Burns was appointed [JURIST report] to hear Loughner's case one day after all federal judges in Arizona recused themselves [AP report] from the case following an order from US District Judge Roslyn Silver advising on the impartiality pitfalls that would be implicated if the case were heard by an Arizona federal judge. Federal prosecutors charged Loughner [JURIST report] with murder and attempted murder for his role in the Arizona shooting attack [NYT backgrounder]. Loughner was indicted in January and pleaded not guilty [JURIST reports] President Barack Obama has directed that the investigation into the shooting be conducted [press release] by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) [official website] and coordinated by Director Robert Mueller [official profile].

Nowhere does the MMMA state that the statute regulates private employment, that private employees are protected from disciplinary action should they use medical marijuana, or that private employers must accommodate the use of medical marijuana outside of the workplace. Under Plaintiff's theory, no private employer in Michigan could take any action against an employee based on an employee's use of medical marijuana. This would create a new protected employee class in Michigan and mark a radical departure from the general rule of at-will employment in Michigan.

Courts have been forced to interpret state medical marijuana statutes in recent years. In January 2010, the California Supreme Court [official website] overturned [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] a 2003 law limiting the amount of marijuana that may be possessed under the state's Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) [materials]. Earlier that month, New Jersey became the fourteenth US state [JURIST report] to legalize medical marijuana. In November, voters in Maine approved [JURIST report] an expansion of the state's existing medical marijuana laws, making Maine the fifth state to allow dispensaries, following California, Colorado, Rhode Island, and New Mexico. California's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in 2008 that the MMP is not in conflict with the Supremacy Clause [JURIST report], and does not violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The City provides a comprehensive emergency preparedness program to the general public but it denies individuals with disabilities meaningful access to the program while the benefits of the program remain open and easily accessible to other residents. Because of the City’s failure to address their unique needs, individuals with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to harm in the event of an emergency or disaster. The City's practice of failing to address the needs of individuals with disabilities discriminates against such individuals by denying them meaningful access to the City's emergency preparedness program.

This federal class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of all people with disabilities in Los Angeles, which is estimated to be around 800,000 individuals. The complaint was filed in January 2009 by Audrey Harthorn and a nonprofit independent living center located in downtown Los Angeles, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free [official website]. The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates [official website] and the Disability Rights Legal Center [official website]. Advocates stated that the need for a plan encompassing the disabled was highlighted during Hurricane Katrina, as mortality rates among the disabled and seniors were drastically disproportionate.

The treatment meted out to Shaker Aamer has made a total mockery of justice. It’s been nine years without charges, without a trial and, in many ways, without much hope for Shaker, and we are determined to see his basic human rights restored. Now there could be light at the end of the tunnel for Shaker. Thousands of people on both sides of the Atlantic have recently called on senior UK and US politicians to break the deadlock over his case...Given the time involved, the lengthy spells in solitary confinement and the torture allegedly used against him, Shaker Aamer’s plight has been one of the worst of all the detainees held at Guantanamo. There are strong humanitarian and human rights grounds for the UK government to step up its efforts to secure a fair trial or a safe release for Shaker.

In November AI urged [JURIST report] the US and the UK to work towards the release [press release] of Aamer. Allen called on Foreign Secretary William Hague and US officials to give a specific timetable for Aamer's release. The Hague and the US have been in discussions over Aamer's release, but no formal indications of a release have been made. The UK agrees that if Aamer is released, they will be wiling to accept him, as they did with former detainee Binyam Mohammed [JURIST report]. Aamer is one of 16 Guantanamo Bay detainees for whom the UK government recently announced a settlement [JURIST report] agreement for allegations of torture. Those allegations prompted the UK to launch an investigation into torture allegations in May, as well as issue a ruling that state intelligence agencies cannot use secret evidence [JURIST reports] in their defense against abuse. Aamer has been described as an activist within Guantanamo, negotiating with US military officials over camp conditions and organizing hunger strikes when conditions did not improve.