<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII" ?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:l="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/link/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/">
        <title>US Legal News - JURIST</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/</link>
        <description>JURIST's weblog of legal news and resources worth thinking about, by Professor Bernard Hibbitts and law students at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.</description>
        <dc:date>2013-06-18T07:33:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <dc:language>en-US</dc:language>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/pennsylvania-top-court-upholds-mandatory-retirement-age-for-judges.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/rights-groups-find-death-penalty-in-us-states-violates-human-rights.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/obama-appoints-guantanamo-closure-envoy.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-voter-proof-of-citizenship-requirement.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-lawyers-cannot-solicit-clients-through-dmv-records.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-increase-in-mandatory-minimum-is-question-for-jury.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-1.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-accused-must-invoke-fifth-amendment-privilege.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-to-rule-in-housing-discrimination-case.php"/>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/texas-governor-vetoes-bill-intended-to-prevent-pay-discrimination.php"/>
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/pennsylvania-top-court-upholds-mandatory-retirement-age-for-judges.php">
        <title>Pennsylvania top court upholds mandatory retirement age for judges</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/pennsylvania-top-court-upholds-mandatory-retirement-age-for-judges.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [official website] on Monday upheld [opinion, PDF] the mandatory retirement provision for judicial officers. The complaint [JURIST report], originally filed by six Pennsylvania judges, alleged that the mandatory retirement provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution [text] was in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment [text] to the US Constitution. The court, although sympathetic, held that because of the people's indefeasible right to alter their government by amending the...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-18T07:33:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-18T07:33:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [official website] on Monday upheld [opinion, PDF] the mandatory retirement provision for judicial officers. The complaint [JURIST report], originally filed by six Pennsylvania judges, alleged that the mandatory retirement provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution [text] was in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment [text] to the US Constitution. The court, although sympathetic, held that because of the people&apos;s indefeasible right to alter their government by amending the...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/pennsylvania-top-court-upholds-mandatory-retirement-age-for-judges.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/rights-groups-find-death-penalty-in-us-states-violates-human-rights.php">
        <title>Rights groups: death penalty in US states violates human rights</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/rights-groups-find-death-penalty-in-us-states-violates-human-rights.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) [advocacy websites] on Monday released summary findings [press release] concluding that the use of the death penalty in California and Louisiana violates human rights. The report [text, PDF] concludes that the way the death penalty is used in California and Louisiana is arbitrary and discriminatory and that conditions on death row constitute torture. Although the CCR and FIDH found that the use of the death...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-18T06:37:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-18T06:37:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) [advocacy websites] on Monday released summary findings [press release] concluding that the use of the death penalty in California and Louisiana violates human rights. The report [text, PDF] concludes that the way the death penalty is used in California and Louisiana is arbitrary and discriminatory and that conditions on death row constitute torture. Although the CCR and FIDH found that the use of the death...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/rights-groups-find-death-penalty-in-us-states-violates-human-rights.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/obama-appoints-guantanamo-closure-envoy.php">
        <title>Obama appoints Guantanamo closure envoy</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/obama-appoints-guantanamo-closure-envoy.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] An anonymous source inside the US State Department said Monday that President Barack Obama [official websites] is appointing attorney Clifford Sloan [professional profile] to be the new envoy in charge of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder]. Clifford, who has served in all three federal branches, is now a privately practicing attorney and an informal adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry [official website] and has served under both Democrat and Republican leadership. The American Civil...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T16:03:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T16:03:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] An anonymous source inside the US State Department said Monday that President Barack Obama [official websites] is appointing attorney Clifford Sloan [professional profile] to be the new envoy in charge of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder]. Clifford, who has served in all three federal branches, is now a privately practicing attorney and an informal adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry [official website] and has served under both Democrat and Republican leadership. The American Civil...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/obama-appoints-guantanamo-closure-envoy.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-voter-proof-of-citizenship-requirement.php">
        <title>Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter proof of citizenship requirement</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-voter-proof-of-citizenship-requirement.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 Monday in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that Arizona's law requiring that proof of citizenship be provided in order to register to vote is preempted by federal law. The court found that Proposition 200 [text] is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) [official website], which requires states to use the federal voter registration form. The NVRA was passed in 1993 with the purpose of increasing...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T14:44:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T14:44:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 Monday in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that Arizona&apos;s law requiring that proof of citizenship be provided in order to register to vote is preempted by federal law. The court found that Proposition 200 [text] is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) [official website], which requires states to use the federal voter registration form. The NVRA was passed in 1993 with the purpose of increasing...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-voter-proof-of-citizenship-requirement.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-lawyers-cannot-solicit-clients-through-dmv-records.php">
        <title>Supreme Court rules lawyers cannot solicit clients through DMV records</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-lawyers-cannot-solicit-clients-through-dmv-records.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Maracich v. Spears [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that an attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the litigation exception to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) [text]. Under the DPPA, disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments (DMVs) is prohibited except for a purpose permitted by an exception listed in 1 of 14 statutory subsections. Subsection (b)(4) permits obtaining...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T13:55:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T13:55:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Maracich v. Spears [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that an attorney&apos;s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the litigation exception to the Driver&apos;s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) [text]. Under the DPPA, disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments (DMVs) is prohibited except for a purpose permitted by an exception listed in 1 of 14 statutory subsections. Subsection (b)(4) permits obtaining...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-lawyers-cannot-solicit-clients-through-dmv-records.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-increase-in-mandatory-minimum-is-question-for-jury.php">
        <title>Supreme Court rules increase in mandatory minimum is question for jury</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-increase-in-mandatory-minimum-is-question-for-jury.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Alleyne v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence is an "element" that must be submitted to the jury, overruling its 2002 decision in Harris v. United States [opinion]. Harris was a 5-4 splintered opinion that allowed a judge to be the fact-finder when increasing mandatory minimum sentences, as opposed to requiring the question to go to the jury. Monday's decision...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T12:18:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T12:18:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Alleyne v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence is an &quot;element&quot; that must be submitted to the jury, overruling its 2002 decision in Harris v. United States [opinion]. Harris was a 5-4 splintered opinion that allowed a judge to be the fact-finder when increasing mandatory minimum sentences, as opposed to requiring the question to go to the jury. Monday&apos;s decision...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-increase-in-mandatory-minimum-is-question-for-jury.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-1.php">
        <title>Supreme Court rules 'pay to delay' settlements not immune from antitrust suits</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-1.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 Monday in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that reverse payment settlements can sometimes violate antitrust laws. A reverse payment settlement, better known as a "pay to delay" settlement, is an agreement in which a patent holder pays a competitor to delay them from entering the market. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] challenged one such agreement as a violation of antitrust laws, but the US Court...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T11:31:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T11:31:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 Monday in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that reverse payment settlements can sometimes violate antitrust laws. A reverse payment settlement, better known as a &quot;pay to delay&quot; settlement, is an agreement in which a patent holder pays a competitor to delay them from entering the market. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] challenged one such agreement as a violation of antitrust laws, but the US Court...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-1.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-accused-must-invoke-fifth-amendment-privilege.php">
        <title>Supreme Court rules accused must invoke Fifth Amendment privilege</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-accused-must-invoke-fifth-amendment-privilege.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Salinas v. Texas [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that the petitioner's Fifth Amendment [text] claim fails because he did not expressly revoke the privilege against self-incrimination. Genovevo Salinas was suspected of being involved in a murder. He consented to a search of his home, where police found a shotgun, and consented to questioning at the police station, but he was not arrested or given Miranda warnings [backgrounder]. An officer asked,...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T10:36:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T10:36:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Salinas v. Texas [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that the petitioner&apos;s Fifth Amendment [text] claim fails because he did not expressly revoke the privilege against self-incrimination. Genovevo Salinas was suspected of being involved in a murder. He consented to a search of his home, where police found a shotgun, and consented to questioning at the police station, but he was not arrested or given Miranda warnings [backgrounder]. An officer asked,...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-rules-accused-must-invoke-fifth-amendment-privilege.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-to-rule-in-housing-discrimination-case.php">
        <title>Supreme Court to rule in housing discrimination case</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-to-rule-in-housing-discrimination-case.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in four cases Monday. In Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court limited the grant to Question 1: "Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?" The Fair Housing Act [text] makes it unlawful "[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-17T09:49:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-17T09:49:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in four cases Monday. In Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court limited the grant to Question 1: &quot;Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?&quot; The Fair Housing Act [text] makes it unlawful &quot;[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/supreme-court-to-rule-in-housing-discrimination-case.php"/>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/texas-governor-vetoes-bill-intended-to-prevent-pay-discrimination.php">
        <title>Texas governor vetoes bill intended to prevent pay discrimination</title>
        <link>http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/texas-governor-vetoes-bill-intended-to-prevent-pay-discrimination.php</link>
        <description>[JURIST] Texas Governor Rick Perry [official website] on Friday vetoed [press release] a bill [HB 950 text] intended to prevent payment discrimination and make it easier for women to obtain equal pay. The bill was passed by the Texas House on April 25 in a 79-50 vote, and by the Senate [official websites] on May 22 with a vote of 16-15. In a press release, Perry explained that he vetoed the proposed bill because it "duplicates federal law, which already...</description>
        <dc:creator></dc:creator>
        <dc:date>2013-06-16T15:33:00-04:00</dc:date>
        <pubDate>2013-06-16T15:33:00-04:00</pubDate>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[[JURIST] Texas Governor Rick Perry [official website] on Friday vetoed [press release] a bill [HB 950 text] intended to prevent payment discrimination and make it easier for women to obtain equal pay. The bill was passed by the Texas House on April 25 in a 79-50 vote, and by the Senate [official websites] on May 22 with a vote of 16-15. In a press release, Perry explained that he vetoed the proposed bill because it &quot;duplicates federal law, which already...]]></content:encoded>
        <l:permalink l:type="text/html" rdf:resource="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/06/texas-governor-vetoes-bill-intended-to-prevent-pay-discrimination.php"/>
    </item>
    </rdf:RDF>
