 |
|

Legal news from Saturday, August 4, 2012 |
 |
|


Sixth Circuit strikes down Ohio law restricting doctors' campaign contributions
Jennie Ryan on August 4, 2012 1:24 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] on Friday struck down [opinion, PDF] a portion of an Ohio law [Ohio Rev Code § 3599.45] that prohibited doctors who treat Medicaid patients from contributing to the political campaigns of candidates for state attorney general or county prosecutor. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the law was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech [AP report] stating "[t]he statute here restricts the First Amendment rights of nearly 100,000 Medicaid providers who do not commit fraud, based on an attenuated concern about a relative handful of providers who do." The Ohio law was enacted in 1978 and it was intended as an anti-corruption measure to protect against Medicaid fraud. The suit was filed by nine Cleveland-area doctors in 2010 after they were told they could not contribute to the re-election campaign of Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray [official website].
Campaign finance laws have been a contentious issue recently. In June, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that a district court erred in holding that corporations can contribute directly to political campaigns. Earlier that month, the Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] a Montana campaign finance law that restricted the amount of money corporations can spend on campaigns, holding that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF] invalidated the Montana law. That decision, American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] reversed a decision by the Montana Supreme Court upholding the law [JURIST report]. In February, the Supreme Court blocked enforcement [JURIST report] of the Montana Supreme Court ruling.


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

|

UN rights expert urges investigation into sectarian violence in Myanmar
Sarah Posner on August 4, 2012 1:10 PM ET

[JURIST] A UN rights expert on Saturday urged an independent investigation into sectarian violence taking place in the Myanmar [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] state of Rakhine. After spending a week in Myanmar, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Tomas Ojea Quintana, warned [AP report] that democratic reforms will not be successful in the country unless the government focuses on human rights in the country. Quintana claimed that Myanmar was suffering as a result of clashes between the country's Buddhists and minority Rohingya [BBC backgrounder] Muslim community, which have left 78 people dead and tens of thousands homeless. Quintana reported human rights violations by the country's security forces, including arbitrary arrests, killings and torture. This report comes a week after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] expressed concern [JURIST report] about the continued violence and human rights violations prevalent in Myanmar's Rakhine state since clashes began in May. Pillay said that independent reports alleging "discriminatory and arbitrary responses by security forces, and even their instigation of and involvement in clashes" are being continuously received.
Myanmar has been unsuccessful [JURIST report] in resolving the sectarian violence prevalent in the country despite attempts by President Thein Sein [BBC profile; official website, in Burmese] to bring peace to the communities, making the country subject to international criticism. On Thursday the US Congress on a voice vote approved a bill extending the ban on imports from Myanmar. Both the House of Representative and the Senate [official websites] have approved the bill, sending it to President Barack Obama [official profile] to sign in order to become law. On Wednesday Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] a 56-page document [report, PDF] accusing Myanmar security forces of human rights abuses against a minority religious community in June.


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

|

Kansas judge refuses to dismiss lawsuit challenging abortion clinic regulations
Jennie Ryan on August 4, 2012 12:39 PM ET

[JURIST] A Kansas judge on Friday refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state's new abortion clinic regulations after state officials asked that they be upheld without a trial. The state argued [AP report] that they have a rational reason for enacting the new regulations in that they were put in place to protect the health and safety of patients and the issue should not proceed to trial. In ruling against the state, the judge questioned whether the state has the administrative records necessary to justify the regulations. The regulations were imposed by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment [official website] last year after the state enacted a law [SB36 materials] requiring abortion providers to obtain an annual license. The regulations set minimum requirement for the staff and buildings at sites which perform abortion services including specifying that recovery rooms must be kept within 65 and 75 degrees. They apply to any office, clinic or hospital that performs more than five elective abortions a month.
Last month a judge for the US District Court for the District of Kansas [official website] issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] to block SB36. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback [official website], a known opponent of abortion, approved the regulation at issue in May, one month after signing [JURIST report] two other pieces of legislation restricting abortions. In April the governor approved the Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights Act [HB 2035, PDF], requiring unemancipated minors to obtain notarized parental signatures before an abortion may be performed, and the "fetal pain bill" [HB 2218, PDF], which restricts abortions beyond 22 weeks of pregnancy based on the belief that a fetus can feel pain at that stage of gestation.


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

|

Military commission to hear oral arguments on ACLU censorship challenge
Sarah Posner on August 4, 2012 12:16 PM ET

[JURIST] A military commissions judge at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] announced [order, PDF] Thursday that he will hear oral arguments [press release] regarding allegations [motion, PDF] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] that the government censored discussions about torture during the trial of the 9/11 [JURIST backgrounder] defendants. The order stated that because neither side objected to counsel for the ACLU and the other 14 news organizations to present oral arguments on the motion, the oral arguments will take place on August 22. In May the ACLU filed a motion [JURIST report] in the Guantanamo Bay military court seeking access to hear what methods the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [official website] used when interrogating the five alleged 9/11 conspirators. The ACLU argues that this practice violates the First Amendment and that the public has a constitutional right to access information about the operation of the government. The military commission's decision to conduct oral arguments at the request of the ACLU and various news organizations reflects an ongoing controversial debate in the United States and abroad over the legitimacy of the Guantanamo military commissions.
In June the ACLU announced the launch of its Torture Database [JURIST report], a collection of more than 100,000 Bush-era documents recording "rendition, detention, and interrogation policies and practices." The database was launched in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the UN Convention Against Torture [text], which the UN has designated as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The ACLU previously acknowledged that the US government will likely ask, if they have not already done so, that the prisoners' knowledge of their imprisonment in Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] facilities remain classified. In April the chief US military judge at Guantanamo, Army Col. James Pohl, assigned himself [JURIST report] to preside over the tribunals of five alleged plotters of the 9/11 terror attacks, scheduling a hearing for May 5. Last month the DOD referred charges [JURIST report] to Pohl against the five accused 9/11 plotters. The DOD announced last May that it had sworn charges against the five men [JURIST report] for the 9/11 attacks.


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

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