extended the terms [JURIST report] for ICTR judges until they complete their cases. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has pledged his ongoing support [JURIST report] for the ICTR and stresses that the international community must continue to combat genocide. The ICTR was established to try genocide suspects for crimes occurring during the 1994 Rwandan conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in which approximately 800,000 people, primarily Tutsis, died.

In December, the war crimes court began trying four members the 10th Sabotage Detachment [press release] for genocide for their actions at Branjevo Farm after indicting them [JURIST report] last August. Also in December, the war crimes court found four policemen guilty [JURIST report] of killing Muslim civilians during the Bosnian Civil War, handing them sentences ranging from 15 to 27 years in prison. In November, a suspected war criminal was arrested [JURIST report] in connection with the Srebrenica massacre. The Prosecutors Office for BiH [official website] announced that Dragan Crnogorac was arrested on suspicion for having committed genocide under Article 171 of the BiH criminal code [text, PDF]. In August, Spanish officials extradited accused Montenegrin war criminal [JURIST report] Veselin Vlahovic,known as the "monster of Grbavica," to Sarajevo. He is wanted on three international arrest warrants, including one for the rape, torture and murder of more than 100 women and children and is expected to face genocide charges before the country's war war crimes court.

Tuesday's decision affirmed a 2009 ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website]. The CIA released redacted versions [JURIST report] of the transcripts in June 2009. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to review its 2008 decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] allowing the government to withhold the transcripts in light of subsequent developments, including Barack Obama's executive orders to end the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and close Guantanamo Bay as well as the government's decision to declassify memos [JURIST reports] related to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. The ACLU filed suit [complaint, PDF] in 2008 asking the court to compel the government to release the information.

Last February, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland [official website, in French] announced that $4.6 million seized from Duvalier's Swiss bank account must be returned to his family [JURIST report]. The decision came after the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland [official website, in French] rejected the family's claim to Duvalier's money, which was hidden in Swiss banks during his tenure as president. In 2007, Haitian president Rene Preval [BBC profile] vowed to continue legal proceedings [JURIST report] against Duvalier despite the latter's plea for forgiveness in a recorded message broadcast around the country. Duvalier, also known as "Baby Doc," is the son of former Haitian leader Francois Duvalier, or "Papa Doc," whom he succeeded as "president for life." In response to accusations of human rights violations, Duvalier fled Haiti in 1986, and has since resided in France.