Prior to its ruling, the IACHR received an amici curiae brief [text, PDF] filed on behalf of Atala by a host of international advocacy organizations, including Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission [advocacy websites]. In her application [text, PDF] to the court, Atala argued that the allegations made during her children's custody hearing on January 15, 2003 regarding her sexual identity had nothing to do with her function and role as a mother. Ultimately, she asserted that "sexual choice [does] not extend to parental relationships," which was the subject of that proceeding. Before the IAHCR accepted her arguments, Atala's plea was rejected in May 2004 in a three-to-two decision by Chile's Supreme Court of Justice, which reasoned that Atala's decision to live with a same-sex partner was not in the best interest of her three daughters, as the girls could become confused regarding their sexual roles and could be subject to discrimination in the future.

Mali has experienced military turmoil since Taureg rebels began attacking Malian soldiers [Al Jazeera report] in January. Early this month the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) [official website] said that more than 80,000 people had fled Mali [press release] to escape the fighting. In February, the UNHCR appealed for additional funds and resources [report, PDF] to deal with the crisis, after Ban expressed concern [statement] about the growing number of refugees in the region.

In 2007, a district court decision blocked the law [JURIST report] ruling that it violated pharmacies' and pharmacists' First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder] rights. That decision was overruled [JURIST report] in 2009 by the Ninth Circuit because the injunction was over broad. Plan B has been the subject of considerable legislative and judicial activity since the FDA approved access to the drug in 2006. Last December, a federal judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York [official website] revived a six-year-old lawsuit [JURIST report] over the Plan B contraceptive. In March 2009, a federal judge in New York overturned an FDA policy [JURIST report] that limited the nonprescription availability of the drug to women over the age of 18. In March 2008, a federal judge in the US District Court of the District of Columbia [official website] dismissed [JURIST report] a lawsuit brought by a physicians' group against the FDA seeking to overturn approval of the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. In October 2007, Illinois pharmacists considered a settlement [JURIST report] to a dispute over a state law that would have required them to dispense the Plan B pill regardless of their moral obligations to the contraception.

It was announced in January that federal prosecutors planned to file criminal charges [JURIST report] against Chevron officials over the Campos Basin spill. An $11 billion civil law suit has also been filed against Chevron in connection with this oil spill. Chevron is also currently appealing an $18 billion fine [JURIST report] for pollution in the Amazon jungle. The judgment against Chevron was upheld in January by a three-judge panel of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. The $18 billion fine, one of the largest in the history of environmental contamination suits, was originally set at $8.6 billion [JURIST report] but was more than doubled for Chevron's refusal to pay "moral reparations" to the Ecuadorian government, as required by the original ruling.

At no point prior to the passage of Policy 227.2 did Solanco analyze drug use by sixth through twelfth grade students involved in school activities, or the efficacy of a policy of randomly drug testing only active and involved students as a way to address any district-wide drug concerns. In fact, the Policy and statement by school officials indicate that Solanco School District has structured its drug policy to force as much of the student body as possible into the random drug testing pool without considering why particular groups or activities should be included.

Drug testing policies have come under fire in recent years. Earlier this week Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the Drug-Free Workplace Act [JURIST report], which allows state employers to randomly test up to 10 percent of their workforce. In 2011 Florida passed a law requiring people who receive welfare to submit to drug test. That law was temporarily blocked [JURIST report] in October 2011 and is currently on appeal. In 2004 a court banned [JURIST report] the Department of Juvenile Justice in Florida from requiring its employees to submit to random drug tests. The court there found that the drug testing policy could continue, but only in regards to suspicious employees.

The prime minister had originally announced the repeal of two of the country's strict security laws [JURIST report], including the ISA, as well as a review of other laws dealing with freedom of the press, in September 2011. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] recommended [JURIST report] last year that Malaysia repeal or amend its internal security laws. These efforts have been made in response to criticism for alleged rights violations, although the changes have not relieved scrutiny of the country's laws in other areas. In November 2011, Malaysia introduced legislation that will enforce new restrictions on public demonstrations [JURIST report], including a ban on street protests and other rules that opposition leaders believe are too repressive. Lim Chee Wee, President of the Malaysian Bar [advocacy website], criticized the new public demonstration legislation, stating that "[i]n its present form, the Bill is more restrictive than present law, and must be improved."

This is not the first time the European Commission has referred a nation to the ECJ for imposing unlawful taxes. The Commission referred Spain and France to the ECJ for similar violations in March 2011. That same month, the Commission began proceedings against Hungary in relation to the tax and formally asked Hungary to abolish the taxes [EU press releases] in September. The National Assembly of Hungary [official website, in Hungarian] passed a bill in November 2010 limiting the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court on state budget and taxation matters, effectively eliminating the court's ability to examine the "crisis taxes" [JURIST report] imposed on banks, energy companies, foreign retail and telecommunication firms.

A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires. ... Here the State does not, and likely could not, articulate an interest that would justify restricting expression."

Though the statute has never been removed from the state's code, it had not been enforced since 1989 when the US Supreme Court ruled in Texas v Johnson [opinion] that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment. Since that landmark decision, the issue of flag burning has been a contentious legal issue which has received a large amount of legislative attention. In 1995, 2000, and 2006 the US Senate has voted on amending [JURIST report] the Constitution to ban flag burning. The closest these efforts came to fruition was in 2006 where the measure failed by one vote [JURIST report].

Before the harmless-error analysis, the question the Court asks is, what we have to decide is whether a reasonable jury would convict him absent the error. And so the question doesn't require any consideration of the error. And the conclusion they reach that he would be convicted without any consideration of the error also doesn't consider the error. They do not address the error or its impact at all, despite a robust dissent which set forth the extraordinary prejudicial possible impact of this error. They don't disagree with the dissent; they simply don't address it at all.

The court also heard arguments in Reichle v. Howards [transcript; JURIST report] on the qualified immunity [Cornell LII backgrounder] of US Secret Service [official website] agents. The agents arrested the respondent, Steven Howards, following an encounter with then-US vice president Dick Cheney. Petitioners had probable cause to arrest Howards, who in violation of 18 USC § 1001 [text], falsely denied making unsolicited physical contact with the vice president. Howards later brought a First Amendment [text] retaliatory arrest claim against petitioners. The court heard arguments on whether the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as well as specific matters to secret service members' constitutional rights and responsibilities when protecting the president and vice president. The attorney for the secret service argued the fairness of the treating secret service members as second-class law enforcement agents, when: "Secret Service agents who are prepared to take a bullet for the Vice President must also be prepared to take a retaliatory arrest lawsuit, even when they have probable cause to make an arrest." Howards' attorney argued that the rarity of suits against secret service members makes setting a new standard a non-issue as well as contending his client did not assault the Vice-President: "I have done, not a scientific search, but I can take credit for a little bit of science involved in determining how many such cases arise. And at page 13 of our brief, we cite in footnote 8 that a search with no time limitations whatsoever going back in LEXIS with the words 'Bivens' or '1983,' 'retaliatory arrest,' not limited to protective details, shows 15 reported Federal appellate cases, with no time limitations whatsoever. So we had a solution, but we really don't have a problem. The only Secret Service case that this Court has ever heard that I'm aware of involving anything remotely like this is Hunter v. Bryant. So this is not a significant problem. This also factually is probably not the best case for them to be making their argument that we need some sort of special rules that apply to the Secret Service, given the facts of this case, where Mr. Howards by all accounts walked over to the Vice President, looked at him and said: 'I just want you to know I think your policies in Iraq are disgusting.'"

Because the sole purpose and effect of this ordinance is to target the presence of illegal aliens within the City of Farmers Branch and to cause their removal, it contravenes the federal government's exclusive authority over the regulation of immigration and the conditions of residence in this country, and it constitutes an obstacle to federal authority over immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs.

In 2008, a temporary injunction was issued [JURIST report] against the enforcement of the ordinance. In the lawsuit [complaint, PDF] filed earlier in 2008 [JURIST report], several landlords and a former City Council member challenged the constitutionality of Ordinance 2952, alleging it denied immigrants equal protection and due process rights. The city passed the ordinance after a previous law was struck down [JURIST reports] by a US district judge in 2007 as an infringement of federal supremacy in the area of immigration.

The APA's presumption of judicial review is a repudiation of the principle that efficiency of regulation conquers all. And there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA's jurisdiction. Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity.

The Sacketts own land near Priest Lake, Idaho, on which they intended to build a house. After purchasing the property and obtaining local permits, they began to grade the land for construction of a house. They received an EPA Administrative Compliance Order that said the grading of the land was in violation of the CWA and imposed harsh civil penalties for non-compliance. The Sacketts disagree that their property is a wetland under the meaning of the CWA. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had upheld [opinion, PDF] the dismissal of their suit.

It's amazing that the Governor and the Legislature would move ahead with a law that so clearly violates the Constitutional protections against invasive government searches without suspicion—especially while a legal challenge on precisely the same issue is pending in the federal court. No one should be surprised if this latest effort ends up in court—just as the Governor's past efforts to impose urine testing on applicants for government benefits and his Executive Order for state employee testing are now before the courts.

The Florida government is currently facing a legal challenge to a different drug-testing law. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida [official website] temporarily blocked [JURIST report] a new Florida law that had required welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Judge Mary Scriven said that the law might violate applicants' Fourth Amendment [text] protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The ACLU-FL and the Florida Justice Institute [advocacy website] filed the challenge [JURIST report] in September. The complaint notes that the US Supreme Court has held that suspicionless drug testing by the government is an unreasonable search that violates the Fourth Amendment, the only exceptions being for substantial public safety concerns and students in the public school system.

The rights of same-sex couples have been an ongoing issue in France and across Europe. Last June, the French National Assembly [official website, in French] voted to reject a bill seeking to legalize same-sex marriage [JURIST report]. In January, France's Constitutional Council [official website, in French] ruled that the country's same-sex marriage ban [French Civil Code text] does not violate the constitution [text]. Same-sex marriage is recognized in several European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Iceland and Norway [JURIST reports], while several other countries, including the UK, France and Germany, recognize civil unions between same-sex partners. Same-sex marriage has also been recognized nationwide in Canada and South Africa, and in jurisdictions in Mexico and the US [JURIST reports].

The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages ... [I]t is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process.

The court also ruled 5-4 [opinion, PDF] Wednesday in a related case, Lafler v. Cooper [SCOTUSblog backgrounder], that Strickland is a "but-for" test to apply where a defendant claims his counsel's ineffective advice led him to a reject a plea offer and ultimately stand trial. The court held that a defendant could prevail on such a claim if a court finds that but-for the ineffective assistance of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to and accepted by the court, and that the conviction, sentence, or both, would have been less severe under the plea deal than those actually imposed. Anthony Cooper was charged with assault with intent to murder for shooting a woman in her thigh and buttocks. His attorney advised him to not take a plea offer in the belief that there could be no finding of the requisite intent. Cooper was tried in a full and fair jury trial, found guilty and sentenced to a punishment harsher than the sentence offered during the plea deal. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the attorneys advice amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court agreed that Cooper had satisfied the test, and also indicated that a proper remedy would be for the prosecutor to re-offer the plea deal, after which a judge could decide to accept the deal or uphold the conviction. The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in both cases in October.

To continue to pursue our mission, WE NEED YOUR HELP. If you value JURIST, please consider donating so that we can continue to bring you the substantive legal news and commentary that you have come to expect and enjoy. If you are a regular reader, you know what JURIST has to offer. JURIST provides a depth of coverage that is oftentimes unavailable in mainstream media, with links to primary source materials and other contextual information that encourages our readers to form their own opinions about the legal developments that affect their lives. JURIST also highlights legal issues and areas that may get left out by regular legal news coverage in mainstream media. All of this is done in an ad-free, registration-free, open environment.

How much is JURIST worth to you? Please let us know by donating today. For as little as $10, you can show you believe in JURIST. We greatly appreciate your support!