<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <description>Today in legal history.</description>
    <title>JURIST - This Day at Law</title>
    <link>http://jurist.org/thisday</link>
    <webMaster>JURISTremove_this@pitt.edu</webMaster>
        
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 9, 2009, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that he would begin investigating claims of war crimes committed by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) soldiers in Afghanistan. In a briefing, Luis Moreno-Ocampo said that in addition to investigations of possible NATO crimes, the ICC would also look into possible war crimes committed by the Taliban. Moreno-Ocampo also stated that the ICC would not get involved unless the government of Afghanistan or the UN specifically requested it do so. Learn more about the ICC and the conflict in Afghanistan from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/09/icc-prosecutor-began-investigating-nato-troops-in-afghanistan.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-09T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>ICC prosecutor announced investigation of NATO troops in Afghanistan </title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/09/icc-prosecutor-began-investigating-nato-troops-in-afghanistan.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 9, 2009, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that he would begin investigating claims of war crimes committed by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) soldiers in Afghanistan. In a briefing, Luis Moreno-Ocampo said that in addition to investigations of possible NATO crimes, the ICC would also look into possible war crimes committed by the Taliban. Moreno-Ocampo also stated that the ICC would not get involved unless the government of Afghanistan or the UN specifically requested it do so. Learn more about the ICC and the conflict in Afghanistan from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 9, 2009, two former Pennsylvania judges were indicted by a federal grand jury on 48 counts in connection with alleged illegal actions to benefit private juvenile detention facilities. The charges against Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, Jr. include racketeering, fraud, extortion and money laundering for allegedly accepting at least $2,819,500 in illegal payments in return for making decisions in favor of the detention centers, including incarcerating youths to raise the occupancy of the facilities. Learn more about the Pennsylvania juvenile sentencing scandal from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/09/former-pennsylvania-judges-indicted-in-juvenile-sentencing-scandal.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-09T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Former Pennsylvania judges indicted in juvenile sentencing scandal</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/09/former-pennsylvania-judges-indicted-in-juvenile-sentencing-scandal.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 9, 2009, two former Pennsylvania judges were indicted by a federal grand jury on 48 counts in connection with alleged illegal actions to benefit private juvenile detention facilities. The charges against Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, Jr. include racketeering, fraud, extortion and money laundering for allegedly accepting at least $2,819,500 in illegal payments in return for making decisions in favor of the detention centers, including incarcerating youths to raise the occupancy of the facilities. Learn more about the Pennsylvania juvenile sentencing scandal from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 8, 2009, the German Bundestag voted 494-46 to approve a bill allowing Germany to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Although the Bundestag had previously approved the treaty, the German Constitutional Court ruled in June 2009 that the treaty could not be ratified without reforms ensuring German sovereignty. The bill was later also approved by the Bundesrat and the president. German flag Learn more about the Lisbon Treaty from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/08/german-parliament-approved-bill-for-ratifying-eu-reform-treaty.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-08T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>German parliament approved bill for ratifying EU reform treaty</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/08/german-parliament-approved-bill-for-ratifying-eu-reform-treaty.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2009, the German Bundestag voted 494-46 to approve a bill allowing Germany to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Although the Bundestag had previously approved the treaty, the German Constitutional Court ruled in June 2009 that the treaty could not be ratified without reforms ensuring German sovereignty. The bill was later also approved by the Bundesrat and the president. German flag Learn more about the Lisbon Treaty from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 8, 2009, a judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the state of New York violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by segregating mentally ill New York City residents in private homes under poor conditions. Disability Advocates, Inc. (DAI) brought the suit in 2003 arguing that the state should be enjoined from sending mentally ill people into these homes. The judge stopped short of issuing the injunction, instead directing the state to come up with a remedial plan. Learn more about the Americans with Disabilities Act from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/08/federal-judge-ruled-new-york-violated-ada-by-segregating-mentally-ill-adults.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-08T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Federal judge ruled New York violated ADA by segregating mentally ill adults</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/08/federal-judge-ruled-new-york-violated-ada-by-segregating-mentally-ill-adults.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 8, 2009, a judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the state of New York violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by segregating mentally ill New York City residents in private homes under poor conditions. Disability Advocates, Inc. (DAI) brought the suit in 2003 arguing that the state should be enjoined from sending mentally ill people into these homes. The judge stopped short of issuing the injunction, instead directing the state to come up with a remedial plan. Learn more about the Americans with Disabilities Act from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 7, 2007, a federal judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Iran must compensate the families of 241 US military personnel killed in the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut. The holding awarded $2.65 billion, the largest such judgment ever awarded by a US court against a foreign country, to survivors and relatives of the victims and allows them to make a bid for Iranian assets held around the world. Iran later dismissed the ruling, calling it "baseless" and "politically motivated." Iranian flag Learn more about the 1983 Marine barracks bombing from the BBC.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/07/iran-fined-265-billion-for-1983-beirut-marine-barracks-bombing.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-07T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Iran fined $2.65 billion for 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing </title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/07/iran-fined-265-billion-for-1983-beirut-marine-barracks-bombing.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 7, 2007, a federal judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Iran must compensate the families of 241 US military personnel killed in the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut. The holding awarded $2.65 billion, the largest such judgment ever awarded by a US court against a foreign country, to survivors and relatives of the victims and allows them to make a bid for Iranian assets held around the world. Iran later dismissed the ruling, calling it "baseless" and "politically motivated." Iranian flag Learn more about the 1983 Marine barracks bombing from the BBC.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 7, 2007, the US House of Representatives voted 220-175 in favor of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, the first overhaul of US patent laws in more than 50 years. The reforms would have changed the current system of granting patent rights to the first inventor and instead adopt a "first-to-file" system, recognizing patent rights in the first person who actually files for patents. The bill would have amended the system of post-patent review for those seeking to challenge the validity of a patent and would impose more stringent regulations for awarding damages in infringement cases, based on the value of the patent infringement. It also would have</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/07/us-house-passed-patent-overhaul-legislation.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-07T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>US House passed patent overhaul legislation</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/07/us-house-passed-patent-overhaul-legislation.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 7, 2007, the US House of Representatives voted 220-175 in favor of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, the first overhaul of US patent laws in more than 50 years. The reforms would have changed the current system of granting patent rights to the first inventor and instead adopt a "first-to-file" system, recognizing patent rights in the first person who actually files for patents. The bill would have amended the system of post-patent review for those seeking to challenge the validity of a patent and would impose more stringent regulations for awarding damages in infringement cases, based on the value of the patent infringement. It also would have]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 6, 2006, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance presented a draft plan for dictating the division of Iraq into autonomous regions to the Iraq National Assembly. The draft law provided for autonomy for the Shiite-majority south and recognizes the existing autonomy of the three northern Kurdish provinces. Current Iraqi flag Learn more about Iraq from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/06/shiite-lawmakers-presented-draft-plan-for-dividing-iraq.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-06T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Shiite lawmakers presented draft plan for dividing Iraq</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/06/shiite-lawmakers-presented-draft-plan-for-dividing-iraq.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 6, 2006, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance presented a draft plan for dictating the division of Iraq into autonomous regions to the Iraq National Assembly. The draft law provided for autonomy for the Shiite-majority south and recognizes the existing autonomy of the three northern Kurdish provinces. Current Iraqi flag Learn more about Iraq from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 6, 2007, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that issuing National Security Letters (NSLs) demanding private information and imposing gag orders on recipients under the reauthorized and revised USA Patriot Act was unconstitutional without judicial review. In the ruling, the court held that allowing the FBI to issue NSLs without seeking prior court approval from a judge or grand jury violated several constitutional principles including separation of powers and First Amendment rights. Learn more about the Patriot Act from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/06/federal-judge-ruled-patriot-act-gag-orders-unconstitutional.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-06T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Federal judge ruled Patriot Act gag orders unconstitutional </title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/06/federal-judge-ruled-patriot-act-gag-orders-unconstitutional.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 6, 2007, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that issuing National Security Letters (NSLs) demanding private information and imposing gag orders on recipients under the reauthorized and revised USA Patriot Act was unconstitutional without judicial review. In the ruling, the court held that allowing the FBI to issue NSLs without seeking prior court approval from a judge or grand jury violated several constitutional principles including separation of powers and First Amendment rights. Learn more about the Patriot Act from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 5, 1798, France promulgated a conscription policy with the passage of the Jourdan Law. The law instituted a draft for all males between the ages of 20 and 25 with exceptions for clergy, holders of public office and certain students and industrial workers. The law also allowed people to hire others to take their place in the military. Learn more about French conscription from the BBC.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/05/france-passed-conscription-law.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-05T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>France passed conscription law</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/05/france-passed-conscription-law.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 5, 1798, France promulgated a conscription policy with the passage of the Jourdan Law. The law instituted a draft for all males between the ages of 20 and 25 with exceptions for clergy, holders of public office and certain students and industrial workers. The law also allowed people to hire others to take their place in the military. Learn more about French conscription from the BBC.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>On September 5, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, succeeding the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Roberts served as a clerk for Rehnquist and was originally nominated to replace associate justice Sandra Day O'Connor before Rehnquist's death. Roberts had served as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before his nomination. Learn more about Chief Justice John Roberts from the Oyez Project, and the Supreme Court from the JURIST news archive.</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/05/john-roberts-nominated-as-supreme-court-chief-justice.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2010-09-05T00:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>John Roberts nominated as Supreme Court Chief Justice</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/thisday/2010/09/05/john-roberts-nominated-as-supreme-court-chief-justice.php</link>
      <author>Dwyer Arce</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[On September 5, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, succeeding the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Roberts served as a clerk for Rehnquist and was originally nominated to replace associate justice Sandra Day O'Connor before Rehnquist's death. Roberts had served as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before his nomination. Learn more about Chief Justice John Roberts from the Oyez Project, and the Supreme Court from the JURIST news archive.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>