In the consolidated cases Actavis Elizabeth, LLC v. Mensing, Actavis v. Demahy and PLIVA v. Mensing [oral argument transcript, PDF], the court heard arguments on whether generic drug manufacturers can be held liable for not including more information on a label than mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website]. In the opinion below, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that, just as claims against manufacturers of name-brand drugs are not preempted by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) [materials], claims against manufacturers of generic drugs are similarly not preempted. Petitioners argue mainly that the Hatch-Waxman Act [21 USC § 355] mandates that generic drugs be labeled with the same warnings as name-brand drugs, and thus they cannot be held liable at the state level for a federally-imposed conformity. Because this is an untenable situation, Petitioners argue that federal preemption should apply, and attempted to distinguish this case from the court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine [JURIST report], by saying that, unlike generics, manufacturers of name-brand drugs had the "ability, had the obligation, to ... actually change the label."

The military council announced earlier this week that it will lift the state of emergency [JURIST report] prior to the September parliamentary elections, and that requirements for the registration of political parties have been lessened. The constitutional referendum held earlier this month is considered by some to be a milestone [JURIST comment] for Egypt during its transition to a democratic society following the national uprising [JURIST news archive] against former president Hosni Mubarak [Al Jazeera profile]. Both the National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood supported the amendments to the Egyptian Constitution [text], which included mandating new criteria for potential presidential candidates.

The case against Wilders has suffered a number of setbacks. Prior to their dismissal, the original panel members heard the prosecution's case, which culminated in a request that Wilders be acquitted on all charges [JURIST report]. The prosecutors based their request on determinations that the politician's statements were directed at Islam and not Muslims themselves and additionally, that the evidence failed to establish that he intended to incite violence. The presentment of the prosecution's case followed an order from a panel of Dutch judges to resume the trial after initially rejecting claims of judicial bias [JURIST report]. The trial had previously been suspended [JURIST report] after a lawyer representing Wilders accused one of the judges of making a statement which cast him in an unfavorable light to the jury. Wilders has consistently been an outspoken opponent of immigration, especially that of Muslims, previously announcing [JURIST report] that he would support the current Dutch cabinet in exchange for promises to legislate a curtailment on immigration and a ban on the burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full Islamic veils.

Uthman's account piles coincidence upon coincidence upon coincidence. Here, as with the liable or guilty party in any civil or criminal case, it remains possible that Uthman was innocently going about his business and just happened to show up in a variety of extraordinary places - a kind of Forrest Gump in the war against al Qaeda. But Uthman's account at best strains credulity; and the far more likely explanation for the plethora of damning circumstantial evidence is that he was part of al Qaeda. When presented with similar circumstantial evidence in prior cases, we have had no trouble reaching the conclusion that the detainee more likely than not was part of al Qaeda...So too here.

Federal courts have struggled with habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. In September, Kuwaiti Guantanamo detainee Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah petitioned [text, PDF; JURIST report] the US Supreme Court [official website] to reverse a federal appeals court decision that denied him habeas corpus relief. The DC appeals court denied [text, PDF; JURIST report] habeas corpus relief to al Odah in July. The court affirmed the district court's ruling [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that there was sufficient evidence against al Odah for him to be considered "part of" al Qaeda and Taliban forces. In August, the DC district court released a partially redacted opinion [text, PDF] ordering the release [JURIST report] of Yemeni Guantanamo Bay detainee Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif [NYT profile] for lack of evidence.

Evidence shows that minorities are targeted for abortion and that sex-selection abortion is also occurring in our country. There is no place for such discrimination and inequality in human society. Sex-selection and race-selection abortions are elective procedures that do not in any way implicate a woman's health. The purpose of this legislation is to protect unborn children from prenatal discrimination in the form of being subjected to abortion based on the child's sex or race by prohibiting sex-selection or race-selection abortions.

Several state legislatures have recently passed restrictions on abortions. Last week, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard [official website] signed [JURIST report] HB 1217 into law, requiring women to seek counseling at a pregnancy center and wait three days before obtaining an abortion. Also in March, the Missouri House of Representatives [official website] voted in favor of legislation restricting late-term abortions [JURIST report] and imposing penalties on doctors who fail to comply with the new restrictions. The legislation, which is slated to become effective at the end of August, bans abortions of "viable" fetuses. The Oklahoma House of Representatives [official website] voted in March to approve a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation [JURIST report]. Last month, the Kansas House of Representatives [official website] also approved several new restrictions on abortion [JURIST report].

Ozanne is the second public official to mount a legal challenge to the bill, following a similar suit [complaint, PDF] filed earlier this month by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk [official profile]. Falk's suit came immediately after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker [official website] signed the bill into law [JURIST report] earlier in the month. The provisions limiting bargaining rights incensed unions and their supporters, sparking protests which have been ongoing since February 15, when SB 11 was introduced to address the state's $3.6 billion deficit. Earlier this month, a Wisconsin judge ruled that the state capitol building must remain open [JURIST report] to the public during business hours, despite an attempt to close the building to protesters who had occupied it as part of a protest against the proposed restrictions on collective bargaining. The Wisconsin State Employees Union Council 24 [advocacy website] filed the petition earlier in the day in reaction to Walker ordering the capitol building closed and removing protesters.

Piracy near the continent of Africa has become an increasingly serious problem for private shipowners and many nations. An increasing number of nations have been willing to prosecute pirates captured in international waters. In January, the UN Secretary-General's special adviser on maritime piracy Jack Lang [official profile] proposed an international piracy court [JURIST report]. Earlier this month, US federal courts convicted and indicted [JURIST reports] two sets of Somali pirates. In February, Malaysia charged several suspected pirates [JURIST report]. A German court began the trial [JURIST report] of 10 suspected Somali pirates in that country's first piracy trial in 400 years in November. A Yemeni court sentenced [JURIST report] a group of 10 Somali pirates to five years in prison. Prior to these and other nations trying suspected pirates, Kenya was conducting the bulwark of piracy trials. However, the high court of Mombasa ruled that Kenya does not have jurisdiction [JURIST report] outside of its national waters, releasing nine suspected Somali pirates.

As leader of the Interahamwe, a Hutu paramilitary group, Gatete was found responsible for the massacre of 6,000 Tutsis who had taken refuge in Kiziguro and Mukarange Churches, as well as ordering the widespread rape of women in the parishes. Gatete was arrested [UN News Centre report] in the Republic of Congo in September 2002 and was transferred by Congolese authorities to the UN detention facility in Arusha, Tanzania. In accordance with the completion strategy [text, PDF] of the ICTR, the prosecution requested to transfer Gatete to the national jurisdiction of Rwanda, but the request was denied in November 2008. The ICTR has received criticism for its refusal to transfer cases to Rwanda. Rwandan Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga addressed [press release] the UN Security Council [official website] in June and stated that the ICTR's decision not to transfer pending cases to Rwandan jurisdiction, including Gatete, undermined his country's judicial reforms and hindered national reconciliation.