JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, February 11, 2012

[JURIST] American Tradition Partnership, Montana Shooting Sports Association [advocacy websites] and Champion Painting have petitioned the US Supreme Court [official website] to reverse the decision by the Montana Supreme Court [official website] in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana that upheld a Montana campaign finance law [JURIST report] banning corporate independent expenditures to state political campaigns and candidates. The three groups argue that Montana's century-old ban on corporate spending, implemented by the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act [PPL backgrounder], is illegal [Great Falls Tribune report] in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [JURIST report], which declared that a state cannot impose a complete ban on corporate spending. The Montana Supreme Court stated that the ban on corporate spending is legal because it still allows for some corporate spending and was in response to rampant political corruption by the "Copper Kings" [Great Falls Tribune backgrounder]. Specifically, the law allows corporations to set up Political Action Committees (PACs) to fund political speech, but PACs are subject to special state disclosure and reporting laws.

Campaign finance [JURIST news archive] has been a hotly contested issue recently. Two weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] a Wisconsin law that prohibited people from donating more than $10,000 per year to political action committees. In June, the US Supreme Court ruled that an Arizona campaign finance regulation violated the First Amendment [JURIST report]. In May, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a Minnesota law that prohibited direct contributions to candidates and affiliated entities. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] ruled in 2009 that a Connecticut campaign finance law discriminated against minor party candidates [JURIST report] in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Correction: Prior versions of this article referred to direct corporate campaign contributions opposed to corporate "independent expenditures." Updated February 16, 2012.

[JURIST] Apple [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] brought suit against Motorola Mobility [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] in the US District Court for the Southern District of California [official website] on Friday seeking an injunction to stop Motorola from bringing patent claims against Apple in Germany. Motorola's suit in Germany is over patent no. 6,359,898 [text]. Apple contends that Motorola's German suit violates a licensing agreement between Motorola and Qualcomm [Reuters report]. Apple argues that as a customer of Qualcomm it is a third-party beneficiary of the licensing agreement, thus Motorola's right to assert patent claims is exhausted [The IP Law blog backgrounder]. In the suit, Apple argues that Motorola, which is set to be acquired by Google [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder], is violating its promise [Patently Apple report] to license essential patents on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms and is attempting to halt sales of the iPhone 4S. Many commentators have expressed concern [Pando Daily report] over Google's acquisition of Motorola's vast patent portfolio, which includes patent on 4G and 3G technologies, but Google has made assurances that it will license its patents fairly and cap licensing fees at 2.25% of the sale price of each phone.

Apple is involved in litigation all over the world over smart phones and related technology. In December the US International Trade Commission (USITC) [official website] narrowly ruled for Apple [JURIST report] against HTC [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder]. Earlier that month, the European Commission for Competition [official website] announced that it would open an investigation [JURIST report] into whether Apple colluded with publishers to increase the price of e-books. Also in December, the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] declined to issue a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung Electronics [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder], as requested by Apple in its suit over Samsung's "Galaxy" line of products. In August more than 26,000 South Koreans joined a class action lawsuit against Apple for collecting users' data without their consent [JURIST report].

[JURIST] The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] on Friday expressed its concern over the trial of Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon [BBC profile], which involve his investigations of acts that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. Spokesperson for the OHCHR, Rupert Colville, indicated that judges should not be criminally charged for investigations [UN report] performed within the scope of their judicial duties. Colville stated, "judges should not be subject to criminal prosecution for doing their job...Spain is obliged under international law to investigate past serious human rights violations, including those committed during the Franco regime, and to prosecute and punish those responsible." Garzon is on trial on charges of exceeding his jurisdiction by investigating complaints he received that, if true, would constitute crimes against humanity occurring under the rule of Francisco Franco [BBC backgrounder] between 1936 and 1951. The investigations and rulings by Garzon are argued to be illegal because of amnesty laws limiting the statute of limitations for bringing claims of human rights violations during the Franco regime. Colville also reminded Spain of a OHCHR recommendation given in 2009 to reform its amnesty law, arguing that its law was not in accordance with international human rights law.

Last month, Garzon took the stand to defend his actions [JURIST report] in ordering the probe into crimes committed under Franco. Garzon refused to answer questions [CNN report] posed to him by the prosecution but did answer questions from his defense lawyer. He denied that his investigation was politically motivated, and stated that he was seeking justice for the victims of the alleged crimes. Garzon also rejected the idea that a 1977 amnesty law covers widespread human rights abuses. Garzon's testimony was consistent with his previous statements defending [JURIST report] the validity of the investigation by insisting that he acted within the bounds of the law and appropriately applied the law at all times. Last March, Garzon filed a petition [JURIST report] with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website], challenging the 2010 abuse of power charges, for which he was suspended [JURIST report]. Garzon is widely known for using universal jurisdiction [AI backgrounder; JURIST news archive] extensively in the past to bring several high-profile rights cases, including those against Osama bin Laden and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Garzon was convicted [JURIST report] on Thursday by the Spanish Supreme Court [official website, in Spanish] on charges of approving illegal wire taps, and was given an eleven year suspension from the judiciary. He is still awaiting a third trial on bribery charges over money he received for seminars conducted in the US.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Friday denied a request [press release] filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website] to hold an en banc hearing to reconsider a challenge to a Texas law that requires doctors to perform a sonogram on women before an abortion [JURIST news archive]. The court's refusal means that the appeals court's original decision [opinion, PDF] that the law is enforceable will stand. The Texas law [HB 15, PDF] has been controversial because it requires doctors to describe the details of the sonogram to the woman and also let her hear the fetal heartbeat, regardless of whether she refuses. The CRR originally filed suit [press release] in June 2011 on the basis that the law violates women's basic reproductive rights and doctors' First Amendment [text] right against compelled speech.

A District Court judge ruled last week that Texas can begin to enforce the law [JURIST report] immediately, while criticizing the Appeals Court's decision on the grounds that it infringed upon First Amendment rights of doctors. Texas Governor Rick Perry signed the measure into law in May, but it was blocked in August after a challenge [JURIST reports] from the CRR. Laws similar to the Texas law have also been considered in other states. Early this month, the Virginia Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] that would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound before the procedure. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report], blocking part of the state's abortion law that required a physician to perform an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient. In March 2010, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled [JURIST report] that a state law imposing broad restrictions on abortion, including the requirement of an ultrasound prior to the procedure, violated that state's constitution.