 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, May 15, 2012 |
 |
|


Kansas governor signs bill allowing pharmacists to refuse abortion drugs
Jaclyn Belczyk on May 15, 2012 2:15 PM ET

[JURIST] Kansas Governor Sam Brownback [official website] has signed a bill [SB 62 materials] allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs that they "reasonably believe" might result in the termination of a pregnancy, his office announced [press release] Monday. Critics of the legislation claim that it will allow pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraception [Kansas City Star report], but supporters claim that the bill was aimed at the abortion drug RU-486 and is only a narrow amendment to a 1969 Kansas law which says that no one should be required to participate in performing an abortion procedure. Four statesArkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakotahave laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives, and three othersFlorida, Maine and Tennesseehave refusal measures that do not specifically mention pharmacists. The law will take effect in July.
Kansas has been at the forefront of the abortion debate, passing several piece of recent legislation restricting access to the procedure. Last year, Brownback signed [JURIST report] the Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights Act [HB 2035 materials], which requires unemancipated minors to obtain notarized parental signatures before an abortion may be performed, and the "fetal pain bill" [HB 2218 materials], which restricts abortions beyond 22 weeks of pregnancy based on the belief that a fetus can feel pain at that stage of gestation. He has also signed bills banning insurance coverage [HB 2075 materials] for abortions and requiring new licensing criteria [SB 36 materials] for abortion clinics. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed suit challenging the insurance law last August, but a federal judge refused to block it [JURIST reports]. Last July a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the licensing requirements [JURIST report].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Rhode Island governor signs order recognizing same-sex marriages
Jaclyn Belczyk on May 15, 2012 11:25 AM ET

[JURIST] Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee [official website] on Monday signed an executive order [text, PDF] requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages [JURIST backgrounder] performed out-of-state. Rhode Island law currently allows civil unions [JURIST report] for same-sex couples, but the law was silent on whether same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions should be recognized. In 2007, the attorney general issued an opinion in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage, but it was not legally binding and later that year the Rhode Island Supreme court refused to grant a divorce [JURIST reports] to a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts. The executive order takes effect immediately and will entitle partners to benefits such as health insurance for spouses of state employees, certain tax exemptions and being able to list both parents' names on a child's birth certificate.
Same-sex marriage continues to be a controversial and divisive issue throughout the US. US President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage last week just one day after voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment to ban it [JURIST report]. In March Maryland became the eighth US state to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire [JURIST reports]. Same-sex marriage is also legal in the District of Columbia [JURIST report].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court declines to rule on Puerto Rico voting rights
Michael Haggerson on May 15, 2012 10:50 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] denied certiorari [order list, PDF] on Monday in Igartua v. United States, a case challenging Puerto Ricans' inability to vote in US presidential elections. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in November 2010 that Puerto Ricans could not vote because Puerto Rico is not a state. The court pointed out that the Constitution explicitly distinguishes between states and territories and only state citizens received congressional representation. Supporters of Puerto Ricans' right to vote argued that Puerto Rico was functionally equivalent to a state, thus it should be permitted to elect congressional representatives. However, the court found that there is a difference between functional equivalency and actual equivalency and also that no prior case law had accepted the "functional equivalent" argument. Supporters also argued that because Puerto Ricans had been granted citizenship, they therefore had the right to vote because voting is fundamental to citizenship. However, the court stated that the Constitution explicitly grants the right to vote to residents of the states, not citizens. Finally, supporters argued that international treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text], requires all citizens to have the right to vote, but the court ruled that US policies are not inconsistent with international law and that international law could not override the Constitution. The US Department of Justice [official website] opposed [opposition brief] the grant of certiorari.
The governor of Puerto Rico approved a referendum [JURIST report] in December to decide whether the territory should maintain its current status or become a state. The referendum is to be held in November and any change in status would need to be approved by the US Congress. The Puerto Rican House of Representatives voted to pass the legislation [JURIST report] to permit the referendum earlier that month. The US House of Representatives approved a bill to establish the referendum [JURIST report] in April 2010, but it was never approved by the Senate. In 2007, the UN Special Committee on Decolonization [official website] called on the US [press release] to quickly resolve the island's political status and release political prisoners. Puerto Ricans last voted on the status of the island in 1998 [results], with the "None of the Above" option winning 50.3 percent, statehood garnering 46.5 percent of the vote and independence only 2.5 percent. The island was established as a US commonwealth in 1952 after Congress adopted the Puerto Rican Constitution. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917, and the island has been under US control since 1898. Former JURIST Managing Editor Dwyer Arce recently argued that, as US citizens, Puerto Ricans should be entitled to vote [JURIST op-ed] in US presidential elections.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal appeals court remands Apple's injunction request against Samsung
Michael Haggerson on May 15, 2012 9:42 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] partially on Monday reversed [opinion, PDF] the district court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction for Apple [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] against Samsung [corporate website; Bloomberg backgrounder] for Samsung's "Galaxy" line of products. The appeals court agreed with the district court in denying a temporary injunction on three of the four appeals but remanded the case for further consideration of US Patent No. D504,899 [text]. The district court had held that the patent was obvious in light of certain prior art references, but the appeals court ruled that the district court improperly considered "the 'general concept' of a tablet" rather than "the distinctive 'visual appearances' of the reference and the claimed design." The district court had essentially considered Apple's patent to be invalid at too abstract a level, rather than comparing specific design components between Apple's patent and the prior art reference. Since the district court improperly determined that the D504,899 patent was likely invalid, it failed to consider the balance of hardships between Samsung and Apple if the injunction were to be granted and the public interest involved. The appeals court declined to rule on either issue however because "[i]t is normally not appropriate for this court to make such highly factual inquiries for the first time on appeal" and so it remanded the case back to the district court.
Apple's request for a temporary injunction was denied by the district court [JURIST report] in December. Apple brought its suit [JURIST report] against Samsung Electronics in April of last year, alleging that Samsung copied its iPhone and iPad technology in making its "Galaxy" products. It alleged 10 patent infringements, two trademark violations and two trade dress violations. It also accused Samsung of unfair business practices and unjust enrichment. Last month a German court dismissed a case [JURIST report] in which Apple and Samsung were both accusing each other of patent infringements. Apple also filed a complaint [JURIST report] against Samsung in July with the US International Trade Commission, a week after Samsung filed a similar complaint [JURIST report]. Apple also filed suit against Samsung in a South Korea court [JURIST report] in June.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of two DRC rebel leaders
Rebecca DiLeonardo on May 15, 2012 8:05 AM ET

[JURIST] International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced Monday that his office will seek arrest warrants [press release] for two rebel leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The office filed an arrest warrant application [UN News Centre report] for Sylvestre Mudacumura [ICC fact sheet, PDF], a foreign militia leader in the DRC, and sought a warrant establishing additional charges against General Bosco Ntaganda [JURIST news archive], a general in DRC's national army who has been previously indicted [case materials] by the ICC on other charges. Ocampo stressed that it was important to address the actions of the two leaders in court rather than in a confrontation, noting that "open confrontations in the past have merely led to the killing of civilians." The ICC has called for the immediate arrest of both individuals.
Last month Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] urged [JURIST report] Congo President Joseph Kabila to immediately arrest Ntaganda and deliver him to the ICC to face charges of enlisting children and using them in hostile activities. Although an arrest warrant [text] was issued by the ICC in 2006 and made public [JURIST report] in 2008, Kabila suggested in a public statement earlier this month that he was considering arresting Ntaganda. Although HRW acknowledges that this suggestion is a significant step and shows a positive change in the government's policies, HRW Senior Africa Researcher Anneke Van Woudenberg said the president needs to act on his statements immediately and deliver Ntaganda to The Hague for trial. Ntaganda became a general of the Congolese army after promising to integrate the rebel forces into the Congolese troops. As a result, the government has previously refused to execute the ICC arrest warrant against him, claiming that his presence is needed in order to maintain peace among the troops.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court rules on Chapter 12 bankruptcy tax issue
Julia Zebley on May 15, 2012 8:02 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled 5-4 [opinion, PDF] Monday in Hall v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that family farmers filing bankruptcy under Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code [text] cannot discharge a capital gains tax incurred by a post-petition sale of a farm, as the profit of that sale is not considered part of the estate. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, declared that taxes incurred by a post-petition sale of the farm to aid the estate are incurred by the individuals who sold the farm, not the estate itself:Chapter 12 estates are not taxable entities. Petitioners, not the estate itself, are required to file the tax return and are liable for the taxes resulting from their postpetition farm sale. The postpetition federal income tax liability is not "incurred by the estate" and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissent, arguing that a recent amending of the code [11 USC §§ 1222(a)(2)(A)] to Chapter 12 allows for the downgrade of capital gains taxes to unsecured creditors within the plan. The majority suggested that if this was the congressional intent, they are welcome to amend the code further to allow for that.
The court affirmed the ruling [opinion text] of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in June and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in November.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Oklahoma judge strikes down law restricting use of abortion drugs
Rebecca DiLeonardo on May 15, 2012 7:02 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the District Court of Oklahoma County on Friday ruled [docket materials] that an Oklahoma law [HB 1970 text] restricting how doctors may use abortion-inducing drugs to treat patients was a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution [text]. The law required doctors prescribing abortion drugs to meet stricter requirements, including administering the drug on location in the medical facility, scheduling mandatory follow-up appointments, explaining drug labels to patients and reporting possible negative drug reactions to the pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice (OCRJ) [advocacy websites] filed suit challenging the law in October, arguing that placing restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs violates the equal protection clause of the Oklahoma Constitution. In a statement [text] on its website, the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrated the court's decision:This decision adds to a growing list of state and federal courts that have reaffirmed in no uncertain terms that reproductive rights are fundamental constitutional rights that must be afforded the strongest possible legal protection. The court has made it clear this law was never about protecting women. It was about banning safe and effective methods of terminating a pregnancy, and making it impossible for women to exercise the full range of their constitutionally protected rights. The law was originally scheduled to take effect on November 1, 2011, but was temporarily blocked [JURIST report] in October. The Attorney General's office has indicated they will appeal [AP report] this decision.
Oklahoma has passed several restrictive abortion laws in recent years. In April 2011, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin [official profile] signed into law [JURIST report] a bill [HB 1888 materials] prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks. The law allows abortions past the 20-week mark only in certain extenuating circumstances where the mother faces death or serious injury. A doctor who performs an abortion in violation of the time limit would be subject to criminal prosecution for a felony, but the woman undergoing the procedure would not face a penalty. Last year, an Oklahoma state judge extended a temporary injunction [JURIST report] blocking enforcement of a law [HB 2780 text, RTF] that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus. In May 2010, the Oklahoma Senate [official website] voted to override the veto of a bill [HB 3284 text, RTF] that would require women seeking an abortion to complete a questionnaire, answering questions such as marital status, reasons for seeking the abortion, and whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|