JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, September 22, 2012

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] said [press release] on Saturday that Iran should reverse new policies for this academic year that deny many students, particularly women, academic freedom. The policies, announced in a manual released by the country's Science and Technology Ministry [official website, in Persian] last month, limit the number of men or women that can be enrolled in certain academic fields, and altogether ban either men or women from some fields. Some of the fields from which women are banned at certain universities include computer science, various types of engineering sciences, political science, business administration, public administration and accounting. HRW referred to these restrictions as "Islamicization" policies and said they are the country's most recent effort to "stifle dissent." The policies will be implemented on Saturday, the first day of the academic year.

Iran has repeatedly been criticized for discriminatory practices and violations of human rights. In June, the European Union [official website] criticized [JURIST report] Iraq for discriminatory practices and for imprisoning a lawyer for his actions in opposition to the government's discriminatory policies. UN human rights experts also criticized Iraq in May for harsh sentences [JURIST report] it gave to lawyers who fight for human rights. A month earlier, US President Barack Obama [JURIST news archive] issued an executive order [JURIST report] sanctioning the use of technology to commit human rights abuses and indicated that Iran and Syria had both committed abuses using technology.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] announced [press release] on Friday that, following a request it made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text, PDF], the government has released the names of 55 detainees who were approved for release from Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] in 2010 but have yet to be released. The ACLU said it is happy that the government has taken this step, as the government had previously rejected a FOIA request for the list of names on the grounds that it would impair its ability to transfer them peacefully back their home countries. The Guantanamo Bay Review Task Force determined [official report] in 2010 that these detainees should be released, but the 55 prisoners are still being held at Guantanamo Bay. The ACLU said it hopes the release of these names will be a "spur to action" toward release of the prisoners.

Guantanamo Bay has been the center of controversy [JURIST report] over treatment of prisoners and allegations of illegal detentions since the detention center was created in 2002 to help the US with its War on Terrorism [JURIST news archive]. The controversy was revitalized earlier this month when a detainee was found unconscious [JURIST report] in his cell and later died at a US Navy Base hospital. This detainee had been ordered to be released, but that decision was overturned [JURIST reports] by a federal appeals court last year. In overturning his release, the appeals court relied on the precedent of Boumedine v. Bush [opinion], saying that without an express finding that the detainee's "plausible alternative story," there was a presumption of regularity with regards to the government's evidence that had not been rebutted.

[JURIST] Apple [corporate website] filed a motion on Friday with the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] asking the court to issue an injunction prohibiting Samsung [corporate website] from selling products in the US that supposedly infringe on Apple's patents. In the filing, Apple also sought $707 million dollars in damages from Samsung [Reuters report], including $400 million in design infringement and $135 million for willfully infringing on Apple's utility patents. Apple's call for a broad US sales ban on Samsung could include Samsung's new smartphone, the Galaxy S III [product backgrounder]. Samsung has responded to Apple's motion by asking for a new trial. It is unclear when the court will rule on Apple's motion for an injunction and damages against Samsung.

Apple and Samsung have been embroiled in continuous patent litigation in courts around the world. On Thursday Samsung announced [JURIST report] that it will be adding the iPhone5 [product backgrounder] to its patent infringement suit against Apple. Last week a judge for the US International Trade Commission (ITC) [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that Apple products do not infringe on Samsung's patents. In August Apple won a $1.05 billion judgment [JURIST report] against Samsung in a separate case [case materials] in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit covered everything from the shape and design of the competing companies' tablets and smartphones to the technology employed in the devices' software interface. Following the jury award Apple moved to block [JURIST report] eight Samsung products from being produced and sold in the US. Last month a South Korean court found that Apple and Samsung had violated each others' patents [JURIST report] and banned the sales of some of the companies' products in the country. In July a UK court ruled [JURIST report] that Samsung tablets do not infringe on Apple's design.

[JURIST] The Appellate Court of Illinois [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] on Thursday that the state cannot force pharmacists to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives if they have religious objections to these drugs. The appeals court held that an Illinois law known as the Current Rule [text], which requires pharmacists to dispense contraceptives including Plan B [product website], violates pharmacists' rights under the state's Conscience Act [text] as well as the free exercise clause of the First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder]. In its decision, the appeals court upheld a lower court ruling declaring that the Current Rule unlawfully infringes on the rights of pharmacists who have religious objections to abortion and contraception:

The Conscience Act does not prohibit governmental action that may ultimately force health-care personnel or health-care facilities to make a conscientious decision based on their beliefs not to comply with that governmental action ... The Current Rule does not violate the Conscience Act; its enforcement against plaintiffs on the issue of emergency contraceptives does.

It is unclear whether Illinois plans to appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court [official website].

Plan B [JURIST news archive] has been the subject of considerable legislative and judicial activity since the FDA approved nonprescription access to the drug in 2006. In February a federal judge ruled [JURIST report] that a Washington law requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B violated pharmacists' freedom of religion rights. In December a federal judge in New York revived a lawsuit [JURIST report] that claimed that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] must make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription and reconsider whether the contraceptive should be available over the counter (OTC) to women under the age of 17. That ruling came just days after Department of Health and Human Services [official website] Director Kathleen Sebelius blocked an FDA recommendation [press release] to make Plan B available OTC to women under 17. Sebelius' decision, based on concerns for the lack of data on the effects for young women, was backed by US President Barack Obama. Also in December, a group of 15 US Senators wrote to Sebelius [text] expressing disappointment and seeking the specific rationale and data that went into the decision.