In the unusual circumstances of this case, principles of agency law and fundamental fairness point to the same conclusion: There was indeed cause to excuse Maples' procedural default. Through no fault of his own, Maples lacked the assistance of any authorized attorney during the 42 days Alabama allows for noticing an appeal from a trial court's denial of post conviction relief. As just observed, he had no reason to suspect that, in reality, he had been reduced to pro se status. Maples was disarmed by extraordinary circumstances quite beyond his control.

An Alabama trial court had dismissed Maples' petition for post-conviction relief and sent notice of this ruling to his out-of-state attorneys, but the notice was returned to the court unopened because the attorneys had changed firms. The court's clerk did not attempt to notify his attorneys again. The clerk did, however, notify Maples' in-state attorney who neither acted nor notified the attorneys who were more directly involved in his case. Maples was convicted of capital murder for killing two people after a night of drinking. He had argued his counsel was ineffective because it failed to present evidence of his intoxication and his drug history, which he believed would have mitigated his sentence. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in October.

Overtly sectarian prayer does not belong in a government meeting. This is the same conclusion that was reached by three separate lower courts who heard our case. The law is now settled, and we are very happy that nobody in Forsyth County will feel like a second-class citizen because of what they believe.

Public prayer has generated a substantial amount of controversy recently. In August, JURIST contributor John Whitehead noted [JURIST op-ed] that the Fourth Circuit's decision in Joyner contradicted precedent establishing that public officials beginning meetings with a prayer is constitutionally permissible. In April the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a constitutional challenge to the National Day of Prayer (NDP) [official website]. The Seventh Circuit's decision overturned a ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] that the NDP was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Congress determined that U.S. interests were best served by our full participation in the dominant system of international copyright protection. Those interests include ensuring exemplary compliance with our international obligations, securing greater protection for U. S. authors abroad, and remedying unequal treatment of foreign authors. The judgment § 514 expresses lies well within the ken of the political branches.

In December 2010, the Supreme Court split 4-4 [JURIST report] on the issue of copyright protection for imported goods. The case presented the question of whether the first-sale doctrine [17 USC § 109(a)], which provides that the owner of any particular copy "lawfully made under this title" may resell that good without the authority of the copyright holder, applies to imported goods manufactured abroad. Because of the split, with Justice Elena Kagan recused, the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods was affirmed, although the decision does not establish controlling precedent.

We recognise that it is not practical for the Inquiry to continue for an indefinite period to wait for the conclusion of the police investigations. The Inquiry has, however, already done a large amount of preliminary work, including the collation of many documents from Government departments and the Security and Intelligence Agencies. We welcome therefore the opportunity to bring together the work we have done to date. The Inquiry will therefore produce a report of our work, highlighting themes which might be subject to further examination.

Last week, the MPS announced that there was not enough evidence to try British intelligence agents [JURIST report] for alleged complicity in the torture of two detainees. They indicated that they could reopen the cases if new information surfaced through the Detainee Inquiry. In the joint statement [text] of the MPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions [official website], they also announced the commencement of two new investigations of torture allegations in Libya. Last March former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] said in a BBC documentary that the UK gave "tacit approval" for torture [JURIST report] of terror suspects. In July 2010 UK Prime Minister David Cameron [official website] announced the creation of the Detainee Inquiry [JURIST report], after Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] the UK government to investigate torture allegations and reaffirm its support for human rights.

Lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo have previously raised concerns with practices used at the prison. Last November, lawyers complained specifically about the infringement on attorney-client privilege [JURIST report] in a letter directed to the attention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs. The attorneys alleged that those working with the JTF-GTMO seize, open, interpret, read and review attorney-client privileged communications, actions which the attorneys argued are unlawful. Also in November J. Wells Dixon, Senior Staff Attorney for the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights, wrote that there is a systematic dysfunction within the bureaucracy of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that impacts the capability of attorneys to adequately represent their clients: "Having traveled to Guantanamo numerous times over many years to meet with men detained there, it comes as no surprise to me that someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy of Guantanamo, ordered a disruptive and ultimately needless examination of legal papers and correspondence kept by detainees, including materials clearly marked as privileged." This month marks the tenth anniversary of detention operations at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report].

The villagization program is taking place in areas where significant land investment is planned and/or occurring. The Ethiopian federal government has consistently denied that the villagization process in Gambella is connected to the leasing of large areas of land for commercial agriculture, but villagers have been told by local government officials that this is an underlying reason for their displacement.

This is not the first time HRW has criticized the actions of the Ethiopian government. Late last year, HRW released a statement criticizing an Ethiopian anti-terrorism law [JURIST report] as "fundamentally flawed and being used to repress legitimate reporting." HRW made the statement after two Swedish journalists were convicted [Bloomberg report] of supporting terrorism under Ethiopia's Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009 [text]. Ethiopia's anti-terrorism law has faced ongoing criticism since it was passed [JURIST report] in 2009. In August, JURIST guest columnist and former executive director Abigail Salisbury argued that the government is using the law to suppress journalists and opposition groups in order to maintain its hold on power [JURIST op-ed]. In July, HRW called on the Ethiopian government to stop using the law to repress free speech [JURIST report].

The question presented is whether Congress' provision for private actions to enforce the TCPA renders state courts the exclusive arbiters of such actions. We have long recognized that "[a] suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action." ... Beyond doubt, the TCPA is a federal law that both creates the claim Mims has brought and supplies the substantive rules that will govern the case. We find no convincing reason to read into the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts any barrier to the U. S. district courts' exercise of the general federal-question jurisdiction they have possessed since 1875. ... We hold, therefore, that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA.

Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 in response to consumer complaints over abuses of telephone technology, including computerized calls to private homes. The act prohibits certain conduct and authorizes states to bring civil actions to enjoin prohibited practices and recover damages on citizens' behalf. The act also allows citizens to bring private causes of action. Petitioner Marcus Mims brought an action against Arrow Financial Services, a debt collection agency, seeking damages for numerous violations of the act. The district court dismissed his claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Trustee has entirely failed to demonstrate the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant this Court in granting his motion. Indeed, with the trial of this case firmly set to begin just two months from now, the main effect of granting the Trustee's motion would be to materially delay, rather than materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

In July the court approved [JURIST report] the first payouts to Madoff's victims. Picard filed almost 60 lawsuits [JURIST report] for victims of Madoff's fraud in December 2010, including suits against JPMorgan Chase and HSBC. Judge Louis Stanton made Picard the trustee [order, PDF] of Bernard L. Madoff Securities, LLC in December 2008. Madoff was sentenced [JURIST report] in June 2009 to 150 years in prison for securities fraud stemming from his Ponzi scheme. He pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to 11 counts of securities fraud in March 2009.